The operation called “manufactured consensus”

The operation called “manufactured consensus”



This operation has various stages. It can be applied to issues like vaccination, GMO food, climate change, fake epidemics, elections, war—and it can be applied widely across the general subject of reality itself.

It begins with some “authoritative” voice proclaiming an idea is a fact. Well, someone has to start the ball rolling.

Very quickly, according to plan, others pick up the ball and echo the original idea. This includes both “respected” individuals and groups. Media join in.

What follows is a scramble to gain public acceptance. All sorts of approaches are used in this stage of the process:

the claim that a consensus has already been reached (which is a lie);

attacks on dissidents and critics;

warnings that refusal to accept the central idea will have dire consequences “for all of us”;

cooked and slanted scientific studies;

general reminders that the idea being promoted represents the greatest good for the greatest number;

expressions of shock that there are “still people who refuse to accept the obvious”;

new laws and regulations hammered into existence;


subsequent legalized coercion;

arguments so illogical and bizarre that people accept them, thinking they themselves must be missing the point;

relegation of dissent to the margins of “wild conspiracy theory”;

the conjoining of dissent with negative images and feelings;

the marginalizing of dissent into legal cases that wind through seemingly endless corridors of a maze;

and, of course, endless repetition of the original idea.

After a suitable period has passed, most people can’t even recall a time when the original idea was seriously disputed.

And yet…none of these strategies would succeed, unless people felt a strong need for a centralized authority that defines reality.

To put it another way, people have a quite minimal tolerance for chaos, in which there are many conflicting views on a subject of key importance.

Years ago, I did interesting experiments with small groups re chaos.

In one part of the experiment, I had the people in the group spontaneously sing a note, all at once, any note. Ten people, ten different notes would emerge.

“Chaos.” Dissonance.

I asked them to listen to the overall musical effect and then voice a note they believed would add greater dissonance to the group sound.

Most of the time, if I let this go on long enough, the group would tend to retreat back into “harmony,” and end up all singing the same note.

It didn’t matter which note. Everyone wound up voicing the same pitch.

This was comfortable. This was acceptable. This was “unity.”

So it is with ideas. Most people prefer that “harmony and unity.” They seek it.

Somewhere in their minds, there is a learned program that asks for consensus, a program that prefers consent to difference.

Dissonance (disagreement) registers as a negative reality.

When I had done these group experiments on and off for a few years, I began my research on what came to be the collections, “The Matrix Revealed” and “Exit From The Matrix.”

I stressed the power of individual unfettered imagination, and offered many exercises to expand the scope and range of imagination.

The program in favor of uniform consent fades and disintegrates in the face of imagination.

What we call reality is a hodge-podge of engineered acceptance.

The basic kernel of reality is the programmed desire for unity, which is nothing like the kind of unity that can occur when individuals who live through and by imagination concur and cooperate.

An individual living a life through and by imagination invents new and unprecedented Reality.

Engineered consensus withers.


By Jon Rappoport