Matrix Programming 101: Destroy Logic

Once upon a time, in medieval universities, new students enrolled in the trivium. It was the foundation curriculum. It was required. Its parts were: grammar, logic and rhetoric.

Grammar: the interior construction of language; the parts of speech; the proper agreement of parts of speech.

Logic: the valid and invalid connections in the course of an argument; the method of proper reasoning; the deductive links in a chain, at the end of which is a conclusion.

Rhetoric: oral presentation; the use of language to make a case; the capacity to persuade, even in the face of counter-argument.

Today, the subject matter of the trivium is not only downplayed. It has been shattered.

This article focuses on the death of logic.

When the intensive handling of ideas is seen as a laughable goal for education, indoctrination is plugged in as the only alternative.

The mind of the student shifts from being an active force to being a container.

The destruction of logic is a conscious strategy, a game plan. Its goal is to pervert rational thought at its core and insert ideology masked as insight.

The game plan was cooked up a long time ago at the Carnegie Foundation, where the undermining of American history was the No. 1 pastime.

Instead of merely erasing knowledge of American history, it was decided that the basic way ideas are studied should be torpedoed.

The actual meaning of an idea was firmly placed on the back burner. Front and center would be: Relentlessly assess and attack the people who forwarded those ideas.

And sure enough, this strategy has gained great prominence.

The revered Founders of the Republic? Shysters, con men, slaveholders, monopolists who saw rebellion from England as the way to win greater power for themselves at the expense of everyone else living on American soil.

Therefore, the argument continues — and this is crucial — the Founders’ ideas, as expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, were rotten to the core. The ideas can be dismissed out of hand as coming from “a bad source.”

If you want to see that sleight-of-hand trick in action, just visit a few American studies classes in universities and catch the wave.

Ideas no longer need to be judged on their sense, merit and alignment with basic principles. Nor are they judged by their position in a well-formed argument. All that is out. Now, you have to “look to the source” and make all your decisions based on “who these people really were who expressed the ideas.”

And since that’s the case, learning to think or reason is unnecessary.

New education, then, once you strip away the old essentials, is really nothing more than learning who the bad guys were and the good guys were. This can be taught by ideologically motivated professors in a few hours.

In logic, this used to be called the fallacious ad hominem argument. Now, it isn’t called anything. It’s praised as the insightful way to do intellectual business.

In the case of the Founders’ ideas, we have, among others: the free market, individual freedom, private property and severely limited central government.

No need to examine these concepts. No need to assess, for instance, the success of the free market — despite its corruption by criminals and monopolists — in providing a better standard of living for millions of people. Forget it. All you have to know is that the free market was proposed by phony American aristocrats who wanted more power for themselves. On that basis alone, you can reject the free market.

How about private property? Same thing. The same phony Founders put that idea forward; therefore, it must be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson? He owned slaves. Therefore, as the night follows day, everything he said or thought or did was wrong.

See how easy education has become?

Individual freedom? Another absurdity proposed by the crooked Founders. Reject it. Don’t bother thinking about what that freedom has allowed you to express. Who cares?

So, one by one, these core ideas fall to the ax; and criticizing America becomes destroying America.

How Television Will Shape The New Gun Culture In America

Weapons are being fired all the time on television, but that happens on cop shows. Network programmers know the public will obsessively watch guns going off and bodies falling.

On the news, however, the issue of gun ownership is adjudicated independently of the glee that accompanies watching fictional people kill each other.

When it’s fantasy, the audience wants violence. When it’s real, the audience wants no violence.

Dealing with this schizoid condition would be a problem for the networks, were it not for the fact that there is a bridge between the two states of mind: “The good guys win.”

They win in every episode of every cop show. They always have. Decades of this operant conditioning lead the audience to expect it will happen in real life where crime, guns and cops are involved.

So in the wake of Sandy Hook, for the public, the resolution must belong to the cops. The idea that it might somehow belong to private citizens doesn’t sit right. The cops win by controlling the guns.

