The club of liberal messiahs floods the world with love

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2018

By liberals, I simply mean those people who accept big government as a given, regardless of their political affiliation.

And yes, at certain key levels, they are a club. They come from major media, large corporations, banks, the military, well-funded foundations, investment houses, do-good non-profits, legal and medical societies, academic factories, think tanks, and of course the huge pool of government employees.

They come from immigrants and welfare recipients.

They come from all levels of society.

For them, big, bigger, and biggest government is a rock-bottom assumption that requires no thought. The sun comes up every morning, and there is big government.

This assumption supersedes anything written in the US Constitution explicitly limiting the power of central authority.

Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas.

In fact, the Club is surprised and shocked that anyone would try to impede government based on fanciful notions about powers reserved for the individual states.

Long ago, the Club decided that every statement made in the Constitution was subject to revision or outright dismissal, based on the arrogant concept that changing times require new extreme measures and solutions.

In their eyes, they are working with reality, whereas Constitutionalists have a quirky and disturbing obsession that clings to absolute Principle. If Principle isn’t a sign of a mental disorder, it at least indicates an unhealthy nostalgia about a fairy tale of days gone by.

The Club blithely assumes it has won its battle.

The Club is focused on what big government, in concert with its corporate and banking allies, can do to further expand.

For some Club members, the mission of government is to do good, to give to those in need, no matter how many are in need or how much that need grows.

For other Club members, at higher levels, the massive giveaway and fulfilling of need is just a pose, a tactic to gain more adherents who will trade a great deal of their freedom for a little security.

But there is no debate within the Club about this matter. No one wants to rock the boat. Those at higher levels view the do-gooders within their ranks as useful and amusing dupes.

The do-gooders, if they glimpse the faces and intentions of the higher-ups, shrug it off, assuming that somehow, in the long run, the vision of “a shared and just world” will triumph.

The Club has one major enemy.

Abundance.

The idea that there is enough for everyone who wants to work for it, the idea that individuals can pursue their deepest dreams and desires, and win…that is anathema.

Why? Because if that perception operated widely in the society, it would rule out the grasping need for invasive central government.

Therefore, creating artificial scarcities is at the top of the Club’s to-do list. Of course, this agenda must be masked behind false cover. The scarcities must seem to be inevitable, or at least caused by forces beyond our control.

Scarcity of money, health, prosperity, freedom, property, sanity, natural resources…they must appear to be naturally occurring crises, for which the only answer is parental control over populations.

When Buckminster Fuller offered his analysis of abundance and how we could achieve it on planet Earth, he was missing one piece: who would implement it? Who would revolutionize life for all?

The obvious answer is: the people in charge. But that doesn’t work, for the simple reason that those people are dedicated to producing false scarcities.

To reject abundance, the elite Club of Rome published its famous study, “The Limits to Growth,” in 1972. It essentially used computer modeling to predict failure for civilization, and ushered in a tsunami of propaganda aimed at floating the planet’s only hope for survival: a recognition of global interdependence and the distribution of the world’s resources from a point of Central Planning.

This concept, in turn, was translated to mean “addressing needs.”

The conclusion? Big government was the addresser, the single most important institution for saving us all.

Hand in hand, elite planners and propagandists invented a loop that guaranteed the primacy of a bill of needs over a bill of rights.

Individual freedom stood accused in the dock as the criminal. It had led to a world out of balance.

Members of the Club, sitting in their massive London drawing rooms and their Park Avenue apartments, applauded this “progression of awareness.”

To say they were laughing up their sleeves would be a vast understatement.

From FDR to Truman, from Eisenhower to Kennedy, from LBJ to Nixon, from Ford to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., the Club watched their plans solidify. Regardless of what these presidents said or did, government expanded, and the official status of “fulfilling needs” was welded ever more securely to government’s mission.

Finally, in a considerable victory, to symbolically signify the emergence of the “lowest to the highest,” a man who represented former slaves on the American continent took up residence in the White House.

He, above previous presidents, would raise the sword to equalize all status in society. He would right past wrongs, square past debts, and fly the flag of humanity. Justice would be served.

No matter that the condition of “his own people” would worsen during his reign. No matter that the condition of all Americans would diminish. No matter that he was the agent of an operation designed to put the crown on government as the great provider.

Buddha to Jesus to Karl Marx—the Club has borrowed sentiments of high hope and realization, in order to sell its program. The Club has cast its role as the messianic force. It has filled the pews of its church with followers, who have no clue as to the actual plan, but instead mouth the words and sing the songs and praise the gifts.

The marketing of these sentiments, their weave, fabric, tone, and flow are the substance of a trance induction.

And at the end of the line? America harmonized in its structure with other nations, and the subsuming of the USA under a regional and global arch of management.

As David Rockefeller, one of the designers of the plan, put it in his 2003 Memoirs: “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.”

There are millions of people who refuse to believe that a high humanitarian sentiment or ideal can be deployed to defeat us. They automatically assume that what stirs them is for the good.

They are crowded together in the middle of the trance. They clog the arteries of the body politic. They foment a disease of the public immune system attacking itself, and it is long past the time when they should wake up and cure their distorted perception.

