China, the NBA, and the massive face of Globalism

Support the Hong Kong protestors against the brutal mainland Chinese regime

by Jon Rappoport

October 14, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let’s get one thing straight. The Chinese people, whether they appear happy or sad, support their government because they’re controlled. After generations of being beaten down, the population bows the head and bends the knee to slave masters. Call that freedom if you want to.

And if you really believe the situation in America is no better than the system in China, even with the amount of censorship alive and well in America, even with the rigging of this economy, try an experiment. Move to China and start publishing articles relentlessly critical of the government there. See what happens. Be sure to leave a copy of your last Will and Testament at home.

When the NBA commissioner and several players talk about loving their Chinese fans, they’re referring to victims of long-term terrorism. And if you press the NBA people on that point, they say, “We just want to play basketball, we just want the games.”

And they want the money. The Nike money, the Chinese money, the television money, the other merchandise money. More Chinese people than Americans watch the NBA playoffs on TV.

When, in a momentary fit of sanity, the General Manager of the Houston Rockets, Daryl Morey, retweeted FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, STAND WITH HONG KONG, the Chinese government launched a shit storm. Blacked out pre-season games, canceled press conferences, attacked NBA Commissioner Adam Silver for (partially and weakly) defending free speech. Now, calls are going out for Daryl Morey to resign from his job, to appease the Chinese government.

The big fear? A few global NBA stars would decide to step up and defend the million Hong Kong protestors, who want to knock down a bill that would allow China to extradite “criminal suspects” from Hong Kong to the mainland, where they can be charged, imprisoned, tortured, murdered. Those number one Hong Kong suspects would be persons who oppose the mainland Chinese regime.

The NBA stars, speaking out, could ignite a worldwide conflagration of public outrage aimed at the brutal government of China.

So far, that fear is unfounded. Social justice warriors LeBron James, (coaches) Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich are silent on the specific issue of Hong Kong vs. China. No one connected to the NBA is addressing it.

We have what George Washington warned about: an entangling foreign alliance. The US, China, money.

You have to wonder at the curious timing of all this now. The Chinese government, seizing on one little tweet, blows sky high, just when NBA players, coaches, and the commissioner happen to be in China on a good will money-pumping tour. It’s as if the Chinese government wanted an excuse to attack the US, because Trump has been stirring the pot on US-China trade relations. Obliquely, the Communist dictatorship wants to demonstrate how far they’ll go to crack down against any outside criticism, and against readjustment of trade that currently favors China. Grossly favors China. (We’ll see just how good or bad the new Trump trade deal with China is.)

Who is in charge of keeping NBA players in a state of silence and compliance with the wishes of the Chinese leadership? The NBA, yes. But more importantly, the shoe companies. Nike, Adidas. They have enormous business in China. Mustn’t disturb THAT. Every famous NBA player has a big $$ shoe deal. Mustn’t endanger THAT money, either. So shut up. Play ball. Stay ignorant of politics.

Entangling alliances.

The Chinese leadership is, in effect, daring the NBA to cut ties with China and lose billions. “If your balls are made of money, we have you by the balls.”

Why did the Rockefellers want to open up China trade with the West those many years ago? Why not, say, populous India instead? After all, India had some budding semblance of a representative government. Contrasted against China, India was Thomas Paine. The Rockefellers favored China because they LIKED China’s system. Massive top-down control. Absolute censorship. Violent repression. Mind control. Thus, a way to own and direct huge numbers of people and pacify them through fear and terror. Decade after decade. A GOOD MODEL FOR THE WORLD.

An American friend described an incident he witnessed years ago when he was sitting on a tour bus in China. He and his buddy were the only Americans on board. An argument broke out between two Chinese tour guides at the front of the bus. At that moment, all the Chinese passengers bowed their heads and stared at the floor. This was their reflex reaction to a dispute between two low-level officials.

So you can imagine their responses to leadership at the top. Total submission.

These are the NBA fans who have a love affair with US players. And vice versa.

Orwell, 1984: “But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

Orwell: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

Or perhaps a shoe, manufactured by Nike, in China.

Suppose MANY customers of Nike stop buying their shoes.

Suppose MANY NBA fans stop going to the games.

Suppose MANY viewers stop watching the games on TV.

Suppose MANY more social media users relentlessly spread messages supporting the Hong Kong protestors and exposing the brutal Chinese regime.

Suppose independent researchers begin publishing lists of products made in China and bought in the US, so consumers can avoid them.

Suppose many more people wake up to the fact that the economic glue that holds Globalism together is insane—domestic manufacturers abandon their home country and set up shop in places (like China) where they make their products far more cheaply; where wages are very low and environmental concerns are nil; and then, export those products for sale back home, thereby putting competing domestic companies out of business. Suppose many more people come to see this as economic suicide. Suppose they see Globalism itself as planned suicide. Planned to raise up certain countries ruled by brutal dictators, and sink other countries where some semblance of freedom still exists. And suppose they see this plan as a strategy for bringing about planet-wide repression under any label you care to use, but turns out to be Rule by Giant Corporations and Banks Colluding with Governments over All of Earth. No exceptions permitted.

And suppose the 7.7 billion targets of this plan realize they’re all the real Deplorables, and consequently say NO.

With the many avenues of communication available to us, that could be a tidal wave of NO.

If you want to dig still further down, into the basics of economics, consider: relatively free markets can only function within a context where the playing field is level for competitors—the costs of manufacturing, marketing, and selling products are the same for everyone. Once you permit the massive import of goods from places where those costs are radically lower, you are rigging the game. The home country suffers. Companies shut down. Workers have no jobs. The general level of prosperity, whatever it was, keeps decaying. No matter how you slant and massage the numbers, no matter how many cockeyed theories you spawn, the outcome is unavoidable.

