What You’re Supposed to Think vs. What You Think
By Jon Rappoport
I could trace my 30 years of investigative reporting as one long project emanating from what people are supposed to think.
What they’re supposed to think about nuclear weapons, pesticides, medical drugs, vaccines, presidential elections, major media, the CIA, US foreign policy, mega-corporations, brain research, collectivism, surveillance, psychiatry, immigration…
In each case, there are a set of messages broadcast to the population. These messages are projected to replace what people would think on their own, if left to their own devices.
And in many cases, these messages have the same underlying theme: feel unlimited sympathy.
Feel unlimited sympathy or else.
In the area of immigration, for example, people are supposed to welcome endless numbers of refugees to their shores and cities and towns.
If they don’t put out the welcome sign, they’re evil, they’re cold, they’re “capitalists,” they’re unloving, they’re cruel, inhumane.
They’re immune to proper feelings of guilt and shame.
There is also an interesting guilty “we” attached to the issue. “We” invaded other countries, “we” bombed populations, imposed devastating economic sanctions, launched corporate takeovers—and therefore “we” should now open our doors to these refugees.
The government didn’t do these things. The State didn’t do these things. “We” did.
“We” is a very, very popular collectivist concept. It assigns massive guilt, while somehow exonerating the political leaders of the collective.
“We” is a great cheese glob that envelops all of us. “We” is a metaphysical construct that replaces “I.” There is no “I.”
Therefore, what some “deluded individual” might think and decide and determine on his own—which could very well run counter to the “we”—is irrelevant.
When it’s time to undertake wars on a grand scale, there is a George Bush who announces what the “we” wants. And when it’s time for the guilt and the sympathy and the bleeding heart, there is an Obama who announces what the “we” wants.
In general, the “we” is there to convince the individual that he is useless and powerless against the advancing cheese glob. He need not bother thinking what he really thinks, because it would make zero difference. Much better to become part of the “huddled mass,” waiting for instructions on how best to serve humanity.
Logic, rational consideration, the ability to analyze a line of thought and find flaws and gaps and deceptions? An outmoded concept that doesn’t apply to the “we.”
You see, the “we” is something quite different. It proceeds by a) committed aggression or b) endless sympathy, depending on what is called for by our leaders.
It moves like inexorable lava slowly leaking away from a volcano. The glob.
It needs no individual intelligence. Making distinctions is unnecessary.
And, one thinks, perhaps the solution to this wretched state of affairs is finding a different “we” to belong to. That will solve the whole problem.
But the underlying solution, as formidable as it may seem, is: dismantle the whole “we.” Expose it for what it is. And reinstate the individual and what he does think, as opposed to what he should think.
The cheese glob, the lava glob, the advancing fungus is the false construct. It was put there and massaged and stimulated to engage the individual and make him think he was excessively “privileged.” He was an outsider who couldn’t see the need and the joy of “belonging.”
He was behaving like a criminal, even a terrorist. He was detracting from the power and the warmth and the humanity of the collective hearth.
What most people take to be Reality is actually invented for the “we.”
And to take all this a step further, Reality is meant to distract the individual from discovering the depth of his own power, which is to say, creative power.
Every organized religion, every State, every so-called spiritual system and philosophy is built to derail the individual in this way.
After all, Reality points to itself. Reality says, “Look at this. Look at me. Understand me. This is what you need to focus on. This is all there is.”
And so it seems the main attribute of the individual is “perceiving what is.” Perceiving Reality.
However, detaching one’s self from that prescription reveals another opportunity, vast in its possibilities:
The ability to analyze the “we” and its many messages and discover what they are and how they are designed—and the capacity to imagine and invent new independent realities without end.
The scope and range of what the individual can do, in this regard, is limited only by: what he can imagine.
The psyop of all psyops seeks to bury this fact.