The Individual vs. Globalism

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2017

“Global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he’s just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal.

More and more, this is how the young are being trained these days.

The grand “we” is being sold to them like a cheap street drug. They buy in. They believe this “we” is real, instead of a hollow con designed to drag them into a Globalist framework owned and operated by mega-corporations, banks, foundations, governments, and ubiquitous Rockefeller interests.

And what of the individual, his mind, his unique perception, his independent ideas, his originality, his life-force?

Swept away in the rush toward “a better world.”

I have breaking news. Earth is not a spaceship and we are not crew members. If Earth is a spaceship, it has serious design flaws, because it keeps making the same trip around the same sun every year.

Each one of us does not have a specified function, as a crew member would.

Going back as far as you want to in history, shortage and scarcity in the world that engendered a crisis was either created by some elite or maintained by them, for the purpose of eradicating dissent and fomenting a collectivist solution. Meaning a solution that came from the top. Meaning a solution that reduced individual freedom.

In recent human history, a different idea emerged: establish severely hamstrung government, in order to protect the individual against it.

This idea has had a very tough time. Collectivists have fought it every step of the way.

But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities. He can contemplate what it means to create reality that expresses his most profound desires.

And then he can begin a voyage that no one and no group can stop.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall; the individual remains.

The word “imagination,” when properly understood, indicates that the individual can envision and then create futures that never were, and never would be, unless he invented them.

Imagination is the opposite of “provincial,” “restricted,” “well-known,” “familiar,” “accepted.”

That is its challenge to the status quo.

That is the true threat the individual poses to all predictive systems.

Therefore, “it’s all just information” is a psyop code-phrase. Ideas, thoughts—nothing is original, nothing is new; we all “share” information floating in the collective consciousness; the individual invents nothing.

Which is the opposite of the truth. The individual invents everything.

He can’t be predicted when he is himself. He is not a pattern. He is not a system.

He is not anyone else.

He thrives on his own inspiration.

He is the ultimate riverboat gambler. He bets the house on his own as-yet uncreated future.

He is not a piece of universe.

He is not a humble servant of Order.

He invents the space and time of his own time to come.

As early as 1961, a brilliant healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (part of the Exit From The Matrix collection), explained what was to come. He wrote me a note, which I’m paraphrasing from memory: “People are confusing their own empathy for others with some inflated idea about group-identity. They aren’t the same. People are becoming afraid of their own unique and distinct existence. This is a social fear. A new social contract is being foisted on the population. Either you belong, or you have no rights. This is a totalitarian concept. It’s coming in through the back door.”

Well, now, it’s right there at the front door.

The individual still has a choice. But he has to make it.

Explore his own power, or give it away for nothing more than an illusion of belonging.

Stoke the fires within, or form a diluted image of self, and bow down to The Group.

The “I” is not isolated. He can reach out to others whenever and however he wants to. The question is, is he moving on the ground of his own independence, or is he searching for a group life raft, to which he will attach himself without thought or hesitation?

Beyond economics or politics, Globalism is a system that offers a life raft which is heading toward a machine-future. Disembark and find the great We, a construct of integrated parts, each of which is an individual, in a state of spiritual amnesia.

Happiness there is function and sedation, shadowless, wiped clean of distinctions.

This is the elitist end-game of social justice and equality.

It’s a fake culture.

(A new short story is now up on my other blog OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE entitled “The Cosmic Bathroom.” Click here.)

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.

A message to Wikileaks: release this leak

Aug14

Do 2.25 million deaths in America, per decade, at the hands of the medical system, rate as a significant leak?

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs, including shocking death numbers in the US.

These scandals are open leaks from inside the National Security State.

If you visit Wikileaks, how many purely medical documents do you find posted?

How many damaging leaks exposing the crimes of the medical cartel do you find?

Very, very few.

Where are the medical insiders who are liberating and passing along incriminating documentary evidence?

The medical sphere, for various reasons, is far better protected than any other segment of society.

