Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Category: Jon Rappoport

Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election: Jon Rappoport


Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election
by Jon Rappoport
July 18, 2017

Press outlets are now reminding us that President Bill Clinton interfered in the 1996 Russia election that brought Boris Yeltsin to power for a second term.
This is by way of saying, “Well, if Putin helped Trump win the 2017 election, so what? The US did the same thing in Russia.”

Clinton Russia election
That’s an interesting but not terribly strong argument. However, there is another piece to the 1996 Clinton op, and it is explosive and quite relevant.
Let’s start here, with the 1996 leak of a document detailing a meeting between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. Sean Guillory, writing at jacobinmag.com, states:
“According to a White House memo leaked to the Washington Times in March 1996, Clinton and Yeltsin had agreed to support each other in their respective reelection bids.”
We are talking about mutual interference. President Clinton helps President Yeltsin win, and President Yeltsin helps President Clinton win.
Bill Clinton asked the president of Russia to interfere in a US presidential election.
Digest that.
The Washington Post (2/26/96) reports on “…a memo written by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, according to White House press secretary Michael McCurry. It [the memo] recounted talks between Clinton and Yeltsin earlier this month when both leaders attended an anti-terrorism summit in Egypt.”
“The memo, as quoted in the [Washington] Times, said Clinton pledged to work with Yeltsin to maintain ‘positive’ relations with the United States as both men seek reelection this year. One way to do this, the memo quoted Clinton as saying, is for Yeltsin to stop restricting poultry imports. Clinton said ‘this is a big issue, especially since 40 percent of U.S. poultry is produced in Arkansas,’ the memo said.”
We had a US president, Bill Clinton, specifying HOW the Russian president could help him win a second term as US president.
Let that sink in.
The Associated Press reports, on March 28, 1996: “Citing a classified memo, the Washington Times reported yesterday that Clinton had promised Yeltsin to back his re-election bid by formulating “positive” policies toward Russia…On a matter important to his political supporters in Arkansas, Clinton asked Yeltsin to stop restricting poultry imports. ‘This is a big issue, especially since 40 percent of U.S. poultry is produced in Arkansas,’ Clinton said, according to the memo…On Monday, Vice President Al Gore announced Russia was lifting the ban, which was imposed because of the suspicion that U.S. chickens are not inspected sufficiently for salmonella, which causes illness.”
Clinton promises to back Yeltsin in his effort to win the presidency of Russia.
In return, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLINTON’S POLITICAL SUPPORTERS, Clinton asks Yeltsin to lift Russia’s ban on importing chickens, particularly since 40% of US poultry is produced in Arkansas, Clinton’s home state. And lo and behold, Yeltsin does comply with Clinton’s request for help in winning the 1996 US presidential election. Yeltsin lifts the ban on importing US poultry.
Both president agree to interfere in each other’s election.
And it gets worse. The major chicken producer in Arkansas is Tyson. The Fiscal Times reports, on 2/2/16: “…consider a largely forgotten financial scandal that directly involved Hillary Clinton during 1978 and 1979.”
“Under the guidance of an attorney representing Tyson Foods, Hillary Clinton made a $98,540 profit from a $1,000 initial investment in less than one year trading commodity futures. While $98,540 may not seem like much money relative to the Clinton family’s wealth today, it exceeded Bill and Hillary’s combined annual income at the time.”
“…Clinton’s initial trading also had a serious irregularity…her $1,000 initial investment was well below the $12,000 deposit required by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for the first trades she executed. So not only did Hillary make an extraordinary profit for a novice investor, she did so without following the rules applied to less well-connected traders.”
There is much more to say about the relationship between Tyson Chicken and the Clintons, but we’ll leave it there for now.
So there is a precedent of Russia interfering in a US presidential election (by stark invitation)—and nothing happened to the US president, Bill Clinton, who asked for the interference. Nothing.
Clinton was, of course, upset when the memo of his meeting with Yeltsin was leaked. But here is how he spun his objection:
Washington Post, 2/28/96: “[Clinton Press Secretary] McCurry said Clinton and [National Security Advisor] Lake considered the leak to be far more sensitive than the typical anonymous disclosure that is commonplace in Washington journalism. ‘The president feels like he ought to be able to sit down with the president of Russia and have a private conversation,’ McCurry said.”
Clinton and Yeltsin agreeing to interfere in each other’s presidential election was ignored, as if it were of no concern. The big issue was the leak of the memo. Private and highly felonious deals between two superpower chiefs of state? No problem.
To repeat: this 1996 memo-scandal of enormous proportions didn’t make a dent in Bill Clinton’s second term in office. After a brief press blast, and a round of “I’m shocked” within the Beltway, the roar died and vanished.
If a comparable memo were unearthed from the Trump team today, impeachment proceedings will begin in a matter of hours, and the press would be booking seats for the firing squad.
Soros-paid street soldiers would lift Barack Obamas up on their shoulders, break down barriers at the White House, and carry him into the Oval Office.
We need to revisit the old saying, “It’s not the conspiracy (that hurts a political criminal), it’s the cover-up (of the crime).”
There needs to be an addendum. “It’s not the conspiracy, it’s the coverage.” Meaning press coverage.
If a politician commits a major crime and the press coverage dies out, the politician gets away with it. If the press keeps hounding the politician endlessly, he doesn’t get away with it—even if there is no solid proof he committed a crime in the first place.

Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election

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.

Robots Are Inventing Their Own Languages: Jon Rappoport

Jul
14

Robots are inventing their own languages
The programming and design of artificial intelligence
by Jon Rappoport
July 14, 2017
Artificial Intelligence

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.
Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:
The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”
Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”
Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”
The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.
Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”
Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.
“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”
Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.
AI is not running its own show.
It isn’t innovating.
It isn’t creating its own languages.
It isn’t doing any of that.
AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.
Any honest AI designer will tell you that.
If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.
Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.
There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”
“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”
No he didn’t.
AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.
“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”
Won’t happen.
But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”
Sell it, sell it.
“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”
Sell it, sell it.
And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”
***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”
Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”
Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”
“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”
Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.
Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.
Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.
Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.
This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.
The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.
Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.
Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.
They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.
And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.
Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.
It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.
Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:
“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”

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.

Robots are inventing their own languages

Deep medical fraud: logical insight cancels brain fog, By Jon Rappoport

Deep medical fraud: logical insight cancels brain fog
by Jon Rappoport
June 28, 2017
In the course of an investigation, a clue can turn up that changes everything. It exposes massive falsehoods and fraud.
But the meaning of the clue doesn’t always tap the investigator on the shoulder and reveal its full implications. The force of the rational insight is on a delay mechanism, as it were.
When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in the late 1980s, I was surrounded by much confusion. A bewildering number of facts and opinions and lies were being fed to me by various sources. I was taping notes to my walls and trying to sort out the mess of spaghetti.
One day, while I was researching the AIDS antibody test, I spoke to an official at the FDA. He mentioned that, if a vaccine were developed for HIV, anyone who received it would be given a special letter from the government. The letter would declare that if this person ever tested positive for HIV, the result should be ignored, because the antibodies that made the test turn positive were resulting from the protective vaccine, not lethal HIV in the body.
After I hung up the phone, I tried to think through what I had just heard. Something strange was going on. What was it?
About a week later, it hit me. The brain fog was gone.
The official government position implied: if an HIV vaccine were ever developed, it would stimulate antibodies to HIV in the body and thus confer protection against AIDS. But…
If an unvaccinated person, taking an HIV test, registered positive, that result would signal the presence of antibodies to HIV in the body—and THAT would mean the person had AIDS or was on the road to developing it.
However, in either case, THE ANTIBODIES WERE THE SAME.
If they were stimulated and acquired through a vaccine, that was a good sign. It meant immunity.
But if these same antibodies were acquired naturally, as a response to making contact with HIV, that was a bad sign. It meant AIDS, now, or just up the road.
Vaccine antibodies GOOD.
Natural antibodies BAD.
THE SAME ANTIBODIES.
Unintentionally implicit in the FDA spokesman’s statements was the logical walkway called reductio ad absurdum; a reduction to absurdity. In other words, if you took the FDA man’s claim about the letter a person vaccinated against HIV would carry with him—and if you thought it through and saw all the implications, you would see the whole proposal was absurd to the highest degree.
A vaccine would produce an effect, X, which would confer immunity. The body, producing the same effect, X, would signal impending disease and even death.
Medical solution GOOD.
Body’s natural solution BAD.
Time and time again in my investigations, I’ve found reductio ad absurdum to be a very good friend and ally. Aristotle originally formulated the strategy, and it has stood the time of time quite nicely.
The overall pattern is rather simple: take an assertion; understand what it claims; lay out the chain of implications that follow from the assertion; show that this chain leads to an impossible or absurd consequence. THEREFORE, reject the assertion.
It’s like following a faulty set of directions. You drive through various streets and shift from one highway to another, all in the process of finding your way home from a distant location. But the directions finally lead you to a series of barriers at the desolate end of a highway, beyond which there is no road, only a pile of construction materials and a dank dark river you’ve never seen before.
It’s not home. It’s not useful. It makes no sense. It’s reductio ad absurdum.
The idea that a HIV vaccine would confer immunity, while a person’s own body—producing the same antibodies—wouldn’t confer immunity, is preposterous.
In the years since AIDS INC. was published, I’ve written about the sea-change that has occurred in disease diagnosis and vaccine “protection.” These days, a person receiving an antibody test for ANY given disease is told he is “positive” for the disease if antibodies show up on the test. But if he receives a vaccine that produces the same antibodies, he’s told he’s immune.
It makes zero sense.
Here is a final clue. A positive antibody test is no reason to tell a person he is sick or is going to get sick. A positive test most often indicates the person’s immune system has swung into gear and neutralized the germ in question. BUT if the medical establishment decides, arbitrarily, to interpret every positive test as a sign of illness, then many, many more people can be diagnosed with diseases. And then…
They can be treated with drugs.
And then, pharmaceutical cash registers ring like crazy with profits