Compound this engineered tragedy by permitting those massive imports to come from a country where the citizens are rigidly controlled by a criminal regime; enter into a huge number of economic agreements with that regime; turn a blind eye to what that regime has been doing to its people; and you have a sacrifice of freedom on all fronts.

Then there is a chokehold. And then, on any occasion, for any reason, the brutal regime will issue a command:

Don’t dare criticize us;

We’re in this together;

We have no principles and neither do you.

(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 29^th 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.

Mayor of New York is Karl Marxing again

Jan16

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Tangential note: Prior to 2019, the Democratic [Socialist] Party of New York State “just” controlled one of the two chambers in the Legislature (the House), and the Governorship, and the Courts. Now, in 2019, on top of that, they also control the other chamber in the Legislature (the Senate). Now, day-by-day, in just the past few weeks, New York State has been moving even more aggressively, putting more laws in place to further implement their socialist, “Californication” utopia agenda. Go to Empire Report New York for the fast-moving, daily coverage.

On to New York City. We have this from ZeroHedge (1/12/2019): “New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio took to the stage on Thursday to deliver his State of the City address – the sixth such one he has delivered since being in office. The theme was clear: money in the city is in the wrong hands and needs to be redistributed to others.”

On that note, let’s take a little trip down memory lane, taking a look again at De Blasio’s rhetoric and how socialism leaves the creative individual producers (the people) in the lurch…

The mayor of New York embraces Karl Marx

September 2017

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Karl Marx, 1875)

At infowars.com, Kelen McBreen has unearthed a stunning statement NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio made to New York Magazine:

De Blasio: “What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development… Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

Boom.

The elimination of private property rights is one of the primary tenets of extreme socialism/Communism.

And of course, the disposition of private property—the takeover—would be achieved by government.

So for those people who think the rising tide of socialism is just a myth, you now have the mayor of the world’s most powerful city advocating it publicly and openly.

And the response of the mainstream press? A yawn, and silence.

Or to put it another way, bland acceptance.

Private property was one of the basic issues Ayn Rand, the most reviled and adored novelist of the 20th century, explored in depth. Here are several statements she uncompromisingly offered:

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

“The doctrine that ‘human rights’ are superior to ‘property rights’ simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of ‘human’.”

“You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.”

In a half-sane society, private property rights would be debated in depth at every college, without interference. But that is no longer possible, owing to censorship of speech.

Beyond this restriction, students aren’t equipped with tools of analysis to approach the subject. Instead, they’re indoctrinated with vapid generalities.

As I’ve detailed in several recent articles (see tag:socialism here), the rank promotion of socialism has nothing to do with “power to the people.” Socialism is an elite strategy, boosted by Globalists as a way of gaining control of governments and populations.

Their pretense of “share and care” is a mask behind which they are instituting a worldwide management system. They, not the people, will own the means of production, and they will determine the distribution of goods and services.

Instead of solving the problem of predatory mega-corporations, “socialism” will elevate those corporations to even greater heights of power.

As just one example—what president of the US stood for, and promoted, the greatest degree of socialism? That would be Franklin Roosevelt, who presided over the New Deal and World War 2. How did he rein in corporations and prosecute their crimes? Are you kidding?

Consider Charles Higham’s classic, Trading with the Enemy:

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s [Germany’s] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

If you want a modern example of “socialism” at work, consider another soft promoter of this philosophy, President Barack Obama, and his response to one of the most predatory of corporations, Monsanto, and other food giants.

From Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”:

“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.”

“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…”

“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’

“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”

Obama? A socialist warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.

Socialism? Power to the people? Share and care? Special concern for the downtrodden?

Socialism is a means for government to gain ironclad control of the means of production by colluding with mega-corporations.

That collusion, that tight partnership has been called fascism. And that’s what socialism turns out to be.

To the degree that governments are socialist, in England, the US, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, China, Canada, Australia and other countries, that’s the pattern.

It would evolve into the same pattern in New York, where Mayor Bill De Blasio is blowing smoke up everybody’s backside, with his remarks about people-power and strong government taking over private property.

If the mayor wants to prove otherwise, let’s see him go after the most mighty anti-people corporation in his city: Goldman Sachs. Let’s see him lead a no-holds-barred prosecution of that outfit’s crimes.

Let’s see him attack the company that is running a significant chunk of Donald Trump’s presidency.

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

Jon Rappoport

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union

Dec12

World War 2 continued by other means

by Jon Rappoport

December 12, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

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.org. 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.

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

Jon Rappoport

Bill Gates vs. freedom

Sep25

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Under the surface of this global civilization, a great and secret war is taking place. The two opponents hold different conceptions of Reality. On one side, those who claim that humans operate purely on the basis of stimulus-response, like machines; on the other side, those who believe there is a gigantic thing called freedom. Phase One of the war is already over. The stimulus-response people have won. In Phase Two, people are waking up to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of the Pavlovian program.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A thought-form is a picture-plus concept in the mind that tends to guide behavior.

A dominant thought-form in Earth civilization today is: universal rule through gigantic, highly organized structures; e.g., mega-corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation.

Imagine a few thousand such corporations with interlocking boards and directorates; colluding with super-regional governments and their honeycombed bureaucracies; combined with regional armies, intelligence agencies and technological elites; hooked to a global surveillance operation; in control of media; cooperating with the largest organized religions on Earth.

Imagine all this as essentially one organization—and you see the thought-form in its wide-screen version.

Top-down as top-down has never been before.

Functions and compartments defined and specialized at every level, and coordinated in order to carry out policy decisions.

As to why such a thought-form should come to dominate human affairs, the simplest explanation is: because it works.

But beneath that answer, for those who can see, there is much, much more.

Individuals come to think that “effective” and “instrumental” and “efficient” are more important than any other issues.

