The essence of The Great Reset

0
54

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News:

Wikipedia: “John Dewey (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. He was one of the most prominent American scholars in the first half of the twentieth century…Dewey was one of the primary figures associated with the philosophy of pragmatism and is considered one of the fathers of functional psychology.”

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and other genders. I am Field Marshal Hermann Mao Octavio Pinochet Dulles, Chairman of the Joint Philosopher’s Committee of the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, and the CDC/WHO.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

You are distinguished financiers, professors, scholars, heads of government, attorneys, judges, journalists, doctors, social media CEOs, and pharmaceutical princes.

Tonight, I will be interviewing a hologram of the late John Dewey, the foremost educator of the 20th century, philosopher, and leader of the still-vital Pragmatist movement.

We will take up the thorny problem of free speech. And deeper still, the meaning of meaning.

This event is sponsored by Snacker Cracker Whacker, a weight-loss munch between meals for the quasi-active lifestyle.

And now, please turn on John Dewey.

Hello, Hermann. Thanks for having me.

Hello, John. Delighted to see you. Were you able to peruse the documents I had my secretary send you?

Suffice to say, Hermann, I believe I’m caught up on the blizzard of developments since my departure.

Good, John. We need you more than ever.

I can’t disagree, Herm. The Prime Directive is ORGANIZE. And that Directive is being violated from Nome to Tierra del Fuego.

Sad but true. Let’s jump right in. What about censorship, John? People are breaking out into opposing camps on the issue.

Blanket censorship, Herm, is a necessary pause, in order to allow us to study hesitancy.

What sort of hesitancy, John?

The reluctance to define and describe OCI.

What is OCI?

The Organization of Categories of Information.

Aha.

Indeed, Herm. Every piece of information that has ever been produced, and is being produced, must be collected, and placed into distinct categories—which are then evaluated on the pragmatic principle of instrumentality.

John, remind our audience what that principle is.

Of course. The meaning of any statement—aka piece of information—is nothing more than the practical use to which it can be put. That is what meaning IS. Period.

And therefore, we must ask, “Who is in charge of deciding ‘practical use’?”

Herm, many possible practical uses exist. Someone has to determine which use is paramount. For example, consider the statement, “Vaccines are life-saving.” The factual accuracy or inaccuracy of that statement is entirely beside the point. What matters is, who is deciding how to use that statement. Let us say it is the CDC. In that case, the statement, “Vaccines are life-saving,” means, “Everyone must get vaccinated.”

And, John, we WOULD want the CDC to be in charge of deciding PRACTICAL USE in this instance.

Yes. I can certainly see that you would. What I’m talking about here is a complete restructuring of language itself, of what language MEANS.

We’ll explore that in a moment, John. But first, what happens to the people who are claiming that “Vaccines are life-saving” is a gross lie?

They would be censored, of course. Because they’re trying to assert their power to decide the practical use of the statement about vaccines. Their practical use is: don’t get vaccinated.

I see. Censor them.

Otherwise, meaning itself collapses into a muddle of competing interests.

Right, John. Yes.

Restructuring language involves redefining the meaning of meaning. Anyone should be able to see that. The meaning of any given statement or piece of information is: the practical and pragmatic use to which it will be put. A statement has no other meaning.

Truth and falsity are outmoded concepts, John.

That’s correct. They’re a waste of time and effort.

John, your analysis strips things down nicely.

During my life, I had many enemies. They opposed instrumentality. They preferred their own slovenly models of meaning.

We’re in a position to correct that now, John.

I hope so.

If the State takes over language itself, John, we have a chance to revolutionize the process of thought.

Read More @ JonRappoport.com