by Jon Rappoport
September 20, 2017
In a sane society, the Bill of Rights would be studied in great detail, in every school and college.
The historical incursions on, and the crimes against, the Bill of Rights would be laid bare and excoriated.
“Grand juries” of students would be formed to investigate, in detail, these incursions and crimes, and wherever possible track them to their sources.
Reading the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, it is plain that the natural rights of the individual are confirmed—and also, the attempt to exercise any sort of excessive power over the individual is shackled.
Because the Founders saw the handwriting on the wall, engraved for centuries in totalitarian regimes and theocracies.
Here are the basics of the Bill of Rights:
Freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
The right to bear arms.
Housing of soldiers: “No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Protection of rights to life, liberty, and property.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.”
Excessive bails, fines, and punishments are forbidden.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
What do these 10 Amendments say about the individual? They say he is of greater importance than the State.
They say the purpose of basic law is protection of the freedom of the individual.
They say that, no matter how many scurrilous critics and logic-choppers may come along and parse the Bill of Rights to their advantage and against the individual, these critics should be cast aside, at the very least.
They say that there is something potentially glorious in the individual.
They say today’s collectivists are deluded, and in many cases are consciously attempting to hijack the basic notion of freedom—and substitute instead, a plethora of free goods and services derived from the State, which collects overbearing taxes and invents money out of thin air, for the purpose of creating unfree and dependent individuals.
Most importantly, in today’s society, these 10 Amendments stand on their own, as robust and profound Ideas, no matter who first conceived them, no matter what those men’s motives may or may not have been at the time of conception.
The ideas are alive. Now.
Centers of education may promote the decimation of the Bill of Rights, may attack the primary sources, may try to wage war against these ideas, but their assault is transparent to those who can see and think.
Those little would-be dictators of the mind are themselves already slaves. And so they want to make other slaves.
Europe, whose great thinkers invented the cradle of liberty, is falling under the sway of collectivist vultures. As a group, those gnawing birds of prey are centered in the European Union, the “share and care” face of fascism.
During decades of unearthing what corrupt European and American fascists have been trying to achieve, I have seen individuals rise up from the swamp of sticky economic, political, and spiritual collectivism and reassert and regain their natural freedom.
It’s a sight to behold.
It embodies a dawn that reawakens the mind and spirit.
It’s a call to all of life.
It reestablishes the great adventure of living and making a future of one’s own choosing.
The education system blacks that out. Major media do, too.
The whole idea of public education, at the beginning, in America, was to educate children about what it meant to be a free and responsible citizen in the new Republic.
That mission was abandoned.
In the early 20th century, powerful foundations (Carnegie, at the forefront) completely derailed education by removing significant study of the founding documents of the nation. This was no accident. It was an effort to control society, to make it over in the image of worker-drones fitting into slots, for “the greatest good of the greatest number.”
From its inception, the Carnegie Foundation was consciously focused on the most effective way to control a population. Its first choice was war. In its absence, the number two method, it decided, was education.
The individual, nevertheless, still possesses his natural freedoms. These freedoms are prior to any laws enacted to confirm them.
But the individual has to find/assert those freedoms within himself, on his own.
His future rises and falls on that profound effort, which begins with recognizing he is separate from any and all forms of the collectivist “equality” glob…
William James, American philosopher (1902): “Probably a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage if it could hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and thus dispose of it. ‘I am no such thing,’ it would say; ‘I am myself, myself alone’.”
Category: Jon Rappoport
by Jon Rappoport
by Jon Rappoport
September 11, 2017
We rarely get a chance to see a smoking gun that proves elite controllers are running the show from behind the curtain.
That’s why there is a curtain.
So I’m republishing a conversation between two members of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission (TC) and a US reporter.
First, a bit of background:
In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew 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.
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, 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.”
Who is in charge of destroying national economies, in order to create a new international order?
Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties?
Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?
Who is in the business of killing jobs and hope?
Who demands that more US jobs disappear overseas and never come back?
The Trilateral Commission (TC).
The original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”
Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management”, ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).
The conversation was public knowledge at the time.
Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.
But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.
The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.
And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.
Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House.
He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.
The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating 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…”
Here we go:
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. [a lie]
KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.
This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
When 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’ve lost. And I’ll 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.
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.”