Deep medical fraud: logical insight cancels brain fog

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union, an Intelligence Briefing by Jon Rappoport

Nazi EU

Jun7

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union

World War 2 continued by other means

by Jon Rappoport

June 7, 2017

This is an intelligence briefing. Here I present the bare bones of what has been happening before our eyes…if we would see it.

Once upon a time, there was an industrial combine in Nazi Germany called IG Farben. It was the largest chemical/pharmaceutical octopus in the world. It owned companies, and it had favorable business agreements with companies from England to Central America to Japan.

The author of The Devil’s Chemists, Josiah DuBois, traveled to Guatemala, on a fact-finding mission, in the early days of World War 2, and returned with the comment that, as far as he could tell, Guatemala was “a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

The pharmaceutical empire was and is one of the major forces behind the European Union (EU). It is no accident that these drug corporations wield such power. They aren’t only involved in controlling the medical cartel; they are political planners.

This is how and why Big Pharma fits so closely with what is loosely referred to as the New World Order. The aim of enrolling every human in a cradle-to-grave system of disease diagnosis and toxic drug treatment has a larger purpose: to debilitate, to weaken populations.

This is a political goal. It facilitates control.

IG Farben’s main component companies, at the outbreak of World War 2, were Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst. They were chemical and drug companies. Farben put Hitler over the top in Germany as head of State, and the war was designed to lead to a united Europe that would be dominated by the Farben nexus.

The loss of the war didn’t derail that plan. It was shifted into an economic blueprint, which became, eventually, the European Union.

The European Commission’s first president was Walter Hallstein, the Nazi lawyer who, during the war, had been in charge of post-war legal planning for the new Europe.

As the Rath Foundation reports: In 1939, on the brink of the war, Hallstein had stated, “The creation of the New Law [of the Nazis] is ONLY the task of the law-makers!”

In 1957, with his reputation sanitized, Hallstein spoke the words in this manner: “The European Commission has full and unlimited power for all decisions related to the architecture of this European community.”

Post-war, IG Farben was broken up into separate companies, but those companies (Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF) came roaring back, attaining new profit highs.

I refer you to the explosive book, The Nazi Roots of the Brussels EU, by Paul Anthony Taylor, Aleksandra Niedzwiecki, Dr. Matthias Rath, and August Kowalczyk. You can also read it at relay-of-life.com. It is a dagger in the heart of the EU.

At the Rath Foundation, you can also read Joseph Borkin’s classic, “The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben.”

In 1992, I was deeply engaged in researching the specific devastating effects of medical drugs. Eventually, I concluded that, at the highest levels of power, these drugs weren’t destructive by accident. They were intended to cause harm. This was covert chemical warfare against the population of the planet. The Rockefeller-Standard Oil-Farben connection was a primary piece of the puzzle.

It was, of course, Rockefeller (and Carnegie) power that had forced the birth of pharmaceutical medicine in America, with the publication of the 1910 Flexner Report. The Report was used to excoriate and marginalize Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and other forms of traditional natural practice, in favor of what would become the modern juggernaut of drug-based treatment.

In an article about the FDA, “Medical Murder in the Matrix,” I point out the fact that this federal agency has permitted at least 100,000 deaths of Americans, per year, from the direct effects of drugs it, the FDA, has certified as safe. (See, for example, JAMA, July 26, 2000, ‘Is US Health Really the Best in the World,’ Dr. Barbara Starfield.)