Keep building, keep expanding, keep consolidating gains—and above all else, keep organizing.

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

The Machine has come to the fore. All questions are now about how the individual sees himself fitting into the structure and function of The Machine.

Are human beings becoming social constructs?

Populations are undergoing a quiet revolution. We can cite some of the reasons: television; education; job training and employment requirements; the Surveillance State; government organizations who follow a “zero tolerance” policy; inundation with advertising.

Yes, it’s all geared to produce people who are artificial constructs.

And this is just the beginning. There are a number of companies (see, for example, affectiva.com) who are dedicated to measuring “audience response” to ads and other public messages. I’m talking about electronic measuring. The use of bracelets, for instance, that record students’ emotional responses to teachers in classrooms, in real time. (Bill Gates shoveled grant money into several of these studies.)

Then there is facial recognition geared to the task of revealing how people are reacting when they sit at their computers.

Push-pull, ring the bell, watch the dog drool for his food. Stimulus-response.

It’s not much of a stretch to envision, up the road a few years, whole populations more than willing to volunteer for this kind of mass experimentation. But further than that, we could see society itself embrace, culturally, the ongoing measurement of stimuli and responses.

“Yes, I want to live like this. I want to be inside the system. I want to be analyzed. I want to be evaluated. I want to accept the results. I want to be part of the new culture. Put bracelets on me. Measure my eye movements, my throat twitches that indicate what I’m thinking, and my brain waves. Going to a movie should include the experience of wearing electrodes that record my second-to-second reactions to what’s happening on the screen. I like that. I look forward to it…”

In such a culture, “Surveillance State” would take on a whole new dimension.

“Sir, I want to report a malfunction in my television set. I notice the monitoring equipment that tracks my responses to programs has gone on the blink. I want it reattached as soon as possible. Can you fix it remotely, or do you need to send a repair person out to the house? I’ll be here all day…”

People will take pride in their ongoing role as social constructs, just as they now take pride in owning a quality brand of car.

The thought process behind this, in so far as any thought at all takes place, goes something like: “If I’m really a bundle of responses to stimuli and nothing more, then I want to be inside a system that champions that fact and records it…I don’t want to be left out in the cold.”

Here is a sample school situation of the near future: for six months, Mr. Jones, the teacher, has been video recorded, moment by moment, as he instructs his class in English. All the students have been wearing electronic bracelets [apple watches], and their real time emotional responses (interest, boredom, aversion) have also been recorded. A team of specialists has analyzed the six months of video, matching it up, second by second, to the students’ responses. The teacher is called in for a conference.

“Mr. Jones, we now know what you’re doing that works and what you’re doing that doesn’t work. We know exactly what students are positively reacting to, and what bores them. Therefore, we’re going to put you into a re-ed seminar, where you’ll learn precisely how to teach your classes from now on, to maximize your effectiveness. We’ll show you how to move your hands, what tone of voice to use, how to stand, when to make eye contact, and so on…”

Mr. Jones is now a quacking duck. He will be trained how to quack “for the greater good.” He is now a machine toy. Whatever is left of his passion, his intelligence, his free will, his spontaneous insights, his drive to make students actually understand what they’re learning…all subordinated for the sake of supposed efficiency.

Think this is an extreme fantasy? See the Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2012, “Biosensors to monitor students’ attentiveness”:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured more than $4 billion into efforts to transform public education in the U.S., is pushing to develop an ‘engagement pedometer.’ Biometric devices wrapped around the wrists of students would identify which classroom moments excite and interest them — and which fall flat.”

“The foundation has given $1.4 million in grants to several university researchers to begin testing the devices in middle-school classrooms this fall [2012].”

“The biometric bracelets, produced by a Massachusetts startup company, Affectiva Inc, send a small current across the skin and then measure subtle changes in electrical charges as the sympathetic nervous system responds to stimuli. The wireless devices have been used in pilot tests to gauge consumers’ emotional response to advertising.”

“Gates officials hope the devices, known as Q Sensors, can become a common classroom tool, enabling teachers to see, in real time, which kids are tuned in and which are zoned out.”

“Existing measures of student engagement, such as videotaping classes for expert review or simply asking kids what they liked in a lesson, ‘only get us so far,’ said Debbie Robinson, a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation. To truly improve teaching and learning, she said, ‘we need universal, valid, reliable and practical instruments’ such as the biosensors.”

“The Gates Foundation has spent two years videotaping 20,000 classroom lessons and breaking them down, minute by minute, to analyze how each teacher presents material and how those techniques affect student test scores.”

“Clemson received about $500,000 in Gates funding. Another $620,000 will support an MIT scientist, John Gabrieli, who aims to develop a scale to measure degrees of student engagement by comparing biosensor data to functional MRI brain scans [!] (using college students as subjects).”

When you boil it down, the world-view represented here has nothing to do with “caring about students.” It has everything to do with the Pavlovian view of humans as biological machines.

What input yields what response? How can people be shaped into predictable constructs?

As far as Gates is concerned, the underlying theme, as always, is: control.

In this new world, the process of thinking and comparing and independently judging, and the freedom to make individual choices…well, for whatever that was worth, we can’t encourage it for a whole society. It’s too unpredictable. We don’t have time for that sort of thing. No, we have to achieve reduction. We have to seek out lowest common denominators.

This is what universal surveillance is all about; the observation of those denominators and the variances from them—the outlying and therefore dangerous departures from the norm.

“Well, we’ve tracked Mr. Jones’ classroom for a year now, and we’ve collated all the measurements of reactions from the students. It was a wonderful study. But we did notice one thing. All the students showed similar patterns of reactions over time…except two students. We couldn’t fit them into the algorithms. They seemed to be responding oppositely. It was almost as if they were intentionally defecting from the group. This signals some kind of disorder. We need a name for it. Is it Oppositional Defiance Disorder, or is it new? We recommend attaching electrodes to those two students’ skulls, so we can get a better readout of their brain activity in real time.”

