Thought-Controlled Classroom: Orgy of the Group

“In the middle of all the brain-research going on, from one end of the planet to the other, there is the assumption that the individual doesn’t really exist. He’s a fiction. There is only the motion of particles in the brain. Therefore, nothing is inviolate, nothing is protected. Make the brain do A, make it do B; it doesn’t matter. What matters is harmonizing these tiny particles, in order to build a collective consensus, in order to force a science of behavior.” (Jon Rappoport, The Underground)

Individual power. Your power.

It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.

Therefore, it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in Individual Power.

As soon as I write that, though, we all fall down laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?

Students would tear down the building in which such courses were taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the planet.

If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.

So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of freedom has no reflection in the educational system.

You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. You’re crazy.

In order to spot the deepest versions of educational brainwashing, you have to have some standard against which you can compare what is coming down the pipeline into the minds of students.

If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action. If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system. And in this case, the standard is Individual Power.

Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.

Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere. Because schools either don’t mention it, or they discredit it.

Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.

He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair. He laughed nervously. Then he stopped laughing

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

He really meant: “If you want to get back in my good graces, you’ll go away and come back with a story we can print. You do that four or five times, and then maybe I’ll trust you again.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive. I was dangerous. It was one of those, “Jon, I thought I knew you. Obviously, I was mistaken.”

I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”

He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.

He launched a lecture, the essence of which was I should consider seeing a mental-health professional.

Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe where individual power is supreme. They want it badly.

But when it comes to “real” life, power stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.

Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He learns how the game is played. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.

If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.

From another discipline, medicine, here is an illustration of power-reduction, standardized and uniform treatment of every individual, avoidance of the unique elements of each person, and a chilling approach to surveillance, all wrapped up in one package.

Several years ago, the Business Insider printed a story:

“DARPA is at it again. This time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [the technical-research wing of the Pentagon] has announced plans to create nanochips for monitoring troops’ health on the battlefield.”

Those who criticize the plan point out that gradually accustoming people to the insertion of chips will eventually lead to the mass chipping of society.

Yes, true. But there is another op, too.

Further down in the Business Insider, we have this official explanation:

“…the sensors [nanochips] are targeted at preventing illness and disease, the two causes of most troops’ medical evacuation.”

Did you catch that? Apparently, the implanted nanochips are going to relay soldiers’ physical symptoms back to base in real time.

Now we are talking about something quite ominous: the capacity to use chips to relay hard data to authorities, who can then make off-the-shelf diagnoses of particular illnesses.

The troops are a test run. The actual op, up the line a few years, is to outfit private citizens with those nanochips, so medical analysts (or their computers) can present patients with rapid-fire and peremptory diagnoses, leading to drug treatments. (Recent press reports indicate computerized medical care is, in fact, gaining ground.)

Should I draw a picture? A person is walking down the street on his way to work, with his nanochip(s) in his arm. The tiny computer is silently running, recording metabolic changes. Suddenly, it pings. The man on the street doesn’t hear that sound from his arm, but a computer located in a facility ten miles (or 6000 miles) away does.

The data from the chip are flagged and shunted to another automatic processor which, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, electronically issues an appointment slip to the walking patient. For the clinic.

He receives a nudge from his cell phone, reads the appointment info, and confirms.

He will see a doctor, he will be handed a diagnosis, and he will take a drug. He’s in the system.

Eventually, the doctor in most cases won’t be necessary. The electronic message will spell out the diagnosis, direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy, where the prescription will be filled.

Of course, the fact that the diagnosis may be shortsighted or completely off-base is irrelevant. It’s ironclad: symptoms A, B, C, and D add up to diagnosis X, which means take drug Y. End of story.

Toxic effects from the drug? Never discussed. Irrelevant.

The published studies reporting the clinical trials of the drug were altered, on behalf of the drug company? The drug was actually ineffective and grossly dangerous? Who cares? It’s in the book. It’s official.

Welcome to tomorrow.

For those of you who want to probe a little deeper (and you should want to), here is a brief example of something that can go terribly wrong in this chipped version of healthcare. I spell it out at great length in my book, AIDS INC.

Antibody tests. These are widely used assays to determine what disease a person may have contracted. When the test reads positive, the patient is said to have the disease for which the antibody test is custom-designed. And from that flows the diagnosis and drug treatment.

Why? Because, starting in the early 1980s, something astonishing happened to antibody tests. The analysis of their results was turned upside down. Before then, the presence of antibodies to a particular germ was generally taken as a good sign. It meant the immune system had reacted well and forcefully to the germ-intrusion. But with the new interpretation, a positive test was taken to be a bad sign. The patient was at risk. In fact, he might already be ill.

So there you are with a nanochip in your arm, and you’re sitting in your backyard with your family, and the chip, every so often, is running routine antibody scans through access to your blood indicators.

Ping. At four in the afternoon, it suddenly develops that you have Hepatitis. You receive an appointment slip on your cell phone. But you have no disease. Not even close. You’re actually suffering from a piece of medical-research insanity that has turned antibody tests on their heads.

However, there is no court of first or last resort. You’re going to the doctor, and he’s going to give you a powerful and toxic drug, and you’re going to take it. If you don’t, your chip will report the non-compliance to authorities.

You may doubt that computers and nanochips can carry out far-reaching analyses of various body indicators. Direct analysis isn’t necessary. In the same way that computer models built on a foundation of sand can assert manmade warming will destroy the planet in five years, medical models based on all sorts of indirect and abstract computations can deliver instant assessments of “physical aberrations from the norm.”

Again, welcome to tomorrow. Welcome to one-size-fits-all. Welcome to the diminishment of individual differences.

What about psychiatric diagnosis?

This, too, could become automatic. With a list of 300 officially certified mental disorders, nanochips could measure brain activity and supply an immediate assessment. Oppositional Defiance Disorder, bipolar, ADHD, Social Anxiety Disorder. Toxic medical drugs would follow.

Yes, it sounds like science fiction. Now. But many technologies we presently have sounded like science fiction 50 years ago.

Once we enter a world where the individual no longer has credibility, a world where “greatest good for the greatest number” is the overriding principle, and where that principle is defined by the elite few, the term “mind control” will have a positive connotation. It will be accepted as the obvious strategy for achieving “peace in our time.”

At a job interview, a candidate will say, “Yes, I received my PhD in Mind Control at Yale, and then I did three years of post-doc work in Cooperative Learning Studies at MIT. My PhD thesis? It was titled, ‘Coordination Strategies in the Classroom for Eliminating the Concept of the Individual’.”

“Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another’s resources and skills… Furthermore, the teacher’s role changes from giving information to facilitating students’ learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.” (Wikipedia, “Cooperative Learning”)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon Rappoport 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.