The FDA knows these death figures. “Unintended” and “accidental” can no longer be applied to this ongoing holocaust.

The pharmaceutical industry itself also knows those death figures.

To understand the dimensions and history of the ongoing chemical warfare against the population, in the form of medical drugs (and of course pesticides), one must factor in the original octopus, IG Farben.

World War 2 never ended. It simply shifted its strategies.

In any fascist system, the bulk of the people working inside the system, including scientists, refuse to believe the evidence of what is happening before their own eyes. They insist they are doing good. They believe they are on the right side. They see greater top-down control as necessary and correct. They adduce “reasonable” explanations for inflicted harm and death.

World War 2 is still underway. The battleground has been changed, and the means are far cleverer.

Sun Tzu wrote: “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting… The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities…It is best to win without fighting.”

This is what has been happening: invisible warfare.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/exposed-the-nazi-roots-of-the-european-union-2/

Image result for Nazi EU


Who’s destroying England? London attacks and the war against Brexit: Rappoport

London Brexit

4June  

Who’s destroying England?

London attacks and the war against Brexit

NOTE: Watch Paul Watson’s shocking video, The Truth about ‘Refugees’

by Jon Rappoport

June 4, 2017

“Here’s a great idea, boys. Gather around. We’re going to build, on top of every national government on the European continent, another government, bigger, more bloated, more corrupt, more powerful. Who’ll notice? Who’ll care?”

“Terrific. Love it. But ultimately we’ll need to destroy all those separate countries and rule the whole continent as one entity. We can do that, yes. We’ll open all borders and let in a massive flow of immigrants and erase national identities. Terror attacks will multiply. We’ll put a lid on talking about immigrants as the cause of the terror. Call it hate speech. We’ll train the population of Europe to accept terrorism as part of the glorious future. It makes no logical sense, but so what? No top-down ideology ever made sense. We’ll preach unlimited tolerance and love. We’ll be a de facto Church of sorts. We’ll hypnotize the whole continent…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

As I was writing this article, multiple terror attacks were launched in London. To say the human destruction “once again raised the question of immigration” would be a vast understatement.

In the run-up to the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration came to the fore as the key issue. But of course, the European Union has a policy of opening borders of all member countries.

The EU wants one continent, no separate countries—and the way to achieve that is by creating a massive flood of migrants. Destroy traditions and cultures that define countries. In the process, accept terrorism as “inevitable.” Don’t talk or write about the actual effects of immigration. That would be “hate speech.” Keep eyes and mouth shut, and march straight ahead into a future of one European continent ruled from above by the EU.

Ever since the UK vote to leave the unelected, terminally corrupt, and rotting edifice known as the European Union, stall tactics and threats have been launched at Brits.

First it was, “It’s going to take a long time to untangle the UK from the EU, it’s very complicated.” Actually, that tactic was predated by Prince Obama traveling to England to warn the population they’d stand at the back of the line in forming separate trade deals with the US, if they left the EU. It’s called interfering in the political affairs of another nation. Now it’s the EU and Queen Merkel beating the UK to the punch by plotting trade deals with India and China, in order to leave the British out in the cold.

But the basic question is, Is Britain a nation? Does it exist? It’s a question citizens are supposed to answer. Not Merkel, Obama, or the EU.

This issue, in case it’s unclear, is all about Globalism. According to that totalitarian political philosophy, of which the EU is a standard bearer, there are no nations. There are only mega-corporations and banks.

As the recently departed guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[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.”

This is not only a political and economic statement, it’s a prescriptive piece of psychological advice: Stop thinking of yourself as a citizen of a country; you’re a global citizen; you exist and function at the pleasure of a new collaborative international order.

And the new order will triumph. Bow your heads and accept it.

Unless people get up on their hind legs and say no, which is what happened in the 2016 Brexit vote.

Defection. Decentralization. Independence.

Hideous words to the ears of Globalists.

Their basic strategy, since the end of World War 2, has been to spin a highly complex network of political and economic relationships, from one end of the world to the other—a labyrinth—from which escape is seen as virtually impossible.

Trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are only part of this system. The EU itself keeps churning out thousands of rules, regulations, and laws.

Build the maze; put national governments and populations in the maze.

