The mind game designed to produce losers
Separating logic from propaganda. Separating illusion from reality.
An individual has the capacity to think independently. A group does not have that capacity.
‘Vegas Massacre’ just one of a million examples…
by Jon Rappoport
October 18, 2017
“My friends, here is the game. On the table before you, you see many stones. Some are expensive gems, and some are worthless fakes. But you must decide they’re all fake or they’re or real. That’s the game.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Crazy choices. Untenable choices. A ridiculous game. But many people fall for it. Why?
If propaganda didn’t stimulate the way people’s minds already work, propaganda would be abandoned and thrown on the junk heap.
I need to repeat that: If propaganda didn’t stimulate the way people’s minds already work, propaganda would be abandoned and thrown on the junk heap.
Propaganda isn’t shaping minds to think in a way that is utterly alien. No. Propaganda taps into ways of thinking that are already there, in a latent or active state.
For example, propaganda feeds off the tendency of the mind to assert: It’s either A or B. It’s either all-A or all-B.
By design, let’s say an event under consideration happens to be BOTH A AND B.
However, the mind isn’t prepared to see that. At the “either-or” level of thinking, BOTH is impossible. It doesn’t show up as a choice on the radar screen.
So for that event, X number of people will say, “It’s all-A.”
And Y number of people will say, “It’s all-B.”
And then those two groups will oppose each other. Which is a hidden purpose of the propaganda in the first place.
Take the Vegas shooting as an example. Assume for the moment that it was designed to contain both real and fake elements. There were real bullets flying (no matter how many shooters held the weapons) and real people were hit by those bullets. And then there were “crisis actors” who were faking scenes of being hit and wounded by bullets.
And let’s say there is propaganda on top of the Vegas shooting, and the propaganda says, “Stephen Paddock was the LONE GUNMAN and he killed 58 people and wounded 500 people.”
The propaganda is a lie. Whatever did or didn’t happen at the concert, the propaganda is not the correct account.
The propagandists know that AS SOON AS THEY SAY “LONE GUNMAN,” there are going to be many people who think “LEE OSWALD AND CONVERUP AND CONSPIRACY” and then independently examine and analyze and offer opinion about what really happened in the shooting. By telling that central lie, the propagandists also know many of these independent researchers and reporters are going to be stimulated to react in the following way:
They’re either going to say all-A or all-B. They’re going to say the shooting was entirely real, or they’re going to say the shooting was entirely fake.
Tell that lie and then stand back and watch people break up into two opposing groups.
Which is exactly what propagandists want.
The central lie about the shooting has two purposes. First, cover up what really happened. And second, get independent-minded people to split into two opposing groups, vis-à-vis what really happened at the shooting.
This is all understood and planned for by the groups who design mass events and also design the propaganda lies about those events.
The fake planted elements of these events (crisis actors, pretended wounding, etc.) are put there to make sure there will be opposing groups of researchers, in the aftermath.
“Sow confusion; sow opposition.”
And the success of these plans depends entirely on the level of thinking that is compelled to choose all-A or all-B. A person who restricts himself to deploy this level of thinking will always deny anything exists beyond all-A or all-B, whichever side he chooses. Why? Because his level of thinking determines WHAT HE CAN SEE AND WHAT HE CAN’T SEE.
Obviously, we’re talking about much more than the Vegas shooting or any mass event. We’re talking about a pattern that bleeds into every area of life and perception.
“If you think Trump has done anything seriously wrong, you’re a traitor to the President and an enemy of America.”
“If you think Hillary has committed a serious crime, you’re a traitor to America.”
There are two sides, and you must choose all-A or all-B.
Now, of course, there are other levels of more intelligent thinking. But those who control education and major media want to minimize the more intelligent levels and maximize the “either-or” brand. This is their mission in life. They take it seriously.
Decades ago, when I taught school, I ran across many students who were the all-A or all-B type. Trying to break through that barrier was like using a nail file to cut a big hole in a brick wall.
Eventually, I found I could teach them logic at a basic level. And I watched the students change. They began to offload their blunt either-or approach. They began to SEE MORE. The lights were going on.
It was quite gratifying.
Let me give you another example: police brutality toward black people in America.
Let’s say we have two groups. One group claims there is absolutely no problem involving police brutality. The other group claims police brutality is THE problem.
All-A or all-B.
Now, imagine there are 20,000 black and white people, armed with the tools of analysis and logic, who take neither position. Instead, they separately and independently investigate a number of factors that plague black inner cities:
Drugs; gang shootings and other gang crimes; the Globalist theft of jobs, which are exported to other countries; the absence of fathers in homes; grossly sub-standard nutrition; the dumping of industrial pollutants into poor neighborhoods; toxic heavy metals in water systems; the diversion and theft of enormous amounts of money that have been poured into the so-called War on Poverty; police brutality; multiple problems honest police have in trying to keep neighborhoods safe.
This intelligent analysis points toward solutions. For instance (I’ve previously written about this at length), a vast spreading of urban farms in inner cities where residents grow their own fresh clean food, trade it among themselves, and sell the excess for profit.
Now imagine those 20,000 black and white people who are doing this analysis speak up and write, independently and separately, about what they’ve discovered.
Suppose THOSE voices rise and are heard.
Suppose THAT tide rises above the all-A and all-B crowds.
What might happen then?
In an educated society, this tide is supposed to rise.
However, education isn’t pointed in the direction of logic and analysis. It’s pointed away from it, on purpose.
Which means the task falls to individuals.
This may seem like an enormous hill to climb.
It is. But so what?
After more than a hundred years of sub-standard mind-numbing education, what else would you expect?
The overriding principle here is: if you see people all around you dividing into opposing camps, because they’re all-A or all-B, that doesn’t mean you have to follow their lead.