But as far as the Club is concerned, they are useful. And useful they will stay, as long as they can be hypnotized into the future glory that lies just over the next hill.

And now we come to the technocrats.

The technocrats among Club leaders consider the overall mission in terms of a systems fix. There are flaws in the way humans have chosen to organize themselves, and these flaws need to be corrected.

With the important information entered into computers armed with algorithms, models can be obtained. These models will take into account vital resources, such as water, breathable air, earth minerals, fuel, food crops, transportation, housing, education, medical care, and so on. Planetary allocation quotas for all territories and regions can be arrived at—and the distribution can come from a centralized point of control.

Dispassionately, the human condition can be modified.

The technocrats consider this an interesting problem. It will take work, but it can be solved.

Certain factors, however, must be reduced or eliminated. Freedom, choice, personal decision-making have to be devalued in the new System, in order to avoid the introduction of random and unpredictable outcomes.

The very meaning of a technocratic system precludes freedom as an objective, because that quality of humans isn’t circumscribed and can’t be inserted as a pure passive object into calculations.

Technocrats value systems above all. They live to build self-referential closed structures.

Technocrats are, in a sense, a separate species. They are intensely cerebral. They view human beings as troublesome pieces of a puzzle. A system is erected on the basis of built-in controls. Humans tend not to fit.

This they find annoying. But there are ways to limit the trouble. Chemicals can be introduced into the brain. The chemicals will regulate behavior. The drugs we now have are only a minor step in the right direction.

It’s all in the service of a “better system,” which is what technocrats must have. They would wither and die if they couldn’t have it. They would feel isolated and useless and rejected.

If you want to see a technocrat squirm and wriggle and scream, like a person being tortured, take away his access to systems.

The greatest acceleration of human organization took place in the century just past. The obsession for big, bigger, and biggest flowered as never before. Now, in this century, the push is for refinement. To the technocrat, that means much greater definition of roles for humans.

Specialization will take on new restrictions and regulations. Plugging people into a system is one thing; carefully ordering their limits and restraints is another.

Take the long view of this century. The overall aim is for a structure that will encompass the actions of every human on Earth; every person with a designated function rigorously placed in the correct slot.

This will be promoted as salvation. It will be floated as the genius of the species finally taking hold.

And somewhere today, a young person, filled to the brim with vague ideals and hope, buying the promise that everyone’s needs will be met, that suffering and pain and injustice will be solved, has no clue that such pretty thoughts can be hijacked in the service of building a system to eradicate what it means to be alive.

This young person thinks freedom, liberty, and the intentions of the withered piece of paper called the Constitution are frivolous obstructions to a better world.

Dispense with the absurd Constitution. It isn’t part of the modern trend. Instead, join the crowd. Shout with delight for the political salvation that is only a few more joined hands from realization.

Forget. Believe. Go along.

Reject as absurd the possibility that elite planners have a completely different version of the world in tow.

Yell for equality, whatever that may be shaped to mean.

Think about nothing. Just swim into the days with faith born from what our leaders are selling on the shore of the new shining city.

Believe. Trust.

Your job isn’t to imagine and invent your own reality. That is a meaningless proposition.

No, your job is to love the State because the State loves you.

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.

Bill Gates vs. freedom

Mar6

Bill Gates vs. freedom

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2018

“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

The world on trial: will Globalism/Socialism win?

Feb28

The world on trial: will Socialism/Globalism win?

by Jon Rappoport

February 28, 2018

These words—Socialism and Globalism—are a mystery to most people. What do they mean? Why do they matter?

They matter because, behind the mask, they indicate massive centralized power at the top of the food chain. They aren’t “movements on behalf of the people.” They aren’t “humanitarian solutions to our problems.”

The massive power I refer to consists of governments, mega-corporations, banks, foundations, and technocrats working together, colluding, cooperating, planning a future of control over the world population.

Before he was killed in the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 (1983), Congressman Larry McDonald stated: “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control… Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”

Rep. Louis T. McFadden, Congressional Record, 72nd Congress, 1st session, June 10, 1932; McFadden served as Chairman of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency: “Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of an American school-teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Macao. They did not perceive that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw materials and heavy goods for export. That Russia was destined to supply man power and that this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate—a superstate controlled by International bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.”

THAT is Socialism/Globalism. It isn’t a revolution by and for “the downtrodden.”

To get a flavor of what would happen to the United States under such a system, read on:

SCENE: COURTROOM OF THE FUTURE

THE ROOM IS EMPTY, EXCEPT FOR THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, is there a representative of America here today?

Judge: No need to look for one. We can proceed.

Prosecutor: Very well. I wish to say that the country known as America was always a fiction.

Judge: Why?

Prosecutor: Because borders are artificial and arbitrary.

Judge: Indeed. Who set them? It was all rubbish.

Prosecutor: Second, why should any separate nation have the right to exist? We now understand we are all one planet, one nation if you will.

Judge: I appreciate you bringing that up. It’s been decades since anyone with half a brain believed we could carve up planet Earth into separate sovereign countries. With one planet, under one leadership, there can be no more wars.

