Ayn Rand reconsidered

Ayn Rand reconsidered

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

“Why carry the burden of creating something and then having to stand for it and be proud of it? Why think and imagine and create your own way into the future of your most profound vision? Why bother? And why, therefore, allow others to do so for themselves and cause disordered, disharmonious ripples in the great silent lake of humanity? Pull them down. Make them equal. Make them empty.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I wrote the following article five years ago. Since then, I’ve had a chance to set down a few more remarks about Ayn Rand. Here they are:

The one glaring problem in her work is the overall effect of her hammering mercilessly on behalf of freedom and the individual—after 400 pages, her prose takes on a programmatic aspect. It grips the reader with iron. The moral imperative to be free replaces the exhilaration of being free.

On the other hand, she obviously wrote her two great novels in the middle of a feverish exaltation. Every page burned. Most characters went down in flames. A few rose into the sky. She knew she was up against the most powerful forces of society, and she was not going to compromise or relent one inch. She fully intended to destroy collectivism at its root. On the basis of that decision, she refused to suspend her attack, even for a moment.

Most people who brush up against her work can’t stop to consider the depth of her admiration for the independent and powerful and creative individual, or the nature of her aversion to the collectivist who can only borrow from such individuals—and then distort and undermine what they have misappropriated.

She means to be extreme. It is no accident. With no apologies, she splits the world down the middle. In her own way, she is an ultimate riverboat gambler. She shoves in all her chips on the self-appointed task of illuminating the great dichotomy of human history and modern life: the I versus the WE.

On a personal level, she possessed enormous ambition, and she wrote her two novels to achieve deserved recognition. Again, no apologies. She knew she and her work would be attacked by numerous critics who didn’t themselves own a tiny fragment of her talent. So be it.

To say she revealed “a thorny personality” in her relationships would constitute a vast understatement. In her later years, she no doubt contributed to bringing the house down on her head. But by then, her work was over. She stood behind it. She had achieved what she set out to create.

And every official cultural messenger of her time reviled her.

Here is my 2012 article:

“…nearly perfect in its immorality.” — Gore Vidal, reviewing Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

“…shot through with hatred.” — The Saturday Review, on Atlas Shrugged

“…can be called a novel only by devaluing the term.” — The National Review, on Atlas Shrugged

“[The] creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men.” — Howard Roark, The Fountainhead

When people perceive their society is being infiltrated and taken over by collectivism, how should they respond? What is their ultimate fuel in the battle for liberty?

What do they resurrect as the ideal that is being scorched by collectivism?

Yes the Constitution, yes the Bill of Rights, yes the Republic. But what were those documents and that form of government there for in the first place? What WAS the great ideal that lay behind them?

And if very few people can recall the ideal or understand it, what then?

The ideal was and is THE INDIVIDUAL.

But not just the individual.

The FREE INDIVIDUAL.

But not just the free individual.

The FREE AND POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL.

Which is why I’m writing about Ayn Rand.

To grasp her Promethean effort and accomplishment, you have to read her books at least several times, because your own reactions and responses will change. She was attempting to dig a whole civilization out from its smug certainty about the limits of freedom, from its compulsion to borrow and steal worn-out ideas.

I write this because the matrix of modern life has no solution without a frontal exposure of the meaning and reality and sensation and emotion and mind and imagination of INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Ayn Rand, in her unique way, climbed the mountain of power and told about the vista that was then in her sights. She exercised no caution. She knew the consequences would be extraordinary.

The characters she creates who embody power are electric. You experience them beyond mere fiddle-faddle with symbols.

Rand wrote two novels that still reverberate in the minds of millions of people: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

The books have inspired unalloyed adoration and hatred. They are received as a magnificent tonic or a dose of poison.

Readers who hate Rand’s work hate her for daring to present the power of an individual in full force.

Rand’s major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, are artists. Creators. They bow before no one and nothing. They invent. They decide. They imagine. They refuse to compromise. They leave the group and the committee and the bureaucracy and the collective behind them in the dust.

Society is ever more, over time, a mass concept. Society’s leaders, through illegal dictum, deception, and force, define a space in which all life is supposed to occur. That is the “safe zone.” Within it, a person may act with impunity. Outside that space, protection is removed. The protection racket no long applies.

Once a controller owns a space in which others live, he can alter it. He can make it smaller and smaller. He can flood it with caterwauling about “the greatest good for the greatest number,” the slogan of the mob. He can pretend to elevate the mob to the status of a legitimate “democratic majority” who are running things. He can con whole populations.

On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that individual power is a taboo because men like Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Attila, and Alexander once lived. That is the proof. We are supposed to believe individual power is always and everywhere the expression of dominance over others and nothing more.

If we only take into consideration “what is best for everybody,” we will see our way out of the morass. That’s what we’re told.

Civilizations are being made more puerile because it is children who are most vulnerable to the “greatest good for all” maxim. It is children who can be suckered into that ideal overnight. And those adults who buy the maxim do, in fact, revert back in the direction of being children.

At this late date, significant numbers of people are waking up to the fact that “greatest good” is being managed and manipulated by new Stalins and Hitlers, who care about humanity in the same way that a bulldozer cares about the side of a building.

Ayn Rand, after growing up in the USSR, knew something about the paradise of the common man. She saw it play out. She could eventually look back and see, with certainty, that writing her two novels in the Soviet Union would have cost her her life.

Rand refused to compromise her exaltation of individual power.

But she was acutely aware of the nature of compromisers. Such characters, brilliantly and mercilessly drawn, are there in her novels, in the full bloom of decay. Peter Keating, the pathetic and agonized hack; Guy Francon, Keating’s boss, a socially connected panderer and promoter of hacks; Jim Taggart, moral coward in extremis; Ellsworth Toohey, prime philosopher of the mob impulse; Robert Sadler, the scientist who sold his soul.

Around us today, we see growing numbers of these very types, peddling their phony idealism over and over. Among them, Barack Obama, promoting class warfare, dependence on government as the source of survival, generalized pretended hatred of the rich, and a phony empty “we are all together” sing-song collective mysticism.

Again, keep in mind that Rand’s two major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, were artists. This was no accident. This was the thrust of her main assault. The artist is always, by example, showing the lie of the collective. The artist begins with the assumption that consensus reality is not final. The artist is not satisfied to accommodate himself to What Already Exists.

The dark opposite of that was once told to me by a retired propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), who freelanced for several elite non-profit foundations:

“What do you think my colleagues and I were doing all those years? What was our purpose? To repudiate the singular in favor of the general. And what does that boil down to? Eradicating the concept of the individual human being. Replacing it with the mass. The mass doesn’t think. There is no such thing as mass thought. There is only mass impulse. And we could administer that. We could move it around like a piece on a board. You see, you don’t hypnotize a person into some deeper region of himself. You hypnotize him OUT of himself into a fiction called The Group…”

Rand was attacking a mass and a collective that had burrowed its way into every corner of life on the planet. If you were going to go to war against THAT, you needed to be fully armed. And she was.

Rand was also prepared to elucidate the physical, mental, and emotional DEPTH of her heroes’ commitment to their own choices, their own work, their own creations. She wasn’t merely dipping her toe in the water of that ocean.

Howard Roark, her protagonist of The Fountainhead, remarks:

“And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows…”

Parasites don’t want anyone to stand out from the group, the swamp. The presence of someone who is so separate from them could trigger alarm bells and confirm their deepest fear:

An individual with power and his own singular creative vision can exist.

Parasites want you to believe you’re just a drop of water in the great ocean, and once you attain “higher consciousness” you’ll give in and float in the sea, and you’ll offload that oh-so primitive concept of yourself as Self. You’ll be One with all the other undifferentiated drops of water.

In their ritual of joining, people are awarded a mantrum: “I’M NOT VERY MUCH.”

Just that little phrase can open the door into the collective.

In The Fountainhead, architect Peter Keating utilized a second assertion as well:

“I AM GREAT BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE THINK SO.”

Keating, the social grasper, finds acceptance from people of influence. They welcome him and reward him with architectural commissions because, well, they think they are supposed to; after all, his name has been bandied about by “those who should know Quality.”

It’s a world in which no standards apply except the opinions of people who carry weight.

And Peter is conventionally handsome, he’s the golden boy, he’s quick, he can design buildings that look like other buildings, he can work with others, he can look like he’s enjoying life, he’s good at parties, he’s congenial.