For the hundredth time, let me cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield, at the time, was working as a highly respected public health expert, at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

She concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

That would add up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

Laid directly at the door of the American medical complex.

106,000 of those annual deaths, as Starfield reports, are the direct result of FDA approved, correctly prescribed medical drugs.

Aside from the genocidal death toll, Starfield’s findings also imply massive fraud in all medical journals that routinely publish glowing results of clinical trials of drugs.

Such trials open the door to the marketing of drugs that kill, according to Starfield, 106,000 Americans every year. How is this possible unless deep, continuing, and abetted research-fraud are the order of the day?

Indeed, Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

The FDA, of course, is the single government agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, before their public release is permitted. Yet the FDA takes absolutely no responsibility for the deaths.

Can you imagine the feeding frenzy, if, say, some leaker in the Pentagon passed along a political/military document to WikiLeaks that showed the Dept. of Defense was poisoning to death, like clockwork, a hundred thousand of its own soldiers every year?

Let’s stop this insane nonsense of separating one whole set of government crimes from another, simply because the propagandized priests in the white coats are above reproach.

We’re not living in 1950 anymore, and this isn’t Kansas.

In 1988, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC (included in my Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections), I stated that medical covert ops are the most successful methods for pacifying, debilitating, and controlling populations, through toxification, because these ops fly the flag of political neutrality.

They appear to favor no king, dictator, president, government administration or partisan position.

Their propaganda is all about healing and helping.

In fact, the medical cartel is, in the long run, the most effective branch of political repression, from one end of the planet to the other.

It favors top-down control by those in power, whoever they are, whatever they claim to stand for.

Consider this: when Ed Snowden released NSA documents that showed the extent of government surveillance on populations, no one from the intelligence establishment made a serious case that Snowden’s revelations were false. Instead, they attacked Snowden for exposing “methods” of “the war on terror.”

However, in the medical arena, leakers would be afraid that doctors, medical bureaucrats, public health agencies, government leaders, drug-company fronts, and major media outlets would, all at once, deny the validity and truth of the leaks—despite the fact that the truth is there for all to see.

In other words, the best protected cartel in the world—medical—would act in a far more Orwellian fashion. It would say: the truth is not the truth, the facts are not the facts, 2 and 2 do not equal 4—and the cartel would get away with doing that.

This is the kind of clout we’re talking about when it comes to medical matters.

Over the years, I’ve alerted mainstream reporters to the Starfield review, cited above, and other confirming published studies that reveal the horrific extent of medical destruction. Those reporters who bothered to get back to me issued blanket denials. They essentially said, “Yes, I see the evidence, but the facts aren’t facts. What’s happening isn’t happening.”

Now we’re talking about some heavy brainwashing.

By comparison, it makes the quality of the scandal around Snowden seem like a Sunday outing in the park.

A few years ago, I had one reporter, who exposes political leaks, tell me: “I don’t mess with medical stuff. It would ruin my credibility.”

Indeed. Another indication of how powerful the medical apparatus is.

Several months ago, the Washington Post highlighted a new study that puts “medical errors” as the 3rd leading cause of death in America. There hasn’t been any significant follow-up. There hasn’t been an explosion of outrage. So even when exposure occurs, the brainwashing factor is so strong it makes no difference. It’s just another ho-hum day in the news business.

That’s mind control par excellence. That’s tremendous protection of criminals.

That’s like a crime boss saying, “Yeah, I kill 225,000 people every year, but it’s an accident”—and nothing happens.

He goes his merry way, and everyone praises him as a humanitarian.

Talk about inventing and selling false reality.

This one is at the top of the charts, and it stays there.

I could stop here, but I’m going to take this one step further, because, as you can see, I’m talking about mind control. So here is the vital add-on:

From the dawn of history, humans have been particularly vulnerable to statements, from “selfless altruists,” about being saved, being rescued, being given gifts from above. And behind those statements, when there is an organization involved, a top-down organization, the threat level rises considerably.