Prosecutor: And third, the fiction called America was designed to maximize individual freedom and the individual’s control over his own life. This is an unworkable and heinous concept. It led to massive inequalities. Now, every citizen is equal and contributes to the whole.

Judge: Of course. I work for you, you work for me, and we work for everyone. “Everyone all together”—that is our framework. Worldwide production of goods and services, and their allotted consumption, are regulated from Brussels. No one stands out.

Prosecutor: Our global leaders in Brussels are unidentified. No names or pictures are released. The cult of personality is finished.

Judge: After all, if you are using the awesome power of artificial intelligence to regulate the actions of seven billion people, why do you need to become known and famous? You’re doing basic organization. You’re a manager, a technologist.

Prosecutor: This thing called America had a document called the Constitution. Jurists constantly referred to it. Over time, it became an annoyance and a major impediment to progress. How can you pay legal homage to centuries-old concepts when conditions are constantly changing and improving? The human mind itself is evolving.

Judge: Putting the Constitution in mothballs was a major victory for us.

Prosecutor: America eventually reached a point where many “special needs groups” made their demands known. That was a signal more extensive government services were required. Why even call the country America? We were a social-justice construct, part of a global phenomenon.

Judge: In order to fulfill needs properly, the great corporations and government had to close ranks and merge. There was no other way. Thank goodness, it was the end of the free market and capitalism and all that clap-trap. Small businesses went the way of the dodo bird. Every person now has a job, and that job is performed under the aegis of the government-corporate nexus, as a civil employee, in service to EVERYONE.

Prosecutor: Sir, I petition this court to officially declare America defunct.

Judge: Motion granted.

Prosecutor: I further request that, since we have progressed far beyond the point of thinking of ourselves as a separate nation, there is no need to mark this occasion with a ceremony. It would be counter-productive. The former capital, Washington DC, is already shorn of its monuments and is basically a National Security Agency data-storage facility. Let us merely notify Brussels that a verdict has been rendered. They will enter it in their computers and that will be the end of it.

Judge: I agree. It is so ordered. Thank you for your service.

Prosecutor: This is my last case. I’ve just received a notice that I’m being assigned as a first-tier manager at the new Utah public works complex.

Judge: Congratulations. What are they doing there in Utah?

Prosecutor: Building a huge training facility for UN peacekeepers. It’s a ten-year project. Quite remarkable. It will house several hundred thousand people from all over the world.

Judge: Marvelous. We must keep the peace…

You could say this scenario is science fiction. And for the moment, it is. But for how long? If you’re old enough, think back to what life was like in America 35 years ago, 50 years ago. And then think about what life in America is like now. Tremendous changes have taken place, on many fronts. If a person living in the US 50 years ago were suddenly rocketed into 2018, he would be staggered by what he saw and heard.

This is how the future happens. To the people living through it, the changes, year by year, seem incremental. But they aren’t.

Unless the freedom and primacy of the individual survive, the courtroom scene above could happen—and most people would take it in stride.

Make no mistake about it, the individual IS the target. He is the unpredictable wild card in the deck. The technocratic planners know their algorithms don’t work when there are too many independent individuals. So they must rub them out and make them willing “units” on the planetary chessboard.

I write for the individual. I always have, and I always will.

My daily articles, at bottom, are meant to educate and empower the individual; and my three Matrix collections are a much further leap in that direction.

The fundamental power of the individual is creative. This power is rarely, if ever, tapped in the education system. Why? Because the power is all about the individual being able to create the future he most profoundly desires.

Many, many individuals doing just that would crack the foundations of the Globalist/Socialist plan.

Individual creative power IS the vaunted “philosopher’s stone” the ancient alchemists were seeking; that power IS the goal of centuries of struggle to liberate the individual from monarch and priest-class tyrannies; that power is what the founding of the American Republic was all about.

Because that power is what freedom is for.

Freedom is the platform and the space from which the individual launches his best and deepest vision. He makes that vision fact in the world.

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

Jon Rappoport

Skull&Bones, Antony Sutton, and bankrolling the enemy

Feb21

Antony Sutton, Skull&Bones, bankrolling the enemy

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2018

“When you see the same elites funding, encouraging, and enabling both sides in a major war, you’re on the road to understanding war from a higher perspective. These elites use war to create chaos, which they then ‘solve’ by imposing, in the aftermath, their kind of order—greater control over life, greater control over institutions of government. They call this operation ‘peace’. But it’s really the shrinking of freedom.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The prodigious author and researcher, Antony Sutton (1925-2002), wrote about hidden men behind momentous events.

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 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 technology to the Soviets would temper their global territorial ambitions. How Henry arrived at this gigantic non sequitur is not known. Sufficient to state that he aroused considerable concern over his motivations. Not least that Henry had been a paid family employee of the Rockefellers since 1958 and has served as International Advisory Committee Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller concern.”

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

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

Higham, Trading with the Enemy:

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

Getting the picture?

War, what is it good for? With the same 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

Missing history: US oligarchs finance Socialism

Feb20

Socialism was never a movement for “the masses”

by Jon Rappoport

February 20, 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 an explosive 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 [Oil] 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 men 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, these supporters are the real target of the Globalists.

