|
by Jon Rappoport February 22, 2013 from JonRappoport Website
If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.
On a profound level, mass shootings and assassinations (whether staged or not) are used to define the ever-present “lone assassin” as the REPRESENTATION AND THE SYMBOL OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL IS.
You’re a separate and distinct individual? An outsider? Watch out. Overnight, you could turn into a raging killer. You happen to know an outsider, a loner? He’s dangerous. He doesn’t live by the rules the rest of us accept. He’s deranged. Stay away from him. Shun him.
And if you see the slightest indication of (insert your own term here), report him to the authorities.
Any human being who has courage, intelligence, eyes to see, and a determination to express his power in uncompromising terms can now be redefined as a potential threat to the stability of society - if he criticizes the prevailing Authority.
From the 1960s onward - starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK - the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.
The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities - e.g.,
...qualities that will defeat the very notion of honorable and righteous and powerful opposition to fascist authority:
You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a 'Manhattan Project' to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.
More than ever, the individual has to explore and discover, with intelligence, a position that is FOR himself and AGAINST the concocted and sustained illusion called consensus reality.
When the individual embarks on this path, the external false definitions of him as rebel or outsider or mentally ill or criminal no longer matter. Instead, what matters is his deepest nature.
Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.
He was presented as troubled and morose, a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.
In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were programming the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”
Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction.
The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in getting out a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.
These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.
Then the 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.
For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war crime, in the aftermath all those college students who had been in the streets - once the fear of being drafted was gone - scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.
The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.
And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops, for the purpose of deflating attempts at genuine and powerful rebellion. And, at bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.
Now, in our collectivist society of 2013, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project.
While extolling this group as heroic and in constant need of help, the government is doing everything it can to crash the economy and widen the population of victims. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up."
In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator:
These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are the Tea Party and their affiliated “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.”
Another distorted unflattering portrait, meant not only to drive people away from the Tea Party, but also to prove the guilt, by association, of any person who says the federal government is unconstitutional and out of control.
This is the major domestic policy of this administration - this absurd assertion.
The Rebel is real. But he has been covered up by media fabrications and caricatures.
You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel:
Good acting, bad acting, drama, message - at the end you’re looking for the core.
What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else. It’s not meant to have real substance, only undefined affectation. The rebel takes action, but it’s based on superficial slogan. It’s another deflating caricature.
As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson:
This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene.
He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming. The rebel dismantles inhibiting and artificial structures. He doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.
The political fancy or trend or program of the moment is a hardened dream somebody borrowed to make mince meat out of the population. The rebel has no allegiance to any of this.
Albert Camus once wrote:
“THIS or THAT” is the modern history of civilization: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.
We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.
It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect?
We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.
We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.
There is - and has been, for a long time - a blended sequence in operation:
Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind.
Which program for humans is better? The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds.
Good and right are the traps:
The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.
|