Leaders have always recognized that if they match their pronouncements and assurances with the population’s unflagging hope of being saved, they, the leaders, win. They win big.

Even in societies where overt human sacrifice was practiced, the cover story involved some kind of healing and rescue. The good gods would see the sacrifices and intervene to produce “better days.” Better life for all.

This is what was sold, and this was what was bought. For many people, the times have not changed. Make them a promise of medical rescue, and they’re in. They’re floating in a hopeful trance.

A hypnotic induction has been performed, and it works.

The controlled subject responds with gratitude.

At that point, you can engage in complete contradictions, rank absurdities, and doublespeak.

The trance will hold.

The medical cartel is the best-protected organization on the planet.

Think about that, Mr. Assange. There is a whole world of “dark matter” for you and WikiLeaks to explore.

You obviously love upsetting apple carts. Well, this one has decaying apples from Nome to Tierra del Fuego.

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

Jon Rappoport

Collectivist mind control: “save the planet”

Aug6

Collectivist mind control: “save the planet”

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2017

“The planet wouldn’t need saving if willing prosecutors had gone after high-level criminals (corporate, banking, war-mongering) with hammer and tongs. Now, the very people who escaped such prosecution have emerged as the leaders of the ‘save the planet’ movement. That’s called a clue.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

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 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.

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

If we win this fight to preserve freedom in America, will people understand what The Individual means? Or will we they be so brainwashed that they’ll preach and teach freedom for The Group, the Collective?

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 bemoaned the unemployment rate in “the public sector,” which is the drone-core of the collective. He emphatically demeaned the individual entrepreneur (“you didn’t build that”).

Under Obama, the collective became a messianic force. As if, in its vague and undefined way, it would save us all.

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 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?

The Individual is supposedly passe.

An overwhelming number of Americans can no longer conceive of themselves as free and powerful individuals.

I, for one, think about the free and independent individual every day. The very idea is a North Star that allows a person to navigate his life.

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 other people, and that connection is the defining impulse which 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?

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. 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.

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.

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 sells 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, many 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. Thus 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.

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 industrial 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. Behind the psyop, 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. Again, this is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

At the heart of the operation is the premise that the free and powerful individual, seeking his highest vision, seeking his greatest achievements, is defunct.

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 people, and I’ve seen people, who’ve launched and built and created enterprises of one kind or another…and then 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.

Some of these people have been co-opted, but many just failed to understand their own psychology. And then there were people who refused to think of others as 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.”

And standing nearby, the real movers and shakers in the Globalist Club are cheering.

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

But here’s an irreversible clue. They don’t have THE INDIVIDUAL.

They never will.

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

Consider this idea: a college is formed on the basis of one question, aimed at each entering student: WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CREATE IN YOUR LIFE?

For four years, every student wrestles with that question, writes about it, talks about it—and every course comes back to that point of view. History, literature, biology, logic, mathematics—it’s all framed around the student learning and using that learning to answer the one burning question that will guide his future.

As an individual.

As an individual, shaking off the dead coils of The Collective.

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

Jon Rappoport

Wake up to the Rockefeller movie of political reality

Jul24

Wake up to the Rockefeller movie of political reality

by Jon Rappoport

July 24, 2017

The key document here is the 2010 Rockefeller Foundation brainstorming exercise, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”.

It imagines various disasters and possible responses to them.

The report presents a friendly and concerned front, but reading between the lines, you can see Globalism at work, shoring up a new and improved international order—as if that solution is the only viable future for humanity.

Here is a choice bit of scenario-building and forecasting from the report:

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit…national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

Ah yes, the favorite phony stepchild of the Globalists: a pandemic. Forget the fact that every dire prediction of worldwide destruction from a dreaded virus, during the past 15 years, has fallen flat. SARS, Swine Flu, West Nile, Bird Flu, etc. Duds.

Here’s another preposterous Rockefeller future, from the viewpoint of 2010:

“Undeniably, the planet’s climate was becoming increasingly unstable.”

“Sea levels were rising fast, even as countries continued to build-out coastal mega-cities.”