You see, everything must be analyzed on the basis of stimulus response. Those two students are suffering from a brain problem. They must be. Because if they aren’t, if they have the ability to choose and decide how to respond, then they have free will, and that can’t be measured. Much deeper, that also suggests an X-factor in humans, wherein the flow of chemicals and atoms and quarks and mesons and photons don’t tell the whole story. The rest of the story would imply the existence of something that is…non-material…above and beyond push-pull cause and effect.

The gatekeepers of this world are obsessed with ruling that out. They guard Reality itself, which is to say, their conception of Reality. They are willing to spend untold amounts of money to make that Pavlovian conception universally accepted and universally loved.

Because they own that conception. They are the self-appointed title holders. They are the kings of that domain.

I feel obligated to inform them that their domain is much, much smaller than they think it is. And in the fullness of time, which is very long, the domain is going to fall and crack and collapse and disintegrate. And all their horses and all their men won’t be able to put it back together.

Eventually, a man like Bill Gates will be forgotten. He’ll be a small footnote on a dusty page in a crumbling book in a dark room on a remote island.

A morbid venal fool who chased, for a brief moment, fool’s gold.

There is an irreducible thing. It’s called freedom. It is native to every individual.

Sometimes it rears its head in the middle of the night, and the dreamer awakes.

And he asks himself: what is my freedom for?

And then he begins a voyage that no device can record, measure, or analyze.

If he pursues it long enough, it takes him out of the labyrinth.

Pavlov wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Basically, Pavlov was promoting the idea that whatever an individual perceives and feels about his own experience is a confused mess and an obstruction.

Rather, the individual should ignore all that tripe, and instead, allow himself to be a “natural object,” see himself as a clean and simple response mechanism, as planned inputs cause him to behave in various ways.

In other words, then he will have no life.

Bill Gates and other elite planners are working toward this end.

When Ray Kurzweil talks about hooking brains up to super-computers, he is envisioning a process of downloading that goes beyond choice. Somehow, automatically, the brain and the individual (he apparently believes they are the same thing) will receive inputs that translate into knowledge and even talent. This is another fatuous version of Pavlov.

In Brave New World, Huxley wrote: “Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”

Stimulus-response.

If researchers developed this technology, who could doubt that elite planners would push it forward? It would be the culmination of their dream.

The freedom of the individual, his innate capacity to make wide-ranging choices, is the monkey wrench in the program. It is anti-stimulus-response.

This is why you would have to search far and wide to find, in one school, anywhere, on any level, a course that examines and promotes individual freedom.

It is anathema to the plan.

It is the silver bullet for the vampire.

Freedom comes from Within the individual, not from Without.

On the level of political control, freedom emerged and broke through during centuries of struggle.

Now, and in the future, every individual carries that torch.

So it is incumbent on the individual to understand the scope and meaning and power of his own freedom, and to decide for himself what his freedom is FOR.

What will he choose to launch from that great space?

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

Jon Rappoport

Destroy Trump for opposing NAFTA

Sep3

by Jon Rappoport

September 3, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

NAFTA…The North American Free Trade Agreement…born on January 1, 1994…it’s a deal among the governments of the U S, Mexico and Canada.

One group has stated:

“Negotiated behind closed doors with hundreds of official corporate advisors, NAFTA was radically different than past trade deals that focused on traditional trade matters, like cutting border taxes. Instead, most of NAFTA’s provisions grant new powers and privileges to multinational corporations.”

So Trump recently spoke out decisively against NAFTA—and as in any situation where he speaks at all, he’s attacked by the press.

Here is a pop quiz. Here are three statements about NAFTA. You decide who uttered them.

ONE: “…most of NAFTA’s provisions grant new powers and privileges to multinational corporations. These new powers make it easier for corporations to outsource jobs…NAFTA’s ‘investor protections’ create incentives for corporations to relocate production and jobs elsewhere. Indeed, the U.S. has lost more than 950,000 American jobs due to NAFTA, according to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) database.”

“Plus, NAFTA guts the Buy American policies that require the government to buy American-made goods when spending our tax dollars. This outsources our tax dollars rather than investing them to create jobs here.”

“NAFTA has also lowered U.S. wages, increased inequality, and hurt U.S. manufacturing and agriculture in all 50 states. At the same time, it has decimated the Mexican economy, driving millions from their homes.”

TWO: “I will fundamentally rewrite NAFTA, other trade agreements…Not only did I oppose permanent normal trade relations with China, I stood with Steel workers and united electrical workers in opposition to it…Normalized trade with China cost us 3.2 million jobs including over 120,000 here in Pennsylvania.”

THREE: “Remember, NAFTA was one of the WORST Trade Deals ever made. The U.S. lost thousands of businesses and millions of jobs. We were far better off before NAFTA – should never have been signed. Even the Vat Tax was not accounted for. We make new deal or go back to pre-NAFTA!”

OK? Ready with your answers? Yes, you guessed correctly from recognizing the rhetoric—statement 3 was written by President Trump (an additional part to that statement was also tweeted here).

Statement 1 was written by Lori Wallach, who works for Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen, which is decidedly on the political Left. And statement number 2 was made by none other than presidential candidate and avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders.

What’s the main difference between these three characters? Wallach and Sanders can say anything they want to, and the amount of heat coming their way is relatively minor. No matter what Trump says, he gets heat. And yet…

On this MAJOR issue, NAFTA, and free-trade treaties in general, Wallach, Sanders, and Trump are in agreement. They all see the insanity and criminality. A socialist, a far-left activist, and a bull capitalist.

Thus demonstrating that, for the press, it matters not what you say, it only matters who they decide you are.