These millions of targets—human beings who want freedom, a return to Constitutional principles, and an end to both Globalism and American Empire—gave support to presidential candidates before Trump: Ross Perot and Ron Paul.

These “targets” aren’t going away. They understand how the American Republic was betrayed. The above evidence reveals that betrayal was a set-up, designed to prop up and rescue a system (the USSR) that was dead on arrival, a complete failure.

Elite money created Socialist Russia, sustained it, bailed it out, and propagandized it as a movement of the people.

Socialism is a movement of, by, and for the super-rich.

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

Jon Rappoport

Globalism, Socialism, Technocracy: three names for the same thing

Feb15

Globalism, Technocracy, Socialism: three names for the same thing

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2018

Every “universal” solution for humankind presupposes a gigantic flaw in the way things are.

That flaw must be corrected.

It must be corrected from above, by a better system, which locks the door against an escape back into the old way.

The first casualty in this utopian process is freedom.

In fact, freedom is viewed as THE flaw. It opens Pandora’s Box, thus releasing all human ills, crimes, devastations, and inequities.

Globalism (elites ruling the planet as one nation); Socialism (international governments and mega-corporations owning the means of production and distribution); and Technocracy (engineering world society as if it were a machine); these are all names for the better system that replaces freedom with…what?

With control.

With control described as: fair and equitable benefits given to every human. “Guaranteed security.” “Guaranteed survival.”

And THAT is, of course, the con.

The con can be dressed up in all sorts of ways. “Public-private partnerships.” “Distributing energy fairly in an energy-scarce world.” “Saving the environment.” “Reducing manmade warming.” “No child left behind.” “Open borders.” “Tolerating and celebrating diversity.” “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” “It takes a Village.” “A kinder gentler government will take care of you.”

The price of your ticket? Your freedom.

At the heart of the con is the effort to reprogram the “inherently flawed human biological machine.” In other words, erase “the basic delusion that freedom exists.”

Once that operation has been achieved, a better world will follow.

“The blueprint of your mind was ABC. We will change that to XYZ.”

This horrendous concept forms the link between Socialism, Globalism, and Technocracy. It is “science” deployed to bring overall methods of control “up to date.”

Edit the genes. Insert visual images directly into the brain. Use drugs to dampen and neutralize emotional responses. Sidetrack and take away impulses that are considered “anti-social.”

Consider this question contained in a 1952 CIA MKULTRA memo: “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?”

—The worst part of all of this is the dejection it causes among many intelligent people. They give in to the idea that massive mind control of populations is inevitable, and nothing can be done to stop it. They jump to this conclusion because…

They have given up on the power of their own freedom.

They have formed an inherently self-defeating world view.

They’ve decided that Technocracy is irresistible.

In effect, they’ve joined the tyranny.

Well, that’s exactly what the controllers are looking for. As Gary Allen points out in his brilliant book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971), one of the cardinal propaganda ideas permeating worldwide Socialism was, and is: It’s inevitable.

That fallacious notion has been used to wear down the opposition. “Socialism is taking over the world, and nothing can be done about it.”

Nonsense.

We did not arrive at this point in history to give up the ghost.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made several references to the people they considered “enemies of benevolent control and the new world order”: bitter clingers with religion and guns, and a basket of deplorables. This was an effort to characterize “hold-outs” who insisted on freedom. Freedom, in elite eyes, is the resistance, plain and simple. It is archaic and dangerous. It is ignorant and senseless. It is primitive.

Sophisticated minds would, of course, understand that “togetherness” is the true answer to human problems. Meaning: dependence on centralized power. Centralized and globalized power.

To justify the expansion of Globalism, Socialism, and Technocracy, to put a humane face on this triple catastrophe, it is necessary to proliferate the number of victims with needs—and what better way to do that than by demanding Western nations take in and support unlimited waves of migrants?

Freedom, on the other hand, implies self-reliance, self-sufficiency, inviolable private property, and the protections expressed in the Bill of Rights.

O how deplorable!

The Founding Fathers of the American Republic were all deplorables, weren’t they? They saw a light at the end of the tunnel of history, and they moved toward it, armed with ideas that would shake the world.

The controllers strive to decimate that disturbance and return, behind their triple mask, to the era of entitled rule. They are the revisionists. They are the oligarchs. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They enlist “the downtrodden” to front for them.

They bark and howl about social justice, when justice is the last thing on their minds.

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

Jon Rappoport

Secret House memo released: the fallout, the lies, and the bigger picture

Feb5

Secret House memo released: the fallout, the lies, and the bigger picture

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2018

The House Intelligence Committee’s 4-page memo has been released.

The hullabaloo about the memo unfairly “damaging the reputation” of the FBI and the Dept. of Justice is a joke.

The same types of Democrat ideologues who are spouting that line, now, were screaming at the FBI, decades ago, when COINTELPRO, the Bureau’s op to place spies inside dissident Left groups across the US, was exposed. But suddenly, now, the FBI is pure as the driven snow, and its reputation must not be besmirched; otherwise, Democracy itself could collapse.