“In 2014, the Hudson River overflowed into New York City during a storm surge, turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake. The image of motorboats navigating through lower Manhattan jarred the world’s most powerful nations into realizing that climate change was not just a developing-world problem.”

The last Time I looked, New York City was not underwater. Submarine taxis weren’t taking people to work.

Now read further, to get a flavor of the Rockefeller solution to the “climate disaster.” Notice that an international order, and NOT separate nations, is required:

“In such an interconnected world, where the behaviors of one country, company, or individual had potentially high-impact effects on all others, piecemeal attempts by one nation here, one small collective of environmental organizations there, would not be enough to stave off a climate disaster – or, for that matter, to effectively address a host of other planetary-scale problems.”

“But highly coordinated worldwide strategies for addressing such urgent issues just might. What was needed was systems thinking – and systems acting – on a global scale.”

“International coordination started slowly, then accelerated faster than anyone had imagined.”

“In 2015, a critical mass of middle income and developed countries with strong economic growth publicly committed to leveraging their resources against global-scale problems, beginning with climate change. Together, their governments hashed out plans for monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term and improving the absorptive capacity of the natural environment over the long term.”

“In 2017, an international agreement was reached on carbon sequestration (by then, most multinational corporations had a chief carbon officer) and intellectual and financial resources were pooled to build out carbon capture processes that would best support the global ecosystem. A functioning global cap and trade system was also established.”

“Worldwide, the pressure to reduce waste and increase efficiency in planet-friendly ways was enormous.”

Now here is the big one, with technocracy as the master:

“New globally coordinated systems for monitoring energy use capacity – including smart grids and bottom-up pattern recognition technologies – were rolled out. These efforts produced real results: by 2022, new projections showed a significant slowing in the rise of atmospheric carbon levels.”

“Inspired by the success of this experiment in collective global action, large-scale coordinated initiatives intensified. Centralized global oversight and governance structures sprang up, not just for energy use but also for disease and technology standards. Such systems and structures required far greater levels of transparency, which in turn required more tech-enabled data collection, processing, and feedback.”

“Enormous, benign “sousveillance” systems allowed citizens to access data – all publicly available – in real time and react. Nation-states lost some of their power and importance as global architecture strengthened and regional governance structures emerged. International oversight entities like the UN took on new levels of authority, as did regional systems like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”

Are you following this? The monitoring of energy use, for example. This is nothing less than moment to moment tracking of energy production and consumption, planet-wide.

It’s the ultimate top-down force. What flows from this position is the ALLOCATION of energy to every nation—and, up the road, TO EVERY HUMAN.

“Mr. Jones, your energy-use card shows you’ve reached your limit for this month. Ten days left until February 1. All your energy-producing devices and assets will shut down now. Have a nice day.”

You don’t think that could ever happen? There is no way to assign energy-use limits to nations without directly impacting use by individuals.

I also hope you noticed the reference to emerging “regional governance structures.” The takeover of separate nations by the UN, the EU, and other unelected bodies.

This is the preferred and mandated Rockefeller solution.

And now a word about the hated and loved Donald Trump. Whatever you think of him, he raised the issue of Globalism, front and center. He shot down the Rockefeller TPP treaty. He didn’t sign the Paris Climate pact. He emphasized nationalism, as opposed to internationalism. He mocked climate-change “science.”

For the moment, let’s assume the very worst. Trump didn’t mean anything he said. He was a liar, is a liar, and will be a liar. He was actually put in office by the Globalists, who wanted a ludicrous enemy to play off of. He wasn’t and isn’t an enemy of Globalism. He’s a complete fraud. By relentlessly attacking Trump, the Globalists will defeat their “last opponent,” and in the next election they will sweep into power as never before, believing they can then complete their plan for worldwide domination. Let’s assume all this.

Nevertheless, millions and millions of people have become alerted to this thing called Globalism as a destructive force with a covert agenda of planetary control.