And they decide who you are according to an agenda. Whose agenda? Simple: Rockefeller Globalists, who love free trade treaties, who have spent decades crafting them and foisting them on the public, who see President Trump as a wild card unpredictable swaggering cowboy…

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

Jon Rappoport

Socialism equals triumph for corporate criminals

Aug29

by Jon Rappoport

August 29, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

In several recent articles, I’ve exposed the myth that socialism is a revolution of and for the people. (‘socialism’ archive here)

I’ve presented evidence that socialism is actually a movement owned, operated, and funded by ultra-wealthy elites.

Dupes, foot soldiers, blind idealists, indoctrinated students, and low-level thugs are recruited through cutouts to serve the agenda of Rockefeller Globalists, for example, who are determined to bring about worldwide socialism.

Socialism, in a nutshell, equals ultra-rich elites (represented by the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, etc.) owning the free market, cutting out competition, and creating more powerful, overarching, central governments.

Hidden in the plan is the granting of greater dominion to mega-corporations. This is a key fact.

The US Constitution was a document that established extremely limited central government. Regardless of the motives of the authors and the state legislatures that ratified it, the ideas contained in the Constitution were, and are, extremely oppressive toward large centralized structures controlling the people.

But there was another factor present at the beginning of the American Republic.

At the dawn of the United States, corporations were chartered and thus allowed to operate by the individual states. If a corporation, in the eyes of a state legislature, violated a basic trust by harming the people, committing offenses against the citizenry, the legislature could summarily cancel their charter and literally exile them from the state.

This power followed, in part, from the fact that corporations were not and are not individuals. They do not have the rights and freedoms of individuals. Corporations were not granted the rights of citizens in the Constitution.

Richard Grossman, an activist and scholar of US corporate history, unearthed and made lucid these facts.

At the birth of the American Republic, therefore, there was a double limitation on power. Central government and corporations were both strapped and shackled.

Of course, just as the federal government has been allowed to expand like an unchecked fungus, so has corporate power.

Under socialism (aka Globalism), mega-corporate power is the prow of a ship that sails on and on and conquers the economies of the world.

Corporate crimes go unpunished.

Contrary to popular belief, the real agenda of socialism has nothing to do with prosecuting those crimes.

The idea, for example, that greater socialism in America would defeat Monsanto is ludicrous in the extreme.

Monsanto is one of the components of actual socialism—the real, not the fake, version.

Again, socialism is by, for, and of the ultra-wealthy elites. It is not a movement on behalf of the downtrodden.

As Gary Allen puts it in his 1971 classic, None Dare call It Conspiracy: “…pressure from above and pressure from below… The pressure from above comes from secret, ostensibly respectable Comrades in the government and [elite Globalist] Establishment, forming, with the radicalized mobs in the streets below, a giant pincer around middle-class society. The street rioters are pawns, shills, puppets, and dupes for an oligarchy of elitist conspirators working above to turn America’s limited government into an unlimited government with total control over our lives and property.”

“The American middle class is being squeezed to death by a vise. In the streets we have avowed revolutionary groups… Virtually all members of these groups sincerely believe that they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indispensable ally of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us. The naive radicals think that under Socialism the ‘people’ will run everything. Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted. They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped, how long do you think they would be tolerated?”

Gary Allen wrote that passage in 1971. Does it ring a familiar bell now?

As philosopher George Santayana famously wrote in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Equally famous is the prescription for all advertising: repeat the same message over and over, so it sinks into the mind and forms a false impression of truth.

Thus it has been with the basic message of socialism. “This is a form of government that finally serves the people. It is the people rising up to take the reins of power.”

Once that notion is rigidly fixed in consciousness, it is impossible to believe socialism is actually emanating from the elite of the elite.

Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to the basic con of fake news, which doesn’t only broadcast distorted current events spooling out through screens, day by day.

Basic themes of fake news also span decades and even centuries.

What will happen when enough young people, who want to tear down the structures of the monopolists, realize those same men are bankrolling them in the streets?

What will happen when these young people realize their teachers and mentors and handlers and professors have been feeding them the precise reverse of the truth?

As long as independent media continue to proliferate, that day is coming.

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

Jon Rappoport

The secret circle that controls governments

Aug22

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: I have many new readers, and they have not read this article of mine, which I first posted several years ago. Here it is—

Who is in charge of destroying borders and separate nations?

One group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

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

In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations.

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

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

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

Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).

The conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House. He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

The following 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

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

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

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.

US (and other nations’) economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election (1976), his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

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

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

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

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

And one day in the future, a student would ask his teacher, “What happened to the United States?” And the teacher would say, “It was a criminal enterprise based on individual freedom. Fortunately, our leaders rescued the people and taught them the superior nature of HARMONY AND COOPERATION.”

—However, the rough, uneven, and challenging nationalism surfacing in a number of countries is evidence that many people are waking up from, and resisting, the Trilateral Collectivist trance…

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

Jon Rappoport

Erased history: how Rockefeller bankrolled Soviet Russia

Aug6

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

In 1971, Gary Allen published his book, None Dare Call it Conspiracy. It quickly became an unofficial best seller.

Over the years, several million copies have been sold.

Allen’s thesis was stark: super-rich American capitalists were financing socialism. This bizarre paradox was resolved when socialism was properly understood—not as “power to the people”—but as elite power over the people. In other words, as a hoax.

These days, the socialist hoax is still unknown to most of the population.

Cloak a global power grab as progress for all of humanity.

Here, from chapter six of None Dare Call it Conspiracy, “The Rockefellers and the Reds,” is a devastating passage commenting on the period just after the Russian Revolution of 1917:

“The Rockefellers assigned their public relations agent, Ivy Lee, to sell the American public the idea that the Bolsheviks were merely misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind.”

“Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, notes in his highly authoritative Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development:”

“’Quite predictably…[Ivy] Lee concludes that the communist problem is merely psychological. By this time he is talking about “Russians” (not Communists) and concludes “they are all right.” He suggests the United States should not engage in propaganda; makes a plea for peaceful coexistence; and suggests the United States would find it sound policy to recognize the USSR and advance credits [give loans].’ (Antony Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Calif., 1968, p.292)”

“After the Bolshevik Revolution, Standard of New Jersey [Rockefeller] bought 50 per cent of the Nobel’s huge Caucasus oil fields even though the property had theoretically been nationalized [by Russia]. (O’Connor, Harvey, The Empire Of Oil, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1955, p.270.)”

“In 1927, Standard Oil of New York [Rockefeller] built a refinery in Russia, thereby helping the Bolsheviks put their economy back on its feet. Professor Sutton states: ‘This was the first United States investment in Russia since the Revolution.’ (Ibid, Vol.1, p.38)”

“Shortly thereafter Standard Oil of New York and its subsidiary, Vacuum Oil Company [Rockefeller], concluded a deal to market Soviet oil in European countries and it was reported that a loan of $75,009,000 to the Bolsheviks was arranged. (National Republic, Sept.1927.)”

“…Wherever Standard Oil would go, Chase National Bank was sure to follow. (The Rockefeller’s Chase Bank was later merged with the Warburg’s Manhattan Bank to form the present Chase Manhattan Bank.) In order to rescue the Bolsheviks, who were supposedly an archenemy, the Chase National Bank was instrumental in establishing the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922. President of the Chamber was Reeve Schley, a vice-president of Chase National Bank. (Ibid, Vol.11, p.288) According to Professor Sutton: ‘In 1925, negotiations between Chase and [Russian] Prombank extended beyond the finance of raw materials and mapped out a complete program for financing Soviet raw material exports to the U. S. and imports of U. S. cotton and machinery.’ (Ibid, Vol.11, p.226) Sutton also reports that ‘Chase National Bank and the Equitable Trust Company were leaders in the Soviet credit business.’ (Ibid, p.277)”

“The Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank also was involved in selling Bolshevik bonds in the United States in 1928. Patriotic organizations denounced the Chase as an ‘international fence.’ Chase was called ‘a disgrace to America… They will go to any lengths for a few dollars profits.’ (Ibid, Vol.11, p.291) Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintained in a speech to his fellow Congressmen:”

“’The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting through the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Company and other banks in New York City.”

“’Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet Trade Organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States’ Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State Bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York’. (Congressional Record, June 15, 1933.)”

“But the Rockefellers apparently were not alone in financing the Communist arm of the Insiders’ conspiracy. According to Professor Sutton ‘… there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the [Russians’] First Five Year Plan. See U. S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236.’ (Sutton, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 340n.)”

“Professor Sutton proves conclusively in his three volume history of Soviet technological development that the Soviet Union was almost literally manufactured by the U.S.A…”

“…Sutton shows that there is hardly a segment of the Soviet economy which is not a result of the transference of Western, particularly American, technology.”

“This cannot be wholly the result of accident. For fifty years the Federal Reserve-CFR-Rockefeller-lnsider crowd has advocated and carried out policies aimed at increasing the power of their satellite, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, America spends $75 billion a year on defense to protect itself from the enemy the Insiders are building up.”

NOTE: The descendants of these bankers are now doing everything they can to build up the story that Donald Trump won the presidency by colluding with Russians. To call this an irony, in view of the above information, would be a vast understatement.

However, the motives of these current Globalists are clear: regardless of whether Trump meant to keep his promises to destroy Globalism (aka worldwide socialism), his mere mention of Globalism as the enemy, during the presidential campaign, and his declared opposition to Globalist “free trade” treaties, was sufficient to warrant an all-out attack on him.

The whole idea of nationalism as preferable to Globalism could act as a contagious germ spreading to the people of other countries—so Trump as the face and symbol of such sentiments had to be defamed and crushed.

Through various front organizations, cutouts, dupes, brainwashed useful idiots, and violent hired thugs, that operation to crush Trump is well underway.

Again—and this point must be understood—IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER TRUMP EVER MEANT TO KEEP HIS PROMISE TO BURY GLOBALISM. THE MERE MENTION OF GLOBALISM AS THE ENEMY WAS AND IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT UNCEASING ATTACKS AGAINST HIM.

Many, many of Trump’s supporters want to see Globalism buried.

Ultimately, they are the real target of the Globalists, who want to neutralize and disperse them and make them passive and demoralized.

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

Jon Rappoport

What Globalists say; what they really mean

Jul12

by Jon Rappoport

July 12, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“[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.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1969)

This famous quote from one of the world’s leading Globalists could have been written more truthfully. For example: “We must do everything we can to eliminate the reality of separate and individual countries. In this regard, breaking down borders with massive waves of immigration will go a long way.”

And what about Brzezinski’s remark that corporations and banks are acting in ways that are “far in advance” of the nation-state?

Perhaps this is what he means by advanced concepts: Corporations are empowered to set up factories in Third World hellholes, where they employ workers at starvation wages, with no environmental concerns or controls. That’s step one. Step two is exporting the goods made in those far-off places back to First World countries without paying tariff-penalties.

Yes, that’s what Brzezinski and other elite Globalists would call “enlightened economics.”

To call this free-market capitalism is a gross misnomer. The free market is pushed to the side. Basic capitalism, in which an entrepreneur builds a domestic business and sells his goods, has nothing to do with this kind of engineered international corporate expansion. The corporate Globalist state is a different animal altogether.

“I believe that if you go and ask a chief executive of a Goldman Sachs or a BP, and they answer you honestly … they want monopolies, they want government subsidies, they want preferences – they’re not interested in free markets.” (Ian Bremmer, The Daily Telegraph, 7/10/10)

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

Rockefeller’s phrase, “a more integrated global and economic structure,” vaguely suggests some kind of fairness, in which loser nations would be promoted into upper tiers of business relationships.