On what other basis should rewards be handed out? What else exists?

Unfortunately and fatally, Keating knows the real answer to that question, since he’s the boyhood friend of Howard Roark, the architect who does have a singular and astonishing vision, who stands beyond the crowd without trying.

Keating returns to Roark time after time; to insult Roark, to beg him for help, to be in the presence of a Force and breathe clean air.

Not determined enough to be himself, but still possessed of a shred of conscience, Keating is caught in the middle, between the man of vision and power (Roark) and new friends who offer him “the glittering world”—and the grips of this vise are unrelenting.

Adulation, money, success, fame, acceptance…Keating is given all these things, and still he destroys himself.

Here is why The Fountainhead provoked such rage from the self-styled elite: they’re committed to live on an insider’s rotting feast of mutual admiration and support, and in Keating they see themselves reflected with a clarity they’d assumed was impossible to construct. But there it is.

The very people who launched attack after attack at Rand, for “pawning off such preposterous characters as real,” were boiling inside, as they viewed themselves on the screen of her imagination: characters riddled with compromise, bloated with pretension, bereft of integrity.

Keating is eventually reduced to an abject yearning: would that his life had been lived differently, better—yet at the same time he maintains a dedication to hating that better life he might have had. He’s consumed by the contradiction. He sees his own career fall apart, while Roark’s ascends. The tables are turned. Keating has administered a poison to his own psyche, and the results are all too visibly repellent.

The Keatings of this world carry water for their masters, who in turn find bigger and better manipulators to serve. It’s a cacophony of madness, envy, and immolation posing as success.

The world does not want to watch itself through the eyes of Ayn Rand. It does not want to see the juggernaut of the drama playing out, because, as with Keating, it is too revealing. And yet Rand has been accused, over and over, of being an author of cartoon personae!

She elevates characters and destroys other characters. She picks and chooses according to her own standards and ideals. She never wavers. She passes judgment. She differentiates vividly between the forces and decisions that advance life and those that squash it.

Again and again, she comes back to the fulcrum: the featureless consensus versus unique individual creative power.

Creative power isn’t a shared or borrowed quality. One person doesn’t live in the shadow of another. The creator finds his own way, and if that weren’t the case, there would be no basis for life.

We are supposed to think existence by committee is a viable concept. This is a surpassing fairy tale that assumes the proportions of a cosmic joke.

For those whose minds are already weak, in disarray, unformed, the substitution of the collective for the individual is acceptable. It’s, in fact, rather interesting. It has the kick of novelty. And the strength of hypnotic trance.

The strategy is obliquely described in The Fountainhead by Ellsworth Toohey, a newspaper columnist and philosopher of the collective, a little man who is covertly and diabolically assembling a massive following:

“…if I sold them the idea that you [an ordinary playwright] are just as great as Ibsen—pretty soon they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference…then it wouldn’t matter what they went to see at all. Then nothing would matter—neither the writers nor those for whom they write.”

Reduction to absurdity. An overall grayness called equality.

If the public is told the owner of a business didn’t create that business, but instead the public sector, the collective did, and if this theme is pushed and emphasized by others, eventually the absurd notion will take hold. Then it won’t matter what is done to the independent individual, because he was never really there at all in the first place. He was just an invisible nonentity.

Contrast this treatment of the individual with the stand that Howard Roark takes during his climactic trial, at the end of The Fountainhead:

“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought.”

“We inherit the products of the thoughts of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make the cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane…The moving force is the creative faculty which takes product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator.”

“Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible.”

We are now in an age where EVERYTHING BELONGS TO EVERYBODY.

Obama is the latest in a line of demagogues who fully intend to reverse the course of history. That timeline shows us the heroic struggle to replace WE with I.

From the earliest days of our planet, since its habitation by humans, the tribe and the clan and the priest class and the monarchy, all claiming divine right, have enforced the WE. Finally, the I, which was always there, emerged fully enough to overthrow the criminals and murderers who were restraining the individual.

But now we are being pulled back into the primitive swamp of the past, through the systematic application of a pseudo-philosophy. The I is turning back into the WE.

To people who carry advanced technological devices around with them wherever they go, which give them the capability to communicate instantaneously with anyone on the planet, this prospect seems harmless or ridiculous or irrelevant or comfortable.

The “I turning back into WE” is happening because IDEAS are slipping away as useful and necessary instruments of survival.

New generations are being raised and schooled in a sulfurous atmosphere of slogans designed to dead-end, from a number of directions, in a foggy “share and care” terminal, where “everything for everybody” and other so-called humanitarian banners wave in the rafters above secular leaders, who speak like priests and assure us that, very soon, the world will be a better place because we, as individuals, are absolving ourselves of the need to think of ourselves as individuals.

O yes, thank God, we are melting down. We are becoming One with All. Why carry the burden of creating something and then having to stand for it and be proud of it? Why think and imagine and create your own way into the future of your best and most profound vision? Why bother? And why, therefore, allow others to do so and cause disordered, disharmonious ripples in the great silent lake of humanity? Pull them down. Make them equal. Make them empty.

Let us, as ancient Greek vandals once did, chop away our most sacred statues, the ones that represent the I, and then let us watch as WE is reinstalled at the entrance to every public building.

Within the WE, individuals can hide and escape and postpone and delay, and imbibe the drug of forgetfulness, and listen to the chimes of paradise.

Roark continues to mount his courtroom speech: “An architect uses steel, glass, and concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass, and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Roark: “Rulers of men…create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Roark: “When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander invented altruism.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Roark: “The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Ayn Rand could be viewed as a tragic figure, but she would deny it, even in her darkest hour, just as her character, Howard Roark, would deny it.

She not only knew where she stood, she fleshed out, to an extraordinary degree, that position, in two astonishing and unique novels. Bolts from the blue.

She and her books were hated and adored, as no other author and no other works of the 20th century.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: Energy & Imagination, Individual Freedom

The “dependent victim” psy-op

The “dependent victim” psy-op

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

“American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology…Too many of today’s young feminists seem to want hovering, paternalistic authority figures to protect and soothe them, an attitude I regard as servile, reactionary and glaringly bourgeois…” (Camille Paglia, the National Catholic Review, 2/25/15)

I could have titled this piece: “What government fears: the black entrepreneur.”

But the situation is much wider than that—-

ANY person who comes out of an “officially designated victim-group”…and then succeeds in life on his own…and then goes one step further and refuses to identify his entire existence with his group…but instead stands as a unique individual…why, that person, at the very least, must be a criminal, if not a terrorist, right?

That’s the crux of the issue: never leave your group.

That’s how society, civilization, and culture are promoted these days.

“Groups have needs, agendas, and problems, and the solution will come from government.” That’s the all-embracing formula.

The fake appearance is: victim groups are fighting for recognition and special status, and the government is pushing back—but that’s now a ruse. That’s a cover story. In fact, victim groups and government have the same goal: a relationship based on dependence. One side depends and the other side gives and protects.

The individual is out of the equation. He is portrayed as the greed-obsessed reason these victim groups exist and need help in the first place.

Banks, Wall Street, and mega-corporations are depicted as the end result of individualism, whereas the government is valiantly striving to solve this endemic problem.

In fact, government, banks, Wall Street, and mega-corporations are joined at the hip. They brush each other’s teeth first thing every morning.

Political correctness and the burgeoning movement to outlaw “offensive language” are merely tactics to: preserve groups’ separate identities; foment conflict between them; and ultimately foster their dependence on government authority.

The truth is, you can’t get free individuals to depend on government. Only “besieged groups” can be relied on for that purpose.

In the State’s eyes, a perfect society would be composed of groups who have entirely forgotten the concept of the individual, as if it never existed.

Peter Collero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s asserting an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s claiming there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over billions of people organized into groups.

Here are several remarks, meant to defame the individual, from people I would call high-IQ idiots (at best):

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the [individualist] creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

On the other hand, here is a quite insightful statement from a contemporary journalist.

Here’s what journalist Glenn Greenwald (who is gay) wrote about the symbolic nature of the American Presidency, before the election. Though not making reference to the group vs. the individual, Greenwald’s remarks illustrate the degree to which victim-symbology has taken hold in the US:

“…Hillary’s] going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person [as president] after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.”

