Propaganda is the Art of Overwhelming Logic

tv-head-propaganda-1Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times

One type of mind control involves defeating logic as a method of thinking.

Modern formulations of basic logic begin with the statement: You can’t have A and not-A. Which is a way of saying contradictions are unacceptable.

So it’s no surprise that mind control attempts to introduce contradictions into rational processes.

You see this in propaganda.

For example: People who are vaccinated are in danger from those who are unvaccinated. (“Keep your unvaccinated child away from my vaccinated child.”)

There is a concealed contradiction here. You can see it by merely defining (according to conventional terms) the meaning of “vaccinated.”

It means “immune,” “protected from contracting the disease targeted by the vaccine.”

But if the vaccinated person is protected and immune, then coming into contact with an unvaccinated person will bring no danger.

Therefore, the notion that vaccinated people are A) protected but not-A) in danger is absurd, a contradiction.

The easiest way to defeat logic is through deficient education. Never teach logic. Ignore it. Instead, teach specific values. Teach anything except logic. Don’t teach children how to spot contradictions.

A deficient education plus tons of ceaseless propaganda=mind control.

Logic is a significant problem for people who want a closed and unfree society. Teaching logic tends to produce sharp and independent minds.

Logic produces personal power.

Here is another example of non-logic: The ballot initiative passed last November by the voters of Maui County is illegal, because it set up a new law regarding commercial agriculture, when in fact commercial agriculture is regulated by state and federal laws, which trump county laws.

There are several ways of attacking this proposition, but the most basic way is:

The ballot initiative was not aimed at commercial agriculture. It called for a moratorium on all Monsanto/Dow experiments using non-commercial GMOs.

In what has become a federal court case, the judge and the lawyers for Dow/Monsanto are proceeding from a false basic premise.

Of course, the failure in this case is a willful ignoring of the facts. The argument is: A is B. No it isn’t. A is A.

There are a number of arguments afloat these days which proceed this way:

“The science concerning ABC is settled.”

“’Settled’ means ‘true.’”

“Therefore the science concerning ABC is true.”

However, on closer inspection, “settled” means “there is a consensus among officially favored scientists.”

Science doesn’t operate according to what officially favored scientists claim. It doesn’t operate according to consensus at all. It operates according to what is true and valid—and the best way to ascertain that is through the broadest possible analysis accomplished by a wide variety of independent researchers, who attempt to replicate prior experimental results.

Even then, there is always room for reasoned dissent.

There is much, much more I could write about logic. The issues I raise in this article are basic and should be addressed in every high school, in great detail, with many illustrations.

For instance: what are the full tacit implications of the statement found at the end of every television drug ad—“ask your doctor if X is right for you.”

For instance (at a more sophisticated level): when the press reports a new outbreak of disease, claiming it is caused by a particular virus…how was that assertion determined? On what grounds do scientists say they have found the virus that causes the disease?

I ran headlong into that one while writing my first book, AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century, and the further I investigated HIV as “the cause of AIDS,” the more I was stunned by the lack of logic present in the argument.

Logic is a sword.

Learning its many uses, while still young, creates formidable students and citizens.

Propaganda is the art of overwhelming logic.

It works, when the mind is unprepared.

Jon Rappoport

About the Author

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon 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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

  • Brian Fraser


    I experienced an intriguing “A but not A” conundrum many years ago. I was studying atomic physics. I began to realize that there was something seriously wrong with the nuclear model of the atom. I was getting the realization that the atom cannot have a nucleus. My field of study was chemical engineering, and this “heresy” really bothered me. Unable to resolve the problem, I concluded that the atom had to BOTH “have and nucleus AND NOT have a nucleus”. This was comfortable territory for me, as I had been there (“terra incognita”) before, and those kinds of problems always resolved satisfactorily.

    Finally, the realization hit me: what we are calling the “nucleus” is actually the atom itself. That is, the thing that accounts for all the properties of the atom and contains all, or most all, the mass of the atom, is simply the atom itself.