For the television-watching public, that fits. It makes sense. In every crime series, the guns of the cops turn out to be superior to those of the criminals, so to speak.

And in real life, it translates into: Take the guns from private citizens. Make the good guys win.

Logic is not part of this. The vision is of cops (and their allies) taking guns away from bad guys, who are then left powerless to commit murder. It’s simple, obvious, conclusive and satisfying… to a mind that’s been captured by television cop shows at a 9-year-old level and frozen there forever.

Bad guys had guns. Therefore, they could kill people. Now they don’t have guns. They can’t kill people.

The nonsense, illegality and unworkability of this vision are beside the point.

The myriad ways in which thousands of criminals obtain weapons is off the table as an issue. It’s too complex for a 9-year-old to consider.

As a corollary to this puerile solution to crime (take the guns), we have an equally insane command: The solution must apply to all 315 million people living in America.

Again, 9-year olds don’t pause to reflect on the logistics.

Enter the elite television anchor. Whether it’s the slick momma’s boy who crafts the image of a “post-Newtown era of gun control” (Brian Williams, NBC), a gray man who looks down his nose like a tightly wound FBI agent about to raid a warehouse full of weapons (Scott Pelley, CBS) or a blonde can of syrup dripping maple tears as she weeps for America (Diane Sawyer, ABC), the mission is the same: By gesture, facial expression and careful placement of not-quite-neutral words, let the viewing audience know that a corner has been turned, the way guns are viewed has changed once and for all, the tragedy at Sandy Hook is too deep and we cannot move on as before.

From the three networks, the message is delivered. This is a watershed moment for the culture.

It’s the 9/11 of guns.

Not only will we see new laws and new executive orders from the President. “All civilized people” will talk and think about guns differently, just as they changed their minds about wearing animal fur. This is the program coming out of the gate.

We’ll see it performed six ways from Sunday on the news and on news magazine shows. Forever.

However, there is a glitch. In the world of fiction, movies, television and video games, trillions of dollars are riding on the public fantasy about guns. How do you change the culture when people are still hungry to spend their money on vicariously living out the shoot-’em-up blow-’em-up legends?

What about Hollywood actors, who have made a handsome living portraying vicious pricks and relentless cops, blasting thousands of rounds from assault weapons? Do you expect them to boycott those roles in the future? What roles will they play to satisfy the audience’s desire to experience violence? Kung Fu masters fighting other Kung Fu masters? Animals tearing their prey to pieces on open plains?

How many comedies can you sell about four idiots taking a road trip to Las Vegas?

The elite television anchors will go up against the cop shows on their own networks.

The outcome won’t be decided in a month or a year.

Painting all gun owners as Neanderthals takes time. It takes a crazy concealed-carry Texas uncle here and there on sitcoms.

It takes a few dozen episodes of “Law and Order” in which parents leave guns lying around for children to pick up and tragically use.

It takes a Lifetime movie about a video game designer, who enters a moral crisis when he sees his game come to life on the streets of small-town America, as kids riddle each other with bullets outside a barber shop.

It takes a movie about a fur-wearing psychopath mowing down a gay household.

The shows people love will morph into updated teaching moments, as the networks pray their ratings will hold.

On cop shows, you’ll eventually see this sort of thing: members of a team of community organizers, working to rid a neighborhood of guns, are murdered one at a time by a rogue serial-killer cop who drinks heavily and has a psychotic fixation about the 2nd Amendment. Finally, a Department of Homeland Security squad blows the cop away — afterward expressing deep regret they had to use their 60 weapons with 600-round magazines.

Williams, who maintains his deep abiding empathy for men out west with guns, will give you this: “Today in Moosehead, Calif., police retrieved the very last gun owned in that town by a private citizen. But it came at a price.