Regardless of the fact that the State and its allies are real oppressors who contribute mightily to creating real victims, what I’m talking about here is something quite apart from that: growing numbers of people who voluntarily take on the victim-mantle and seek comfort in nests of self-promoting groups who exaggerate and distort their own claims to special status.

The State needs these people. The State wants these people. Increasingly, the State employs these people.

Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, wrote: “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

Bernays understood that the basis of successful propaganda is a mass audience, an audience composed of groups, not individuals.

Retired high-level propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me, “There are two aspects of propaganda. There is everything you do to get people to think of themselves as group members. And then there are all the messages you send to those conditioned group members. You need both aspects.”

When a group assigns itself solid “victim-status,” it creates one basic rule: a member must not leave the group. Why? Because if he does, he’s claiming he is no longer a victim—and that assertion is a betrayal.

Nice and neat. A prison.

“I’m a free individual.”

“You’re crazy. There is no such thing. Now get back in the group where you belong.”

Down at the root, betrayal begins as self-betrayal. The individual gives up the ghost. From that point on, his politics don’t matter. He forgets what he could have been. He defines himself by race and religion and country and rank ideology and group. He finds words and feeling through which he can express his role in a stage play that decays him from the inside out.

Eventually, if lunatics have their way, every person on planet Earth will be designated a victim. That will be the group of groups.

It won’t matter why and how everyone supposedly turns out to be a victim. The reasons will be forgotten. People will “instinctively” sign on to the agenda.

And the management team running the world will put another check mark on their sheet of objectives:

“Earth is beginning to resemble one giant hospital/mental institution. Break out the champagne.”

There is only one problem. That plan is fraying at the edges. People are waking up and swimming to the surface through layers of deception. They’re returning to themselves. They’re recognizing group-ism for what it is: a meltdown into self-sabotage.

The artifact is the collective. The self is real.

Power, choice, and freedom never go away.

They may hide, but they can be resurrected.

Then the whole fake game crumbles.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Open letter to EU boss Jean-Claude Juncker: yes, break up the US

Open letter to EU boss, Jean-Claude Juncker: yes, break up the US

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

The Express (March 30): “European Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker this afternoon issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit.”

“In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU.”

Dear Jean-Claude,

You unfathomable twit, we love you! Come to America soon and help a few of our states secede from the US.

Our country is far too big. The federal government is a titanic engorged bureaucracy. The idea of a limited Republic is dead. The people are too distant from their ruling government—exactly the situation in which the people of Europe find themselves, with their unelected swollen overseers—of which you are the present leader.

You and your cronies and minions make the laws, and there is no recourse.

You’re a useless barnacle on the European continent. So come here and help Texas and Ohio secede. It’ll be a party. You might learn something. Then you can go back home and watch Italy and Spain and France withdraw from your massive supra-control apparatus.

I would suggest you begin with California. The state government presently has $440 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities stretching into the future. Perhaps you could help California cancel the unsolvable problem. “We’re free! We don’t owe anybody anything! It was all an illusion.”

Perhaps you could convince the new nation of California to take in 30 or 40 million more immigrants. “New citizens are good for the economy.” You know, use the same tactics you’re using in Europe. Prosecute anyone who speaks out against immigration. People need repressive fascism. It’s good for them.

I suggest New York City and Chicago should become countries. Why not? They’re big enough. Let them rise and fall on their own. That would be a sight to see. Chicago is the major trafficking hub for Sinaloa Cartel drugs. Chicago could come right out in the open and announce itself as Heroin Cocaine Central. “These are our products! This is what we sell! This is how we thrive!” New York is the world center for News. “Buy our fake stories! They’re limitless!”

Here’s another strategy you could promote. Link all 300 US sanctuary cities and colleges together as one nation. “We want to be the home for EVERYBODY from EVERYWHERE.” I think some kind of theocracy would work for this emerging nation. A Pope who favors infinite kindness. Citizens would be income-taxed at a rate of 80% to fund the grand altruistic program. Hollywood celebs would be appointed cardinals and bishops.

But here is a dire prediction. Somewhere along the line, as you carry out your plan for secessions, a state is going to pop up with a truly dangerous idea: SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

O the horror. That state is going to turn down all outside funding. It’s going to institute a robust free market, in which anyone can sell any non-harmful product or service, absent red tape. For example—a hundred different forms of natural-health treatments. On the other hand, a company that pollutes the landscape with poisonous chemicals and doesn’t immediately fix the problem will see its executives sent to prison for long terms. The people of this state will do their best to produce what they need from inside their own borders. Speaking of which, the state will do its best to keep out people who refuse to subscribe to hard work, earning their own way, and free speech. No political correctness. No triggering. No safe spaces. No need for them.

This could be your Waterloo, Jean-Claude. Suddenly, that state (a new nation) would be setting a shining example for other emerging nations to follow.

People would wake up to the life they’ve always wanted.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to watch you try to put the genie back in the bottle? You, the great defender of top-down arbitrary rule by Globalists. You, the entitled buffoon, who wants One Europe. You, the arrogant parasite on your throne.

Come to the US, Jean-Claude. We need many new Republics springing up across the land. Help us.

Liberate the buried spirit of America.

Perhaps you’ll feel your blood moving through your calcified veins again.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: Globalist

Grand deception in virus and disease research

Grand deception in virus and disease research

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

Public health officials usually fail to announce their reasons for claiming a particular virus causes a particular disease; they make those claims in an arbitrary authoritarian fashion.

In this article, I’m going to describe two vital steps in the process of proving a virus causes a disease. There are more steps, but these two will highlight a gaping problem.

I’m putting the information in a Q&A format:

Q: Let’s say researchers are claiming there is a new outbreak of a disease, or there is a disease they’ve never seen before. What’s their first step?

A: Most of the time, they assume a virus is the cause, rather than, say, a pesticide or a medical drug. They jump in and start looking for a virus.

Q: And when they find a virus?

A: Assuming they really do find one, they then look for correlation.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let’s say they claim they’ve discovered 600 cases of the disease. They try to find the same virus in all those people. Because, if you say a virus causes a particular disease, you have to show that virus is present in all known cases of the disease—or an overwhelming percentage of cases, at the very least.

Q: That would be proof…

A: That would be one step of proof.

Q: Suppose, in these 600 cases, they can find the same virus in a hundred cases. Isn’t that pretty significant?

A: No. It isn’t. It means you couldn’t find the virus in 500 cases. And if that’s true, there is no reason to assume you have the right virus. In fact, it’s very strong evidence you don’t have the virus that’s causing the disease. It’s a compelling reason to go back to the drawing board. You say, “Well, we were wrong about that virus, let’s look for a different one.”

Q: All right. What if you do find the virus in 583 cases out of 600? Then what do you do?

A: You have to understand that the mere PRESENCE of the virus in all those cases ISN’T PROOF it’s causing disease. Lots of people walk around with the same virus in their bodies, but that virus isn’t causing them to get sick. You have to go further.

Q: Meaning?

A: Well, the next step would be finding that the 583 cases have a whole lot of the same virus in their bodies. A great quantity of virus. Not merely a trace. Not merely a little bit.

Q: Why?

A: Because cells in the body are reproducing all the time. If the amount of virus in the body is only infecting a tiny fraction of a particular type of cell, the virus isn’t going to cause a problem. The body is going to produce gigantic numbers of fresh uninfected cells every day.

Q: Do researcher carry out this kind of investigation? Do they assess how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are many situations where they don’t. For example, with the Zika virus, I see no evidence researchers examined many, many cases to see how much Zika was present.

Q: Why didn’t they?

A: You’d have to ask them. Perhaps they started to do that, and found there was only a tiny bit of Zika in the babies they examined, and they didn’t want to publicize the fact. They just wanted to assume Zika was the causes of babies being born with small heads and brain damage. But assuming isn’t proving.

Q: You’re talking about a major gap in research.

A: Yes.

Q: What method is used to decide how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are several methods. For example, the PCR test.

Q: What’s that?

A: With the PCR, you take a tiny, tiny sample of tissue from a patient. It’s so small you can’t observe it directly. You assume, you hope, you think this sample is a fragment of a virus. Now you amplify that fragment many times, until you can observe it, until you can (hopefully) identify it as the virus you claim is causing the disease…

Q: But that test wouldn’t tell you HOW MUCH virus is in the person’s body.