    That cleared up a lot of problems, but of course raised even more questions. You can read about it at:

    Eventually, I developed a more factual model of the atom while studying quantum mechanics. It is at:

  • Brian Fraser

    Propaganda at least has an “illogic” that can be identified. Coming at us now is a kind of “unthink” that is even worse. It is laid out well in this book:

    Messengers of Deception UFO Contacts and Cults, Jaques Vallee (2008) online at

    A few samples:

    “In my spare time, I pursued my UFO studies, trying to find some pattern in the global distribution of sightings. The most clear result was that the phenomenon behaved like a conditioning process. The logic of conditioning uses absurdity and confusion to achieve its goal while hiding its mechanism. There is a similar structure in the UFO stories.” (p. 7)

    “The followers of modern UFO cults are often persons who . . . have become disenchanted with science and technology. Scientific reluctance to consider valid claims of paranormal phenomena is slowly driving many people to accept any claim of superior or mystical contact. The voice of science has lied too often. A large fraction of the public has tuned it out completely.” (p. 13)

    “Where does this exploration lead? . . . They also suggest that our civilization may be headed for very serious trouble, with irrational forces tearing apart the old structures and replacing them by the blind institutions of inhuman beliefs.” (p. 61)

    This book has a lot of insightful things to say about the social consequences of the UFO phenomena.

  • Meter

    The human mind misses a great deal that thought is capable of. Logic is always based on knowledge, and knowledge on beliefs. So the whole steadfast, brick-and-mortar, down-to-earth science establishment, and the culture of ‘believers’ that worship its white lab coats, are just based on arbitrary beliefs – their worst nightmare. If science really operated “according to what is true and valid”, it would have no meaning or use at all – it would be infinite, because all possibilities are true and valid in some possible universe, and all universes exist. Science itself has already seen this light, but can’t admit that it spells its own annihilation, except as one arbitrary variation of perception.

    I can tell you I am sitting next to a blue table! If someone comes in and tells me I’m sitting next to a red chair instead, I will show them pictures of chairs versus tables, take measurements and model it in 3D, do analysis of the light being reflected off the table to show it conforms to the specification for the color ‘blue’, and do everything to perfectly and logically prove that I am sitting next to a blue table, by God! Yet the person will argue with me insanely, talking about alternate realties, and assuring me I am sitting next to a red chair! I can’t image what his problem could be – it’s so obvious.

    Then I wake up from my dream, look to my side, and realize the lunatic was right: I am indeed sitting next to a red chair, and had been the whole time. Meanwhile, he falls asleep and dreams that he was wrong afterall – clearly it’s a blue table.

    One little piece of knowledge I didn’t have, and wasn’t even aware was a thing to be had – the fact that I was dreaming – completely changed the nature of all my logic, knowledge, measurements, and conclusions, and rendered them null and void, mere playthings with no basis in ultimate reality afterall. (And it doesn’t have to be a dream – maybe I find out I was merely sitting next to a holographic projector, a contrivance, for example. The point is, I didn’t have that piece of knowledge that changed everything in my analysis.)

    What else aren’t we aware of, individually and collectively, that would completely change our interpretation of reality? Propaganda works because people want to believe it at some level, and they’ll always tend to listen to people who tell them what they want to hear. And their reality will always confirm their beliefs – it doesn’t care, it doesn’t have an agenda. In that sense, life is just a machine that creates our every choice. In the battle between childish fantasy and adult rationality, the inner children are the victors. They are our creators (in that the child dreams up the adult he becomes – pretends it into being, and one day awakens from that dream).

    Eventually, one does awaken from the dream (usually by questioning how this whole thing could possibly be real, only to finally and stunningly realize that it isn’t), and starts to brush aside all those strange phantoms that dreams produce. The sun rises and a new day begins – as a creator.

    How long will it be before we all get there? It all depends on when we’re done with our fear, which binds us to unreality; when we defy the illusion. This is a place arrived at with remembering and departed from with amnesia many times, not merely once, in the life of a soul.

    • Brian Fraser

      I had a similar experience with a 10 year-real world “journey through hell” with a religious cult. I had a strong science and engineering background, but like you, I was missing some information. After I started finding it, I began to awaken from the nightmare. You can read about it at:

  • HealthyEgo

    “Logic” is based upon the programming each of us operates or functions upon in our relationships with others and the world at large that are rooted in the subconscious mind – which is illogical at best. This internal conflict is inherent with the human condition. Thus, when we react irrationally, the programming of subconscious mind is the source of our reactions no matter how consciously (or logically) we may “think” otherwise.

    In the example of vaccination given here, logically parents may understand that there is no threat to their child from an encounter with an unvaccinated child, yet, their subconscious mind reacts out of fear – that somehow their child is in danger from the unvaccinated child (or they have other programming that truly believes their child is susceptible because they do not trust that vaccinations are any kind of guarantee, which is resonating with painful childhood experiences of trust in those of authority).

    And it is important to maintain some objectivity about the claims or “facts” of science because a) new (re)discoveries often upend what we previously thought to be true and b) always follow the money because nothing is immune from its influences and manipulations.

  • Dr Alan

    Well said Jon.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend