AN OPEN LETTER TO GARY JOHNSON: CHOKE THE VOTE!

AN OPEN LETTER TO GARY JOHNSON: CHOKE THE VOTE!

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Dear Gary,

I’m writing because I believe you, as the Libertarian Party candidate for president, can perform a great service for the country.

As you know, there is a growing awareness across America that a vote for Obama or Romney is not going to get us where we want to go.

It’s only going to worsen the situation we’re in.

We’re close enough to the cliff already.

The Libertarian Party fully understands that the Democrats and Republicans—the one Party with two heads—have been violating the Constitution at an egregious level for decades.

The whole notion of limited central government, on which the American Republic was founded, is now buried under mountains of illegal laws, regulations, and practices.  To spell out a complete bill of particulars would take years.

Now is the time for us to take public action, and I believe that action can best be capsulized as: Choke the Vote.

Don’t vote in this presidential election.  Don’t vote for anyone.

Let those of us who are aware stand up and say, “We’re not voting for Obama or Romney.  We don’t want either one.  And if you are voting for either candidate, it’s you who’ll shoulder the responsibility for what the eventual president does to make things worse.”

Let’s place the burden where it really is.

Gary, you could, in one stroke, make more of a difference in this election than through all the campaigning you and the Libertarian Party are doing.  You could tell your supporters, your Party, and all America: DON’T VOTE.  DON’T VOTE FOR ME.  DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE.

You could further urge other third-party candidates to tell their followers the same thing.

“In this election, don’t vote for me.  Don’t vote for anyone.  This time around, that’s what I’m campaigning for.”

Contrary to the notion that this amounts to political suicide, it could galvanize thousands, maybe millions of Americans, who are sitting at home grumbling about Obama and Romney, who are profoundly dissatisfied, as they try to figure out what to do about the dilemma they’re facing.

We’re not as small a group as some people imagine.  If a spark is created, we could ignite a dormant sense of outrage that has been boiling under the surface of the population for years.

We could make ourselves known.  We could state our case, connect, and show our true preference by staying home on election day.

Since we can’t go into the voting booth and select “none of the above,” we need to make our voices heard beyond the ballot.

How many people, in the wake of the first presidential debate, saw their worst fears realized?  How many people shook their heads and said, “I don’t trust either candidate”?

How many people would like to feel their no-vote could send a clear positive message?

How many people retain enough knowledge of the Constitution to know that each of these candidates is planning to keep violating that document if he is elected?

How many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution feel in their gut that Obama and Romney would keep leading us down the wrong path?

We should do all we can to legitimize that feeling, because it is real, it is true, and it is distinctly necessary.

The Democrats and Republicans have been asserting a monopolistic chokehold on the government for a very long time.  Through incessant promotion to vote, through PR about “the lesser of two evils,” and in other ways, Americans have been made guilty about withholding their consent from the two-party system.

When are we going to say Enough?

Gary, a vote for you as president, a vote for what you stand for as a Libertarian, is a good thing.  But consider that the best thing is you taking one step further on the road, in 2012, and leading a grassroots revolution.  Now, make a course correction and run on a platform of DON’T VOTE.  DON’T VOTE FOR ME.  DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE.

Apply a shock to the system.  Express how profoundly you feel about what the two major parties have been doing to the American Republic.

This is the leadership we need now.  This is the voice we need.

Make a beginning.

It doesn’t matter whether, in the wake of your announcement, we would suddenly hear ten supporting voices or ten thousand.  What matters is that we start.

Let all the counter-rhetoric flow.  Let the critics who demand that we vote say what they will.  It will give us a chance to point out the flaws and lies in their pronouncements.

Does the government, as represented by Democrats and Republicans, own this country, or do we?  Are our authentic voices confined to choosing between two alternatives that don’t reflect our best thoughts and desires?

Is that our diminished and subservient role?

I hope you’ll give these issues some thought.

And to all free-thinkers, independent citizens, and artists everywhere, I hope you’ll take up the banner of CHOKE THE VOTE in your own imaginative and compelling way.  Somewhere up the line, we could see the moment when so many people stay home on election day, the nation will come alive with the No Confidence its citizens righteously express.

We can say, “We can’t do anything,” or we can do something.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE WHILE ROME BURNS

 

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FIDDLE WHILE ROME BURNS

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Since these two guys are actors, can’t they get better actors to debate? Since these two guys are gangsters, can’t they get Tony Soprano to square off against Sonny Corleone? That would give us some fabulous TV viewing.

 

I tried watching the debate. I got so bogged down in numbers I gave up.

 

No, it’s not the 600 percent added on to the rebate on the other tax, it’s the minus 40 percent, and then you divide by 2, not 3. And that’s what I’ve been saying since day one.”

 

Well, if you divide by 2, the figures don’t match up to what happened to my grandmother.”

 

The postmortem media reaction was, of course, all about performance. The pundits were schoolteachers in a public speaking class.

 

You looked down at the podium. You didn’t stand straight. You were slumping. You have to keep your shoulders back and your head level. Try to smile more. Never look at your hands. The moderator is your friend. Don’t interrupt him…”

 

The country is falling apart, the economy is taking hits from all sides, the food supply is brimming with GMOs, the US is fighting covert wars all over the Middle East, crime in the streets is spreading, the surveillance state is recording everything that moves, the Fed is printing money like it’s toilet paper, but…Obama kept looking down at the podium, that’s the takeaway from the debate.

 

The stretch I watched was two accountants trying to figure out how to cook the books.

 

I would have preferred matching clips of Romney water-skiing versus Obama shooting hoops on the White House lawn.

 

Here are a couple of the incisive after-debate poll questions from CBS and CNN: how do you feel now about (candidate) caring about your needs and problems; did (candidate) perform better than you expected.

 

Caring about my needs and problems? What the hell does the president have to do with my needs and problems? I need the dissolution of the two American political parties. My problem is they’re actually one party with two heads.

 

Perform better than I expected? I expected both of them would be mind-numbing, and they exceeded even Dr. Phil.

 

The psychology of elections boils down to something simple. If people see two guys in suits disagreeing about something, people think what they’re disagreeing about must be important. That’s it. That’s all you have to know.

 

That’s how you stage politics. The real issues and the real crimes are buried, because the candidates agree on what they’re supposed to argue about up front.

 

They won’t take questions on the obscene number of medically caused deaths, on GMO destruction, on the explosion of surveillance, on the phony war on terror or drugs, on the patent crime of stock manipulation, on black budgets, on the encroaching forces of Globalism, on the fake science behind global warming, on chemtrails, on the massive failure of public education, on US-government empire building, on corporate statism, on the bureaucratic army of unelected regulators who run federal agencies and illegally make laws, on Agenda 21, and on a host of other issues.

 

They’ll skirt all that.

 

They’ll fiddle while Rome burns.

 

You want a Monsanto president? Elect either Obama or Romney. Facts show both men are in the pocket of that heinous corporation.

 

CBS, NBC, and ABC accentuate “performance” in the debates. FOX slams Obama; MSNBC slams Romney. CNN tries to look neutral while supporting Obama. It’s all for show. Nobody dares say both candidates (and thus both political parties) are disasters. That would derail the ratings of the stage play. That would blow the ongoing cover-up.

 

During the run-up to every presidential election since 1980, I have heard people say that THAT ELECTION was the most important in history, and a failure to vote would be treasonous. That’s because engendering fear is the primary way to keep the population locked into two-party electoral politics. In every election season, there is always some “overriding issue” that demands picking sides. There is always a new disaster, a new crisis.

 

In that sense, the purpose of the election is not to solve the crisis; the crisis is generated to make the election seem vital.

