Obsolete phrase: “independence of mind”

Jon Rappoport's Blog

Obsolete phrase: “independence of mind”

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2017

Like a car with high fins and long protruding tail lights, the phrase “independence of mind” has gone out of style, especially at colleges and universities where it ought to be the most profound ideal. The thugs have taken over.

As recently as 2008, a professor of Jurisprudence at King’s College London, Timothy Macklem, described the phrase in this fashion:

“Independence of Mind [explores] the ways in which the fundamental freedoms help us to achieve something even more profound, by enabling us to arrive at beliefs, convictions and voices of our own, so that we truly come to think, believe, and speak for ourselves in the rich and various ways that the freedoms then protect. Privacy grants us the distance and refuge from others necessary to develop views of our own; freedom of speech calls on us to…

View original post 707 more words

Memo to literate people: do you really want to shrink language?

Jon Rappoport's Blog

Memo to literate people: do you really want to shrink language?

And shrink the mind?

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2017

Under the onslaught of political correctness, numbing education, fake mainstream news, and other covert techniques, an attack on language is taking place.

Anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave can see this.

The solution is: go the other way.

Refuse to back down. Refuse the pressure to shrink language.

Reject the attempt to shrink formal argument and logic to slogans and mottos and vague generalities. If necessary, educate your own children. Teach them English and literature and logic. Thus, make them smarter, not dumber.

Expand their capacity to use language.

Large numbers of people are heading deeper into idiocracy, but this is no reason to abandon the quest for greater intelligence. This is no reason to despair. Life is not a search for the lowest common denominator. Others…

View original post 660 more words

Why the political Left feels emboldened to shut down free speech

By Jon Rappoport

First of all, when I talk about the so-called political Left, I’m talking about people who are firmly in the Globalist camp. They may not know they are, but they are.

The Globalists work through various versions of socialism and quasi-socialism and Communism and Marxism and “free the people” and all sorts of other slogans and guiding ideas. These political philosophies and strategies have nothing to do with Globalism per se—they’re just provisional tactics Globalists use to gain power, because power is the goal. Their system is top-heavy control under a variety of names and deceptions. That’s just the way it is.

The Globalists are run by crony capitalists at the top who stole their way to riches and then turned around and decided to limit the game, so they would remain in charge. Their approach is to appear humane. It’s a lie. Their goal is straightforward: they want to make the planet one nation, which they operate like a machine. The stand for The Machine, and against life.

The political Left, at ground level, is clueless about all of this. They’re sucked in by the humane propaganda. They look to a utopia where nobody has to work or earn money. Many of these ground troops are hoping and dreaming about that day because they’re convinced they can’t make it in an open market. That, too, is just the way it is.

Now they’re emboldened to shut down free speech, meaning speech and language and words and ideas they don’t like, because…

They’re finding out they can.

That’s the simple answer.

They can.

It gives them a sense of power they haven’t felt. They can do “big things.” They can riot and throw bricks through store windows and shut down campus speeches and whine and cry about trigger words and safe spaces and get away with it. They can have an impact. They’ve never experienced that before.

It moves the adrenaline. It moves the blood. It lights a fire.

If no one keeps free speech available, if no one cares about the Constitution, the field of operation is a grand opportunity: Shut down free speech. It feels real. It seems important. There’s a direct cause-and-effect result. WE SCREAMED AND PROTESTED AND DEMANDED AND RIOTED AND THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE WENT ALONG WITH US. THEY SHUT DOWN WHAT WE DON’T LIKE.

So the close-out tactic becomes fashionable. The thing to do. The trendy action. It’s a sport. “I can’t play on a team or study or think or contemplate what I really want to do in life, but I can do this. I can close people’s mouths.”