A: Many researchers believe the PCR allows you to infer how much virus is in a person’s body. I see no convincing evidence they can make such an inference. But also—you have to ask yourself, why did they do the PCR test in the first place? And the answer is: they couldn’t find, by more direct methods, any virus! If they had been able to, they wouldn’t have done the PCR. In other words, there was no reason to believe the patient had enough virus in his body to make him sick.

Q: Again, it seems there is a gaping hole in the research.

A: Indeed. But that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve found the virus that is causing a disease. I would cite two examples. In 2009, the CDC was embarrassed to learn that the overwhelming percentage of tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with NO TRACE of Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. And in 2003, in Canada, more and more SARS patients were showing NO TRACE of the SARS virus.

Q: They would be enormous scandals.

A: They should have been enormous scandals, but the news was suppressed and buried.

Q: These people who were labeled with SARS and Swine Flu—what was really making these people sick?

A: There could have been a variety of causes. Don’t assume all so-called SARS or Swine Flu patients were sick for the same reason. The symptoms of these two illnesses were vague enough and general enough to have stemmed from a variety of causes. Since that’s the case, there was no reason to use the SARS and Swine Flu labels in the first place.

Q: The labels were a deception.

A: Yes. The labels group people together when there is no compelling reason to do so. But when you DO group people together with a disease label, you can sell drugs and vaccines designed to “treat the label.”


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: CDC, Ebola, Medical Fraud, MERS, Science Fraud, Swine Flu, Vaccine Fraud, Vaccinegate, West Nile, WHO, zika

Hacking elections: Trump vs. Bill Clinton: not even close

Hacking elections: Trump vs. Bill Clinton: not even close

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2017

On the one hand, we have unverified claims that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee and passed them to WikiLeaks, who released them.

Supposedly, the contents of the emails were so embarrassing, they helped sink Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

We also have unverified claims that thousands of websites and blogs somehow operated under Russian influence, during the campaign, on behalf of Trump and against Hillary.

But imagine what major media would have done to Trump, if the following events occurred:

IMAGINARY EVENT ONE: The Russian government contributed money to Trump’s campaign.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: In a new article, former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson writes: “If you’ve watched politics a little while, you may remember the scandal broken by The Washington Post in 1996. The Post reported evidence of China directing contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the presidential contest between Bill Clinton and Republican Bob Dole—a violation of US law.”

If Trump was embroiled now in what Clinton was embroiled in then, the press would go over-the-top insane now.

IMAGINARY EVENT TWO: A foreign-born Trump fundraiser is actually convicted of illegally raising campaign money.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Sharyl Attkisson writes: “Taiwan-born Maria Hsia, a fundraiser for Clinton Vice President Al Gore [in 1996], was convicted of illegal campaign fundraising.”

Substitute a Trump campaign worker for Maria Hsia, and the press would go over-the-top insane now.

IMAGINARY EVENT THREE: A Russian-born Trump supporter is convicted of trying to give major money to Trump.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Attkisson writes: “Eventually, Taiwan-born Charlie Trie was convicted of improperly attempting to give large donations to the Clinton’s legal defense fund.”

IMAGINARY EVENT FOUR: A Russian national is convicted of violating election law after he gives large donations to Trump.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Attkisson writes: “Taiwan-born Johnny Chung was convicted of violating election law after making large donations to the DNC (which were later returned).”

IMAGINARY EVENT FIVE: A Russian fundraiser for Trump, who actually works at the US Dept. of Commerce, is convicted of campaign finance fraud.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Attkisson writes: “Chinese-born John Huang—a DNC fundraiser and Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration—was convicted of campaign finance fraud.”

If the press treated Bill Clinton then the way they’re treating Trump now, given the actual crimes committed on behalf of Clinton by Taiwanese and Chinese nationals, reporters and editors and their allies would have called for Clinton to be encased in a tube and shot off in a rocket to Mars, never to return.

But Clinton served out his term in office. There was no widespread scandal. The impeachment proceeding involved him lying about sex with Monica Lewinsky, not criminal campaign activity. In Democratic circles, and even in the press, many people still revere Clinton as a major statesman and philanthropist.

But don’t worry.

The press isn’t biased.

They have no covert agenda.

Of course not.

All is well.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: Clintons, Press Fraud, Trump

What is Globalism and where is it going?

What is Globalism and where is it going?

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2017

“Above all, the Globalist elite considers the human being is nothing more than a biological machine—a machine that is badly programmed, desperately in need of a complete overhaul and restructuring at the level of mind.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Over the years, I have written much about Globalism. During the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump spoke of it often, and in derogatory terms. He brought back, for the public, the concept, which had receded from press coverage. You could say he let the cat out of the bag.

So here I thought I would publish, in a series, some of the important material I’ve written on the subject. People need to be aware of the elite movement called Globalism and its aims and strategies.

ONE: “Over the weekend, thousands of protesters across multiple countries condemned impending [Globalist] trade deals promoted by governments and their corporate partners. Though the protests received little coverage from mainstream media, they stretched from Paris to Warsaw.” (Carey Wedler, Blacklisted News, 10/19/16)

Now that the election is over, it’s important to review a few facts about Globalism. It was a centerpiece of controversy during the run-up to the vote.

Globalism isn’t just an abstract word or idea. It gives survival to some, and tries to take it away from others. It lights on populations like a storm of locusts. It undermines jobs and work. It steals. It is designed to make chaos.

Globalism is based on the elite conviction that “the best people” should rule over everyone else for the greater good. “We’re not trying to do harm. We’re spreading the wealth.”

We can find the seeds of Globalism in Plato and his ancient dialogue called The Republic. Plato made his final philosophic stand on that work. Step by step, he establishes that The Good, which is highest concept in the universe, which exists in a realm of “pure ideas” apart from the daily round of existence, must be accessed and understood, if society is to meet up with its best destiny.

But, naturally, not all people are able to fathom The Good or translate it into action here in this human realm. Only the few can grasp it—and they must rise to the top and rule.

So, in the end, there is a fascist paradise. It rebuffs all attempts at dilution.

This is how Plato, the humane philosopher, the champion of the individual and freedom and independent thought, painted himself into a terrible corner. But never mind. Down through the centuries, “the wisest of men” have taken their cue from him and built nations and civilizations based on their (self-serving) version of The Good.

And in the process, they have used propagandists to convince populations that rule from above is only carried out as altruistic service…

When a system has been devised, planned, launched, and maintained by criminals to undermine a nation, they are naturally going to defend it by saying: “It’s good for everyone AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HUMAN AFFAIRS. BESIDES, WE CAN’T STOP IT NOW. THAT WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CHAOS.”

In exactly the same way, a massive prison housing nothing but innocent people would superficially look like “chaos,” if the airtight security system were turned off.

The truth about the Globalist prison is simple. The underlying operation takes jobs away from America, in this instance, and sends them to Third World hell holes, where the same products are manufactured by the same companies, for pennies, using slave workers who labor in toxic environmental conditions that destroy their health.

Isn’t that easy to understand?

The American companies in those hell holes then sell the products back to Americans without paying taxes, tariffs, or penalties of any kind. The defenders of Globalism claim selling back the products cheaply is good for the American consumer. This is a lie, because many of those consumers no longer have jobs. Or they work at much lower wages than they used to, because the companies they worked for left America and went to the hell holes.

All in all, this arrangement is obviously designed to torpedo the national economy. It’s not an accident. It’s not an unintended consequence. The Globalists may be criminals, but they aren’t stupid criminals.

But what about the US companies who left America and set up shop overseas? Can’t they read the handwriting on the wall? Can’t they realize their base of consumers in the US is shrinking?

The companies are, in fact, stupid. They’re betting on short-term success vs. long-term collapse, and they’re going to lose. They plunge ahead with their eyes closed—because they can’t bring themselves to believe that the system they’re part of could have been fashioned with ultimate failure in mind.

The anti-Globalism movement is MUCH bigger than Trump, so no matter what you think of him, whether you believe in his honesty or not, the ideas he is bringing forward are having an immense impact on the populace—because the populace has figured out the Globalist game. They see and feel the destruction. They see and feel what is happening to jobs. Their jobs. They see the brutal reality, and they want no part of it.

They want America to endure. They want America to prosper. They want a free market. They don’t want their country reduced to Third World status.