And in more recent times, the mainstream Left press, without an ounce of regret or remorse, exposed monumental fraud and incompetence at the FBI’s vaunted forensic lab and stuck a dagger in its heart:

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000…the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death…Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison…”

So forget the idea that the Left is valiantly trying to protect the FBI’s reputation. The Left is trying to say Trump is a crook and a traitor; and whatever works toward that end—including spreading praise on the FBI as a holy church—is in the game plan.

At the heart of the House Committee memo is the charge, boldly expressed, that FBI/DOJ spying on the Trump team was launched or expanded after obtaining a FISA court warrant.

And that warrant, opening the door to spy on Trump team member, Carter Page, was granted based on the notorious Trump dossier, compiled by ex-MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele.

But wait. The dossier was bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton camp. And therefore, in effect, a political op, launched to win the election for Hillary, helped start the ball rolling against Trump and his supposed Russian connections.

That’s bad enough, but that’s not all.

The focus comes back to the Trump dossier. Was it fake or real? Was it accurate or cooked up? If it was fake, a whole pillar of the FBI/DOJ investigation of Trump—including the Mueller probe—collapses.

Many observers have thrown dirt on the dossier, but they are missing one point that stands out like a mountain on a clear day. I’ll explain.

The Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

A British spy’s fantastical story.

First, a bit of background.

The dirty Trump dossier made several claims:

One: Russia had strong blackmail material on Trump and COULD THUS CONTROL A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;

Two: Most damning in that material, Trump used prostitutes while he was in Russia, and paid several of them to urinate on a hotel bed Obama had once slept in;

Three: Russia hacked DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails and passed them on to WikiLeaks, who published them. The emails were damaging to Hillary and helped Trump win the election;

Four: Russia obviously wanted Trump to win the election.

British ex-spy, Christopher Steele, who put together the dossier, once worked in Russia and allegedly had many connections there.

Steele assembled the Trump dossier after consulting with a number of Russians and spreading some money around.

Steele claims, in the dossier, that he was talking with well-placed Russian officials. That’s where he obtained his information.

What??

Why would these Russians speak with him? Why would these Russians expose a purported plot to hand the election to Trump?

If such a Russian plot existed, it would be a tightly held secret. VERY TIGHTLY HELD. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE NUMBER-ONE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OP.

AN OP FOR THE AGES.

THE HOLY GRAIL.

BLACKMAIL CONTROL OVER A SITTING US PRESIDENT.

Yet, here are Russian intelligence people spilling the beans to Steele, a former British spy.

And by spilling the beans, they’re pretty much committing suicide, because their Russian colleagues and superiors will be able to track them down and identify them, since they’ve had connections to Steele in the past.

Steele goes to Russia, sits down with a number of Russian intel people, asks them questions, and they tell him all about a top-secret plot to sway a US election and CONTROL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. No problem.

OR…Steele never accumulated all the information in the Trump dossier. He made unwarranted leaps of inference. He invented key facts. He wanted to satisfy his employers, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC. They wanted dirt on Trump, and he gave them dirt.

Daniel Craig could play the Steele role in a Netflix series.

I’m working on a script. Here are the first few lines:

Steele: Hi, Ivan, remember me?

Ivan: Why, it’s Chris Steele! Haven’t seen you in years. Let’s see, you were working for MI-6 in the old days here in Moscow, right? Pretending you were a diplomat. Yes, we had a few lunches back then.

Steele: Right. Look, I was wondering whether you can tell me about a super-secret file you guys are building on Donald Trump. This is the off the record, of course.

Ivan: Sure. We’re blackmailing him. If we can help him win the election, he’ll be under our thumb, completely. This is a Putin operation. It’s a little noisy here in the restaurant. Why don’t we go over to my office and I’ll show you all the data.

Steele: That’d be great.

Ivan: Putin wants Trump to win. I don’t like Trump. I prefer Hillary. I assume you do, too.

Steele: Well, sure. I’m working for her. That’s why I’m here.

Ivan: Wonderful…

It’s a sure-fire hit.

It’s so believable.

Now to the bigger picture: to what degree is the secret House memo, just released, a limited hangout?

If the FBI/DOJ offered up a fake dossier to the FISA, in order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump team, what else did they do?

The FBI, CIA, and NSA form a blanket of surveillance across America, collecting billions of messages. Are we supposed to believe the FISA warrant was the only effort to gain permission to spy on Trump? Or that legal permission was an issue in the first place?

Of course it wasn’t. The House memo focuses on the legal side of things as a smokescreen.

A politicized group of spying agencies would go a lot further in spying on Trump—but beyond that, we’re talking about spying on all citizens, including Congressional and other government officials, regardless of party affiliation.

There is only one barrier the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies face: when they use surveillance-material in criminal ways, how can the material be released and falsely attributed to other sources?

This is analogous to “parallel construction.” If a law-enforcement agency tries to use illegally obtained evidence as a basis for prosecution, a court will disallow the evidence. Therefore, the agency must concoct a “parallel” investigation that arrives at the desired goal through another route.

In the case of spying on government officials, this “parallel” is rather easy to pull off. It’s accomplished, for example, by anonymous leaks to the press.

You could call this meta-government. Officials are threatened, blackmailed, smeared, and controlled by intelligence agencies.