Then more or less claim the planet would collapse without the maze.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker just issued a “maze statement” to President Trump after Trump rejected the Globalist Paris Climate (non-) Treaty: “Europe’s duty is to say: it’s not like that. The Americans can’t just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that [he can] because he doesn’t know the details…We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina in clear German sentences. It seems that our attempt failed, but the law is the law, and it must be obeyed. Not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news, and we have to comply with it.”

Supremely arrogant, Juncker was winging it and writing his own script, because, in fact, the US didn’t sign on to a treaty in Paris. Obama tried to unilaterally bind the US to the climate pact, when a two-third’s vote by the US Senate is actually required for such international agreements. And no Senate vote was taken.

But this is the EU’s preemptive attitude toward defection, decentralization, and independence.

In the case of Brexit, climate change wasn’t the issue. Immigration was. The EU tried its best to chastise England for daring to insist unlimited numbers of migrants might be too many. “You’re in the maze, stay in the maze.”

And there is another vector of attack being launched at England: reminders the nation is evil for its colonial practices, which can never, ever be erased. But the covert leaders in that propaganda effort, the EU and its Globalist bosses, feel entitled in their own attempt to colonize the whole planet. “Your colonizing was bad, ours is good.”

With an annual budget in the vicinity of $100 billion, the EU is intractably corrupt and incompetent. It’s estimated that $5 billion a year is stolen from that budget. As for the other $95 billion, what is it for? Nations can govern themselves. The EU could disappear tomorrow and no one would catch a cold. The entire bloated structure, employing between 30 and 50 thousand people (depending on how far the count is extended) is a vast boondoggle.

It’s astonishing that anyone in the UK would feel a sense of loyalty to the EU.

There is nothing strange about Brexit at all. It’s a natural reaction: One day, a house pet goes outside and wanders off into the woods and never comes back. Who is really surprised?

The “system” called the EU insists that terrorism is somehow a price the British people must pay for entering “a better future for all.” Don’t ask what that future looks like. Don’t think about it. The UK doesn’t have the right to set its own immigration policy.

The chaos and destruction that result from open borders are simply an “adjustment period,” after which things will settle down. A new and better England and Europe will emerge. Diversity will triumph. How? Don’t worry about that, be happy.

You see, diversity is a high-minded principle, and by definition it implies a more humane society. Therefore, there is no counter-evidence. Facts are unimportant.

Image result for london terror brexit

The latest London attacks are a message to the British people: You may have exited from the EU, but the EU policy on immigration still stands.

No it doesn’t. Britain is free to set its own policy.

To do so, politically correct speech will have to be jettisoned. Facts will have to be widely expressed. Lies will have to be widely exposed.

The EU will need to be named as a driving force in immigration, and the results of migration will need to be laid at its door.

The EU sees immigrant terrorism as its ticket to greater control over Europe.

The London attacks are a challenge thrown in Britain’s face. Bow down and accept; or rebel.

Leaving the EU means LEAVING the EU.

How many times must British citizens witness these attacks and watch police come in after the fact? How long before leaving means LEAVING?

How long before the British people realize that the flood of migrants is not simply “a refugee crisis” created by the US and its allies, whose imperialist policies of Empire and wars in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, initiate “blowback?”

How long before they see numbers of these “refugees” are just military-age young men who arrive with destruction on their minds?

How long before they see England is riddled with EU agents who are “forwarding a humane immigration policy,” come hell or high water?

One continent, under no liberty and no justice, with suffering and slavery for all.

How long before they leave THAT?

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/london-attacks-and-the-war-against-brexit/

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.

Peace through mutual blackmail: is that what’s happening in Washington? By Jon Rappoport

Peace Mutual blackmail

Peace through mutual blackmail: is that what’s happening in Washington?

by Jon Rappoport

May 25, 2017

In the last few days, the campaign to impeach Donald Trump has quieted down. We’ll see what happens; but is this breathing space and pause the result of a stalemate? Do both sides have “control files” on each other? Is the underlying proposition, “I won’t spill your secrets if you won’t spill mine”?

I now refer to an article about Trump and his enemies that has been circulating online. I don’t know who the author is. His views and opinions make an interesting circumstantial case. Here is an excerpt:

“James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order… a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama. He is has been central to trying to destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in DC. He had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being finished by the other swamp denizens.”