All the politically correct humanitarian lingo in the universe is not going to change these basic realities. Globalism—the export of jobs, the rapid expansion of the Welfare State, the launching of senseless wars to pave the way for corporate plunder, the immigrant-flood through open borders—is a nation killer. It’s built to be a killer.

Decimating nations is an intentional precursor to ruling the planet from above by the Globalists-in-charge. “What we destroy we will resurrect on our own terms.”

No nation on Earth has a pure and clean history. But no nation deserves to be leveled and destroyed. The founding ideas of the original American Republic were and are the best ideas about government ever forwarded in human history. They imply:

Severely limited federal power. Free individuals. Independent individuals. Individuals who choose their own dreams and destinies. Individuals who work to achieve those dreams.

The so-called liberal press, and the academic institutions of America, have sold out completely. They are on board with what they can see of the Globalist agenda. The press will never challenge that agenda. They are grotesque cowards of the first order.

I have met some of them during my 30-plus years of working as a reporter. Behind their perfumed fronts, they give off a stench.

I created this website 15 years ago, in part, to expose Globalism in its various aspects, as a deep sickness of elites; Globalism must be cut off and shut down.

America is America. For the most part, its people are decent. Their leaders have betrayed them time and time again, without a second thought, without a shred of remorse.

The so-called populist movement which is growing by leaps and bounds, which got its legs under it with Ron Paul, must not come to a halt, no matter who sits in the White House, not matter what he does.

The future is now.

TWO: Globalist corporations are blind in the face of doom.

People don’t fully appreciate the capacity of mega-corporations. The 300 largest companies account for roughly 25% of all international trade.

And, even more startling, these behemoths are operating their production lines at half-strength. Why? Because only 1.5 billion people in the world have enough money to rate as true consumers.

So these corporations, which are the leading lights of the Globalist agenda, are looking and hoping for many more customers.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller Globalists are hyping the pseudoscience of manmade warming, in order to convince nations to cut their energy production. That plan, of course, would further erode the ability of mega-corporations to find new consumers. Indeed, Globalists are all for wrecking economies and deepening poverty—aims which infect the lifeblood of corporations.

We are looking at a huge crack—a contradiction—in the very foundation of the Globalism.

And if you want to take this farther, the notion of radical depopulation across the planet would do even graver harm to corporate dreams and ambitions. Far fewer consumers.

There are wild and woolly solutions. For example, provide a basic income to every human on Earth; or make governments the sole payer to corporations for their products, which are then dispensed to the population in a mad universal welfare scheme. In either case, you would have a new currency system. Governments would openly and blandly create money out of thin air, as needed, to fund these harebrained schemes. Governments already invent money, but this would be occurring on a far larger scale, and without any pretense of legitimacy.

Given the propensity of governments to run their programs according to dizzyingly incompetent guidelines, I see no way the mega-corporations would welcome these “innovations.”

In short, the corporations are buying a pie-in-the-sky con. They insist on believing the favors and concocted advantages the Globalists are offering them in the marketplace are wonderful; but in fact, the long-term situation is a no-win. It’s a narrowing road, and a crack-up is coming.

Globalists are shrinking the worldwide consumer base. They want a chaos-ridden dystopia, which they will control with an iron hand.

In that scenario, the mega-corporations will also shrink to shadows of their former selves. Their usefulness will rapidly decay.

Memo to CEOs: why don’t you try waking up?

Your whole elite movement is a walking contradiction, and you’re on the downside.

Why don’t these CEOs awaken? Because their short-term greed exceeds their long-term vision. For them, it’s an easier way to live. Take the money and run.

THREE: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2003

The man who wrote those words represents a family that has dominated banking, oil, modern medicine, behind-the-scenes politics, and powerhouses of Globalism (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations) for a century.

Globalism asserts that no nation can be independent from “the family” of other nations, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute. A nation claiming its sovereignty thus becomes a lunatic traitor to the natural order of things.

What really binds nations to one another is propaganda, and treaties which are based on the same propaganda, resulting in (temporary) engorged super-profits for mega-corporations.

Globalism is a secular piece of messianic hype. A Disneyesque altruism is the prow of the ship. Spend 10 minutes educating any street hustler on Globalist principles, and he would recognize it as a standard con.

Obama’s warning to the Brits, that their withdrawing from the Globalist European Union would put them at the back of the line in negotiating a separate trade treaty with the United States, was sheer fiction.

Britain, or any nation, that has goods to sell and a desire to buy will find trade partners. An agreement could be scratched out on a napkin over dinner.

Impending trade deals like the TPP and TTIP are thousands of pages and take so long to negotiate, because the heavy hitters at the table are looking for new ingenious ways to cut and paste the world into larger profits for themselves.

Globalism, hiding behind thousands of academic analyses, picks up jobs from one nation, where wages are reasonable and working conditions are tolerable, and dumps them in hell holes where wages are nearly invisible and conditions are poisonous. It’s that simple, and any moron could see how the industrial nations like the US would suffer…if by nations we meant people.

Instead of criminal corporations and criminal investors.

But all this is layered over with “share and care” sop.

The United States government could repeal the NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT trade treaties tomorrow, and throw current TPP and TTIP negotiating documents out the window…and all would be well. Better.

Much better.

For instance, without NAFTA, US producers wouldn’t have been able to flood Mexico with cheap corn, throwing 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers into bankruptcy, leading many of them to cross the border and come to the US to find work.

No US President since Nixon has disturbed the march of Globalist “free trade.” All Presidents since then have been on board with the Rockefeller plan. And the US economy—which is to say, jobs—has thus faltered. The 2008 financial crash was only one factor in the decline. The promise of cheap imports for sale in the US—the justification for free trade—doesn’t work when people here have no jobs and no purchasing power.

Major media, fronting for free-trade, have panicked over Donald Trump’s claim that he’ll reject Globalism. They would have panicked over Bernie Sander’s similar promise, if they thought he had any chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The media have their orders from on high—the deck is stacked, the cards were dealt long ago.

Hillary Clinton’s pathetic promises about creating jobs reveal nothing of substance. Small tax breaks for small businesses that “share profits with employees,” the “removal of government red tape,” “funding breakthroughs in scientific and medical research,” “expanding job training opportunities”—the truth is, her basic method for stimulating the economy has always been: find a war, any war, and fight it.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


FOUR: From GlobalisationGuide.org: “What does globalization mean to Australia?”

“Australian corporations participate in the oppression of workers and peasants in poor countries in Asia. Australian mining and forestry companies are involved in extracting wealth from countries such as Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya and Indonesia, sometimes relying on military support to suppress local opposition.”

“The Australian support for trade liberalisation, particularly in agriculture, has been used to open up markets in poor countries where Australia’s commodity exports put local subsistence farmers out of work.”

“Australia has opened its own markets to goods made in countries that allow child labour, or forbid the formation of free trade unions.”

“The Australian government has opposed efforts to include environmental and labour protection clauses in World Trade Organisation agreements.”

“Australia should support reform of the WTO to make it more equitable for poor nations of the world.”

“Australia places few restrictions on the operations of transnational organisations, which take wealth from…[our] country, and are not managed in the interests of Australia.”

FIVE: This is a bombshell. It’s a crucial piece of history that has been ignored by mass media.

I’ve published this interview before. Here I want to make new comments.

First of all, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was born in 1973, in part because the Globalist plan to ensure “free trade” (no tariffs paid by predatory mega-corporations) had run into a glitch.

That glitch was President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a substantial crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.

After Nixon’s ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and free trade were back on track.

But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they’d created from scratch.

That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.

Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.

Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter’s presidency. An interview took place.

It’s a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a Globalist committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We have lost. And I will quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the Globalist co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations. Hello, global government.

Any doubt on the question of Trialteral goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.

Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example: Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re operatives with a specific agenda.

Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):

“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:

“Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits.”

Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.

Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump’s avowed anti-Globalist stance?

Or will Juster work as one more Globalist Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?

If the answer is “operative,” does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do?

Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf of the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission?

SIX: Globalized media. It’s nice plan. Let’s examine it.

The new technocratic media is based on profiling users. There is no impactful news unless each member of the audience is surveilled and analyzed on the basis of what he already likes and wants.

Shocking? It’s to be expected. How else would technocrats parlay the untold hours they’ve spent sizing up their consumers/users?