 

The best after-debate comment of the night was delivered by Al Gore. Obama coming to Denver at the last moment, Al opined, could have created, at that altitude, a brain oxygen deficit. On this basis alone, if Obama is reelected, Al should win the directorship of the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

 

Speaking of brain cells, any American with at least two functioning cells should realize that the road to the presidency, coming up through the two-party system, means any puppet who gains the job is a lowest common denominator. It’s not just about party, either. It’s about the men who control the parties. The Rockefeller types who run the whole show delight in superficial presidential thinkers who can’t separate the real wheat from the phony chaff.

 

These presidents actually believe their own “secret agendas” have a chance of success. They refuse to understand that what they want is just a minor flea on the body of the true Plan: global takeover by Globalist elites.

 

This isn’t conspiracy, this is history going back at least as far as 1913.

 

Why don’t people want to see it? Because they’ve struggled to assert and cement in a picture of reality by the time they’ve reached the age of consent. And having done that, they can’t face the idea that what they’ve begged, borrowed, and stolen might be completely wrong.

 

During my life, I’ve met two significant politicians. Norman Thomas, who for years ran for president on the Socialist ticket, came to our house for dinner. He was a bore. Nothing I heard or saw reflected a vigorous mind at work. As far as I could tell, he was just going over old cliches for the thousandth time.

 

The other politician was Senator Hubert Humphrey. My parents dragged me to a lecture of his when I was 16. I listened to the Hump talk for close to three hours, and at the end of it, I was convinced he was the greatest man in the world. At that time, he was at the height of his oratorical powers. He was something to see.

 

A week later, I couldn’t recall a single thing he’d said. It was then I began to wonder what politics was all about.

 

Last night, I watched two sold-out specimens take their show on the road in Denver. It was so, so tired. I waited for the water-skiing and the hoops, but they never came.

 

Democrat-Republican politics in America is a walking dead man. We who know this are trending, as they say. We need to expand our ranks. Two pernicious book-end gargoyles aren’t going to save the day.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

A REPORTER REPLIES TO SAMUEL JACKSON’S “WAKE THE F**K UP, AMERICA” AD

 

A REPORTER REPLIES TO SAMUEL JACKSON’S “WAKE THE F**K UP, AMERICA” AD

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

That reporter would be me. My reply, for starters, is a video cartoon. Watch it here:

 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqZRhhq61gc&w=415&h=233]

 

I’m tired of celebrities who don’t have a clue, who think this election is really about the differences between Obama and Romney.

 

This election is about the pretense of differences. As any awake American knows, we have one political party in this country. It has two heads. Its heads are corporate. Its heads are Globalist.

 

Globalism has never been a campaign issue in any presidential election. That should be a clue, since what is happening in this world is, to a large degree, guided by Globalist forces.

 

Their goal is a New World Order. Not the narrow one Democrats think the Republicans fomented. The N.W.O. embraces both parties. Whenever there is a piece of legislation before Congress that would expand mega-corporate power at the expense of everybody else, such as the GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA treaties, requiring Senate approval, both sides of the aisle manage to engineer enough cooperation to pass it.

 

It doesn’t matter who is president.

 

Globalist banking forces have been busy bees in the last few years, torpedoing national economies, shoving populations over the cliff, preparing to install some version of a new currency that will encompass the planet. This currency doesn’t have to be paper, nor does it have to win formal approval of governments. In its first phase, it can simply rearrange debt.

 

Wait, the US and European bailouts have already been doing that. And now we have QE3 in America, which is a label for the endless “printing” of Bernanke dollars out of thin air.

 

Celebrities who think they have a grip on the real role of political parties in this country are absolutely clueless. In Mr. Jackson’s case, the fact that Barack Obama is black is about as important as a fragment of dust on Mars.

 

Obama and Romney are tools. Instruments. They front for forces over which they have no control.

 

When people like Matt Damon, Madonna, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, and Clint Eastwood make public pronouncements about their favorite politician of the moment, they’re doing nothing more than contributing to the confusion and deception in which American politics has been mired for generations.

 

They have the right to say anything they want to. But imagining they have the slightest clue about what is going on is laughable.

 

Wake the f**k up, America, in their mouths really means: go back to sleep for four more years. It means: be a sheep. It means: take your news from the mainstream media. It means: fall into the trap of believing one of two puppets will cure what ails us.

 

Haven’t we had enough of this nonsense and insanity? Haven’t we had enough of phony opposition that is created to keep us flailing away at each other? Haven’t we had enough of a federal government that is becoming more and more intrusive and controlling, no matter who is living in the White House, no matter who is playing golf or jogging or hosting galas?

 

Why aren’t these celebrities taking about the awesome power of the surveillance state? Why aren’t they mentioning the global takeover the food supply by Monsanto with its GMOs? Why aren’t they talking about the demise of the small farmer? Why aren’t they talking about the mass destruction being wreaked by the pharmaceutical empire with its oversold toxic drugs?

 

Are these issues, just to name a few, too hot to handle? Would coming out of the closet on these matters put a quick end to their careers? And if so, what, yes, global forces could cast those actors aside like so much debris in the wind?

 

Living inside the Hollywood bubble can be a precarious proposition, when the truth is on the table. That’s when these actors, who play fictional heroes, starting sweating for real, back up a step, and sense their fame and fortune is at stake. And then they feign ignorance and shut up. They disappear.

 

If you’re reading this article and are a committed Democrat or Republican, all I can say to you is: Wake the F**ck up.

 

Only I mean it.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

Operation mind control: “save the planet”

Operation mind control: “save the planet”

by Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The word “collectivism” sounds old-fashioned today. It’s supposed to.

It’s supposed to sound like a label from a bygone age when people were combing US government offices for hidden Soviet spies.

Collectivism is tied to other obsolete slogans like “Better dead than Red” and “America, love it or leave it.” In other words, we’re supposed to think collectivism was simply a trendy idea that ran out of steam. You know, a bunch of crazy paranoids were scrambling around warning everybody the sky was falling, but it wasn’t. They yelled COLLECTIVISM IS COMING, WATCH OUT, but nothing happened.

Well, the truth is, collectivism won its war. It absolutely won.

So it changed its name. It became a thousand names behind a thousand masks.

So now we’re the spies. We’re the spies for freedom, and they’re profiling us and trying to marginalize our influence.

Think back to the war of 1776. The Colonists came together, some of them. They banded together to fight the British. They were a group, and ultimately they won. But what did they do after that? They somehow managed to frame founding documents that established freedom of the individual, not the group, as the primary building block of the new Republic.

If we win this fight to preserve freedom in America, will we have the same understanding of what The Individual means? Or will we be so brainwashed that we’ll preach and teach freedom for The Group? If we take the latter path, we’ll fall right back into the trap of collectivism.

Consider the actions and words of the last few presidents. Have any of them made The Individual the basis of their rhetoric?

The answer, of course, is no. And Obama has been the worst of them in that regard. Obama is, you might say, the natural evolution of the eradication of The Individual. He’s focused all his attention on groups.

He bemoans the unemployment rate in “the public sector,” which is the drone-core of the collective. He emphatically demeans the individual entrepreneur (“you didn’t build that”), and claims that the infrastructure of the country, built by the public sector (?), is more important than The Individual.

Under Obama, the collective has become a messianic force. As if, in its vague and undefined way, it will save us all. We’ll become crusaders for that cause.

Yet, for every significant enterprise in human history, the individual vision comes first. It is the launching pad. The energy and inspiration of one person is the thing without which nothing happens.

Where is this taught in our schools? Where do we hear this in churches? What corporations explain this? How many parents make this clear to their children?

The idea has been lost. It is so lost that the majority of Americans don’t even understand what it means.

