Guest Post by Jon Rappoport
Every political system, when applied, wears out, because the people using the system make it more and more mechanical, less and less conscious.
The Constitution was a noble attempt to explicitly limit systems by eroding the power of centralized authority. That document was mainly about enforcing less structure. Its brilliance, naturally, has been lost on government.
Could you find a larger, more inclusive system than the modern Surveillance State? The hunger to develop structure is what android-like humans possess in abundance. They impose structure and live off it, like junk food.
Triggering these systems thinkers (androids) happens by giving them a problem—preferably one that appears to need an endless number of solutions.
For example, how to share everyone’s medical data with hundreds of agencies, achieving “smooth interface.”
For example: solving threats to national security.
Also known as: institutionalized paranoia.
There is never enough of it to go around, so enemies have to be invented. They don’t need names. They don’t even need to be specified. They just need to be asserted.
The same sort of strategy is employed in the medical arena. Take, for instance, childhood diseases. Once baseline nutrition became part and parcel of Western societies, at least for a significant number of citizens, these diseases ceased being a widespread problem. Children got sick; they recovered; their immune systems became stronger in the process.
But that lowered the “disease threat.” Not good for the medical cartel. They had re-invent these illnesses as enemies. They also had to sell a solution. Vaccines.
Suddenly, the typical childhood diseases were devouring monsters. No respectable parent would allow his/her child to contract them. No, that would be cruel beyond the telling of it. Parents had to vaccinate their kids.
A nationwide system of promoting and giving vaccines needed to be created. The FDA had to be enlisted, to make sure no competent studies were done to assess the dangers of the vaccines, especially when dealt in combinations, when given frequently.
You can be sure national vaccine-surveillance programs will expand. A database to keep track of who is vaccinated and who isn’t will become a normal feature of Obamacare. And myriad pressures will be brought to bear on parents who refuse vaccines for their children.
The overall template of the Surveillance State is based on the premise that everyone is a potential threat and danger to the herd. Why bother searching for particular offenders? Spy on everybody and then apply profiling algorithms to filter out and ID the likely enemies. Ten thousand enemies, 100,000, a million, 20 million? Accomplished in the blink of an eye.
At some point, a system will be developed that identifies people who use the word “individual” with frequency. That will become a marker for “threat.”
Fifty years up the road, perhaps sooner, people will receive a survey form: “It’s come to our attention that you don’t belong to any groups we’re aware of. Is this true? Please specify your reasons for abstaining. Sign up for one of our educational programs…”
Tighten the political Matrix.
As we speak, DARPA, the tech branch of the Pentagon, is developing mass mind control strategies. Using brain imaging, researchers are attempting to isolate neurological markers that indicate people are following a narrative or objecting to it. (Activist Post, 7/29/13, “Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Revealed: Leaked Document”)
DARPA asks: why is a given propaganda-psyop-story working, or why isn’t it working? Key words and phrases are being used as correlatives.
What words trigger passive acceptance of government narratives and media news reports and sales campaigns?
Here’s an example I’m sure DARPA is interested in at this very moment: the Edward Snowden narrative. What’s working to convince the American he’s a traitor? What isn’t working? What aspects of the narrative that paint him as a hero are successful? Why?
At this level of research, truth and ethics are irrelevant. It’s all about “magnetic attraction and repulsion” to a narrative.
No one in Congress is voicing strong objections to the DARPA research. Why? Because our legislators are acutely aware that they’re selling their own narratives to the American people. That’s their basic job.
It’s all about story line. And in case there is any misunderstanding, we’re not talking about complex plots. No, the attention span of the public is incapable of registering subtlety. Narrative must be simple and obvious, even to a person with four or five active brain cells to rub together.
What happens when you put together the awesome resources of the Surveillance State with advanced research on narratives? You get an even larger system—by which preplanned events can be launched, secretly, made to appear random, and analyzed beforehand to predict public response.
“Last year, we were able to predict the response with 56% accuracy. This year, we’re up to 61%. Our goal, the holy grail, is 98%.”
You’ll get this kind of craziness. Bet on it: “Hey, I want you to meet Bob. Bob, come on over. Bob works for the government. He has a fantastic job. He predicts public reaction to events before they happen. Wow. Isn’t that something. Bob knows how we’re going to feel before we do. Ha-ha. Great.”
And Bob will be a very popular guy.
“Gee, Bob, that job sounds terrific. Interesting. I wish I could get up in the morning knowing I was going to do work like that. I wouldn’t need so many cups of coffee to start my engine. By the way, what qualifications does a guy have to have?”
“A PhD helps. But let me tell you about our historical research on the Snowden affair. It’s all about figuring out what played well with the public. Lots of polls were done at the time. The country was sort of split over whether to call him a hero or a villain. We tracked 40,000 media reports from the period, and we isolated the significant factors. Turns out Snowden was young, he wore glasses, and he appeared vulnerable. Those were the keys that made people like him. So the next time we have a defector, we’re going to have to have an older guy, fatter face, tough expression. We also analyzed Snowden’s voice, the pitch, the frequency, the rhythms. They worked against the government narrative. To assemble a majority who believes a defector is a traitor, you need his voice to be in the frequency range of…well, I can’t say. It’s classified. But we have the exact parameters…”
How do you think media anchors are sold? Listen carefully to Dianne Sawyer and Brian Williams. The hills and valleys. The pauses. The characteristics of the flow of speech. The “factual” tones, with underlying traces of sympathetic reverberation.
We’re talking about a bubble, inside which narrative is floated and used to sell a product. Who buys? Who doesn’t? What system of prediction will work?
That assignment—answering those questions—engages humans in great numbers. We already have a fairly vast culture in America made up of private citizens who assess products and share their observations, on a number of levels. They’re transfixed by the “values” of competing electronic gear, cars, clothes.
In other words, millions of people are in the bubble because they want to be. They want to be profiled and sliced and diced, and they want to add their own assessments about what sells and, especially, why. They want to profile themselves.
They’re audience. As Marshall McLuhan put it, “Audience is actor.” Audiences want in on the action. They don’t care about ethical, political, or psychological implications.
They’d gladly assess their own reactions to the Snowden affair, based purely on the factors that sold Snowden as white hat or black hat. Nothing to do with whether he did the right thing or not. He’s a product that was peddled—because, to them, everything is a product.
So the only fascination comes with analyzing the effectiveness of the sale. How was it done? What succeeded? What didn’t? “Right or wrong” only figure in to the degree they’re marketing elements—no more important than whether he had a beard or blonde hair or smiled or didn’t smile or wore a tie.
We’re looking at a kind of Mobius Strip or Escher drawing that feeds back into itself.
It’s a basic fun-house consumerist nightmare. People are thoroughly acclimated to being inside that universe. Events are judged on the basis of how they’re effective or ineffective as marketing devices.
In this state of mind, people tend to perceive reality on the basis of what they think other people are perceiving.
“Actually, I don’t feel anything. I only infer what other people are feeling, so I can understand marketing better.”
This is voluntary self-induced mind control. People happily digging themselves a deeper hole in consensus reality.
I’m waiting for this kind of Facebook post: “Hi. I’m Jonas Hoover. Below, you’ll see a complete inventory of every product I own, with footnotes on method of purchase in each case. My voting record for the past twelve years is also included, along with my job history, college transcripts, tax returns, and a further link to audio recordings of 2000 phone conversations I’ve had over past five years. Feel free to contact me for more information, if you are a profiling agency. I’m seeking employment in the surveillance field…”
Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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 www.nomorefakenews.com