And higher on the Globalist food chain, there are people who are praising the end of the 1st Amendment. This gives the clueless ground troops a jolt of confidence. This tells the troops they’re really working toward a better society and a better world. “Bad people are saying bad things. If I stop the bad people, humanity will make progress…”

It’s easy to see how a dumbed-down education system permits such a “stop the bad people” formulation to come into existence and bloom like a poisonous plant.

Instead of a system that tries to raise students up and make them smarter, so they can discover where the real political power is in this world and what that power is trying to achieve, the op is all about seeking the lowest common denominator, and pushing down young minds to a primitive “good vs. bad” notion with the goal of censoring the bad into extinction.

The ground troops of the censorship op are receiving elite support. That’s the catch:

“We, the leaders, are on your side in the struggle to reach a better future, and in order to do that we have to make you as dumb as a rock, while you actually believe you’re smart and on the cutting edge.”

Of course, across the planet, oppression of populations is quite real. Is the solution opening up markets to something resembling freedom; or is it handing over control to governments, who collude with each other and with mega-corporations and banks, to institute a centralized worldwide system of production and distribution of goods and services?

“A better world is at hand. Soon we will create a specific center that rules One Economy for All. We will determine what is manufactured and who will benefit. We will decide who eats and who goes hungry. We will decide how much energy each person can consume in a given time period. We will act for the greatest good. We will be kind. Count on us.”

If you actually framed the future in those terms, and if the people who are trying to shut down free speech actually understood they were serving that master, would they continue their attack against open speech and debate?

It’s hard to tell. People can reach such levels of mindless non-comprehension, they no longer care. They’ve crossed the line. Pulling them back from the abyss is a herculean task.

Better to keep promoting free speech and engaging in it.

In the long run, freedom is more contagious than the appetite for destruction. Sometimes the long run is very long, but it doesn’t matter.

As an example, independent media will survive, despite all attempts to censor it.

If indeed the recent temporary shutdown of my website, which is now back up and running, was an illustration of someone’s censorship—well, I’m still here.

Overall, the struggle of centuries to establish individual freedom are not in vain, must not be in vain. Once again we are seeing that what we take for granted is not automatic. We must assert our rights. We must not stop.

The lesson is not always easy. But we have to learn it.

As always, there are people who can’t stand freedom. They recoil from it, as if it is a threat to their very survival. Having sunk to such a low level, they attack the basis of life itself.

So be it.

We’re not going anywhere.

Source: Why the political Left feels emboldened to shut down free speech

The free and independent individual « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

By Jon Rappoport

“Now we have a whole army of experts, whose job is to tell you success only comes with you being part of a group. Your status as an individual is transmitted to you through some diabolical portion of your brain that is loaded with false messages. Therefore, give up on the greatest adventure in the world. Take the elevator down to the basement, get off, and join the crowd. That’s where the love is. That’s where your useless courage dissolves into sugar, and the chorus of complaints will be magically transformed into a paradise of the lowest common denominator. Give up the ghost. You’re home. The sun never rises or sets. Nothing changes. The same sameness rules.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Since the 1960s, many people have decided that, in order to create the future they want, they should engage in a certain amount of introspection.

Spiritual or psychological introspection.

I have encountered a large number of such people, who have swung the balance to the point where introspection has become indecision and paralysis.

There are “so many issues to consider.”

Starting in the 1960s, we saw the import of various Eastern philosophies and practices. They arrived here in diluted and distorted forms. They introduced their own versions of “karma” and “balance” and “surrender” and “abdication to the wishes of the universe.”

“If it doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be.”

In the end, it amounts to waiting around in a cosmic station for a train that never arrives.

Or in psychological terms, it is: “I have to resolve my past before I can pursue my future.” “How can I know what I want if I’m trapped in past conflicts?”

The effect of all this was to diminish the potential realm of human action. It was a kind of court case where all the priors of the defendant were allowed into evidence and dominated the verdict.

More recently, another limiter came on to the scene. It is expressed this way: “Now I see through fake reality, I see how reality is being manipulated by the powers-that-be, so what can I do? We’re at the mercy of these forces.”