This should be a blood-curdling fact. But it isn’t. The major media certainly don’t bother with it. Psychologists don’t study it or comment on it. Who is funding studies on the power and vision of the free individual? What politician is running for office based on that idea? In what district anywhere in America would such a campaign score a victory?

No, The Individual is passe.

That’s where we are.

We’re in the dark.

Even when alternative journalists cover the dying out of freedom, they almost always discuss how “all of us” are being swamped by repressive forces. They don’t cut to the core:

Freedom is dying out for The Individual. That’s the stark essence of what is happening in America. But it’s easier to talk about “all of us,” because we have been brainwashed into believing that freedom or slavery is a collective issue.

An overwhelming number of Americans, in what is still the freest nation in the world, can no longer conceive of themselves as free and powerful individuals.

So I can tell you this: even if we win the fight to preserve the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, what we’ll do after that will still miss the mark, until we resurrect The Individual. And that job is Herculean. Most people don’t want to hear about it or think about it.

I, for one, think about it every day. It is a North Star that allows a person to navigate his life. It’s a standard and a measuring rod.

In uncountable ways, we are being drawn into the orbit of The Group. One group or another. We are told, directly or subtly, that everything we do is connected to others, and that connection is the defining impulse that shows us what we are. We are THAT and nothing else.

Why did George Orwell write 1984 about Winston Smith, one individual? Because he wanted to show the effect of the all-consuming State on its primary target: one person. Is that the way the book is read and taught now? Or are we supposed to believe that Winston Smith, the rebel, was merely a symbol and a metaphor for what was happening to everyone?

It doesn’t matter what is happening to everyone, when the irreducible essence of freedom, one person, is no longer present in consciousness.

When people think about Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, can they recall an individual hero, or has the State, in the book, taken over existence to such a degree that the one person is irrelevant?

Operation Mind Control, or collectivism, has triumphed so fully in our time that most people can’t imagine themselves as distinct and separate and free and powerful individuals. Nor do they want to. They feel guilt when they try. They feel they are betraying the Mass. They feel they are breaking the law. They feel they must retreat back to a position of safety. They feel that, if they step out in front of The Group, they are losing their innate “religion.”

Through devious means, the media twists individuals into “lone individuals,” a phrase we’re all too familiar with. These are the mysterious psychopaths who commit vicious crimes. The implication is: if they only had been part of some community, they might have learned community values and taken a different path. They might have realized they were part of the whole “human family.” They might have been saved.

Because, according to collectivism, to be saved IS to recognize that one is a cell inside an interdependent collection of cells. That is the premise. That’s the trendy thing to believe.

If you want cells inside cells, study almost any ancient society. There you will find variations of human ant colonies. There you will find individual sublimation to the group spelled out in blood.

What do you think Globalism and the New World Order are all about? They are the apotheosis of The Group, disguised as humanitarian service to The Good. This is a cold calculated propaganda operation. It works because people, when they become aware of suffering, want to reach out and end it. That impulse is preyed upon by the Globalist vultures, twisted, redirected, and harvested.

On a personal level, individuals become aware they can discover and invent visions of grand achievements and futures; then they hesitate; they balk, they feel alone; they don’t have the staying power to rebel against the Mass. They find a group into which they can retreat. They remain there. They hide from themselves there. They hope their self-induced amnesia will last. They invent reasons and stories and myths to explain their retreat. They seek confirmation they’ve made the right choice. They find other individuals like themselves, who’ve surrendered. They form bonds. They collectivize.

Now we are told the individual’s highest aspiration or vision must be service to the group. The whole matter of “the greatest life” is presumed to be settled. It’s no longer worth re-thinking. This, of course, is propaganda. In many ways, from many angles, it’s taught and implied in our schools. Children learn to parrot the appropriate phrases. They utter them proudly.

Three minutes after the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, there was an all-out psyop to convince humanity that the world was no longer separated in any way. No, now we had to strive together, to avoid extinction. And that was true, up to a point. But this striving—what would it be FOR? Toward what end?

How would the overriding slogan, “We’re all in this together,” actually be applied?

Look at how “one world striving together” has been used by Globalists in the last 65 years. We have, for example, the GATT Treaty, which gave birth to the World Trade Organization. And we have lesser treaties, like NAFTA and CAFTA, which were designed along the same lines.

These treaties have led to the enormous outsourcing of jobs and the flight of corporate factories. As Sir James Goldsmith pointed out, this is a completely criminal and insane policy. It means that the industrial countries have had to compete on impossible terms with countries where workers will produce goods for next to nothing.

It is economic suicide—planned economic suicide, aimed at bringing down the industrial nations. It’s succeeding. This is the real and brutal face of the slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

From the World Trade Organization has come the pernicious standard called Harmonization. It means that food policy and medical policy and health policy and trade policy—and eventually military policy and limited free-speech policy and judicial policy—are all arranged on an international basis. No more sovereign choices and no more sovereign nations. This is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

The Cold War itself, in which the United States and the Soviet Union faced off for decades, and its gigantic cost in human lives and money—all of it was a covert operation to divert drain resources away from truly productive societies.

As Anthony Sutton demonstrated so ably in his work on technology transfers from the US to the USSR, criminal covert ops were undertaken to keep the Soviets on the semblance of an equal footing with America. Why?

To sustain the Cold War, and therefore to grab tax dollars from hard-working citizens; to increase the gap between the rich and the poor; to destabilize nations and bring them closer to being military camps; to keep people on edge fearing an imminent nuclear holocaust; to establish the “need” for universal surveillance; to demonstrate in terms everyone could understand that, in order for the planet to survive, “we had to be in this all together.” As collectivists.

Then we had a softer version of the same platitude, the 1960s, the Age of Peace and Love. “We’re all in this together.” “Everything belongs to everybody.” And in the wake of that delirious decade, the propaganda of Interdependence. In Nature, and in society, and in the universe, everything is connected to everything. Collectivist Nature and collectivist economics and collectivist physics.

It Takes a Village.” No one can stand alone. The individual is dead. The Group is All.

Then, the onslaught of messianic propaganda about food and agriculture. We have to feed everybody. What form has that taken? The one-word answer is Monsanto. Life will finally work for seven billion people because all crops will be genetically engineered. This will enable far greater crop yields (an outright lie). The small (individual and free) farmer will be phased out. Destroyed.

In truth, the nutritional content of food will be grossly lowered. New diseases spring up. This is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

In the medical arena, we have the institution of national health care plans in more nations, finally including the US. Everyone will be covered. We’re all in this together. Except that the true objective of the plan was to install mainstream allopathic medicine as the only permitted system. Meaning: more toxic drugs, destroying more lives. 225,000 annual deaths in the US alone from the medical system. We’re seeing ops designed to marginalize and phase out natural medicine. This is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

How about economics and finances? With conscious collectivist agents inside every government in the world, we got massive government spending—to the point where the debt was insupportable, where any economic calamity, engineered or accidental, could topple the whole works. As it has. This is collectivism in action, for the objective of creating one “better” global management system for Earth. The New World Order.

We could go on. But the point is clear. Since 1945 and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, the ideal and the promoted necessity of one world, of “we’re all together in this together,” has been used over and over again as a form of mind control, to permit the massive destruction of civilization.

The fatally flawed “science” of manmade global warming has emphasized yet another form of “we must all strive together to avoid a holocaust.” In this case, it’s carbon taxes, cap and trade, the dismantling of industrial economies, the increase of poverty, the reduction of available energy.

And at the heart of all of this mind control is the premise that the free and powerful individual, seeking his highest vision, seeking his greatest achievements, is the enemy, and only the collective can save and deliver us from evil.