If you were a young ambitious reporter for The New York Times, if you read this astonishing Trilateral interview, wouldn’t you go to your editor and demand to be put on the story? Wouldn’t you want to dig deep and find out more details and names? Wouldn’t you want to blow the whole, yes, conspiracy, wide open? Wouldn’t you want readers to know the truth about who is running their country from behind the scenes?
Well, yes, you might. But if you did, and if you wouldn’t back down after your editor told you to forget about it, you would end up with no job, and eventually you would be covering picnics for some small-town newspaper.
With the rise of independent media, however, reporters don’t need to worry about Sunday picnics.
The truth suffices.
With the rise of independent media, reporters know some of their stories will be linked and forwarded all over the world, and people with curiosity and intelligence and alert minds will discover the truth that major media have been hiding from them.
Hiding, for decades.
Socialism: opiate of the masses
by Jon Rappoport
September 1, 2017
Let’s get something straight. There is no pure form of socialism, where “the government owns the means of production.”
The means of production own the government, and vice versa. It’s always collusion. Elite power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.
Socialism can be done with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.
In 1966, Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope, wrote: “The Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] is the American branch of a society which originated in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”
You could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship—it doesn’t matter. For the sake of brevity, I’ll call it socialism.
At street level (not within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist “solution” either has no idea who installs it and runs it, or he astonishingly believes “the government” can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.
Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom of populations. They want to impose those limits.
Hope and Change, the slogan of the former US president, was perfect for street-level socialists. It was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.
Colleges—or as I call them, Academies of Great Generalities—have been turning out these fantasists by the ton. “If I feel it, it must be true and good.”
One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man named James Kunen. But smarter by far than most of his comrades, he wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary. A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:
“…at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables—the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government—tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.”
“…They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”
Rockefeller elites moving to the political Left? What?
Look at it this way. If you’re a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to sell your con? The “Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)”, or the “we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government (Rightist)”?
Since any brand of rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place—global control—you’re going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.
It’s simply a matter of workability and expedience.
That’s why the lingo of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.
That’s the only reason.
If a Rockefeller operative could use, to good effect, tales of enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.
In 1928, the historian Oswald Spengler wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that [operation has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”
Is there a college anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false trails laid down by elite deceivers.
David Rockefeller, writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: “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.”
Of course, Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his “one-world” cause. He never admitted the notions of “social justice” and “equality” were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.
If he had come clean, victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and controlling them.
The sought–after global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.
“Thanks for your help. Now that we’ve won, you’re under the gun. Our gun.”
Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, etc.) The corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they’re proponents of “digital socialism,” which they ludicrously define as open access to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can’t eat a YouTube video for a breakfast they can’t afford.
This nonsensical fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top, who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate competition. Share and care doesn’t apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their lesser rivals can’t obtain.
“We love everyone and care about everyone, but don’t challenge us. We’re the bosses. We own the game.”
The tech giants want much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance State.
They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are “data-points” to be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is constructed.
Notions of fairness, equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive operation.
Some might say this version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.
But they would be wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist “political philosophy” was never anything more than paper-thin propaganda.
It was a nothing made into something.
It falls apart and blows away, and the skull-grin of control comes into view. The same grin existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.
Only the language of the sellers to the buyers has changed.
Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung), founding father and ruler of Communist China, openly declared: “Socialism…must have a dictatorship, it will not work without it.” Mao didn’t beat around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make sure, he killed them.
But don’t worry, be happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world—as long as citizens willingly give up their independence.
For example, you could opt for Tony Blair’s vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million dead), but on the bright side, he didn’t massacre huge numbers of his own people. In 1983, Tony stated:
“I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.”
I’ll let you try to translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words “rational,” “moral,” “co-operation,” “fellowship,” “equality in our economic circumstances,” and run them to ground. Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and regulations would flow from them.
Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is appearing earnest and sincere.
He shares that attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They’ve learned their tricks at the feet of mentors, and you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.
“We’re not Stalin, we’re not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We’re all in this together. There’s a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work.”
Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, “I feel your pain.”
No one heard him say, under his breath, “Of course, I pay no attention to feelings.”
Antony Sutton, Skull&Bones, Hitler, the Bush family
by Jon Rappoport
August 27, 2017
Millegan wrote about Antony Sutton in 1999: “Antony C. Sutton, 74, has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state’s technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet’s large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.”
“…Then, someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and— ‘a picture jumped out’. And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to ‘Illuminati’ influences in 1830’s Germany.”
Here are excerpts from the 1999 interview:
Millegan – Can you tell the story of how you learned of Skull & Bones? And how you felt?