I could suggest that these vectors were and are an intentional operation, whose purpose is to demoralize the individual and cut him off from his own freedom, independence, and power. And that would be an accurate assessment. But it wouldn’t tell the whole story, for one vital reason:

The individual is the only person who can change his own course. Others can help, but the final decision is his.

That is bedrock.

And here is the superior principle: even if the individual determines that all is hopeless, he should launch his life anyway. Despite all the good reasons to give up, he should ignore all of them and launch his future.

Because if he does that, he soon begins to see his own view change. It’s not the same anymore.

And this is what freedom and independence and power are all about. Bottom line, these qualities are what you take hold of after you know all is hopeless. That’s the acid test.

Every individual, since the dawn of time, has thought himself into smaller and smaller boxes until there is no space left—and then certain individuals, who are spiritual and metaphysical riverboat gamblers, have shoved in all their chips on projecting action in the world anyway…and they revolutionize their destinies.

That’s what some people have called “inequality of outcome.” That’s the basis for it.

We can go even deeper. What is the ultimate purpose of thought and reflection and introspection? Is it to arrive at certain conclusions, after which the thinker (the person) serves those conclusions like a slave? Or is thought itself a process through which ideas then serve the individual and his goals?

It is the latter.

The first great philosopher of the West, Plato, followed the first path. Which is to say, he applied his mind to understand the basis of reality, and he came to the conclusion that there were immortal and pure Ideas that existed in a higher realm, and they were unchangeable. Society, therefore, could only triumph if certain wise men, who could apprehend these Ideas directly, ruled over everyone else. Thus, the freedom and independence and power of open inquiry led to totalitarianism. Freedom led to slavery.

The individual, when all is said and done, is his own ship. However much he may learn about navigation, there comes the moment when he and his ship leave the shore. He explores. He discovers. He invents.

He invents his own future. No matter what.

We would be fools if we didn’t realize that, down through human history, individuals have grasped, for themselves, all these points.

And when the American Republic was invented, these same points were “background.” What were the checks and balances and the separation of powers all about? What was the reason for the enumeration of federal powers and the granting of all other powers to the states and the people? Why was the federal government squeezed at its extremities? Because the free and independent individual was the true coin of the realm. He needed latitude. He needed legal protection, in the best way it could be provided, from arbitrary power.

Otherwise, why bother?

The Constitution was far more than an extension of independence from England. The men who wrote the Articles and the Bill of Rights, and the men who voted for them and ratified them—to now argue for or against their “deeper motives” is, in the end, a distraction from the fact that the Constitution contains ideas that aid the liberation of the free and independent individual.

The ideas still stand.

They are predicated on the notion that these individuals exist and will launch, despite all reasons not to, their own creative desires and make them fact in the world.

Give us your huddled masses yearning to be free. Masses? No. A mass can never be free. And even if a mass can successfully demand freedom, on whom does that bounty then fall? The individual. This is where the buck stops, and no one can change that truth.

There are those who believe a quiet lake is the end of all existence. And then a boat comes along, and the ripples begin spreading. An individual has arrived.

You can be the person looking at the lake, banking on no-action, or you can be in the boat, forwarding your best ideas and visions and dreams, despite all the reasons not to.

Source: The free and independent individual « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech at the U of California Berkeley is off, it’s on, it’s been delayed, the student groups sponsoring her appearance are suing the University, she’ll speak indoors, she’ll speak outdoors, and on it goes.

University officials have said they can’t guarantee Coulter’s security, unless, apparently, she gives her speech during the week in the afternoon while most students are studying for their final exams. Why don’t they schedule her talk somewhere in Alaska at three in the morning? That’ll work, and free speech will emerge victorious.

Aside from paid agitators brought in from the outside by George Soros money, the student body at the University is opposed to Coulter speaking, or they’re too passive to care, or they’re too cowed to step up and demand she has the right to air her ideas.