Some people, reading this, will think I’m against any group action, that I don’t believe group action has ever been effective. They miss my point entirely. I’m not talking about REAL group action. I’m talking about ENGINEERED group action devised to destroy life, under the guise of saving it.

And most of all, I’m talking about the individual human being SURRENDERING to the idea that he is unimportant, that he only counts in reference to other people, that he has no real power, no real imagination, no great vision, no great status.

Status ultimately is reserved for the collective.

In my life, I’ve known hundreds of people, and I’ve seen thousands more, who’ve launched and built and created enterprises of one kind or another…and then they turned around and preached the primacy of the group. Instead of standing as an example of what one person can do, a TRUTHFUL example, they betrayed all that and became advocates for the collective.

It’s a sick joke. They came out of nowhere and used their power and energy and imagination to create something successful, and then they abandoned the premise of The Individual.

Some of these people have been co-opted, but many just failed to understand their own psychology. And many refused to allow other people to be individuals.

Well, yes, I built that, but I know you can’t. So I’m here to help you, to put you into the mass, the group, the collective.”

Could they be more patronizing?

Yes, I’m a big person, but you’re a little person. Don’t worry. I’ll show you the way. WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.”

Really?

Yes, I guess I came up from nothing and made my way and worked myself to the bone to succeed, and I had a great vision, and I pursued it and I used my power and I expanded that power…but I know you can’t do that, and I’m sorry. And I know you can’t rebel against your evil dictator and establish real freedom, because you can’t understand what freedom actually means. You’re limited in that way. And by “you,” I mean thousands of you, no, millions of you, no, billions of you. That’s why I’m saving Africa and Latin America, and parts of Asia on the weekends. Are you with me? Remember, we’re all in this together…”

And standing nearby, the real movers and shakers in the Globalist Club are laughing so hard they’re falling down. They’re cheering and laughing at this shell game until they can’t talk. They’re beside themselves. They LIVE for this kind of shit.

They live for the erasure of the individual. And they have lots of friends.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

HELLO? OBAMA PHONES DON’T EXIST, BUT THE DISINFO HELPS HIM

 

HELLO? OBAMA DIDN’T GIVE YOU YOUR CELL PHONE

(IN CASE THAT’S WHY YOU’RE VOTING FOR HIM)

 

by Jon Rappoport

September 29, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Maybe somebody inside Obama’s re-election campaign is spreading disinfo about the president giving away free cell phones, but if so, it isn’t true.

 

Poor people aren’t getting free phones or discounted service fees from the Obama administration.

 

People voting for Obama because they have a free cell phone are way off. They should try voting instead for a giant telecom company—only that company isn’t running for president.

 

Since 1997, people below the poverty line have been getting discounted phone service, because big telecom companies have been making it possible, by charging everybody else a few bucks extra on their monthly phone bills. That’s how it works.

 

The basic program is called Lifeline, a branch of a non-profit company, Universal Service Administrative Company, set up by the FCC in 1997, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. That’s how the poor get discounted phone bills.

 

The Constitutionality of the federal government setting up a non-profit company is another story for another time. Suffice it to say, it should be illegal.

 

Free cell phones for the poor come from SafeLink which, according to FactCheck.org, is operated by America Movil, a giant wireless company. SafeLink, however, is paid for by that non-profit the FCC set up, Universal Service Administrative Company, which in turn gets its money from the big telecoms, who charge everybody who isn’t poor a few extra bucks on their phone bills. Got it?

 

Nothing to do with Obama. There is no Obama Phone.

 

But what a windfall for the Obama campaign when poor people believe the president gave them their phones. In Ohio alone, a key election state, there are now a million people who have some kind of discounted phone service.

 

Are government-funded community groups and community organizers out there, across America, recruiting poor people and telling them they can get Obama Phones? There are now 16.5 million people in the US receiving discounted phone services. Between 20 and 30 million Americans are eligible. That’s quite a nice election-vote bump.

 

Obama re-elected! It was the phones, pollsters say.”

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

WHY THEY HAD TO STOP RON PAUL

 

WHY THEY HAD TO STOP RON PAUL

By Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Yes, of course it was the Federal Reserve. Paul wanted to investigate it and audit it thoroughly, and if by some remote chance he became president, he would have had the leverage to go deep and deeper. And then the global banksters would have tumbled out of the woodwork, for all to see.

 

But Paul also wanted to bring all the American troops home and get them out of foreign wars. That was just as big a deal. He was stepping on some huge toes there.

 

So let’s explore a few pieces of America’s current military adventurism and see who’s hiding under what rocks.

 

Once you laugh off the ridiculous idea that the government is promoting democracy through the Arab Spring, strange questions surface.

 

Who’s running the real op in the Middle East, and what is their goal?

 

Obama’s obvious propensity for all things Islamic…how does that fit in?

 

According to one sensible scenario, the spreading Arab Spring is merely a front for a covert op, whose real ambition—using Libyan and other trained terrorists and NATO surrogates—is a US takeover of the Middle East and North Africa.

 

And then? Previous dictators in that region, overthrown, will give way to Muslim states, and new Islamic leadership will pay back under-the-table promises to US elites, who want…what?

 

A better oil deal?

 

What’s really going on here?

 

There are those who believe US ambitions in the Middle East have everything to do with establishing a ring of military bases close to Russia. Such moves on the planetary chessboard would signify an enduring competition between the two primary Cold War players. If true, is the only way to achieve American military hegemony through igniting the whole Muslim world? Isn’t that a bit risky? A bit crazy?

 

Assuming the current chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is all a US plan to utilize Islamic proxies, how sensible and pragmatic is the strategy, given the unpredictable range of future consequences? Is this a genius maneuver?

 

With countries in the Middle East coming, for example, under Muslim Brotherhood control, is the US more likely or less likely to preserve the unimpeded flow of oil? Is a “better oil deal” really in the offing?

 

Is there another way to look at US actions in the Middle East over the last two presidencies?

 

One thing is clear. George W Bush and Barack Obama are not highly rated war planners or foreign policy pros. They’re neophytes. They’re also, of course, like the whole parade of modern US presidents, instruments of higher forces. They’re front men.

 

This doesn’t mean Bush and Obama really comprehend who they’re actually working for. It simply means they’re dupes.

 

Just as it was eminently predictable that Bush, after 9/11, would want to invade Iraq (“Saddam tried to kill my dad”) and would go along with plans that were on the drawing board long before 9/11, it has been predictable that Obama would show “warm support” for and special treatment to Islam, imagining its modern destiny in terms of “a great self-determined uprising.” Hence, Obama’s key role in Arab Spring.

 

In other words, both Bush and Obama were carefully profiled long before they ever took office as president.

 

Profiled by whom?

 

If we draw an arc of power, extending at least as far back as Vietnam (or from the beginning of the 20th century), coming forward through the latter stages of the Cold War, and then into “the age of terrorism,” the question of who benefits has an answer.

 

It is the same answer you would get if you inquired into the objectives of the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the elite bankers who breathe life into economies and take life away, according to their private timetable.

 

Who benefits from the last decade of manipulated US foreign policy and military wars?

 

The military-industrial complex? Yes.

 

But above and beyond that?

 

The great beneficiaries are the elite Globalists who are determined to establish a planetary management system, a political New World Order.

 

And by using tools like Obama and Bush, they have made headway toward achieving a major item on their agenda: degrade and sink and weaken, and ultimately destroy the United States by keeping it at war.

 

The United States, from the Globalist perspective, needs to be brought down. It needs to have its pillars crumble. It needs to go away.