Sutton – I knew nothing of S&B until I received a letter in the early 80’s asking if I would like to look at a genuine membership list. For no real reason I said yes. It was agreed to send the package by Federal Express and I could keep it for 24 hours, it had to be returned to the safe. It was a “black bag” job by a family member disgusted with their activities.
For the benefit of any S&B members who may read and doubt the statement; the membership list is in two volumes, black leather bound. Living members and deceased members in separate volumes. Very handsome books.
I spent all night in Kinko’s, Santa Cruz, copied the entire volumes and returned within the 24 hour period.
I have never released any copies or identified the source. I figured each copy could be coded and enable S&B to trace the leak.
How did I feel? I felt then (as I do now} that these “prominent” men are really immature juveniles at heart. The horrible reality is that these little boys have been dominant in their influence in world affairs. No wonder we have wars and violence. Skull and Bones is the symbol of terrorist violence, pirates, the SS Deaths Head Division in WW Two, labels on poison bottles and so on.
I kept the stack of xerox sheets for quite a while before I looked at them—when I did look—a picture jumped out, THIS was a significant part of the so called establishment. No wonder the world has problems!
Millegan: – What did your study of elites, economics, secrecy and technology do for your career?
Sutton – Depends what you mean by “career”?
By conventional standards I am an abject failure. I’ve been thrown out of two major Universities (UCLA and Stanford), denied tenure at Cal State Los Angeles. Every time I write something, it appears to offend someone in the Establishment and they throw me to the wolves.
On the other hand I’ve written 26 books, published a couple of newsletters and so on…even more important I’ve never compromised on the truth. And I don’t quit.
In material terms…hopeless failure. In terms of discovery…I think I’ve been successful. Judge a man by his enemies. William Buckley called me a “jerk”. Glenn Campbell, former Director of the Hoover Institution, Stanford called me “a problem”.
Millegan – Did any of Hitler’s economic policies threaten the interests of the international bankers, and if so did that play a role in his downfall?
Sutton – Hitler’s economic policies were OK’d by the bankers right through the war…ITT, Chase, Texaco and others were operating in Nazi-held France as late as 1945. In fact Chase in Paris was trying to get [acquire] Nazi accounts as late as 1944. When we got to Germany in May 1945, I remember seeing a (bombed-out) Woolworth store in Hamburg and thinking, “What’s Woolworth doing in Nazi Germany?” While we were bombed and shelled it was “business as usual” for Big Business. Try the Alien Custodian Papers.
…Union Banking [Corporation] is very important. I made a documentary for Dutch National TV some years ago. It got all the way through the production process to the Dutch TV Guide…at the last minute it was pulled and another film substituted. This documentary has proof of Bush financing Hitler—documents.
Maybe my Dutch friends will still get it viewed, but the apparatus reaches into Holland.
Millegan – What is the story that was going to be told on Dutch TV? And what is the story of its censorship?
Sutton – Couple of years back, a Dutch TV production company from Amsterdam—under contract to Dutch National TV—came to US to make documentary on S&B [Skull and Bones]. They went to the Bones Temple and other places and interviewed people on East Coast. On West Coast, they interviewed myself and one other person.
I saw extracts from the original and it is a good professional job. They had documents linking Bush family and other S&B members to financing Hitler through Union Banking of New York and its Dutch correspondent bank. More than I have in [Sutton’s book] WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER.
The first version was later upgraded into a two part documentary and scheduled for showing this last March. It was pulled at last minute and has never been shown.
Millegan – What do you see for the future?
Suttton – Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State.
The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual.
Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them…
—end of interview excerpt—
Here is a telling Antony Sutton quote from his book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986):
“By using data of Russian origin it is possible to make an accurate analysis of the origins of this equipment. It was found that all the main diesel and steam-turbine propulsion systems of the ninety-six Soviet ships on the Haiphong supply run [to the North Vietnamese] that could be identified (i.e., eighty-four out of the ninety-six) originated in design or construction outside the USSR. We can conclude, therefore, that if the [US] State and Commerce Departments, in the 1950s and 1960s, had consistently enforced the legislation passed by Congress in 1949, the Soviets would not have had the ability to supply the Vietnamese War – and 50,000 more Americans and countless Vietnamese would be alive today.”