Here is the op: the University bosses have brought all this on themselves. Their claim that they can’t protect Coulter may be true, but that’s because, for decades, professors have been teaching crap and pap and programmatic socialism and various forms of collectivism, and they have purposely neglected the Bill of Rights and individual freedom.

University bosses have been seeding departments with teachers who are so far to the Left they can’t get dressed in the morning without government aid. And the radical Left is all about debate only in the sense that they want to curtail it, shut it down, destroy dissident voices, and thereby save the world.

So naturally, in the fullness of time, students are going to follow suit and get in line. Rational discussion of opposing ideas? Never heard of it. Why in the world would they allow Ann Coulter on campus to spread dangerous thoughts?

Dangerous=someone somehow might start to think on his/her own, against the prevailing tide.

There is no room for this at UC Berkeley.

Behind this buzzing swarming cloud of totalitarian policy, there are, of course, genuine issues students could be investigating. But that must not happen. I’m talking about money, as in: who is sponsoring research projects at Berkeley? Projects related to the war machine; psychiatric “mental health” toxic-drug research; GMO research; and other mega-corporate favorites.

For example, the book, “Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics, Institutions, Alternatives,” mentions a $70 million program that links no less than 200 US colleges in a Homeland Security program, to establish a DHS “center of excellence.” “Experts” from UC Berkeley are involved. What’s that all about? Colleges all over the US are cooperating and collaborating.

“Well, let’s keep that project quiet. Instead, let’s have students protesting and rioting against free speech. Let’s have them feeling triggered and demanding safe spaces where they can drink hot chocolate and play with model trains and dolls.”

For many decades, US colleges have been feeding from a federal money trench to aid and abet the national security state. That would include expanding surveillance on American citizens, profiling, and various forms of propaganda, for starters. If you factor in DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, you would be talking about research on the brain and cutting edge mind control.

But instead, no, don’t look there; keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. Save humanity.

As I reported several months ago, 25% of US college students, last year, were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder. Let’s not have students thinking about that. Let’s not have them thinking about the toxic effects of the psychiatric drugs. No. Let’s not have them realize they’re guinea pigs in an unending op to addle their brains.

Instead, let’s have them keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley.

And certainly, as colleges and universities across the US raise their tuition and matriculating costs to the sky—BECAUSE the federal government has a deep-pockets student loan program—let’s not make that connection. Instead, let’s saddle college graduates with massive debt.

As they walk off campus for the last time, contemplating their future of trying to pay down that debt, they can congratulate themselves, because they kept Ann Coulter from coming to Berkeley.

And thus saved the world.

“What did you do at college, Daddy?”

“You mean way back when, before I went on Welfare? I kept a fascist from giving a speech. I can’t remember her name now. But she was a threat, believe me. We had guts. It took a few thousand of us to keep her away. There were rumors she was bringing a few tanks and weaponized anthrax with her…”

Source: Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Mike Adams, Alex Jones, and the war against the 1st Amendment « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

“Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges.” (Blazing Saddles, 1974)Free speech? We don’t need no stinking free speech.

In the wake of the economic and political censorship imposed on Infowars and Natural News (Google’s delisting of Natural News has now been lifted), it’s become apparent that free speech is passe. Why did we ever need it? Let’s get rid of that illusion.

Let’s embrace, instead, the consensus of virtue-signaling heroes.

If something is offensive, rub it out.

In Alex Jones’ case, a large company that places ads, adroll, decided to drop Jones’ site, Infowars, as a client. The decision still stands. The loss of revenue for Infowars is estimated at $3 million.

Here are the top 12 reasons for eliminating free speech.

ONE: “I’m triggered by what you just said. Stop talking.”

TWO: People who say certain things could give other people the wrong ideas. […]

Read the rest of the reasons at the Source: Mike Adams, Alex Jones, and the war against the 1st Amendment « Jon Rappoport’s Blog