Observers can go full-bore gloom and doom, claiming it doesn’t matter. They can bitch and moan about how nothing has changed. They can confirm their own personal prophecy of failure along all fronts.

Or they can try to wake up more people to what Globalism is really all about.

All along I’ve said I’m far more interested in the people who supported Trump, for their own reasons, than I’m interested in Trump. And I’m not particularly interested in those supporters’ reasons, either—except when FREEDOM is involved.

The freedom to take destiny into their own hands.

That idea is not dead. It will never be dead.

Time is long.

THE INDIVIDUAL is at the very bottom of the Globalist plan. He is considered to be a fly in the ointment who needs to be eradicated, in favor of The Group.

He is considered to be an extinct evolutionary appendage.

That is why the Globalist superstructure must be defeated.

Psychologically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, creatively, a separate nation is better than an oligarchical global government.

An individual is better than a nation.

A free individual is better than a sleeping individual.

A self-empowered individual—free, responsible, rational, intensely creative—is possible and necessary.

This is where it all starts.

This is where it has to start.

It doesn’t start with a global glob of fantasizing utopians, who are unaware they’re acting on behalf of an Earth Empire.

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

Jon Rappoport

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

Jul16

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2017

I’ll get to the European Union in a minute, but first a bit of background.

System building—how do you do it? In particular, how do you build a perverse structure?

There are three sequential steps:

One: Secretly create the system.

Two: Once it’s up and running and established, act as if you’re a mere participant in the system.

Three: Claim that the system is absolutely necessary, and without it, things would collapse.

When those three steps have been accomplished, you can add other flourishes. For example, sometimes you can get away with saying the system was never created at all; it arose organically because there was a need for it. That’s a good one.

THE EU IS SUCH A SYSTEM.

The propaganda: “It wasn’t planned from the top. It came about as a response to the need for peace among nations, the need for a common market and a uniform currency, the need for an end to brutal nationalism, etc.”

Actually, the EU was created as an extension of World War 2 by other means. Hitler’s dream of a united Europe was accomplished, with a reborn Germany as the economic powerhouse. But other key players were involved: the Vatican, the City Of London, Swiss banks, etc. And after 1973, the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Globalists all.

The EU’s current support of the migrant flood into Europe is a case of: this is how we erase borders, destroy the traditions of separate cultures, take down separate nations once and for all, and make Europe into a single entity.

Brexit was “a disturbance in The Force,” but it is being used to advantage by the EU. In actual game theory (not the ludicrous version taught in universities), you must have threats to the system, in the wake of which the system survives. This “proves” the structure is sound and necessary, and continues to meet the needs of the people.

The EU is painted as a kind of heroic soldier who has endured many battles. This picture sells.

As time passes, expect more and more news stories featuring the propaganda theme, “The EU is on the comeback, stronger than ever.”

The truth is, the EU could vanish tomorrow, and the individual nations of Europe would find ways to connect, cooperate, and do business.

In fact, one or two adventurous countries could change the face of Europe (which tells you why the EU tries so hard to pass so many binding regulations that apply to all its members). Here is an example:

Suppose one European country decided to cancel all the odious EU regulations restricting the sale and use of nutritional supplements? Suppose the whole area of nutrition was turned over to the free choice of every citizen?

You can bet your bottom franc or pound that this nation would suddenly undergo an economic renaissance. Nutritional companies by the hundreds would set up shop. Citizens from all over Europe would move there. Jobs would multiply. In turn, this country would become a haven for all sorts of natural health practitioners and their clients.

Watching this happen, other European countries would follow suit. Suddenly, health freedom would become an economic tiger.

Big Pharma, one of the driving forces behind the EU, would be exposed as a pernicious monopoly. Never a bad thing.

Who knows how many other areas of the economy (aka free market) would suddenly reappear, free of repressive regulations?

What about GMO crops? From what I can discover, 50 GMO crops are permitted in Europe. A nation can submit a request to the EU to ban a GMO crop, and the EU makes the final decision. Suppose—if the EU vanished—one country stood up on its hind legs and declared: “We are banning ALL GMOs. If you live here, all your food will be non-GMO. That is our commitment.”