Several years ago, I wrote: “Tech blather has already begun, since Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post at a fire sale. Jeff Genius will invent new ways to transmit the news to ‘people on the go’ and make the Post a smashing success. Mobile devices. Multiple platforms. Digital taking over from print. Ads customized to fit readers’ interests (profiling). News stories customized to fit readers’ interests (more profiling).”

In other words, non-news. If you thought media were irrelevant and deceptive before, you haven’t seen anything. The “new news” will create millions of virtual bubbles in which profiled users can float contentedly, under the cozy cottage roofs of their favorite little separate paradigms.

The tech giant Apple has waded into this territory with an app that will deliver news to users. Yahoo: “Apple News, part of the upcoming iOS 9 operating system, aims to be the primary news source for users of the iPhone and iPad… Apple says its news app ‘follows over a million topics and pulls relevant stories based on your specific interests’… Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab said the app will be important because ‘through the awesome power of default, Apple distribution puts it in an entirely other league. This [news] app will be on hundreds of millions of devices within 24 hours of its debut’.”

Translation: Profiling their users down to their toenails, Apple will present them with virtual bubbles of news they want to see and read.

Not just one overall presentation for all; no, different “news outlets” for Apple’s audiences.

This introduces a whole new layer of mind control.

“You’re an Obama fan? Here are stories confirming your belief in the Prophet.”

“You want neo-con on the rocks with a conservative Republican twist? Here’s some war footage that’ll warm your heart.”

“Do you believe ‘government gridlock’ is our biggest concern? Congress can’t get anything done? We’ve got headlines for that from here to the moon.”

“Tuned into celeb gossip? Here’s your world in three minutes.”

The idea: convince users, one day at a time, that what they already believe is important IS the news of the day.

It’s Decentralized Centralization. One media giant carving its global audience up into little pieces and delivering them a whole host of different algorithmically appropriate lies and fluff and no-context psyops.

And for “fringe users?” “You’re doubtful about GMOs? Well, look at what Whole Foods is planning for their healthier produce section. Cheer up.” Nothing about Maui voters declaring a temporary ban on devastatingly toxic Monsanto/Dow experiments or the dangers of Roundup. “You’re anti-vaccine? Sorry, you don’t count. You’re not a recognized demographic. But here’s a piece about a little unvaccinated boy who was involved in car crash on the I5.”

Does this sound like science fiction? It isn’t. It’s the mainstream look of the near-future. Search engines are already “personalizing” your inquiries. US ABC national news is climbing in the ratings because it’s giving viewers “lighter stories,” and spending less time on thorny issues like the Middle East.

The mainstream news business is desperately looking for audience; and treating every “user” as a profiled social-construct-bundle of superficial preferences is their answer.

“Mr. X, we’ve studied the little virtual bubble you live in, and now we can sell you your own special brand of truth.”

“Hello, audience. We’re going to pitch you on becoming full-fledged obsessed consumers, as if there is no other worthy goal in life—and then we’re going to profile you from top to bottom, to find out exactly what kind of obsessed consumer you are, so we can hit you and trigger you with information that uniquely stimulates your adrenal glands…”

The one-two punch.

Any actual event occurring in the world will be pre-digested by robot media editors and profilers, and then split up into variously programmed bits of information for different audiences.

Who cares what really happened? In the new world, there is no ‘what really happened’. That’s a gross misnomer. A faulty idea. A metaphysical error. No, there is only a multi-forked media tongue that simultaneously spits out a dozen or a hundred variations of the same event…because different viewers want and expect different realities.

In 1984, Orwell’s Big Brother was issuing a single voice into the homes of the population. That was old-school. That was primitive technology. That was achieving unity by hammering unity into people’s skulls. This, now, is the frontier of unity through diversity.

“We want to make all of you into androids, through basic PR and propaganda and a pathetic excuse for education. However, we recognize you’ll become different varieties of androids, and we’ll serve that outcome with technological sophistication. Trust us. We care about what you prefer.”

User A: “Wow, did you see the coverage of the border war in Chula Vista?”

User B: “War? They had a fantastic exhibit of drones down there. At least a hundred different types. And then I watched an old WW2 movie about aerial combat.”

User C: “Chula Vista? They had a great food show. This woman made a lemon pie. I could practically taste it.”

User D: “That wasn’t a border war. It was a drill. And then afterwards, these cops gave a demonstration of all their gear. Vests, shields, communication devices, flash-bangs, auto rifles with silencers, batons. I watch drills all over the country. Love them.”

User E: “Chula Vista? The only thing I saw on the news was ‘sunny and mild’ this week. I watch all the weather channels. I love them.”

BUT when a Big One comes along, like the 2016 national election in the US, the separate tunes come together and ring as one. Then the overriding need to extend Globalism’s goals (in the person of Hillary Clinton) blot out every other priority. Then the major media twist whatever they need to twist. Then it’s the same bubble for everyone.

One problem, though. Major media have been lanced thousands of times by alt news sites, and by Wikileaks and Project Veritas. This attack has exposed the truth and the Clinton crimes.

And alt news reflects the growing interest of the public in what’s actually happening on many fronts.

The technocratic plan for the news is failing.

It was a nice plan, but…

It’s turning out to be a dud.

Alt media are forcing public awareness of one giant scandal after another: Hillary/Obama support for ISIS; pro-vaccine liars; the collapse of Obamacare; the GMO hustle; pesticide damage…on and on and on.

The result? Major media are being backed into a corner, where they must defend lies and build the same monolithic lies for EVERYONE all the time. The idea of creating separate news for each profiled user is ALREADY collapsing.

Major media are playing defense against the rest of the world.

It’s quite a party.

And it has no expiration date.

A final note: Trump, Wikileaks, Project Veritas, Drudge, and many alt news sites created a perfect storm in 2016, raining down on major media. It was and is unprecedented. The mainstream press has been exposed down to its roots, as never before. The lying, the collusion, the arrogant sense of entitlement, the desperation, the corruption—it’s all there to see, for anyone who has eyes and a few working brain cells. Expect more to come, regardless of the outcome of the election. The train has really left the station…


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


SEVEN: Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Globalist Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

EIGHT: Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama. They had new trade treaties on the planning table. Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home. To get them passed. To get them ratified. No excuses.

That’s why, over a year ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric were reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track authority for the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic. He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress. This was the Big One. This was why he was the President. To make this happen.

His Trilateral bosses were watching.

These men run US policy, when and where it counts. They don’t like failure.

This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America. He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.

Obama never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008. That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office. He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards. But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda. Not in the cards.

It was counter-productive to the TC plan: torpedo the economy further.

Obama is on the move. He’s traveling to far-flung places, trying to shore up global consensus on the TPP treaty. His people are working around the clock to round up the necessary votes for TPP ratification in Congress. Obama plans to sneak through the treaty during Congress’ lame-duck session after the November election, before newly elected Congressional members take office.

Pushing through Globalist trade treaties: this is why he was put in the White House.

This is his appointed task.

This is his real job.

His bosses are watching.

“I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”

[Update: the TPP was dead on arrival, after Trump was elected.]

NINE: “Technocratic human beings are spiritually dead. They are capable of anything, no matter how heinous, because they do not reflect upon or question the ultimate goal.” —Chris Hedges

“River and ocean turbines for electricity; hydrogen power; urban farms; massive water desalination—these are just a few of the means for making an abundant non-technocratic future. By any rational standard, technocratic idiocy is already obsolete.” —The Underground, Jon Rappoport

—Again, thanks to Patrick Wood and his book, Technocracy Rising, for expanding my insight into these areas.

Consider the term “scientific humanism.” The Oxford Dictionary offers this definition: “A form of humanist theory and practice that is based on the principles and methods of science; specifically the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner…Origin mid-19th century.”

That definition gives you a good general meaning for “technocracy.”

Understanding the mindset of Globalist technocrats is necessary; they believe that since they can plan the shape of society, they should plan the shape of society.

Politicians are outmoded along this new evolutionary path. They will fade into extinction. Instead, engineers will take their place.

Human beings (all eight billion) will be accounted for. They will receive energy quotas. Because a master map exists for the amount of global energy available at any moment, every human will be permitted to consume just so much energy during a defined time period.

This is the technocratic “big picture.”

Wherever you see the Surveillance State, you see technocracy. The claim that surveillance is being utilized to prevent terror attacks is a cover story. In fact, there can be no all-embracing technocracy without real-time tracking of every citizen’s energy consumption.