It works. There is no need for a Steele dossier that blames Russia and Putin or any foreign actor. Actually, placing blame on the Russians—with enough press support—deflects attention from ongoing home-grown operations.

The Trump-FISA-dossier scandal is just the tip of an exceedingly large surveillance iceberg.

An American iceberg.

William Binney, cryptanalyst-mathematician, served 30 years at the NSA: “The FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.”

That’s a lot more spying than three warrants granted by a FISA court to surveil the Trump team. But you’re supposed to look at the warrants and how they were obtained, and not look at the wall-to-wall spying on every American.

You’re supposed to get embroiled in the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee vs. the Democrat members, as they fling accusations at each other.

You’re not supposed to realize the NSA already has thousands of Trump-related documents, illegally obtained over a long period of time, as well as Obama-related documents, and documents on anybody and everybody who communicates electronically.

The endless spying is not for the purpose of catching terrorists. Ultimately, it’s not even for blackmail. It’s for implementing a long-range plan to profile and track and control every person— the Technocrats’ wet dream—and the real-time ongoing energy consumption of each human will be radically diminished, with quotas numerically assigned From Above, and regulated, at automated choke-points, in the Brave New World of promoted and fabricated Scarcity.

“We’re saving the planet. Thank you for your (enforced) participation. Be happy. Feel inspired.”

You’re definitely not supposed to look at that and resist it.

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

Jon Rappoport

Technocracy vs. the creative force

Jan22

Technocracy vs. the creative force

by Jon Rappoport

January 22, 2018

“The individual is not a poker chip in a game. He isn’t a marker or a cipher or a symbol. The individual is an independent creative force. More energy is expended on denying that creative force than the sum required to light all the lightbulbs and run all the machines on the planet.” (THE MAGICIAN AWAKES, Jon Rappoport)

The analysis in this article is based, in part, on the work of Patrick Wood, and his book, Technocracy Rising, which is a major breakthrough in understanding the elite plan for our world.

As you read this article, you’ll notice some Technocratic changes are long-term plans, while other changes are already underway.

Technocracy, in its most radical form, which IS the form on the planning table, would eliminate private property in exchange for “a better life for all.”

Every person would have an energy quota. During a given time period, he would only be allowed to “spend” so much—calculated from how much energy has been used to produce the goods he buys. (The smart grid is a step in that direction.)

Real time tracking would calculate all energy inputs and outputs on the planet.

The tracking of a) energy use by each citizen and b) overall energy production would be the true purpose of the Surveillance State. Not the defeat of terrorism.

Terrorism and wars exist to mount sufficient chaos to “require” the imposition of a “better order.”

Politicians would eventually subordinate themselves to engineers and “computer professionals,” who believe they can create a society that operates like a well-oiled machine. Every person would have a cog-role in the machine.

Obviously, this new system is not meant to compete with any version of free enterprise; therefore, self-determined nations would disappear, and One Planet, under managed Technocracy, would be the only nation. So borders would have to be erased—and this is the ultimate purpose of unlimited immigration, worldwide.

Most people would view this basic sketch of the new world order as pure science fiction.

It is not.

Under Technocracy, every person would have to give up his freedom.

Strive, as an individual to achieve what you profoundly desire? OUTMODED.

Own Property? OUTMODED.

Vote out technocratic rulers? OUTMODED.

Opt out of automation on any front? OUTMODED.

Assert any of the rights in the Bill of Rights? OUTMODED.

Demand the freedom to voice an opinion, judgment, or fact that others might find offensive or disturbing? OUTMODED.

None of this even begins to cover the interior changes that would be made to human beings, through genetic reconfiguration and other techniques.

In other words, this is Huxley’s Brave New World. But as Huxley was writing his novel, the nascent technocratic movement was already underway.

Several French philosophers had already touted the Planned Society based on science, as if the same means for control of Nature’s forces in the physical world should be applied by humans, to themselves. In order to evolve.

All problems could be overcome, as long as humans were looked at as parts in an overall mechanism. Then, formulas would work.

Take all wild cards and jokers out of the deck.

Bring about order.

Call it harmony.

Even call it love…

Huxley, in Brave New World, writes about a future Technocratic society in which the “science” of human behavior, organization, and operant conditioning have triumphed:

“Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot turn untended, there must be men to tend them, men as steady as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment.”

“’Fortunate boys!’ said the Controller. ‘No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy – to preserve you, so far as that is possible, from having emotions at all’.”

“One cubic centimeter [of soma, the wonder drug] cures ten gloomy sentiments.”

“The world’s stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get. They’re well off; they’re safe; they’re never ill; they’re not afraid of death; they’re blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they’re plagued with no mothers or fathers; they’ve got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they’re so conditioned that they practically can’t help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there’s soma.”

In the ultimate Technocratic society, there is no need to deny the creative force within. It’s been conditioned into amnesia.

Therefore, as long as the walls of narrow feeling and perception hold steady, people are content.

If you asked a member of that society whether he missed experiencing and acting on his own creative impulse (or asked many members of this society, now), he would give you a blank look. He wouldn’t know what you were talking about.

Create? Create what?

Exactly.