But no. “Integrated” actually means the world is made to fit the ambitions of global corporations—these behemoths can roam anywhere, set up shop, and produce their goods, without regard for smaller producers of the same goods, who suddenly find themselves edged out of the market.

“Integrated” also means “never having to pay tariffs.” Tariffs level the playing field. A level field is the last thing Globalists want.

In the current trade wrangle between China and the US, Globalists are essentially saying: “See, you’re upsetting the system. Now both China and the US will be laying on tariffs. It’s much better to eliminate tariffs altogether—which was the way we ran things until recently…”

No, the way things were being run allowed China to export far more goods to US than the US was exporting to China. That imbalance has been quite damaging to the US economy.

So, although Globalists ignore the concept of separate nations, and cheerily chirp about mega-corporations running “the worldwide economy,” in fact whole nations are hurt by this practice; some nations more than others.

This is no accident. In order for Globalist control of the planet to win out, the US has to be brought to heel. Dismantling the power of its economy has been a major operation, for decades.

Globalists say “integrated world economy.” They mean: “mega-corporations win a rigged game.”

Globalists say “advanced political concepts.” They mean: “no tariffs.”

Globalists say “nation states are outmoded.” They mean: “open all borders” and “control all markets from above, at the level of mega-corporations.”

Guess who the “disaffected youth” demanding open borders are unknowingly working for?

The richest people in the world.

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

(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled
“Sacred shapes and decimated minds”)

Jon Rappoport

Socialism exposed: thick lipstick on a global pig

Jun19

by Jon Rappoport

June 19, 2018

To give you an idea of the deception inherent in socialism, here is a quote from none other than Andrew Carnegie, once one of the richest men in America:

“I believe Socialism is the grandest theory ever presented, and I am sure it will someday rule the world. Then we will have attained the Millennium… Then men will be content to work for the general welfare and share their riches with their neighbors.” (The New York Times, 1 January 1885, “A Millionaire Socialist”)

Carnegie, of course, like several of his ultra-rich compatriots, devised a method to give away his riches while keeping them: the non-profit foundation.

The last thing on Carnegie’s bloated mind was becoming “equal” with the great unwashed.

He was a liar of the first order. He recognized that, when you win the game of free enterprise, your most corrupt bet is to turn around and find every possible way to block others from winning. Then, you stand at the top of the heap, unchallenged.

That is exactly what he had in mind. That’s what socialism actually meant to him.

Let’s see socialism for what it is. Not in the abstract, but in reality.

Socialism is:

The taking of money (taxes) from some people who work for it and giving it to others who don’t work for it. On a grand scale.

The vast expansion of freebies doled out by central government. In order to create and sustain dependence.

The government protection of favored persons and corporations, permitting them and aiding them to expand their fortunes without limit, regardless of what crimes they commit in the process. (Monsanto would be a fine example.)

The squeezing out of those who would compete with the favored persons and corporations.

The dictatorship by and for the very wealthy, pretending to be the servant of the masses.

The lie that the dictatorship is being run by the masses.

The gradual lowering of the standard of living for the overwhelming number of people.

The propaganda claiming socialism is the path to a better world for all.

In other words, socialism is a protection racket and a long con and a heartless system of elite control, posing as the greatest good.

It is just another form of top-down tyranny—as old as the hills.

A year or two ago, a person living in Europe told me that the European Union was not a problem, because it was just another layer of socialism placed over the existing socialist governments of European nations, and no one really noticed the existence of the EU.

—As if blindness were a reason not to worry.

SOCIALISM WAS NEVER ABOUT UNIVERSAL EQUALITY AND UNIVERSAL SHARING.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNIVERSAL AND COMPLETE EQUALITY AND SHARING, ONLY A FAKE VERSION DICTATED FROM ABOVE.

Socialism is, in the minds of most people who advocate it, a vague sentiment about people being kinder to each other.

Consider this fatuous and ludicrous statement, uttered by the mob boss of bosses of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, in 1961: “The socialist economy has become so strong, so vigorous that from the summits we have reached we can issue an open challenge of peaceful economic competition to the most powerful capitalist country—the United States of America.”

Here is a correct translation: “Bankrolled and given vital technology by a few elites from the West, our vast society of socialist slave workers is now able to engage in capitalist competition with America.”

The raving of a madman.

Today’s youth who push and protest and riot and censor, on behalf of socialism, are working for the ultra-rich whom they despise.

That’s the long and short of “the glorious revolution.”

The Carnegies and Rockefellers of today (including a miniature Rockefeller named George Soros) have engaged the young as foot soldiers, and they know the young are willing dupes for socialism, because they created, for the young, an education system that makes them clueless and mindless.

The Carnegies and Rockefellers of today are saying: “Bring on the new world, the better world, the more just world, the happier world—whatever you want to call it—so we can run it from the top and show you what we really think of you. Make every conceivable lever of power ours, and then we’ll reveal what we really have planned for you.”

The prodigious author and researcher, Antony Sutton (1925-2002), wrote about hidden men (“socialists”) behind momentous events. He exposed their fraud of working for “the greater good.”

I recently came across a 1999 interview with Sutton, conducted by Kris Millegan, researcher and head of TrineDay publishers.

Millegan wrote about Antony Sutton in 1999: “Antony C. Sutton, 74, has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state’s technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet’s large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.”

“…Then, someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and— ‘a picture jumped out’. And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to ‘Illuminati’ influences in 1830’s Germany.”

Here are excerpts from the 1999 interview:

Millegan – Can you tell the story of how you learned of Skull & Bones? And how you felt?