“Who were the government officials responsible for this transfer of known military technology? The concept originally came from National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who reportedly sold President Nixon on the idea that giving military technology to the Soviets would temper their global territorial ambitions. How Henry arrived at this gigantic non sequitur is not known. Sufficient to state that he aroused considerable concern over his motivations. Not least that Henry had been a paid family employee of the Rockefellers since 1958 and has served as International Advisory Committee Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller concern.”
If you think such traitorous actions could never have occurred, I point you to another researcher, Charles Higham, and his 1983 classic, Trading with the Enemy.
Higham focuses on World War 2. The men behind the curtain Higham exposed are in the same basic group that Antony Sutton exposed.
Higham, Trading with the Enemy:
“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s [Germany’s] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”
Getting the picture?
War, what is it good for? It’s good for business. It’s good for creating chaos and destruction. It’s good for launching new global organizations, in the aftermath; organizations that exert a level of control and reach that didn’t exist before. It’s good for launching organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and the World Trade Organization—dedicated to Globalism, which in turn is dedicated to planned civilization, in which the individual is demeaned and the group is All.
Freedom is demeaned, and dominance by the few over the many is hailed as peace in our time.
Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America
And the solution that almost no one appears to want—why are people allergic to solutions that work?
by Jon Rappoport
August 18, 2017
My tech partner and producer, Theo Wesson, has made several notes on the latest episode of black-white conflict in America, Charlottesville:
“Classic two-pronged Maoist tactic…. (a) shock troops on the ground causing violence and then (b) a sophisticated and coordinated…propaganda push by the parallel rogue state complex of Media, Academia, Hollywood and sold-out politicians. Historically huge. The Police standing down as the [third] element.”
“The violence puts the [television news] viewer in an altered state to receive the propaganda.”
Black vs. white. Nazis vs. liberals. Antifa vs. Alt-Right. Cut the dividing line any way you want to, factor in covert funding by people like George Soros, and you have a formula for escalating conflict between various sectors of society. Thus, driving more chaos.
Present the “sides” in the conflict as somehow representing the entire population of America. That’s the key.
This op is as old as the hills.
As for solutions, let’s start with a revelation about government funding for inner-city programs in St, Petersburg, Florida. The Tampa Bay Times reports:
“…the Tampa Bay Times set out to assess the region’s progress since the turn of the century, analyzing two decades worth of data on income, housing, demographics and crime.”
“Though the city has helped steer hundreds of millions of dollars into the neighborhoods around Midtown since 1999, they remain stuck in poverty.”
“Adjusted for inflation, the average household’s income has gone down.”
“Property values in the neighborhoods have dropped. Only 43 percent of homes in Midtown and Childs Park are owner-occupied, a rate that’s steadily declined since it was 60 percent in 2002.”
“Today, almost half of the region’s renters spend the majority of their income keeping a roof over their heads — nearly twice as many as in 1999.”
“In 2002, the crime rate was four times higher in Midtown and Childs Park [inner-city neighborhoods] than in the rest of the city. In 2014, it was more than five times higher.”
And then, the capper: “From 1999 to 2015, St. Petersburg helped steer over $210 million in private and public investments toward trying to improve life in the Midtown area, city documents show.”
$210 million, and this is what they have to show for it.
You really have to design failure in order to make $210 million worthless.
Realize, first of all, that people tend to reject solutions if they haven’t heard about them before.
One solution here would be a program I’ve written about before, and it could be enacted for a tiny fraction of the $210 million that has gone down the drain:
Across the country, many such operations are underway. They’re happening. Local people are growing and eating their own food. Some of this food is also sold for profit.
—There should be many, many urban farms in the St. Petersburg inner city. Plots of land where local residents grow and trade and eat their own fresh, clean, nutritious food. It is a revolutionary act.
Initiate 50 of these farms. The government provides initial funding. The residents themselves will expand their operations into profit-making ventures; they’ll sell the excess food.
I’m estimating that for less than $5 million, the whole program can be launched—as opposed to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured down unaccountable “investment” rat holes.
The residents of inner-city St, Petersburg would have a real economic stake in their own survival and success, and they’d escalate the power of their demands for safe neighborhoods—safe from gangs and thugs and drugs.
Clean fresh food.
Improved level of health and strength.
Of course, governments don’t tend to favor solutions that actually work.
Such solutions reduce citizen dependence on government.
If a certain president in the White House put this urban farm project into effect—not only in St. Petersburg, but in other inner cities across America—and if resistance developed, that president would have a powerful means of exposing the disruptive resistance as a conscious campaign to keep making these neighborhoods fail, IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE AN EXCUSE FOR RACIAL CONFLICT.
A clue: professional paid disruptors, and their duped allies, are hired to expand failure in inner cities and exclude workable solutions that benefit one and all.
Bottom line: there are always solutions that lift people up. Sidelining and canceling and distorting and misdirecting and betraying those solutions is the full-time job of operatives who have a hidden agenda. These operatives want failure. They want to use failure to blame some group(s) for the chronic problem—thus expanding unrest and anger and division.
MAINSTREAM NEWS WILL NEVER REPORT EXTENSIVELY ON LARGE AND WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.
THEREFORE, MANY, MANY CITIZENS (HYPNOTIZED VIEWERS) WILL NEVER BE “TUNED” TO SOLUTIONS.
LARGE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS WILL ALWAYS SEEM AND FEEL “STRANGE” AND OUT OF PLACE.
That’s called mind control.
That’s called passivity.
That’s called surrender.
It’s staged over long periods of time.
One estimate has it that, since President Lyndon Johnson declared a national War on Poverty in 1966, some two trillion dollars have been poured into inner cities of America, with a result that looks quite like the impoverished neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, Florida.
No one has the accounting books. No one has kept track. No one in the federal government has been able to stop the insanity.
Again, innovative solutions are not the aim of big and bigger government.
That aim appears to be: losing.
Interview with Vaxxed producer banned from Australia
Producer of film Vaxxed banned from Australia
by Jon Rappoport
August 9, 2017
(Part 2 of this story here.)
Polly Tommey, producer of the famous documentary, Vaxxed (trailer), has been banned from Australia. If that sounds quite insane—it is.
Vaxxed has been screening across the world. It is an explosive revelation about egregious fraud at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
The film focuses on the 2014 public confession of a long-time researcher at the CDC, William Thompson. Thompson admits that he and his colleagues committed a crime, by manipulating data to give the MMR vaccine a free pass, “proving” it had no connection to autism—when in fact, as Thompson states, the vaccine does raise the risk of autism in children.
Here are a few statements from the The Sydney Morning Herald’s report, headlined: “Anti-vaccination advocate ‘banned from Australia’ after documentary tour.”
“The producer Polly Tommey behind a controversial anti-vaccination film which has been touring Australia has been banned from returning to the country for three years, she claims.”
“Ms Tommey spearheaded a sold-out national roadshow of the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe organised by the Australian Vaccinations-Skeptics Network.”
“In a video, posted to Youtube on Tuesday, Ms Tommey claimed authorities seized her phone and copied her emails as she left Australian soil to continue the New Zealand leg of the film tour.”
“’They (Australian Border Force) told me I was banned from Australia for three years and that I would be getting a letter to confirm this,’ Ms Toomey said.”
“A number of secret screenings of the documentary and Q&A sessions were hosted in Australia, including one last week at Village’s Crown casino cinemas in Southbank and another in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs.”
I contacted Polly Tommey, and she sent me this statement, quickly typed on her phone as she was heading to New Zealand:
“After a very successful 2 week tour of Vaxxed in Australia with packed out venues including the Australian National University I went through passport control in Adelaide airport on route to New Zealand, I was traveling with Anu Vaidya, our social media director—he was allowed straight through (we are both on the same business visas and both do the same work, Q&As and stories from parents via social media) I was detained.”
“They took my phone and asked for my password which I gave them (I have nothing to hide) they screenshot emails between AVN [Australian Vaccinations-Skeptics Network (on facebook)] and Vaxxed. They grilled me on Vaxxed and who made money from the documentary, they asked me about Andy Wakefield [also involved in the film’s production].”
“They told me I was banned from Australia for 3 years and I would receive an email to explain in due course. They then gave me my phone back and let me board a plane to New Zealand.”
“Australia’s press did this, they promoted Vaxxed and our tour. We barely filled the venues before they wrote endless articles with quotes from health ministers saying how Vaxxed is dangerous lies. From that moment on the venues were packed with waiting lists, they are their own worst enemies.”
“I don’t need to go back to Australia, the people are strong and know what to do. They are as angry as the rest of the world at the death and destruction of our babies and loved ones.”
Doctors, medical bureaucrats, and government officials in Australia are foaming at the mouth, releasing statements against Vaxxed and warning how “dangerous” the film is, and how it should not be shown and seen.
These Orwellian lunatics want to cancel the public’s right to have access to information. “Don’t think, obey.”
Here is their strategy in a nutshell: they want to equate certain information with shouting fire in a crowded theater and, therefore, claim the right to free speech and free assembly is canceled.
Actually, and quite literally, they’re the ones shouting fire in a crowded theater. Because they want to empty the theaters.
The content of Vaxxed is all about exposing the lies of official science.
Toxic vaccination is destroying the brains of babies and children.
Whether you agree or disagree with that last statement, trying to outlaw conversation about it and intimidate people who want the conversation is sheer totalitarian madness.
Polly Tommey is a woman who stands for what she believes and puts everything on the line. She has delved deeply into the protected secrets of the medical establishment. She has emerged with a film brimming with knowledge.
In a half-sane world, she would be hailed as a hero.
Obviously, the customs agents who detained and questioned her, as she was leaving Australia, who told her she was banned from the country, were acting on behalf of higher-ups.
Those medical, political, and pharmaceutical higher-ups want silence.
They want you to shut up and close your eyes and march straight ahead into the future they are laying out for you.
A future ever more toxic.
Are you going to give in? Are you going to abandon your natural right to search for the truth? Are you going to suck on the teat of the State and thank your betters for the morsels they hand you?
Are you going to believe this surrender to the State has no danger?
Are you going to stop worrying and learn to love Big Brother?
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.
Individual power and ethics: the conversation that never was
by Jon Rappoport
August 7, 2017
It’s no accident that the concept of individual power is surrounded by clouds of timidity and fear and cultural resentment.
People are warned that touching it produces a substantial electric shock.
“Me? Individual power? I never said I was in favor of it. Great individual power? Don’t pin that on me. Who’s accusing me? I’ll sue them! I’m for humility in all things.”
Perhaps the most famous statement ever delivered on this subject came from Lord Acton (1887): “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
For many, this closes the book on discussion.
But in fact, it is a wobbling prelude.
What about the creative power of the individual?
Especially, what about that power when it is deployed by a person who has a personal code of ethics?
What if that code is summarized in the simple statement: I am free to do what I want to, as long as I don’t interfere with another person’s freedom?
We’re not talking about what happens when a king has a position of ultimate authority. That throne, of course, carries with it an implication of interfering with the freedom of the king’s subjects. The corruption is there from the start.
But the creative power of the individual, his goal to exert as much power as possible to fulfill his desires in the world, to launch and sustain an enterprise of his own choosing, to imagine and extend the reaches of such an enterprise—suppose he possesses ethics—suppose he refuses to interfere with, and override, the freedom of another person.
Many people have a fear of their own creative power, of what they would do if they removed the constraints on their own “proper place in the world.” Therefore, because of that fear, they oppose others having power.
Organized religion has always stuck its nose into the drama as well. What a religion claims is the ultimate power, and where it comes from, is inserted into the mix. A religion always assumes its picture of the Deity is the correct one, AND IT OWNS THAT PICTURE.
The notion of unlimited individual power, backed up by personal ethics, is anathema. It threatens the spiritual monopoly. So the religion invents cautionary tales that pile up into the sky.
One of the tales, time-honored, and adopted in one form or another by governments and “humanitarian groups” is: people are inherently weak and greedy, so allowing them to exercise ANY kind of power at all is madness. Instead, power must be managed by “the people,” by “those who care,” by “the needs of Mother Earth,” by “the Universe,” by “socialists,” by “economic and political planners (technocrats),” by “the oppressed (it’s their turn),” by “the big We,” by “international cooperation,” by “a wise global court (who runs it?),” by the man in the moon, by the beneficent aliens from the Galactic League…
Then there is language manipulation. An individual seeking to imagine and create his most profound dream as fact in the world is “acting like a god”—and that is a cardinal sin of the first order. (Therefore, be humble, be weak, be passive. You’ll earn a cosmic gold star on the blackboard.)
Or such an individual must be “a greedy capitalist,” representing “the worst system ever devised for human interaction.”
Or such an individual is “dangerous,” because “he places his needs before the needs of others.”
Or such an individual is “mentally ill,” because no one in his right mind would display such confidence in his own vision of his future.
In every case, the people behind promoting these perverse distortions want to wield power over others themselves. Quite a coincidence.
They’re always playing a shell game. They’re trying to take power from the individual and transfer it to themselves or those they support.
They always assume they know who “the good people” are, the people who won’t abuse power.