 

There are two reasons. One, it is the primary place in the world where the idea of individual freedom is still alive. And two, its government’s persistent ambition to create unilateral Empire is a threat to international Globalist control of the planet.

 

American empire and Globalist empire are not exactly the same thing. In the long run, as far as the Rockefellers of this world are concerned, they are mutually exclusive.

 

So what better way to weaken America than to cater to its government’s empire-building obsession, and to use that obsession to propel it into high-risk military adventures that dead-end in disasters?

 

Disasters such as:

 

Huge budget expenditures on wars and ensuing debt. Demoralization of American citizens through wars, to say nothing of the injuries and deaths and debilitation of soldiers. An embrace with radical Islam, and all the blowback that brings. The eventual pinching off of oil supplies in the Middle East. International chaos. Engendering hatred of America abroad. Inculcating self-hatred of the US among Americans at home. Confusion, passivity, despair.

 

A classic takedown.

 

In his Memoirs (2003), David Rockefeller wrote: 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.”

 

Did you think David was just playing patty-cake, that his plan was only about subverting the money supply, that this was going to be a gentlemanly world domination scheme? No. This is also blood and guts and fear and terror.

 

The Globalists play for keeps.

 

US foreign policy and military aggression over the last decade makes no sense because it wasn’t supposed to. That policy was using two dupes, Bush and Obama, to achieve something these preposterous presidents were only dimly aware of.

 

Of the two, Obama, with his Marxist background, is more cognizant. But he, too, is caught up in his private vision. For him, it is all about some grand “liberation” scheme and imagined “payback” for past oppression.

 

He was chosen to be president because that is his character.

 

No, the Arab Spring isn’t ultimately about American hegemony and domination in the Middle East. It’s about a grand American failure there. That’s what’s on page one of the grand Globalist plan. And it’s coming true.

 

The American war-mongers are following their playbook, and they are being directed, unknowingly, by the Globalist princes, who are using that war-mongering to sink America.

 

From that perspective, what is happening in the Middle East makes sense.

 

If Romney wins the election, he will fit neatly into the Bush mold. He’ll join the war party. He’ll see America defeating evil everywhere by continued force. He’ll jump right into the trap.

 

Only Ron Paul had it right. Bring home everybody. Bring home all the soldiers and stop the madness. That’s why the Bilderberg people hate him so much. He sees a bigger picture. The whole defamation of the Tea Party makes sense, too, at a much deeper level. The Tea Party supported Ron Paul. Many of them, too, saw there was something very, very wrong about Americans For a New Military Century.

 

Paul and the Tea Party had to be stopped. They had to be stopped, because the Globalist elite wanted the American government-military-contractor-corporate nexus to pursue their insane goals of Middle East domination and fail.

 

Does this sound too complicated to be real? It’s no more complicated than using a bully’s force to defeat him. Only in this case, the victor is a larger bully.

 

See? These crazy American war-mongers want to invade everybody and defeat the world. Why stop them? We have to encourage them. We have to engineer what they’re doing so it makes some kind of sense to the American people, so the people don’t rebel. We’ll supply the presidents who’ll supply the rationale, and we’ll keep stoking the fire. Sooner or later, the war-mongers will run out of steam. They’ll crash on the rocks and we’ll pick up the pieces. Let’s make sure they go to the Middle East. There isn’t a better place to fail utterly. Except maybe Afghanistan. Oh, let’s make sure they go there, too, for a long time. Fantastic! Let’s support and massage and polish and push those mad goals!”

 

Of course, the picture I’ve drawn here becomes a little more complicated when you factor in the role of mega-corporations, who want their considerable piece of the global pie. The American War Mongers and the Globalist Princes “share” certain corporations. Yes, there are overlapping interests. But there is a strong division between those who want American Power and those who want Globalist Power.

 

The picture of America supporting the Arab Spring and encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood and covertly using terrorists to overthrow dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria looks crazy because it is crazy. It’s failure waiting to happen. Obama is presently going along with it, because he is predisposed to want “the liberation of Islam.”

 

The neocons stand for American empire. People like David Rockefeller stand for destruction of America.

 

I know there is a tendency to say, “Oh, they’re all bastards and traitors, who cares what their goals are. They’re our enemies. We don’t need to draw subtle differences.”

 

I suggest the differences aren’t subtle at all. In the first case, you have the government-corporate nexus of the United States directing its energies to become a Roman Caesar extending unilateral empire to far horizons. In the second case, you have Globalist agents pushing those ambitions forward because they know the failure will be huge and spectacular.

 

Do you think Julius Caesar was entirely alone in his tent cooking up plans to stretch the Roman Empire to the ends of the Earth? Don’t you think there were a few key people planted in his circle of advisors who wanted to take Rome down? These covert agents bolstered Caesar, encouraged him, showed him why Rome could only survive by conquering more lands and people. They fed him whatever worked to egg him on toward an eventual future of ruin.

 

To boil it down to a stark analogy: one crazy man drives his car every day across a plateau toward a cliff. He’s convinced he can go faster and faster and still stop in time. The second man, who is his covert enemy and who is crazy like a fox, tells him, yes, driving faster is a great idea, keep going, don’t stop at 80mph, take it up to 90 and 100, you’re a fantastic driver, I bet you can go 200mph and still stop in time…

 

The neocons of America actually believe they can take over and transform the whole world through military force. Their remaining shreds of common sense are blasted away by Globalists, breathing down their necks telling them how great and powerful they (the neocons) are, showing them how they can extend empire right into…gigantic failure.

 

Ron Paul and his supporters saw pieces and sections of this whole insane situation and said, “Stop it all. Bring all our soldiers home. End the madness.”

 

They threatened everybody in power on all levels. They cut to the chase. That’s why they had to be scrubbed from the picture and sent to the bleachers, like embarrassing cousins from the hills.

 

That’s why, for example, the idiots at MSNBC pounded on the Tea Party night after night and never mentioned that many, many of these “hicks and racists and bitter clingers” wanted an end to American wars much more fervently than MSNBC’s Messiah, Barack Obama, did. That fact was never brought up. It went against the script.

 

FOX and CNN never brought it up in any serious way, either. The three other major networks stayed away from it like the plague, too.

 

Ron Paul, before he dropped out of the race, was educating millions of Americans about war. In the history of outsider “peace candidates” for president, there has never been anyone at his level.

 

Historically, several peace candidates have been socialists. They wanted an end to American aggression so the Soviet Union could advance its agenda more easily. Ron Paul wanted peace because the Constitution was framed to permit war only on the basis of defense of the nation—and not on the basis of empire-building.

 

And to media agents of Globalism, the Constitution is like a silver bullet to a vampire. The Constitution promotes life and decimates the Walking Undead.

 

I believe there is a lot more to this story, including the future role of multinational corporations under a Globalist New World Order. But this is a start. And it offers a reason (among several other reasons) why Ron Paul was stopped in his tracks, a reason not cited nearly enough.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

MIND FREEDOM, MIND BEAUTY

 

MIND FREEDOM, MIND BEAUTY

By Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Official science doesn’t really care about your experience or perception. It cares about its own paradigm.

 

That paradigm, in order to work, excludes your subjective knowledge.

 

Two basic questions are eliminated from scientific exploration: what is freedom and what is mind?

 

A strange embrace among the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and academic philosophy has blocked an understanding of the mind.

 

Prior to 1970, the discipline of psychology considered several interesting models of mind. Then, psychiatry, struggling to survive in the face of declining public interest, hatched a staggering deal with the pharmaceutical empire.

 

Drug companies would bankroll the profession of psychiatry as never before. Conferences, research grants, journals, professorships, advertising, PR—money would pour in.