But technocracy goes much farther than this. Humans are viewed as mis-programmed biological machines in need of basic corrections. Their tendency to engage in conflict needs to be curbed. Whatever they do, say, or think that runs counter to the tight organizing of “peaceful and harmonious” society from above is, a priori, irrational and must be eradicated at the level of Mind.

The necessary reprogramming would be achieved through genetic, electronic, and chemical means. Though never admitting it publicly, dyed in the wool technocrats see no reason to maintain the human population at its current level. Elimination of large numbers of “biological machines” would make their job easier.

Heraldic fairy tales about “transhuman” transformation are used to put a wondrous face on technocracy. For example, we’re told that soon it will be possible to connect a human brain with a super-computer and download “spiritual wisdom, knowledge, and talents” directly to the human.

Technocratic premise: society itself is a game board, and someone has to be in charge; who better than engineers with an overall plan?

So-called “advances” in human life will begin by stating the basic “rights” people are entitled to. For example, “an optimum state of social existence.” What this really means is “pegs in holes.” People will be fitted into slots that yield up the “largest amount of possible collective happiness.”

It’s all about The Plan.

Freedom? Freedom to choose? Never heard of it.

Instead, what the individual is given from above is satisfactory to him because he has been engineered to believe it is. That’s the plan.

Smart-grid, sustainable development, green economy, land use, community planning, climate change, education in values, and other campaigns are signals and steps toward the far shore of technocracy. They all point to putting “pegs in holes.” They all ultimately involve quotas for energy consumption.

They all involve the assumption that, since there is only so much to go around, a higher authority must decide who gets what. Food, water, shelter, jobs, luxuries, energy…

Clue: scientists and engineers can arbitrarily say what science is, and therefore they can say The Plan is “scientific.”

If you say, “Well, look, there are genuine ways to vastly increase the amount of available water and energy and clean food,” you would be running against the technocratic blueprint. Opting for abundance is not welcomed. Abundance cuts the chords of The Plan. Scarcity must rule and it must be promoted. The lack of all essentials must be cited as the reason for imposing technocratic answers. There is no way around it.

The irony is, when you talk to really hard-core environmentalists about the means for achieving abundance through alternative technologies, they balk and grow angry. They don’t want technological solutions—and yet, the powers behind them, where the big money is, are, in fact, all about technology—technology of a certain kind, which is based on planning out a society in which permanent and growing scarcity is MAINTAINED AND PROMOTED as the immutable reality.

It’s quite mad, quite insane. But when has that ever stopped the men who are quite sure they should sit on thrones?

Vast abundance is more than a vision. It is a reachable possibility. The history of actual science and technology confirms that both essential materials and available human innovation were always downplayed as shortages—until some individual came along and demonstrated that a new way of doing things would break through the shortage.

Corporations, governments, think-thanks, and universities try to limit, curb, and bury inventions that open up the future to abundance. Technocrats are in a race to “plan society” before those inventions leak out into the public and make them, the technocrats, obsolete.

But they are obsolete. They just haven’t figured it out yet.

But we can figure it out.

TEN: “Elites who invent reality need an unimpeachable operation, headed up by people who are relentlessly promoted as the sanest, most intelligent, competent, and caring representatives of the human race. Guess who that would be?” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

In 1976, the great critic of 20th-century society, Ivan Illich, wrote: “Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn’t organized to serve human health, but only itself, an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”

The medical cartel is the answer to the question: what do you with the population of Earth once they are living under a Globalist oligarchy?

It’s all about managing lives, from womb to grave, and no institution serves that management better than Medicine.

First of all, you have a system that dispenses toxic drugs in an endless stream, killing in the US alone, by conservative estimate, 100,000 people per year. On top of that, medical drugs cause anywhere from two to four millions severe adverse effects annually.

Beyond this straight-out destruction, there is the turmoil, suffering, grieving, and confusion that extends in ripples, from each one of the deaths and injuries, to families, friends, and co-workers. The overall effect? Demoralization and the inability to see and think past the emotional pain—which is exactly what you want if you are a psychopath running a planet.

The medical cartel (drug companies, public health agencies, medical schools, doctors) wants to assure cradle-to-grave treatment of every person. This means 30 or 40 diagnoses of illnesses and mental disorders during a lifetime, and treatment with toxic drugs. It also means medical issues are at the forefront of every person’s mind as he/she wends through life, believing that Disease is the most important aspect of living.

People become proud, yes, proud of their diagnoses and treatment. They wear the diagnoses like badges of honor, and every social communication is an occasion for displaying badges and discussing treatments and comparing notes.

“You know, at first my doctor thought it was ADHD, but then he did one of those new brain scans, and realized it was Bipolar with a trace of genetically inherited Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Once he had the ODD under control with a major tranquilizer, he could go after the Bipolar. But then I developed tremors. So he implanted a chip…”

It’s not only a sick society, it’s a society about sickness.

Medical care is free, if by free one means: paid for by extraordinary levels of taxation.

The basic collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together,” achieves its most fervent support from the axiom that Disease is our primary opportunity to help each other by accepting awesome tax burdens.

Of course, huge segments of the world population won’t be able to participate in modern, up-to-date, cutting-edge “care.” For them, there are several solutions. The first is vaccines seeded with chemicals and genes that reduce fertility and potency. As birth rates gradually decline, cover stories are invented to explain the phenomenon: stress; rising employment rates; the social effects of urbanization; the dissolution of the nuclear family.

The second solution is epidemics that purportedly kill off large numbers of people. These epidemics are routine frauds, based on concocted science. In the poverty-stricken Third World, announced epidemics are nothing more than cover stories; people aren’t dying because of germs; they’re dying because their water is contaminated, because of overcrowding, lack of basic sanitation, generation-to-generation starvation. They’re dying because their fertile growing lands have been stolen. While medical experts crow about attacking the germ of the moment with (toxic) drugs and vaccines, these actual causes of death can be ignored and even enhanced.

Meanwhile, in industrialized technological sectors of the planet, psychiatry ascends to new heights of control over the educated classes. Although no so-called mental disorder has ever been diagnosed by a real laboratory test, the experts who dominate the field continue to invent new disorders at the drop of a hat.

Psychiatric patients believe they have brain conditions that must be treated with (highly toxic) drugs. The patients also believe their own aspirations are limited by their disorders, and so they acquiesce to a psychiatric model that circumscribes their lives.

At the top-end of society, new medical inventions are applied to the wealthy. Genetic enhancement is the most highly touted of these. Despite the fact that, as yet, there are no genetic treatments for any disease that work across the board, experiments will be done to extend life, to seed the unborn with special talents, to cure a wide variety of illnesses.

There will be efforts to substitute technological components for biological nature. Limbs, organs, whole body systems, brains.

The workability of high-tech pieces is not really the issue. The aim is simply to involve the rich in the entire grand experiment, thereby swallowing them up as well in a medical paradigm of existence.

At the front door of medical cartel operations, a person will be enrolled in the system while in utero, and a path will be laid out that extends all the way to the grave. Once he is on record with a medical ID package, he will be tracked and treated and tweaked without let-up.

Finally, the inevitable proposal and program will come into view. Why risk natural birth, which is already considered a medical event? Why not create birth in a laboratory?

And if, at any point in life, a person experiences doubts and regrets about his membership in the universal medical control apparatus, he can obtain a prescription for drugs that target “pleasure centers,” and then check out of his worries and anxieties.

Huxley’s Brave New World would move in like a wave on a beach.

At every way-stop toward that day, sophistication, elegance, assurance, and concern will be the watchwords of the practicing doctor, the secular priest in this drama of human dismantling.

And yet, for those who remember, who know what the Individual is, who know what freedom is, who know what imagination and creative power are, the rigging and distorting and flattening and collectivizing will look like nothing more than a horrible cartoon.

And these people who remember will lead a revolution like no revolution ever seen before.

—Or we can defect from, and withdraw our consent to, this mad matrix now.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: Globalist, Press Fraud

The three branches of logic

The three branches of logic

By Jon Rappoport

In my collections, The Matrix Revealed, and Power Outside The Matrix, I offer a basic course in logic, and a more advanced audio presentation on analyzing disinformation.

After working for 30 years as a reporter, I recognized I was using “three branches” of logic. Each one helps. Each one contributes to investigations. Each one enables a person to spot flaws.