“John Anger, who at the age of 84 had been living all of his years in the house where he was born, was sitting on his back porch cleaning his grandfather’s Bushmaster rifle when three children — cutting through his yard, as they always did every day coming home from school — saw Mr. Anger with his weapon, and obeyed those vital lessons they’d learned in school since the first grade.

“They called the police. And the police came. With the children safely out of the way, a squad of eight DHS-certified men and women issued an order to Mr. Anger, who unfortunately was deaf and wasn’t wearing his hearing aid, which neighbors later said he called an ‘annoying Medicare contraption.’

“Mr. Anger didn’t put down his rifle. This gave the police no choice.

“John Anger is now lying in the Soames Mortuary on McGillicudy Street, in Moosehead, the last person in that town to own a gun. He is gone, but the children are safe tonight in their homes with their parents.”

“60 Minutes” will run a story about a rich banker who lives on his large estate in Virginia and has decided he no longer wants to skeet shoot. Instead, he’s donating that acreage to a “research project,” in which former gun owners are re-educated in the ways of nonviolence.

If you think all this is frivolous, look at a few hundred hours of television from the 1950s and then compare the content to today’s network programming. You’ll understand that more than money drives the evolution of popular culture.

Influencing minds is an ongoing preoccupation of the television medium.

It’s all about creating a new culture when the order comes down to make it so.

Reality-formation. Fabric realignment in the matrix.

In the case of guns and violence, the blueprint for changing the culture has been on the drawing board for some time. The television networks have planned how to make citizens think about guns the way they now think about animal fur.

Sandy Hook was the green light to put the blueprint into effect.

–Jon Rappoport

Al Gore Made Millions While Saving The World

This is a lesson on how the major media can slant facts and give them new meaning. Let’s start with the explosive facts, as revealed in a Washington Post story.

In 2001, Al Gore was worth less than $2 million. Now, in 2012, it’s estimated he’s locked up a nice neat $100 million.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled — via loans, grants and tax relief — somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the Federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the Federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have Federal friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It makes batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 — before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the Administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore has been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore is constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

So Gore has $100 million.

Now, we get to the slant. The headline for this piece in The Post was “Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor.”

Pretty soft, don’t you think? I mean, the man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The Federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.

This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.

And here’s the kicker: Nowhere in The Post’s story was the issue of manmade warming mentioned as “unsettled” or “controversial” or even “the subject of intense debate.” Nope. Not even close.

That’s called a clue. You see, suppose The Post admitted that warming theories are up for grabs — which they most assuredly are. How would it look if Gore were portrayed as a man circling the globe many times to hype an unproven hypothesis, while profiting enormously from the effort because the Federal government was backing his plays? Hmm. Not very good. No, the story would have taken on a whole new and darker hue.

So the underlying assumption of the Post story, as reflected in its wimpy headline, was: Yes, Gore has been making money, but his cause is just and right and the situation of humankind is, in fact, dire because the Earth’s temperature has been rising dangerously as a result of carbon technology; and Gore is, after all, trying to stave off “humanity destroying humanity.” He’s a good man, in the end. Let him be rich.

That’s the slant.

It doesn’t really matter what facts The Post exposes about Gore’s sleazy business operations. He is doing it all “to save us.”

I don’t think so.

How many scientists and other Ph.D.s have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?

Let’s see. Remember the 49 astronauts and scientists who used to work at NASA and wrote a letter just saying no?

Nobel-prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever just said no.

A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said no. According to, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.D.s.

I’m not automatically assuming these people are absolutely correct in every detail of their positions. A definitive argument against manmade warming would take up many pages. In this context, I’m merely indicating that, indeed, the science is not settled, because many researchers are willing to step up and defend a counterargument.

Yet somehow, all these people’s voices are dimmed by the time elite media outlets like The Post cover the story. Mainstream reporters “who count” in the scheme of things look down their noses at those who claim manmade warming is incorrect science or a hoax.