 

On their part, psychiatric researchers would be obliged to publish studies that “proved” all mental disorders stemmed from chemical imbalances in the brain; these imbalances could be remedied by new drugs. Naturally, Pharma would develop and sell such drugs.

 

From that moment on, adventurous theories about mind went begging. As far as “science” was concerned, mind was nothing more than the brain. A severely limited materialist view of human life moved solidly to center stage.

 

It was soon bolstered by a new generation of computer devotees, who assumed that mind was merely an apparatus that functioned on the basis of hardware/software applications—and any notions of individual freedom were possibly delusions “built into the equipment” or bugs that needed to be found and scrubbed away.

 

It was assumed that only “professionals” had the necessary tools to investigate the mind, and anything a layperson might discover or say about the subject was as important as a street sweeper speculating on nuclear physics.

 

As a student of philosophy at Amherst College in the late 1950s, I was exposed to a series of sophistries that attempted to skirt the whole question of individual freedom, substituting instead two major premises:

 

Human beings could only know what they could see with their eyes and measure; it was permissible to continue talking about freedom as if it existed, but this permission was simply an acknowledgment that language consisted of all sorts of quirky habits, and it might be useful to catalog those quirks, like sub-species of butterflies, as long as one didn’t take their meaning seriously.

 

I wasn’t pleased by either of these admonitions. I’d entered the field of philosophy because I felt freedom was a vital thing, and I sensed it was being attacked on many fronts.

 

As I wended my way through college, I became aware of the odd fact that, while the philosophy department was doing all it could to avoid squarely facing the issue of individual freedom, the political science department was assigning students original-source material on the founding of the American Republic.

 

This material (the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers), of course, was deeply engaged in establishing freedom as an incontrovertible principle.

 

When I inquired about the obvious contradiction at the College, I was told it was “one of those inter-departmental differences” that was unavoidable. After all, what should political scientists do? Teach nothing about freedom?

 

As a young and inexperienced student, 50-plus years ago, I thought perhaps a professor in the psychology department might be able to clear up the confusion.

 

A practicing therapist on campus fielded my questions and said, “Freedom really isn’t our issue. We want to understand how the mind operates.” He went on to say that the goal of therapy was “happiness and adjustment.”

 

That pretty much ended my adventure of learning in college. Fortunately, life isn’t college.

 

Three years after I left Amherst, I was living in Los Angeles, and I had a small studio where I was painting. One night (and I can see this very clearly), I was sitting at my table. There was a piece of blank paper in front of me. To my left, there was a box of oil crayons. I was looking at the sheet of paper, wondering what I might draw on it, when suddenly, and for no discernible reason, I knew that I had the freedom to draw anything.

 

Sounds silly. But this was not an intellectual observation. Of course I or anyone else can draw anything. That isn’t news. No, this was something much deeper and more expansive. It was as if some interior space, in my mind, a space I’d never realized existed before, made its presence known. And the essence and core of that space was freedom. Was liberation. Was an unbounded and direct knowing about freedom. That space imparted to me one of the most immediate feelings of freedom I’ve ever had. It was luxurious and adventurous and intensely exhilarating. And it came out of nowhere.

 

The feeling lasted for about a minute, and then it slowly faded away. Ever since that moment, I’ve remembered that, whenever politicians or their allies are obviously trying to discount or dump freedom, when they are trying to sell some substitute, when they are raising some phony banner under which we’re all supposed to march toward our collective destiny…I’ve remembered that freedom is REAL and it has to be defended. To do otherwise would betray a fantastic quality of the space we call Mind.

 

I’ve also known that freedom isn’t just an effect of a cause, like one billiard ball moving into a pocket after being hit by another ball; it isn’t one electron being kicked by another electron. If freedom can be said to be anywhere, it’s behind all the cause-and-effect activity of matter and energy. Freedom isn’t just another event in a long chain of events; it’s free.

 

Obviously, I don’t know what your experience of freedom has been. But I’d be willing to bet that, as a child, you had moments and even hours where, perhaps, playing in a field or on the street, you realized you were free and alive and something apart from any restricted, pinched, limited existence.

 

The feelings you felt were enormous and ecstatic. You understood, at a level no one could challenge, what life was about.

 

And yet, this is nowhere reflected in the approved studies of psychiatry, psychology, or academic philosophy. It’s discounted as “anecdotal” and spurious and even delusional.

 

Having a tremendous and stunning experience of freedom might qualify you for psychiatric help. It appears we’re heading in that direction.

 

These days, many mainstream brain researchers will insist that freedom is nothing more than a “thought generated by brain activity,” no more important than any other thought.

 

If you’re looking to explain how technocrats can possibly envision a world in which humans are only cogs in a machine, you’ve found the answer. These scientists refuse to admit that freedom is real. As bizarre as this sounds, it’s true. To them we’re all already cogs in a machine. They just want to change the arrangement, the configuration of parts.

 

You see, and this is where philosophy pokes its head into the fray, to say that freedom is real is to acknowledge that it lies beyond all formulations and theories of cause and effect. And such a confession would torpedo the authoritarian and privileged status of modern science.

 

No, you say, this couldn’t be true, everybody knows that freedom exists. Everybody knows that you can choose A or B. You can make decisions about your future. I’m sorry to say, not everybody knows this—and the disturbing thing is, the people who are doing the most advanced research on the brain, the kind of research that could shape and fence in our future world, quite definitely do not know freedom exists.

 

Freedom and “mind independent of the brain” are, to them, maddening little questions they want to get rid of. They want to sweep them under the carpet. They want to chart and map every possible action of the brain and then, inevitably, make those changes in it they deem proper “for the good of All.”

 

So, first on the list of things I would recommend is, take inventory of your own experience. Remember moments when, beyond your normal level of daily consciousness, you experienced freedom directly and powerfully. No filters. No intellectual assumptions. Just undeniable encounters.

 

Why? Because you need to know what you are defending when you defend freedom against attack. Yes, freedom is the right to choose your life. Yes, it’s the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, it’s all those assertions in the Bill of Rights. Yes, the Constitution delineates what the central government can and can’t do. Yes, we know that. But then there is YOU. There is your existence. There is your experience of freedom. Those times, those moments when you felt it so strongly you were thrilled to your core to be alive.

 

That is natural freedom. That is mind freedom. That is why the founding documents of the Republic have any meaning. They flow from something that is already there, in each one of us. A potential that is already there.

 

And if you forget that, you defend freedom for an incomplete reason.

 

I knew a man in his late forties whose life was a complete mess. This was a man you wouldn’t want to be around. He somehow managed to turn every conversation and situation in his life into an unsolvable problem. He annoyed everyone he came into contact with. He was one of those “difficult people,” and his life was falling apart at the seams. He couldn’t hold a job for more than a few months. His bosses would fire him for any reason they could. Anything to get him out the door. He was a classic self-created victim.

 

In an act of desperation, he went on a vegetarian diet, without really believing it would do any good. It didn’t. He persisted for a month or two, and then he scraped together enough money to go to a spa where he could stay for two weeks and do yoga and fast on fruits and vegetables.

 

In his second week at the spa, he was walking from yoga class to his room, and suddenly, as he told me, he “felt his body was well-oiled and elastic.” He felt as if he were 10 years old again, on summer vacation from school, with unbounded possibilities stretching out in front of him.

 

In a matter of moments, his entire framework of unending complaints vanished without a trace. It left no residue in its wake. He could clearly contemplate what he most wanted to do with his life, and he could see his way to achieving it. His sense of grappling with a bottomless inscrutable problem was gone.

 

This feeling lasted a few days. But even after it dissolved, he was positioned in a new way. He dropped his “whole act,” as he put it. He went on to launch a career, and he made it a success.