Branch one: this is called formal logic, or the logic of implication, or symbolic logic. It began with Aristotle. It offers rules for determining what is valid and what is invalid. In the simplest terms, for example: “If it snows, there are clouds; there are no clouds; therefore, it isn’t snowing.”

Branch two: the logical fallacies. There are many lists. Some fallacies overlap with others. Example: If I want to defend the existence of manmade global warming, I attack the PERSON who argues that warming is pseudoscience— and I ignore the CONTENT OF HIS ARGUMENT. This fallacy is called ad hominem; “toward the man.” Or I find a person making an extreme and ridiculous argument against global warming: “The sun actually exudes very little heat, so warming is impossible.” I use that person as my Straw Man. I imply he represents ALL people arguing against global warming, and I knock him down. The Straw Man fallacy. It is extremely helpful to study these fallacies and become able to spot them.

Branch three: You ask, “What point is an author trying to make? What is he arguing for? What is his conclusion?” Finding that, what evidence does he offer for his conclusion? Does the evidence justify the conclusion? Many arguments these days are circumstantial. They involve degrees of probability. They need to be approached on a case-by-case basis.

I’ve described the “three branches” in bare-bones terms. There is much more to learn about each one.

If schools taught these three aspects to students, if teachers gave students increasingly complex arguments to analyze, a whole new generation of thinkers would arise. Education would be revolutionized.

Since most schools don’t do that job, the task often falls to home schoolers.

For a teacher, there’s nothing quite like seeing the lights go on in a student’s mind. The student suddenly understands what using logic means. He can deploy it to take apart information. He no longer wanders from one bit of information to another, selecting what he already agrees with or what strikes his fancy of the moment. He has staying power. He can work on his own. He can find fallacies and explain them. He can assess degrees of probability.

He’s launched.

This is independence. This is power.

Filed under: Uncategorized

The political movie projected on the screen of the subconscious

The political movie projected on the screen of the subconscious

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2017

This article has to do with people who pick a political side or candidate and refuse to budge an inch, no matter how much troubling evidence is presented to them.

Their filter is firmly in place.

They have a vague impression of a politician—but vagueness is not an indicator of weakness. In this case, vague is mighty and powerful and immovable.

Such people feel an attachment, which they adore. The politician reflects back to them a belief they already hold. That belief, too, is vague. For example, “We must be kind to everyone.” But again, the vagueness is not a weakness. It is unshakable. Can the believer consider evidence that, in a particular situation, kindness is inappropriate or wrong? No. Never.

Based on a vague impression of a politician, and a vague belief, the person will go to his grave and beyond, gripping his attachment to both politician and belief. The entire power of the universe, focused on him, wouldn’t alter his stance.

“But you see, your candidate was instrumental in launching an unnecessary war that killed a hundred thousand people and turned a country into a hell hole, and here are the specifics…”

“Doesn’t matter. A few mistakes may have been made along the way…”

It’s vague, it’s forever, it’s adoration, it’s love. Or a perfect imitation.

“Do you see that giant rock sitting on top of the hill above our village? It’s getting ready to fall. Let me show you some video and measurements.”

“I always loved that rock. It looks like a heart. Have you ever noticed? Don’t you dare try to split it in half or disturb it! When I was a child, I used to sing a song about The Granite King. We’d sit around the fire and roast marshmallows…”

It’s as if the person’s eyesight is becoming hazier as time passes, and yet his belief and attachment are gaining in strength.

“I’ve got my perception-filter, and I’m seeing everything through it, and I never put the filter aside and look at things as they are. Now, what was it you wanted to discuss?”

Of course, most politicians and their handlers capitalize on this hazy crazy psychological condition. Their prime goal is to impart a vague impression to the constituency. Why bother to strive for more?

George Bush the Elder spoke of a “kinder, gentler” society. Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” These are rational political positions in the same way that the Rockefellers are, first and foremost, philanthropists.

Once a person’s perception-filter is fixed in place, he can be whipsawed without let-up. His candidate is good and glorious, and the other candidate is a monster. No facts necessary.

Evidence? Never heard of it.

One side endlessly good; the other side endlessly evil.

Even if that proposition were true, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is how perception can be managed.

Now we’re talking about real triggering. Actual Pavlovian stimulus-response. The mere mention of the “monster’s” name or a cartoon of his face or a quote from him about the weather is sufficient to set off a foaming drool of rage.

Is this externally induced programming? Yes. But at a deeper level, the person is shaping his own response. He’s the author. He’s installing the conditioning.

And at a high enough perch of power, the opportunities are abundant. “We can set both sides against each other and provoke warfare. We can make the most ridiculous claims and feed them to the rabid dogs…”

Again, the degree to which one politician or the other is a monster or a proponent of virtuous progress is irrelevant. The divide-and-provoke-and-conquer operation is all that matters to controllers who are running the op.

Then there is this factor: the all-important initiation of an adrenaline reaction.

When people become tuned to that feeling, they seek it out. This is what they want. If a situation isn’t fight or flight, they’re not interested. They yawn and turn away.

“Where’s the action? I need the action.”

“I don’t want to see a movie. I want to see a movie with fifty titanic explosions and bodies strewn on the street and buildings collapsing. And there’d better be athletic sex, too. And the hero has to experience at least ten close calls. I’m talking imminent death.”

Linking adrenaline surges to politics is vital.

“Supporting my candidate has to feel like love dangerously poised on the edge of a cliff, and the other candidate has to have a live nuclear bomb in his hand. That’s the movie I want to watch. I want to be inside that movie…”

The mere suggestion that one candidate might have a small flaw, while the other candidate is not quite Satan incarnate in every aspect, ruins the show. It dampens the hormonal rush.

“Who wrote that script? Give me my money back.”

Politics must be a movie projected on the screen of the subconscious. It must enter that territory unimpeded. Once there, it must take root and give birth to uncontrollable impulses.

Movie studios and high-level political manipulators are looking for this sweet spot. It’s cash and psychological payoffs and lines around the block.

“Look, we want love versus hate in this script. But it has to be ramped up to a fever pitch. No holds barred. We have to make the evil feel like EVIL, and the good feel like GOOD. At the same time, the hero and villain have to seem real. The audience has to experience being in their shoes and pants and underwear. We’re spending three hundred million on this piece of dreck, and it has to work…”

If the movie-studio gods can make half the audience root for the hero and the other half root for the villain, that’s pure gold. If they can provoke serious animosity between viewers, THEY CAN DEGRADE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE and, when we’re talking about politics, that’s exactly what they’re shooting for.

“We can pit people against people and create a stalemate, where very little gets done—except the provocation of conflict. Then we’re home. Everyone sinks lower into a stimulation-response universe. We own that universe. We built it.”

Yes, they did, and they do. Ushering people into it makes it easier to control both sides and ultimately lower an apolitical boom on their heads. Otherwise known as erasing freedom.

“Political policy? Ideals? We don’t have that kind of agenda. The only agenda we have is installing chains around the mind.”

Achieving this goal, in the current American political landscape, only requires a quick inventory of: ratings. Where was the real heat? Where were the real numbers? Why, of course, it was during the campaign leading up to the election. Everybody was tuned in. Therefore, the campaign must never end. We must return to that time. Trump must never be president, and Hillary must never go away. Her shadowy presence and symbolic value—and surrogates—must persist. Thus, the endless challenge to Trump’s legitimacy. He didn’t win. The election was fixed. Perfect. That throws us into the furnace. Again.

Let us return to those days of yore, when families split apart, when the dire flow of energy and desire and vague impression and eternal attachment were King. That’s where we have to build the flames. That’s the subconscious target.

That’s the bulls-eye.

The mind.

Issues and scandals are gasoline pumped into the conflagration.

THIS person’s subconscious will veer THAT way, and THAT person’s subconscious will veer THIS way.

Those people who can see and argue actual evidence will be swallowed up in the noise and the roar.

The movie is called Degradation.

The box office is sensational.

It’s surround-sound and holographic.

Move past partisan payoffs to understand such a strategy. Even move past divide and conquer. The purpose, intent, and objective is eventual mental, emotional, hormonal, and energetic exhaustion.

The whole movie is a trap. The ending, if it ever comes, creates profound passivity in the mind.

Therefore, stepping outside the theater is an absolute necessity.

It’s the first move toward clarity.

And actual choice.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: Uncategorized