“What do I want to create?” Far from the madding crowd of Technocracy, that is the question every person should ask.

It opens the door to a new life.

It puts every individual at the center of his own destiny.

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

Jon Rappoport

The vision of technocracy and your future

Jan9

Technocracy for planet Earth

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2018

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; allotting production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society?

All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, and sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

This is how technocracy views the future…your future.

The ultimate technocratic vision? Your brain is a processor, and your brain is your mind. That’s all your mind is. Therefore, connecting your brain to a super-computer, or to the Cloud, will magically expand your mind and make it “more than human.”

You will become trans-human. A hybrid of human and machine.

This is the fairy tale to end all fairy tales.

It’s wishful fantasy dressed up as science.

The idea is: you will become More. You will overcome the limits and problems associated with being an individual.

Every individual will receive the same information and the same answers and the same solutions from the Cloud. AUTOMATICALLY.

This is the programmer’s wet dream.

Technocrats will thus be able to build a global society and control its every facet.

That’s the revolution.

The counter-revolution is YOU.

The free individual.

Never forget it.

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

Jon Rappoport

Utopian fantasies vs. a better world

Nov19

What happened to the Republic? Democracy happened

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

“When you come to the subject of who should ‘fix things,’ the government or private individuals, you could throw up your hands and confess that neither choice works, in which case you’re left with a terminal disease, and a fine excuse for doing nothing; or you could refer back to the principles of the Republic, and understand why the Founders put chains on government, and you might a find a clue for navigating out of the maze.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This piece is for anyone who can understand it—but it’s also for THE ENTREPRENEUR, who in his soul wants to do something large and bright and radical and successful, to turn the tide of human affairs in an enormously good direction and, yes, still make a substantial profit.

And no, “the universe” doesn’t rule out those two motives existing side by side.

The United States was created as a Republic.

That meant severely limited central government.

Why?

Because the Founders knew the long experience of Europe: overarching tyrannies; bloated kings emboldened with the doctrine of divine right to rule; theocracies; gigantic theft of land; force, coercion; slavery.

The new 18th century American central government, through enumerated powers and checks and balances, had to be limited and even hamstrung.

On that basis, individual freedom would be maximized.

That was the whole point of a Republic.

The individual would be free to do whatever he wanted to, as long as he didn’t interfere with the life and liberty of others.

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM—THE HALLMARK OF A REPUBLIC.

However, in order for a Republic to have a chance of success, the population would have to remain small. A Republic is not for an enormous population. The people are too remote from the federal center of power.

And there needed to be a population of moral people, who understood basic rights and wrongs, beyond legislation and law.

As the American population swelled, there should have been many Republics founded on this continent. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Instead, men in and around central government conspired to multiply their own power through a variety of means, thus creating monopolies of great strength, in government and business and money.

And gradually, these men and their descendants came to see they could foist a grand illusion on the people: they could promote the idea that “the people’s wishes were paramount” and should be served at all times.

Thus arrived Democracy.

Rule by “everyone.” Rule by “popular decision.” Rule by “meeting needs,” whatever they might be.

Meeting needs, of course, necessitated a more powerful and extensive government—shattering the severe limits originally imposed in the Constitution.

Marry these democratic elements to a decline in general morality—grab whatever you can at the expense of your neighbor—and the fate of the Republic was sealed.

The Republic was never perfect. Far from it. Perfection wasn’t its goal. But it was a noble effort, and the ideas on which it stood still survive.

Particularly, freedom of the individual.

That freedom is the launching pad for everything the individual can imagine and create, in order to build a greater future.

And the rule barring the individual from interfering with the life and liberty of others is still a basic principle.

Democracy cultivates mobs. It embodies the idea that any group which can gain attention must have its purported needs met.

Just one step to the left of that, we find the socialist/Communist maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

What able individuals produce will be taken from them and given to those of “lesser ability.”

Limited government, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights—these are mere pieces of paper, old pamphlets trampled on in the streets by the mobs shouting their endless demands.

If the ancestors of these groups, at one time, had legitimate objections to the way government was being run (against them), now all that is swept away in a sea of base anger and revenge—which turns out to be the elite plan for the end-game…

If the elites can pull it off:

Chaos. Out of which a new level of order will be imposed—which takes us back to the kind of tyranny that existed before the struggle for individual freedom and limited government was won.

And all the while, these elite planners pose as utopian altruists. Socialists.

And yet…as of 2010, there were 27.9 million small businesses in the US.

Somehow, the heritage of the Republic still lives.

Freedom of the individual.

The core idea on which America was founded.

Liberty of the individual is more than an invented “construct.” It’s a reflection of an inherent truth: the individual is at the heart of what life is all about.

A major point needs to be entered into this mix: ABUNDANCE. Planet-wide abundance of resources, technology, and energy.

As Buckminster Fuller made clear 80 years ago, there is “enough for everyone”—which is to say, every person on Earth can have the essentials of survival. Food, clothing, shelter.

However, Fuller (and others) stalled on the vital question: WHO WILL DELIVER THIS ABUNDANCE TO THE GLOBAL POPULATION, AND HOW?