 

A bookish woman in her 30s, who had never worked at a job she enjoyed, decided to sell cars. She got a job at a dealership in Southern California, and after a month she was coming up empty on sales. She saw no chance of breaking through.

 

Her manager pulled her into his office and suggested she try something a little easier. He helped get her a job in a large store selling home appliances.

 

Her first day at the store, she swore to herself she would do more to connect with prospective customers. She would treat them “as if they were real people,” she said. Forgetting about landing immediate sales, she made a herculean effort to “climb out of her cave” and chat with people in the store.

 

After two days, she felt a surge of energy, as if she’d come alive in a new way. For the first time in memory, she was relating to strangers.

 

The feeling lasted for a month, during which she incidentally racked up many sales. She described her state of mind as “completely open and free,” as if she’d cracked through a barrier.

 

She quit her job, enrolled at a college, and eventually got her degree in architecture.

 

I tell these stories because, in each case, the experience of freedom was intense and life-changing, and because the people came to it in radically different ways.

 

Freedom exists.

 

It can be drawn out of hiding. It can be felt beyond any structure or pattern, and it most certainly doesn’t depend on permission granted by a government or Official Science.

 

One can’t explain these experiences by citing specific brain activity. Freedom isn’t a brain phenomenon. It isn’t a delusion. One might say the reverse: everything except freedom is a delusion or the result of oppression.

 

People tend to believe the mind is either a trap or a “device” for thinking. It can certainly be those things, but it is also a gateway into freedom.

 

Mind is a kind of space dotted with familiar outposts we visit. Each outpost is a collection of feelings, ideas, preferences, and aversions. We move from one outpost to another, looking for a way out, a way to go beyond our present state.

 

Then, something unforeseen happens. On our way to a particular outpost for the thousandth time, we make a detour, and we arrive at a spot that contains of none of those feelings, ideas, preferences, or aversions. Instead, we are in a gorgeously empty place. And being there, we experience a joy that expands. We experience ourselves in a natural state.

 

We know we are free.

 

Everyone is entitled and equipped to explore what this means because, after all, we aren’t simply talking about a generalized notion; we’re talking about intimate knowledge of what we are.

 

This is not the province of science. It’s the wide open territory of self. It’s more real than real.

 

We can become discouraged. We can become cynical. We can lower our expectations and options. But we can’t ultimately avoid what we are. Coming to grips with that is our destiny, as much as motion is the destiny of the body.

 

The elites who, increasingly, run this planet long ago abandoned any search for their own freedom as individuals. They falsely believe they’re already there. That’s what they keep telling themselves, and that’s why they feel compelled to control everything they can. Control is a substitute for freedom. It’s a false card in the deck. It’s the iron mask that hides the truth. It’s a drug that can induce amnesia about the existence of freedom. It’s the ultimate expression of self-denial.

 

Before psychiatry, brain research, and pharmaceutical empire-building crowded out truly independent research on the mind, there were two great 20th-century psychologists. They both understood freedom and sought it with stunning intensity. Wilhelm Reich, a breakaway student of Freud, was arrested and put in jail, where he died. JL Moreno, the founder of Psychodrama, was largely ignored by the Freudians coming into power.

 

In his autobiography, Moreno recounts a 1912 encounter: “I attended one of Freud’s lectures…As the students filed out, he singled me out from the crowd and asked me what I was doing. I responded, ‘Well, Dr. Freud, I start where you leave off…You analyze [patients’] dreams. I give them the courage to dream again…’”

 

The dream is about freedom. Experiencing it. Creating a life from it.

 

Taking instructional cues from media about what emotions we are supposed to invest and project into images (mass mind control), we discover that the list of emotions is rather short. It’s stunted. Not only are we supposed to respond with these feelings, we’re all taught we have to “share” them. If we don’t, we’re looked at as strange, as outsiders.

 

But when we experience freedom directly, we immediately realize such feelings are misplaced. They’re props in a bad play. What we feel when we are standing in the middle of our own freedom is beyond labels. It’s another level of mind. Perhaps it’s beyond mind entirely.

 

In the old stories of Zen masters, we find teachers who put irrational pressures on students until the “catalog of familiar emotional outposts” in their minds blew apart. At that moment, the students experienced “satori,” which roughly means “seeing into one’s true nature.”

 

What is that nature? Is it a particular thing, a prior established thing…or is it really freedom?

 

If it’s freedom, then the world suddenly appears as unending possibility.

 

Isn’t that what we really want? Isn’t that part and parcel of what we remember, when we reflect on past moments when we felt truly alive?

 

There is nothing esoteric about this. It is stripping off a layer of fabricated synthetic substance, and finding underneath the ecstatic energy that was always there, waiting for us to return from our long strange trip.

 

Our nature is to be free.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said:

“Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.


The Matrix Revealed


This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

Sources:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Have US Officials agreed to “clean routes” for Mexican drugs into America?

By Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

In Chicago, Mexican Sinaloa drug-cartel member, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, sits in prison.

He’s waiting for his October trial to begin, after three years of delays. DEA agents arrested him in Mexico City in 2009, on drug-trafficking charges.

Why all the postponements? US national security issues are involved.

Niebla wants to introduce evidence he says will show he, and the entire Sinaloa cartel, the most powerful drug-trafficking organization in Mexico, were given immunity from prosecution by the US government.

In return, Sinaloa has been providing US officials with intelligence on lesser drug cartels in Mexico, so they can be taken down.

If this sounds like a deal to permit Sinaloa to bring huge quantities of drugs into the US, that’s exactly what defendant Niebla is implying.

Federal prosecutors admit there are national-security issues in the Niebla trial. They deny Niebla or Sinaloa were ever granted immunity by the US government. However, they have made motions to keep unspecified classified information out of court proceedings.

Bill Conroy, who has been writing groundbreaking articles for The Narco News Bulletin (twitter), quotes Niebla’s lawyers: “The United States government considered the arrangement with the Sinaloa cartel an acceptable price to pay, because the principal objective was the destruction and dismantling of rival cartels by using the assistance of the Sinaloa Cartel—without regard for the fact that tons of illicit drugs continued to be smuggled [by Sinaloa] into Chicago and other parts of the United States and corruption continued unabated.”

US, Mexican Officials Brokering Deals with Drug “Cartels,” WikiLeaks Documents Show: Revelation Exposed in Email Correspondence Between Private Intelligence Firm and Mexican Diplomat

Does this in part explain the rising tide of violence in Chicago? Are we looking at an exact parallel to what the late journalist Gary Webb described, in his explosive Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, about US officials opening the door to massive drug-trafficking in South Central Los Angeles?

Journalist Conroy goes on to reveal a number of relevant emails captured by Wikileaks from Stratfor, a private intelligence company based in Austin, Texas. Stratfor refuses to comment on the emails. The company indicates that, in general, this type of email may be factual or may be intentionally fictitious.

The emails are the observations of a Mexican diplomat code-named MX1. Noting his probable identity has already been published online, Conroy writes, “[Fernando de la Mora Salcedo is] a Mexican foreign service officer who…served in the Mexican Consulate in El Paso, Texas, and is currently stationed [or has recently been recalled] in the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix.”

Here are choice excerpts from Salcedo’s emails, allegedly sent to Stratfor between 2008 and 2011. They bolster the idea that the US government is supporting the Sinaloa Cartel.

April 19, 2010: “…I think the US sent a signal that might be construed as follows: ‘To the VCF [Vicente Carrillo Fuentes] and Sinaloa cartels: Thank you for providing our market with drugs over the years…please know that Sinaloa is bigger and better than VCF…let’s all get back to business [and stop the violence.]’”