“Begin by noticing how the President fired Comey when Comey was 3,000 miles away from his office, that Comey had no inkling he was being cut, that all his files, computers, and everything in his office were seized by his boss Sessions and the justice department. This was not a violation of protocol, it was tactical. Notice how Prez Trump compartmentalized the strike and did not inform any of his White House ‘staff’ to prevent leaks. Notice how he emasculated Comey and the swamp denizens by letting them know in a tweet that the Attorney General got information (surveillance ‘tapes’ from the seizure of Comey’s office) to let Comey and his handlers know that Trump’s DOJ has the goods on them. This was a brilliant, strategic and totally imperative move at exactly the right time against horrible, evil and corrupt powers infesting our government.”

“The swamp is on notice that the President is on to them, they are sweating bullets because their criminal games of corruption are being pursued and they know it. They are screaming and ranting because they are desperate denizens of the swamp who are beginning to realize they are roadkill.”

The article goes on to describe the purported depths of Comey’s corrupt connections to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, as their agent.

In the author’s view, Trump and Attorney General Sessions have the goods on the Clintons now, and also have damning evidence of crimes committed by other key players in the DC swamp.

There is another possibility.

Given Donald Trump’s history as a real estate hustler from way back, his acrobatic financial dealings with money men, his projects’ bankruptcies, his celebrity status, his impulsive proclivities, his extraordinary self-promotion, it’s obvious his enemies have compiled a “control file” on him. They have the sort of information they believe they can use as serious blackmail.

In that case, we could now be looking at a stalemate of sorts. Both sides have the goods on each other.

This is no guarantee of a permanent peace based on Mutually Assured Destruction; but MAD could form the basis of a truce. And the truce could extend into the future.

“I have your secrets, you have mine. Now let’s do business.”

Of course, we have to remember that Washington is a tinderbox at all times. It’s a dry forest waiting for a match to be struck and a spark to fly.

We will see whether Trump drains the swamp, the swamp drains him, or nobody drains anybody.

The present war in Washington isn’t for the faint of heart, or the nice people who want everybody to get along, or the suburbanites who want all participants to be awarded trophies. Washington is Crime Central and the knives are out in full view. It’s a fashion parade in the devil’s cave. To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you can’t stand the overflowing toilets, get out of the bathroom.

Washington is a land of insanity, psychosis, spying, panic, and excrement-throwing.

When you try to connect the dots, you see they have blood and lies and hatred and coup-plotting and impeachment and even the ghost of David Rockefeller embedded in them, as opening and closing little clams and sharks and crawling worms and blobs of unidentifiable species try to take Donald Trump down. And he, of course, wants to take them down…

It would be no surprise if the people who hold each other’s secrets are staring at a “nuclear freeze” pact on the bargaining table: “you can’t blow me up without me blowing you up.”

Also consider players within the US intelligence community. Both the CIA and NSA have been spying on officials in Washington and other prominent Americans for a long time. These agencies hold secrets as well.

And then there is the organization whose members and alumni Trump has surrounded himself with:

Goldman Sachs. Through his key appointees from the “vampire squid” firm, Trump is working an audacious angle. He knows that if the stock market takes a long and horrendous dive, the pressure on him is going to be enormous. The “business community” will blame him. The media will claim the economy is collapsing under his watch. Goldman can make many moves to keep the stock market up. What does the firm want in return? That’s the magic question. Threats of war, and war, in order to keep contract money flowing to the military industrial complex? Special and undetectable favors? Protection from prosecution for ongoing financial crimes? And what does Goldman Sachs know about Trump? What would they be willing to reveal, if he backs away from any part of the agreement he has struck with them?

The mutually assured destruction pact has more than two sides. Holding together a multi-faceted truce isn’t the easiest job in the world.

Everyone involved has something to gain and something to lose. Calculating upside vs. downside is a delicate proposition.

And, in the midst of this, crazy people can show up who go off on the spur of the moment. They blow their corks, and all bets are off.

For now, cooler heads are prevailing.

For now.

Blackmail, extortion. It’s not the only game in town, but it’s the big one. It lurks around every corner, it sits in every conference room, it weaves its way through legislation, policy, and judicial decision.

It’s the other branch of Government.

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.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/peace-through-mutual-blackmail-is-that-whats-happening-in-washington/

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night by Jon Rappoport

Comey Affair

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night

by Jon Rappoport

May 14, 2017

NEWSMAN #1: Trump fired Comey.

NEWSMAN #2: Biggest thing since the great Chicago fire of 1871.

NEWSMAN #1: Bigger. How do we play this? The Democrats wanted Comey’s head for what he did to Hillary. Trump just fired Comey. I’m confused.