I’ve worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, and I can tell you that, one for one, these arrogant “journalists” know absolutely nothing about warming. They have no significant personal knowledge of the subject. Their whole talent is making it seem as if they do. That’s the game. That’s why they make the big money.

It’s all a matter of style. That’s how you get to be an anchor on the evening news in prime time: You can fool most of people most of the time. You know how to talk, how to convey certain cues and emotions that put you over the top.

Anchors can make it seem as if they represent the best thinking and most intelligent consensus. That’s their skill.

Many years ago, George Burns famously said: “The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

That’s the bottom line for a news anchor.

And that’s the bottom line for the theory of manmade warming.

Is Gore faking it all the way or does he actually believe his all-encompassing, all-seeing global-warming message?

It’s a very interesting question. From my experience interviewing politicians, I’d say many of them lose the distinction after a while. They come to believe what they’ve previously been faking. This happens because they’re successful. They think to themselves: “I must be speaking the truth, because look at how well it’s playing, look at how well I’m doing, look at how many people support me.”

To stretch an analogy, a few of the bestselling medical drugs in the world cause brain damage. Does that mean they really don’t cause brain damage all of a sudden when sales figures reach $1 billion or $10 billion or, as in Gore’s case, $100 million?

People tell people who tell other people who tell other people, going all the way up the ladder, that the science on global warming is settled. Very, very few of the people on the ladder know the first thing about warming. They are parrots.

They tell the rest of us what’s really what and who’s really who, and they expect us to kneel down in adoration.

That’s mainstream news, and it’s falling apart as the online alternative media pick up the ball and run with it, as people indoctrinated to have faith in the major networks wake up from their slumber.

Big Al: $100 million, lockbox, an honorable man saving lives.

The first two items are facts. It’s the third item that should be open to robust debate in major media, but that’s not happening.

Major media, in most cases, echo the assumptions of their sources. The biggest source for stories, by far, is the Federal government. The Obama Administration has had a strict policy of declaring the global-warming issue wrapped up in a package with a red ribbon. It’s decided; it’s “settled.”

If The Washington Post suddenly investigated global-warming science and declared it bogus, it would suffer grave consequences. Many of its best sources, angered, would dry up overnight. If The Post went too far with its investigation, it could find itself on the outside looking in.

At the level of day-to-day news reporting, this is why big-time media outlets fold up under pressure and support the government consensus.

Of course, at a much higher level, The Post is playing partner with radical environmentalists who, in turn, are funded by titans of globalism. These deadly opponents of the free market want to encompass the planet in one management system (one central-planning system) from which all goods and services are distributed.

Global warming is one of their chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Gore is their boy. He is their front man.

He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He’s their pizza delivery kid.

And for his work, he is paid $100 million — a drop in the bucket.

–Jon Rappoport

Chef Broke The Law By Cooking Healthy Food

Annika Eriksson, a long-time Swedish chef revered for her school lunches, has been squelched.

Has she made errors? Are her meals contaminated? Has the quality of her ingredients slipped? No, none of the above.

The trouble stems purely from the fact that her meals are too good. Yes, you read that right.

She’s exceeding expectations. She bakes fresh bread every day. She offers 15 different vegetables at lunchtime. She knows it pleases the students to have choices.

This is her crime because, you see, other schools don’t have the same benefits in the Falun district in Sweden. (This is called collectivist logic, something to avoid like the plague.)

Ericksson maintains her meals don’t go beyond budget allocations. She’s just doing a good thing. She obviously likes doing it; and, of course, the kids love her meals.

Now, there will be no more of her fresh baked bread. That will be replaced by store-bought bread.

And the array of 15 vegetables? Gone, too. She is allowed to offer only half as many.

Ericksson’s students and their parents are in an uproar. How can the authorities take away the wonderful lunches? Apparently, it’s more important to preserve one-size-fits-all collectivism than to serve healthy and innovative meals.

Why doesn’t the district send other school chefs to Eriksson, so they can learn how she makes her brand of magic?