June 3, 2010: “They [the US and Mexican governments] want the CARTELS to negotiate with EACH OTHER…if they can do this, violence will drop and the [US and Mexican] governments will allow controlled [drug] trades…The major routes and methods for bulk shipping [of drugs] have already been negotiated with US authorities. In this sense, the message that Sinaloa was winning was, in my view, intended to tell SEDENA [the Mexican military] to stop taking down large trucks full of dope as they made their way into the US. These large shipments were Sinaloa’s, and they are OK with the Americans.”

The explosive nature of the upcoming Niebla trial in Chicago could shed light on Operation Fast&Furious. After all the reasons that have been given for walking guns into Mexico, suppose the true explanation is the most simple? The US government supports Sinaloa, the biggest drug cartel in the world. Therefore, they gave Sinaloa guns.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

PEARL HARBOR 2.0

 

PEARL HARBOR 2.0, “THE POWER AND THE GLORY”

by Jon Rappoport

 

September 21, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Frank Palmer, the newly elected president of the United States, stood in an empty room he never knew existed.

 

It was located six levels below ground in the Ark Silo of Strong Farms, in the center of Kansas.

 

The room was fifty feet square. The walls, floor, and ceiling were white, and the illumination from overhead banks of fluorescents eliminated the possibility of shadows.

 

Mark Pastor, the director of NSA, stood at the president’s side. He motioned to Palmer, who sat down at a small metal table, opened a laptop, and typed in a password. A blue screen appeared inside a border of black.

 

At the bottom of the screen sat a yellow forked-lightning icon. The president clicked on it. The screen turned white. The word GRANGE appeared.

 

That’s your search engine,” Pastor said.

 

In the window below the title, the president typed in “Google.”

 

Nothing happened.

 

The president typed “Drudge.” Nothing happened.

 

He typed “NBC.” Nothing happened.

 

What’s going on?” the president said.

 

Pastor smiled.

 

The president typed “CBS.” Nothing happened.

 

Type ‘America,’” Pastor said.

 

The president did.

 

A page appeared:

 

Welcome to Internet 2.0. Information is exchanged. You have a password. We identify you. You are permitted to continue. Press any key.”

 

The president pressed Enter.

 

A window covering two-thirds of the current page faded in. A new message read:

 

Owing to the EMP attack on America, all electronic devices have been disabled. The federal government has instituted a new Internet.”

 

Hit ‘Enter,’” Pastor said.

 

The president did. Another message appeared:

 

Anyone may apply to participate in Internet 2.0. See xADHS2gov for details. You will be issued an ID package, a list of requirements, and a statement of conditions of use. Free speech is protected, subject to I2 formats. Hate speech is not permitted. Fabricated attacks on public institutions are described in a warnings section. Read carefully.”

 

There are license fees and taxes,” Pastor said.

 

An EMP attack?” the president said.

 

We expect it.”

 

When?”

 

Pastor shrugged. “It ranks high on our list of priorities.”

 

This is a whole new Internet?”

 

Yes,” Pastor said. “It’s built from the ground up. It has two basic sectors, which are kept separate. There is commercial use, and there is exchange of information. The latter sector is closely monitored.”

 

Is Internet 2.0 functioning right now?”

 

Pastor shook his head. “Only a handful of people are on it. They’re essentially testing it.”

 

To see if it works?”

 

Pastor grinned. “Hell no. It works. They’re seeing how quickly and precisely they can identify and scrub anti-social and disruptive data.”

 

These few people who are on it,” the president said. “What are they doing?”

 

Checking automatic equipment at Los Alamos. The equipment carries out continuous searches to locate and sideline illegitimate data, and refer sources to DHS.”

 

Well,” the president said, “but what are the standards for a ruling of illegitimacy?”

 

Good question,” Pastor said. “We err on the side of caution. We’ve developed algorithms to make those calls.”

 

And when a user or source has been identified?”

 

The monitoring systems link to packages and dossiers on an offender. An instant profile is turned out, referencing everything from bumper stickers and recorded phone calls to medical records and work and sexual history.”

 

How many prepared packages do you have now?” the president asked.

 

Close to three hundred million. Within a year, we’ll have a package on every person living in the US.”

 

For posting illegitimate data, what are the penalties?” the president asked.

 

It’s a sliding scale. For example, you’ve got misdemeanor, which is a fine, and you’ve got terrorism, which is indefinite detention.”

 

Any right of appeal?”

 

It would clog the court system. All hearings are DHS tribunals. They’re tasked with confirming that a post broke a law. Once that’s established, sentence is passed. It’s very clear-cut and very fast. Most tribunals are conducted online. They don’t need human judges. An automatic matching system issues verdicts and sentences.”

 

Wikileaks. What would that be?”

 

Treason. Death sentence.”

 

The president stood up and walked around the room. He could feel perspiration on his face.

 

This EMP attack,” he said. “Who’s going to launch it?”

 

That’s something you don’t need to know,” Pastor said.

 

The president frowned. “I don’t care about plausible deniability in this case.”

 

Then I guess you’ve figured it out,” Pastor said. “We have two choices, sir, and only two. We can wait until one of our enemies strikes, in which case we’ll be scrambling to cope. Or we can launch it ourselves and get it over with. We’ll know everything beforehand, and we’ll know exactly what to do. It’s a no-brainer.”

 

The president nodded slowly.

 

Of course,” Pastor said, “we have our patsy all set up to go. Massive evidence to confirm his guilt.”

 

And who would that be?” the president said.

 

This is going to be a non-nuclear EMP, so the list was wide open. We narrowed it down to Libyan and Syrian al Qaeda. In the end, we went with Libya.”

 

Appropriate choice.”

 

The president sat down at the computer. “I want to try something,” he said. “How do I enter data?”

 

The NSA director walked over, bent down, leaned in front of the president, and typed “Flux Test.” A blank page appeared. “Go ahead, sir,” he said, backing away.

 

President Palmer typed, “A planned EMP attack will be launched”—

 

The page turned bright red and the words quickly faded.

 

In heavy black font, a message took their place:

 

YOUR POST HAS BEEN DELETED, PENDING AN INQUIRY. Your ID package has been suspended. A number will be assigned to your case, and you will be notified of a hearing date.

 

After a brief pause, a second message appeared:

 

Your hearing code is SAM1W23. Stand by.

 

The NSA director said, “Sir, type in, ‘Uber9wh001.’”

 

The president did.

 

A new message immediately appeared on the screen:

 

TEST TERMINATED. EXCEPTIONAL STATUS NOTED.

 

The screen went black.

 

The president turned in his chair. “Impressive,” he said.

 

Yes,” Pastor said. “We’re cooking this one right.”

 

The door to the room opened, and six Secret Service agents entered with their weapons drawn.

 

The lead agent said, “Mr. President, we’ve lost contact with the outside. All numbers are down.”

 

The president looked at Pastor, who held his arms out, palms up.

 

It’s true, Mr. President,” he said. “It’s happening now. This is a good place for you to be. The facilities are first-class. Your family has already arrived in Virginia. They’re safe. Ninety days from now, we’ll go topside and see what we have.”

 

The president scowled. “You think I would have leaked it?” he said.

 

Of course not,” Pastor said. “We just like to play it tight and dry.”

 

Without missing a beat, the president said, “What does my ID package look like?”

 

WH001 is a blank,” Pastor said. “It’s an empty set. You’re good to go.”

 

The president nodded.

 

I have no past,” he said.

 

Only present and future, sir.”

 

Well,” he said, “I suspect you’re bullshitting me, but I’ll take it on faith for now.

 

Pastor smiled. “Suspicion is part of the human condition, Mr. President. It’ll always be with us.”

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com