Do you think that might result in many people moving to that country?

Do you think the mega-agri GMO corporations favor the EU? Of course they do, because they believe that, in the long run, they can exert sufficient influence to have their way—whereas on a continent of separate and autonomous nations, the risk factor would be higher.

All ruthless mega-corporations embrace the EU. That is their preferred system: predators cooperating with other predators. Eventually, you look at the EU and the worst corporations in Europe, and you can’t tell the difference. They’re blood brothers.

Breaking up and dissolving the EU would smell very much like freedom, if enough citizens could remember the scent.

The EU is betting it can sustain control; its program of opening borders and letting in what amounts to a massive crime wave will somehow be given a pass by Europe’s traditional population. The EU is betting it has reduced the people of the continent to such a degree of passivity that any insult is accepted.

“The people don’t want freedom, they want the system.”

That’s a risky gamble.

The EU is showing its teeth for all to see. It’s essentially assaulting the population and daring it to rise up in rebellion.

Which is another aspect of real game theory: launch a series of insults and challenges and tests to those under your rule and see if you can grind them down further and further.

Europe was the cradle of individual liberty. Not China, not India, not Argentina, not Japan, not Bolivia, not Egypt. Europe. That’s why the Globalist EU has Europe in its sights and wants to flatten it.

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

The biggest systems of control are often built after the biggest wars. Those who engineer and finance those wars, on both sides, understand this. They draw up those systems, in the ashes of the prior conflict. It was always their intention. Just as key members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with designing the Union Nations before World War 2 was finished, key Globalist players were already laying out the roadmap to the European Union at the same time.

You could say World War 2 was instigated and fought for the very purpose of bringing in these huge systems of post-war control.

War creates the perceived need for the systems.

Make no mistake about it, the ultimate plan is to erase all separate nations and turn them into distant memories.

Freedom would be the other distant memory.

Jon Rappoport

Robots are inventing their own languages

Jul14

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”

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

Jon Rappoport

Leftist celebs flirt with violence, get it on baseball field

Jun15

Leftist celebs flirt with violence, get it on baseball field

by Jon Rappoport

June 15, 2017

The shooter, Hodgkinson, is dead. Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, a congressional staffer, a lobbyist, and a US Capitol policeman were wounded. Without the presence of Scalise’s Capitol Police security detail, there would have been a massacre of Republican congressmen.

Political Left celebs never meant for THIS to happen. They were just playing. They were just virtue signaling. Having fun. They’re kids in the sandbox. Sure.

Kathy Griffin holds the blood-soaked decapitated head of Trump. Just a joke. Snoop Dogg releases a music video in which he shoots a toy gun at a clown dressed as Trump. Just satire. The prestigious Public Theater in New York City stages Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar with a Caesar who looks like Trump, who is assassinated. Artistic commentary. Comedian Sarah Silverman tweets, “WAKE UP & JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING [Trump] & HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE.” Satire. Madonna tells the Women’s March she’s thought a great deal about blowing up the White House. But she knows “this won’t change anything. We cannot fall into despair.” An Oprah moment. Rapper Little Bow Wow tweets to Trump, “Shut your punk ass up talking shit about my uncle [Snoop Dogg] before we pimp your wife and make her work for us.” Brief frustration.

Of course. And these are the people who want “social justice.” Equality for all. Free everything for everybody. Utopia. Or something.

These are the people who think of themselves of rebels, while they actually work for elite Globalism and its agenda of planetary government and planetary corporate control.

These celebs are clueless.

Chaos and destruction are a phase in the openly planned Globalist takeover. But understanding this is too complex for their simple minds. Following a sequence of thought from A to B to C is impossible.

They think they’re “overthrowing the power.” But they’re just adding to that power.

On the issue of open borders and unlimited immigration, for example, they’re a million miles from realizing the true Globalist intent.

In 1969, four years before co-founding the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller and launching an eventual capture of the White House under their created president, Jimmy Carter, 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.”