Sutton – I knew nothing of S&B until I received a letter in the early 80’s asking if I would like to look at a genuine membership list. For no real reason I said yes. It was agreed to send the package by Federal Express and I could keep it for 24 hours, it had to be returned to the safe. It was a “black bag” job by a family member disgusted with their activities.

For the benefit of any S&B members who may read and doubt the statement; the membership list is in two volumes, black leather bound. Living members and deceased members in separate volumes. Very handsome books.

I spent all night in Kinko’s, Santa Cruz, copied the entire volumes and returned within the 24 hour period.

I have never released any copies or identified the source. I figured each copy could be coded and enable S&B to trace the leak.

How did I feel? I felt then (as I do now} that these “prominent” men are really immature juveniles at heart. The horrible reality is that these little boys have been dominant in their influence in world affairs. No wonder we have wars and violence. Skull and Bones is the symbol of terrorist violence, pirates, the SS Deaths Head Division in WW Two, labels on poison bottles and so on.

I kept the stack of xerox sheets for quite a while before I looked at them—when I did look—a picture jumped out, THIS was a significant part of the so called [socialist] establishment. No wonder the world has problems!

Millegan: – What did your study of elites, economics, secrecy and technology do for your career?

Sutton – Depends what you mean by “career”?

By conventional standards I am an abject failure. I’ve been thrown out of two major Universities (UCLA and Stanford), denied tenure at Cal State Los Angeles. Every time I write something, it appears to offend someone in the Establishment and they throw me to the wolves.

On the other hand I’ve written 26 books, published a couple of newsletters and so on…even more important I’ve never compromised on the truth. And I don’t quit.

In material terms…hopeless failure. In terms of discovery…I think I’ve been successful. Judge a man by his enemies. William Buckley called me a “jerk”. Glenn Campbell, former Director of the Hoover Institution, Stanford called me “a problem”.

Millegan – Did any of Hitler’s economic policies threaten the interests of the international bankers, and if so did that play a role in his downfall?

Sutton – Hitler’s economic policies were OK’d by the bankers right through the war…ITT, Chase, Texaco and others were operating in Nazi-held France as late as 1945. In fact Chase in Paris was trying to get [acquire] Nazi accounts as late as 1944. When we got to Germany in May 1945, I remember seeing a (bombed-out) Woolworth store in Hamburg and thinking, “What’s Woolworth doing in Nazi Germany?” While we were bombed and shelled it was “business as usual” for Big Business. Try the Alien Custodian Papers.

…Union Banking is very important. I made a documentary for Dutch National TV some years ago. It got all the way through the production process to the Dutch TV Guide…at the last minute it was pulled and another film substituted. This documentary has proof of Bush financing Hitler—documents.

Maybe my Dutch friends will still get it viewed, but the [Skull&Bones] apparatus reaches into Holland.

Millegan – What is the story that was going to be told on Dutch TV? And what is the story of its censorship?

Sutton – Couple of years back, a Dutch TV production company from Amsterdam—under contract to Dutch National TV—came to US to make documentary on S&B [Skull and Bones]. They went to the Bones Temple and other places and interviewed people on East Coast. On West Coast, they interviewed myself and one other person.

I saw extracts from the original and it is a good professional job. They had documents linking Bush family and other S&B members to financing Hitler through Union Banking of New York and its Dutch correspondent bank. More than I have in [Sutton’s book] WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER.

The first version was later upgraded into a two part documentary and scheduled for showing this last March. It was pulled at last minute and has never been shown.

Millegan – What do you see for the future?

Suttton – Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State.

The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual.

Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them…

—end of interview excerpt—

Here is a telling Antony Sutton quote from his book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986):

“By using data of Russian origin it is possible to make an accurate analysis of the origins of this equipment. It was found that all the main diesel and steam-turbine propulsion systems of the ninety-six Soviet ships on the Haiphong supply run [to the North Vietnamese] that could be identified (i.e., eighty-four out of the ninety-six) originated in design or construction outside the USSR. We can conclude, therefore, that if the [US] State and Commerce Departments, in the 1950s and 1960s, had consistently enforced the legislation passed by Congress in 1949, the Soviets would not have had the ability to supply the Vietnamese War – and 50,000 more Americans and countless Vietnamese would be alive today.”

“Who were the government officials responsible for this transfer of known military technology? The concept originally came from National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who reportedly sold President Nixon on the idea that giving military techno¬logy to the Soviets would temper their global territorial ambitions. How Henry arrived at this gigantic non sequitur is not known. Sufficient to state that he aroused considerable concern over his motivations. Not least that Henry had been a paid family employee of the Rockefellers since 1958 and has served as International Advisory Committee Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller concern.”

If you think such traitorous actions could never have occurred, I point you to another researcher, Charles Higham, and his 1983 classic, Trading with the Enemy.

Higham focuses on World War 2. The men behind the curtain Higham exposed are in the same basic group that Antony Sutton exposed.

Higham, Trading with the Enemy:

Getting the picture?

War, what is it good for? With the same “socialist” elites backing both sides, it’s good for business. It’s good for creating chaos and destruction. It’s good for launching new global organizations, in the aftermath; organizations that exert a level of control and reach that didn’t exist before. It’s good for launching organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and the World Trade Organization—dedicated to Globalism, which in turn is dedicated to planned civilization, in which the individual is demeaned and the group is All.

Freedom is demeaned; and dominance by the few over the many is hailed as peace in our time.

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Globalist

China, the NBA, and the massive face of Globalism

Mayor of New York is Karl Marxing again

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union

Bill Gates vs. freedom

Destroy Trump for opposing NAFTA

Socialism equals triumph for corporate criminals

The secret circle that controls governments

Erased history: how Rockefeller bankrolled Soviet Russia

What Globalists say; what they really mean

Socialism exposed: thick lipstick on a global pig