NEWSMAN #2: Doesn’t matter. Say Trump just burned up the Constitution. Say he hates dogs and little children. Say his hair is actually a wig made of Russian sable.

NEWSMAN #1: What about the truth?

NEWSMAN #2: The what? You poor sap. Truth is relative to agenda. Did you miss that lesson in journalism school?

NEWSMAN #1: I didn’t go to journalism school. I got my PhD in philosophy at Yale. I wrote my thesis on a comparison of “an” and “the” in ancient Babylonia.

Fired FBI Director Comey is obviously in trouble. Cry for him. He’ll have to go on food stamps and welfare now, won’t he? Will he be able to collect Social Security? He’s too young! He needs crowdfunding. Send canned food.

The media are portraying Trump firing Comey as “breathtaking,” “stunning,” “shocking.” They’re saying this is how Washington is reacting.

If you live in Washington, try to find somebody who is really sucking air and trying to breathe. Find somebody who is leaning against a wall because he’s stunned. Find somebody whose eyes are rolling up inside his head from the shock.

It’s all made up. It’s all hyped.

Washington politicians may be pretending shock and amazement for the cameras, but that’s about it.

And if you travel outside Washington, most people don’t care about Comey. People are fired from their jobs all the time. People are let go for many reasons. People who can’t afford to be unemployed. Comey, on the other hand, is thinking about a book deal. He might be planning a vacation. He might be talking to Obama about doing some elite “community organizing.” He’ll be fielding offers to sit on corporate boards. His biggest worry: “Do I go on the talk shows right away or do I wait?”

Washington insiders aren’t shocked by anything. They just play that role on television.

When an interesting event occurs, like Trump firing Comey, Washington pols meet with their staffs and plan their public response. They look for a personal advantage. “How can I play this?” “Can I use this to get ahead?” “Let’s go for the Trump impeachment angle.”

Comey himself knew he was on the verge of getting fired. There wasn’t any mystery about it. He kept pushing the fantastical Trump-Russia investigation. He didn’t bother looking into Trump-team leaks that were the result of domestic hacking. His initial reaction to getting fired—he thought it was a joke, a prank—was nonsensical. He knew. He knew he was on the edge.

Right now, Comey is wondering how far he can move from his former job and maintain credibility as a non-partisan figure. Or: can he go the other way and sign on with Obama? Can he approach Hillary and mend fences? Can he lobby? How can he successfully position himself for the “next chapter of his life?”

I once interviewed a troubled Washington politician who had jumped the wrong way on an important decision involving his Party. He was toast. With me, he mouthed all sorts of gumble-jumble about “sticking to his guns,” but I could see his wheels were turning. He was contemplating his future. Where could he go? What could he do to make hay after public office? These people don’t waste time. They move on. Nobody cares. It’s politics.

Comey rolled the dice and lost. He knew he could lose. As he was rolling those dice, he was already thinking about his image and whether he could emerge as a hero or a martyr. Or whether he had already played out all his political capital. If so, his next gig would land him in the private sector, or with a prestigious foundation.

Washington is a mix of musical chairs and checkers. Doors open, doors close, the players scramble for a spot.

Nobody is shocked.

In the swamp, nobody is amazed.

The media pretend shock, awe, and amazement, because when they do, their ratings go up.

Right now, in that vein, they’re all jockeying for a chance to interview Comey. He’s the next big “get.”

“Tell Mr. Comey we can do this anywhere he wants to. In his living room, his study, or we’ll put him in a quiet studio. And we’ll walk along a riverbank, stroll through a forest. It’ll be dignified. Absolutely no gossip. He’s a major figure. We’ll accord him all the respect he deserves. We’ll track his career from the early days. He’s a…statesman. We hold him in the highest regard. We’d like to do this long-form, as a two-parter, on consecutive nights. An hour each night. Only one commercial per half-hour. We want to give him the widest possible exposure. All of America wants to hear what he has to say at this crucial moment. As a token of our appreciation and an expression of concern, we’re prepared to FedEx him a dozen cans of baked beans and several flank steaks from Safeway, because we know he’s currently unemployed…”

And then there was the Comey farewell letter to his FBI people.

As you read it, try to hold back the tears.

“I have said to you before that, in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence. What makes leaving the FBI hard is the nature and quality of its people, who together make it that rock for America.”

“It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing. My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution. If you do that, you too will be sad when you leave, and the American people will be safer.”

Competence? Committed to doing the right thing? Upholding the Constitution and the law?

Comey was obviously excluding himself from that reference.