The question was: how could nation states be eradicated? And one of those answers is: open borders, unlimited immigration. Change the face of nations. Wipe out all local traditions. Radically alter demographics. Make separate nations an extinct concept.

Of course, a cover story was necessary. It was, and is, humanitarian share-and-care. “We must let everybody in and embrace them.”

And another aspect of the cover story—foment wars to create displaced populations who would flee to the West. However, many of the immigrants aren’t, in fact, fleeing from war. They’re young military-age fighting men who arrive in the West with an appetite for destruction. More chaos in the works.

This is the op.

But the chance of celebrities catching on to this—and speaking out against it, in the age of political correctness—is zero.

Back in February, in the wake of the Berkeley, California, street riots, I wrote: “In the early days of the American Republic, George Washington warned against entangling foreign alliances. Flash forward from 1796 to 2017. Last night, masked thugs emerged from a crowed of protestors, at UC Berkeley, and chanted: ‘No borders, no nations, fuck deportations.’ And there you have it. A PERFECT summary of the Globalist position. One planetary nation (under one gentle, all-inclusive, loving, iron fist). George Soros would be smiling. David Rockefeller would be chortling.”

The presence of Donald Trump in the White House provides the ideal opportunity for unconscious Globalist foot soldiers to ramp up violence, blame it all on Trump, and bring about a major course correction—back to a Globalism much more severe than anything Trump would support—back to Globalism with a vengeance—calling it humane, calling it love, calling it caring, calling it freedom, calling it equality.

The current idiot’s delight education system makes it easy for the young to avoid thinking from A to B. No need to figure out what is going on. Just wave the correct banner, throw a brick through a store window, set a car on fire, and demand “social justice.” Then pause for a moment and admire the work of a 66-year-old socialist, who tried to wipe out Congressmen on a baseball field. As if that was a contribution toward the making of a better world.

Throw your mind in a garbage can. No need to have it or use it.

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

Jon Rappoport

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union

Jun7

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union

World War 2 continued by other means

by Jon Rappoport

June 7, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

This is a political goal. It facilitates control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pharmaceutical industry itself also knows those death figures.

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

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

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

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

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

This is what has been happening: invisible warfare.

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

Jon Rappoport

Who’s destroying England?

Jun4

Who’s destroying England?

London attacks and the war against Brexit

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

by Jon Rappoport

June 4, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the recently departed guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

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

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

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

Defection. Decentralization. Independence.

Hideous words to the ears of Globalists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaving the EU means LEAVING the EU.

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

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

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

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

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

How long before they leave THAT?

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

Jon Rappoport

Mark Zuckerberg is running the Bucky Fuller agenda

Jun2

Mark Zuckerberg is running the Bucky Fuller agenda

by Jon Rappoport

June 2, 2017

“Every time somebody comes up with a universal plan to improve the world, you have to ask yourself this burning question: who will impose the plan? And then you have ask: what are the imposers’ true motives? And you have to remember what a Trojan Horse is.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Over a period of 50 years, Buckminster Fuller explained his plan for making a better world. He talked about the coming wave of automation that would throw gigantic numbers of people out of work. He talked about the need for a universal system of support, whereby everyone on the planet would be guaranteed, from birth, the essentials of survival: food, clothing, shelter, and limitless free education.

Read this statement by Fuller:

“We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

Obviously, Fuller’s plan carries great appeal for many young people, for whom the idea of earning a living is a full-bore horror movie.

Fuller also believed that freeing up the young to “think about new solutions” for humanity and come up with new technology would justify his plan.

Compare Fuller’s agenda with Mark Zuckerberg’s. The Facebook founder recently gave a commencement address at Harvard. Read his words carefully:

“…today, technology and automation are eliminating many jobs…Our generation will have to deal with tens of millions of jobs replaced by automation like self-driving cars and trucks. But we have the potential to do so much more together.”