When someone exceeds the standard in a positive direction, why not pull everyone else upward? Why push the brilliant person down?

The answer is obvious. The most important thing is the collectivist system. The individual who enters the system is expected to tailor his or her actions to the norm. That’s the game.

The person who goes beyond the norm exposes the lie of the system. That person reveals there is something better outside the framework of the consensus reality.

It makes the bureaucratic androids tremble. Of what use are they when someone ignores their jungle of rules and regulations and creates a better outcome in the process?

I don’t know about you, but I prefer 15 vegetables and fresh-baked bread. I prefer Ericksson to human drones.

This story reminds me of a piece I wrote in 2002, “A Miracle in Wisconsin.” It detailed how one school independently pushed through the ceiling of conformity to create a revolution in healthy eating and, thereby, its own culture. Here it is:

In Appleton, Wisconsin, a revolution has occurred. It’s taken place in the Central Alternative High School. The kids now behave. The hallways aren’t frantic. Even the teachers are happy.

The school used to be out of control. Kids packed weapons.  Discipline problems swamped the principal’s office.

But not since 1997.

What happened? Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray Valium gas in the classrooms? Did they install metal detectors in the bathrooms? Did they build holding cells in the gym?

Afraid not. In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing a healthy lunch program.

Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salads, meats “prepared with old-fashioned recipes,” and whole grain bread. Fresh fruits were added to the menu. Good drinking water arrived.

As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, “Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching.”

Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin, has turned in some staggering figures since 1997. Drop-outs? Students expelled? Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons? Committing suicide? Every category has come up ZERO. Every year.

Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, “I don’t have to deal with daily discipline issues.  I don’t have disruptions in class or the difficulties with student behavior I experienced before we started the food program.”

One student asserted, “Now that I can concentrate I think it’s easier to get along with people.”

Principal Coenen sums it up: “I can’t buy the argument that it’s too costly for schools to provide good nutrition for their students. I found that one cost will reduce another. I don’t have the vandalism. I don’t have the litter. I don’t have the need for high security.”

Pure Facts, the newsletter that ran this story, is published by a nonprofit organization called The Feingold Association, which has existed since 1976. Part of its mission is to “generate public awareness of the potential role of foods and synthetic additives in behavior, learning and health problems. The [Feingold] program is based on a diet eliminating synthetic colors, synthetic flavors, and the preservatives BHA, BHT, and TBHQ.”

Thirty years ago, there was a Dr. Feingold. His breakthrough work proved the connection between these negative factors in food and the lives of children. Hailed as a revolutionary advance, Feingold’s findings were soon trashed by the medical cartel, since those findings threatened the drugs-for-everything, disease-model concept of modern healthcare.

But Feingold’s followers have kept his work alive.

Every great revolution starts with a foothold. Sounds like Natural Ovens and The Feingold Association have made strong cuts into the big rock of ignorance and greed.

Update, 2012: We now see big government trying to force dietary changes on citizens, and it was predictable that this effort would be met with resistance. The change, in order to succeed, has to come from within.

People have to want it and make it happen where they live. Otherwise, it’s just another brand of government coercion, and it’s usually launched for covert reasons having little to do with the announced objectives. One of those hidden reasons is naked control over the population.

When big government is ignored in favor of local and passionate volunteer participation, people do come up with their own innovative ideas; and they do implement them. It’s called decentralization of power. It’s the core of vital change for the better.

Remember President Barack Obama’s pronouncement, “You didn’t build that. Somebody else did.” In his estimation, all good things flow from centralized authority acting “for the greatest good of the greatest number.”

Well, he was dead wrong about what the greatest good is and where it comes from. It comes from the free individual, a concept he and others like him have never fathomed.

And where health is concerned, the commitment to it can begin in only one place: in the mind of the individual. It can’t emanate from big government imposing rules. It can’t be handed down like an edict. People aren’t identical biological machines.

Free Eriksson! Bring back her bread and her 15 vegetables!

–Jon Rappoport