Recall his surreal press conference during the presidential campaign, during which he acted as FBI director, Attorney General, and grand jury, when he recited a list of felonies Hillary Clinton had committed in the handling of her private email server…and then said he was not recommending prosecution, because Hillary showed no intent to deceive or do harm. Comey obviously knew intent was no part of the law, which was written to make sure negligence alone, in the handling of classified materials, was sufficient to prosecute and convict a perpetrator.

A number of FBI agents weren’t happy with Comey then. Not at all. The new Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe belatedly confirmed it in testimony before Congress on Thursday: “…there were folks within our agency that were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about those concerns.”

You bet.

As for the unparalleled honesty of the FBI Comey referred to in his farewell letter, where does one begin?

Let’s take a peek at just one area: the vaunted FBI lab, where evidence in crime investigations is analyzed.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: “Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload”’.”

Buckle up for this one. March 22, 1997, CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

If you’re thinking the FBI’s fake investigation of the Oklahoma bombing evidence opens the door to a whole new direction in the case, you’re right. (I wrote a book about false evidence in the OKC bombing in 1995.)

Yes, there are honest and honorable agents at the FBI, but let’s not go overboard with Comey and his sop of a farewell letter.

Comey postures. He works the “honor” angle. He tap dances. He puts out pure jive.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

And now, far more interesting than “why was Comey really fired from the FBI”: what corruption he did he leave behind at the FBI that we don’t know about?

The old saying, fake it ‘til you make it, applies. Comey faked it until he made it. And then he faked it again.

Now he’ll move into a new role. Who knows, some day, as history is rewritten, people may be saying he was the only honest man in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: I’m writing a book about Comey, comparing him to Gandhi.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Who wins?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Comey, in a landslide. He stood up against the titanic forces of evil in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: You have a publisher?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The US Printing Office. My uncle owns it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: I thought that was a government department.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The New York Times bought it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Your uncle owns the New York Times?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: He owns the company that owns Facebook and Google. They own the New York Times.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Wow. What’s the name of the company your uncle owns?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Clinton and Comey. It’s a law firm and a foundation. Their headquarters are in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and the Vatican.

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night


Cartels of the mind: the free individual returns, By Jon Rappoport

Cartels of the mind: the free individual returns

Cartels of the Mind: the free individual returns

by Jon Rappoport

May 3, 2017

“Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The whole rotting structure begins to collapse, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes and turn off their cameras.”

Several years ago, after reading an article of mine, a producer approached me about writing a movie script. He wasn’t sure whether he wanted it to be a documentary or a feature. But he wanted it to be “heroic,” he said. And long.

We had discussions. I sent him notes. The tentative title was, “Cartels of the Mind.” Another possibility was “Free Mind.”

The producer eventually wobbled, then disappeared.

Here are some of those preliminary notes. I’ve recently added one or two comments.

If you can’t see the background of a crime, you aren’t seeing the crime, you’re seeing the sensational effects, that’s all.

There are people who want their own minds to look exactly like the world. They want their minds to look like photographs of the world. This is what they strive for. The idea that they could invent something is so terrifying they opt instead for the world as it is.

This is what amused the surrealists. They started turning things upside down and inside out. They were reacting to humans who had made themselves into robots. Into robot cameras.

The Surveillance State is a robot camera. It captures everything, based on the premise that what isn’t Normal is dangerous.

The cartels of the world become the cartels of the mind.

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The US would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of US government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet. Not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units”—and then, with the erasure of borders, combined into regions.

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the State.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people. But no reports on The Individual.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility channeled into support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

Collective=robot minds welded into one mind.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story–”share and care”—took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In many cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions, and forgotten.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

This could happen to you. You would be exposed. You would suffer the consequences. Let others take the fall. Keep your mind blank. Do nothing unusual. Shorten your attention span. Disable your own mental machinery. Then you’ll never be tempted to stand out from the mass.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The Plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move, in order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman, and child.

Strapped by an amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

The deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Yet a struggle continues to live. It lives in the hidden places of every individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage.

Freedom and power again. The shattering of amnesia.

In this stolen nation.

…And so the extinct individual returns.

Petty little hungers and obsessions become great hungers.

Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The whole rotting structure collapses, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes and turn off their cameras.

The vast sticky web called “the people” begins to disintegrate in roaring cities and in the mind.

A new instructive message appears:

“Normal is gone. The unique individual returns.”

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/cartels-of-the-mind-the-free-individual-returns/

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.