To put it in a slightly different way, they believe they don’t have the capacity to create and build an enterprise based on their deepest desires, if left to their own devices. Therefore, no one else should be allowed to.
They have no substantial ethics. Therefore, no one else has authentic ethics, either.
This discussion moves into the realm of “the many” vs. “the few.” It goes this way: suppose there are a few individuals who can, in fact, take their most profound vision and turn it into reality. They are the exception. For most of humanity, this is impossible. THEREFORE, stop the few. Why? Because their ability is inherently unfair.
That argument, rarely voiced, champions “democracy” as the lowest common denominator. Lift no one up. Instead, sink everyone in a shared swamp.
These days, this perverse approach has added a new topping: every difference of talent, will power, determination, ambition, imagination, creativity, refusal to surrender is a sign of privilege. Privilege is society’s bias. Eliminate it, thereby eliminating all the above qualities.
Then what remains? Nothing of substance.
If the independent individual looked outward to discover what standard he should uphold, what voice he should adopt, what theory he should cling to, what behavior he should imitate, he would cease being what he is in an hour.
He would order himself to stop thinking about power. It is the most loaded word and concept in this culture.
And naturally, it is also one of the most fruitful to contemplate, apart from the madding crowd.
Within it can be born great achievements and futures.
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
Hillary’s new book: It’s Never My Fault
by Jon Rappoport
July 31, 2017
This is an antidote to Hillary’s new book, titled, “What Happened,” which I would sub-title, Why Was I So Clueless? The book purports to explain her loss in the 2016 election.
What would Hillary think if she could think?
First of all, she would think about the team trying to get her elected and the problems they faced: they had a candidate who basically had no platform, no cogent ideas, only a slim file of vapid generalities. She couldn’t deliver a coherent speech.
The team had to devise a way to keep her out of the spotlight on the campaign trail. This, the last time I looked, is not a winning strategy.
“How can we minimize her appearances?”
Hillary would think about that.
She would think about why sexism (her favorite), Putin, Comey, WikiLeaks, and “fake news” don’t explain her loss. How they didn’t add up to an Electoral College defeat.
She would think about her supporters whining, “But she won the popular vote.” That complaint only highlights the failure of her team to realize the Electoral College system (which any fifth-grader can understand) was the umbrella under which the election was actually conducted.
She would think about why serving as a senator and secretary of state doesn’t automatically entitle her to the job of president.
She would think about her past crimes—there is not enough time or room to detail them here.
She would think about why Americans who have lost their jobs didn’t trust her to bring those jobs back.
She would think about Trump and his resonating messages—regardless of whether Trump intends to deliver on those messages.
She would think about the Left’s political correctness, and all the people who hate it.
She would think about college students who defected from her camp to support an old radical socialist (who owns three homes and has pocketed close to a million dollars from his latest book about income inequality).
She would think about the distance between her vague promises and the interests of non-white voters.
She would think about the numbers of Americans who don’t embrace the growing Welfare State and don’t want to pay taxes to support it.
She would think about what many Americans really think about open borders and unchecked immigration.
She would think about the emotional impact of promoting Globalism and an “interdependent world” (it takes a village) vs. promoting Nationalism.
She would think about the dead rotting core of the Democratic Party.
She would think about effect of the previous president, Barack Obama, harping on racism whenever he could.
She would think about her history of support for a federally dictated national health insurance plan.
She would think about her duplicitous husband, with whom she is forever linked.
She would think about her husband’s faded ability to mobilize Americans on any political issue whatsoever.
She would think about (cough, cough, stumble, stumble) her health issues.
She would think about her failure to project an aura of strength.
She would think about the wisdom of trying to assume the mantle of president before the election had taken place.
She would think about her decades-long transparent pursuit of power for its own sake.
She would think about her own team lying to her about her “positive impact” on the public during the campaign. She would think about why they had to lie, given her ironclad delusions about her own “deserved status.”
She would think about the rebound effect of Hollywood sycophants piling on in her favor.
She would think about these things if she could.
She can’t, because then she would understand.
She would understand why she lost, and why she would most definitely lose a race for dogcatcher.
She would understand her long history of pretending to accrue prestige, based on nothing.
She would understand that her own Party has been humoring her for decades and faking loyalty where none existed.
She would understand that, during the campaign, the news networks, eternally in need of ratings, would cover Donald Trump every day, because she, Hillary, was a ratings washout, and he was a rating magnet.
This last factor is the bitterest pill of all.