The psyop to neuter The Rebel
Notes on the evolution of caricatures
by Jon Rappoport
If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.
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., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction;
out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes...
On a lesser, "commercialized" level, the new rebel can define
himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily
and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion
statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have
his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid
consumer of mainstream corporate products.
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.
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 imagined and presented as troubled, 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 creating 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
articulating 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 late 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 many of 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. At bottom, the idea
was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.
Now, in our collectivist society of 2016, The Group, as a
rapidly expanding victim class, is the government's number one project.
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: the establishment media are
doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and
making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons;
looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint
one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does
and says; they have co-opted the whole game.
These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you
believe, are "gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion."
Another attempt to shape a distorted unflattering portrait
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:
Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of
Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good
Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom...
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.
As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote
attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: "The universe is a war between
reality programmers."
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 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.
Albert Camus once wrote: "The welfare of the people in
particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the
further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.It
would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to
them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and
tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don't want!
But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are
lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing
in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for
their survival the sacrifice of freedom."
"THIS or THAT" is the history of Earth: 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.
"Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?"
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.
"Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want
all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and
determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually
program such qualities into humans? Wouldn't that be a fine thing? Then
people would just BE that way..."
The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.
Programming is someone else's idea of who and what you should be.
It is never your idea.
Your idea is where the power is.
No comments:
Post a Comment