“Every generation expands its definition of equality. Previous generations fought for the vote and civil rights. They had the New Deal and Great Society. Now it’s our time to define a new social contract for our generation.”

“We should have a society that measures progress not just by economic metrics like GDP, but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things… And as technology keeps changing, we need to focus more on continuous education throughout our lives.”

By direct statement and implication, Zuckerberg is echoing Bucky Fuller. The threat of automation. Massive unemployment. Guarantee the means of survival for every person. Free education for life. Come up with new ideas that contribute to the progress of the human species.

But as with Fuller, the thorny question about who is going to put this new universal plan into action is sidestepped. It appears the answer is: “the government.”

The most incompetent, bloated, corrupt, conniving force on the planet is in charge.

Doesn’t that fill you with confidence?

There is more. Who, behind the scenes, influences and controls government decisions and policies? A few groups come to mind: Bilderberg; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; United Nations. Fill in others yourself.

These are people we can trust?

And then there is this: what is the overall effect of gifting everyone on the planet with the basics of survival? On balance, does it produce visionaries and determined entrepreneurs? Or does it produce massive numbers of Welfare dependents, who drift in a sluggish space and want, at most, periodic stimulations of adrenaline to relieve their interminable boredom? Do they seek out endless free education, or do they ingest various drugs and sit glued to screens—and occasionally take to the streets to demand MORE?

Are fervent Globalist, Leftist, technocratic academics prepared to offer an honest assessment of the effects of a few billion people living on universal Welfare?

It’s quite convenient that “utopian” thinkers like Bucky Fuller and Mark Zuckerberg avoid these questions.

It’s not a stretch to infer that Zuckerberg views his brainchild, Facebook, as a means to expand the Surveillance State to new dimensions, because a few billion people living on Welfare are a potentially volatile demographic and “need to be watched.”

Is this liberation? It’s about population-pacification, passivity, endless “entertainment,” lowest common denominator, mind control, creating “voting blocs”; and yes, elimination of all borders, and a global superstructure of management for planet Earth. It’s about smaller living spaces, assigned from above, overcrowding in cities, and governments taking over more and more public lands…

This is the reality behind the utopia.

As usual, the devil is in the details. It’s easy to envision whole generations of empowered visionaries finding new solutions for the planet. But on even a cursory examination, the whole plan sinks into a morass of grotesque consequences.

If you’re up for it, try researching this question: How many government programs, and how much funding, is devoted, in all countries of the world, to authentically stimulating the freedom and power and creativity and independence of The Individual?

A related question: How many college courses around the world teach The Freedom and Power and Creativity and Independence of The Individual?

Answering these questions will give you some idea of governments’ “genuine caring” for individual innovation.

Good hunting.

Zuckerberg is Bucky Fuller 2.0. Unlike Fuller, he has billions in the bank. He has allies in the Deep State. He has the means to push the Fuller agenda.

From the top down.

And as usual, that’s where all the trouble starts. “Here, all you people, this is what you want. This plan will make life easier for you. Don’t you want things to be easier? We will make it happen. It’s our gift.”

The gift sounds appealing. It looks appealing.

Roughly 3200 years ago, after Greek forces failed to penetrate the gated city of Troy during a decade of war, they abandoned the field in apparent defeat. They left behind a giant wooden horse. The Trojans took the beautiful and appealing statue as a trophy and brought it into the city. At night, under cover, a door opened in the horse, Greek soldiers slipped out, opened the gates of Troy, and the rest of the Greek force, which hadn’t really retreated, flooded in.

The gift that wasn’t a gift.

“Oh look, that’s a wonderful idea to make a better future. I’ll take it in. I’ll believe in it…”

The gates of a city; the gates of a mind.

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Globalist

The Individual vs. Globalism

A message to Wikileaks: release this leak

Collectivist mind control: “save the planet”

Wake up to the Rockefeller movie of political reality

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

Robots are inventing their own languages

Leftist celebs flirt with violence, get it on baseball field

Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union

Who’s destroying England?

Mark Zuckerberg is running the Bucky Fuller agenda