In the arena of fuzzy thinking, the answer is, of course: “the government” will deliver abundance.

This is fatuous, idiotic, and impossible.

“The government” is controlled by men who, amidst their many crimes, have no intention of sharing the wealth of Earth’s resources and technology. I can’t emphasize this fact enough.

The government is there to promote socialism and technocracy as “better-world” answers right around the corner. THIS IS THE MASK.

Behind the mask is cruel top-down scarcity, upheld and maintained, despite the truth that there really IS enough for everyone.

No, government will not be the provider of abundance.

NOR SHOULD IT BE.

That task falls to…wait for it…private business.

What?

Here is the capper: if private businesses—including major corporations—realized they could sell food, clothing, and shelter to the global population for relative pennies—and make more profits than they’re making now—because of the size of that consumer base—they might reassess their position.

They might…but they won’t. Not without our help.

Boiling down the situation: you have the potential consumer base of some eight billion people; you have the means to sell this base the means of survival—food and clothing and shelter—for pennies; you have the technology needed for the job; you have the bright promise of a better future.

And you have the individuals who, armed with this understanding, could create businesses to bring such a vision to fruition.

Actual capitalism is preserved. Free market is preserved. Profit motive is preserved. Doing good is preserved. And all this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

No one said this job I’m proposing would be easy. Of course it’s not easy.

But, for example, the next generation of techies—after this generation of air heads who seek to worship at the knee of brain-computer mysticism has faded away—the next generation might be persuaded to revisit the core ideas of the Republic and see how free enterprise, freely undertaken, could work a true revolution and distribute abundance to the planet at the same time.

Imagine a near-future corporate boardroom meeting. The CEO stands up and says:

“OK, people, I’ve brought you here because we’re going to try something new and radical. Face it, we’ve been selling crap to our customers for a long, long time and gouging them in the process. Today, that stops. We’re going to shift over to a different theme. Our board will approve, because we’re going to show them this new effort will expand our bottom line. WE’RE GOING MAKE NUTRITIOUS FOOD PACKS AND SELL THEM FOR RELATIVE PENNIES TO A BILLION PEOPLE. That’s the initial goal. We can do it. On another front, we’re going to sell a billion people good clean food seeds for growing food crops. We’re going to buy acres of land in the so-called Third World and then sell parcels, for farming, to the poor for pennies and take a small share of their profits…

“Now, at first, we’ll have to work through a bunch of foreign governments, because they control their people. This is tricky. But if we give these tinpot leaders enough money, they’ll go along….”

Of course, there will be problems. Serious problems. The CIA, for example, which supports government control and scarcity around the world.

That’s where GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS PUBLIC RELATIONS ENTERS THE SCENE. That visionary CEO and his company will have to publicize the hell out of their radical new plan and expose the problems and barriers and ops the old guard throws up against them.

Wake up the people to what is going on.

“Are you kidding? This will never work.”

That’s what was said in the middle of the Dark Ages, when a few people said THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE FREE.

“This will never work.”

But it did.

With enough courage and determination and intelligence and vision and work and imagination, over a very long period of time, it did work.

Up against forces of evil and deception, it did work.

And it can work again.

“But this time it’s different. The situation is worse, much worse.”

No it isn’t.

Here’s a clue. It’s always worse. That’s the way it always looks. But it’s always possible.

The free and independent and creative individual has been lulled into thinking that he has to limit his entrepreneurial vision and goals to a few self-contained enterprises in a small corner of a much larger space.

That’s called brainwashing.

He can think and plan and work in as large an arena as he wants to. If he wakes up.

If he’s a rocket ship with a range of 100 light years, and he’s operating on an old route that travels 50 miles, back and forth, something is seriously amiss.

There is much more to say…

But this is an introduction. This is a sketch of the core. This is about the individual unleashed. This is about sacrificing nothing in the pursuit of individual success while making abundance into fact.

This is about wiping away the delusion that “the government will generate a new and better world.”

If you want a better world, if you want abundance, you can choose government or the individual as the carrier. You can put your eggs in either basket. You can analyze both answers and decide.

You can roll the dice on either choice.

You can put aside the mantra of “nothing works” and look into the psychology of the individual and government and find truths.

An analogy: you’ve got a gigantic oil tanker that’s been heading in the wrong direction. You want to turn it around. Who is going to take the helm and do it?

On one side, you have 50 individuals, 47 of whom are corrupt and consumed with criminal greed. The other three are different. They glimpse the possibility of doing the right thing.

On the other side, you have that amorphous swollen blob called government. It’s not only consumed with greed, it preaches The Good as a deceptive front to cover its crimes. A few individuals who might want to do the right thing are laden with connections which command the continuance of crimes.

Your choice.

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Technocracy

The club of liberal messiahs floods the world with love

Bill Gates vs. freedom

The world on trial: will Globalism/Socialism win?

Skull&Bones, Antony Sutton, and bankrolling the enemy

Missing history: US oligarchs finance Socialism

Globalism, Socialism, Technocracy: three names for the same thing

Secret House memo released: the fallout, the lies, and the bigger picture

Technocracy vs. the creative force

The vision of technocracy and your future

Utopian fantasies vs. a better world