Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2016

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

We are approaching the 2016 Presidential debates. Hillary and Trump.

So I want to remind you of another time, another debate format, another capacity of the public mind. Way back when.

Consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.

But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format—get this: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.

The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.

Those were debates. No moderator. The men talked. And talked.

They weren’t asked questions.

They didn’t interrupt each other with insults and wise cracks.

They didn’t shift from issue to issue.

And when they were done in each town, denizens of the media weren’t around to weigh in on how “Presidential” they sounded and looked.

Current TV debates preclude the possibility of something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and said:

“During my remarks in the next ninety minutes, with no interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’ against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life. Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail. Some of these documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a time…”

There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.

And just in case you think the American public is so addled they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the proceedings.

After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly from the fact that so few politicians explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble itself.

How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul debated, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas had, the following: “What is socialism, and is it good for America?”

If either candidate had been unable to do more than spout vapid generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely have become obvious.

How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.

People wonder whether Hillary can get from her van to the podium without a golf cart and three assistants. Forget about it. This would be seven debates in three weeks, during which she would speak for a total of 630 minutes.

That would be real.

She and Trump would have to lay out their positions in full.

The public would have to pay attention. And if they couldn’t or wouldn’t, so be it. Maybe next time they would.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence is a grotesque side-show that has taken center stage.

The point is to aim high and force things.

Bring back meaningful debate.

Get used to the long form again.

Push this nation up, not down.


The Matrix Revealed


I would certainly like to see Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O’Reilly compelled to analyze each of seven full debates. That alone would be worth the price of admission.

Even more thrilling, let Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, do the full seven debates against, well, anyone. The Libertarians are supposed to be true intellectuals. Well, let’s see IQ on parade, as their leading nitwit engages on an issue of vital interest. Then cut up his presentation and make a sit-com out of it.

Let’s have a few dozen intrepid college professors tell their classes: “We’re going to take apart all seven, long-form, Lincoln-Douglas-type debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Piece by piece, step by step. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about ‘being triggered’ or ‘needing safe spaces’. If you can’t handle it, you get an F for the course. If you know nothing about traditional logical fallacies, you’d better bone up quickly, because I have a feeling we’re going to be exploring those fallacies. And don’t bother feeding me vapid generalities and slogans when you write your papers. You’re on the hook. I expect you to be alert and smart. If that’s beyond your capacity, you shouldn’t be here. Go back to high school or middle school or wherever it was you checked out of your education. Play time is over. Whining is over. This is college…”

Jon Rappoport

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

US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?

Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”


power outside the matrix


I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

It’s not as if media outlets are unaware of her. From shesource.org, here is an excerpt from her bio:

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Jon Rappoport

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

Did you really think Bernie Sanders was playing it straight?

Did you really think Bernie Sanders was playing it straight?

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2016

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

—Bernie Sanders can’t just wink and nod at his supporters, letting them know he’s faking his Hillary endorsement. No. He’s in the clutches of the octopus. He’s feathering the vulture’s nest. He’s delivering pints of blood to the vampire—

Bernie Sanders’ followers are moaning and weeping and gnashing their teeth. O the betrayal. O the horror.

He…what? He endorsed Hillary for President?

Yes, indeed.

They supported and voted for Bernie because he was righteous and independent and above party politics. He was for the people. And they hated Hillary.

But now, Bernie has gone over to Her.

Make no mistake. Bernie’s loyal army wasn’t just vehemently battling against Trump. They were repulsed at the prospect of Hillary winning the Presidency.

And now their hero, their idol, the “last honest man in American politics,” has crossed over to The Dark Side.

Well, remember, he gave up his long-time status as an Independent when he entered the race for the Presidency. He joined the Democratic Party. He knew the score. He enrolled on the team. He knew, if he lost, he would have to endorse the Democratic candidate. Play ball, or you don’t get to play at all.

He can’t just wink and nod at his supporters, letting them know he’s faking his Hillary endorsement. No. He’s in the clutches of the octopus. He’s feathering the vulture’s nest. He’s delivering pints of blood to the vampire.

This is big-time Democratic politics. This is major-league. This is when compromises are made and deals are struck. And Bernie isn’t feeling the same burn anymore. This fire is a camp fire, and Bernie is sitting there along with other Party operatives and hustlers and propagandists and strong-arm closers and creatures of the night.

As a last gasp, Bernie tried to insert a plank in the Democratic platform opposing the TPP, another hideous Globalist trade treaty. And he failed. That would have been a good time to revolt and bolt and take a stand against the Party and go back to being an Independent—but it didn’t happen. Bernie ate the poison pill.

Meet Mr. Sanders; a Democrat; a dutiful soldier in the ranks.

Hillary, Ms. Darth Vader, her helmet removed, her blonde hair blowing in the wind, strides down the line, inspecting the troops. When she comes to Bernie, she pauses for a moment and inclines her head an inch toward him in acknowledgement. He was, briefly, a minor opponent. Bernie blinks, like a lost recruit in the middle of a nightmare who doesn’t know how he arrived at this moment. She moves on. She’s on her way. She sees the future.

Far away in the distance, a cry of anguish goes up from a huge rag-tag tattered mass of The Disappointed Ones. Bernie’s people.

Duped again. Bamboozled. Cut loose from the passing vision of a Papier-mache utopia of equality.

Did they really think Bernie was playing it straight? Did they really think he would remain above the corruption?

What they and the rest of the American public failed to realize was: this was a unique Presidential campaign in all of modern history. There were two major candidates (Bernie and Trump) who, although they hated each other, were standing for the same thing:

The defeat of Globalism. The defeat of the Globalist trade treaties that destroy communities across the land, as jobs flee overseas, as huge corporations set up shop in places where they use virtual slaves to produce goods that are then sold back to America, minus any fair tax or fair tariff or penalty of any kind. Thus the US economy sinks deeper and deeper into a massive swamp.


Exit From the Matrix


And between these two major candidates, Bernie and Trump, who were standing at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but who were advocating the same thing—Hillary Clinton, arch-Globalist, has been cruising right up the middle stripe in her gold and jewel-encrusted limousine, smiling and waving and laughing and conniving her way toward the Oval Office.

She’s shaking her head at the sheer beauty of it. Divide and Conquer is, once again, working like a charm.

And you’d better believe it, she knows that a goodly number of those young people protesting and rioting in inner cities are the uncomprehending sons and daughters of fathers and mothers and their fathers and mothers who were thrown out of work, cast out into the streets by the Globalist plan and program. She knows. And she doesn’t care.

And the beat goes on.

—Bye, bye, Bernie. You had your moment.

You inflated your balloon, then let the air out of it, walked away and joined the team.

Fold up the chairs, take down the banners, turn out the lights, exit stage left.

Bernie’s back home, inside the Beltway, in Washington, where the loons come out and play their grotesque games.

Jon Rappoport

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

Trump vs. the Globalists: gunfight at OK Corral

Trump vs. the Globalists: gunfight at OK Corral

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2016

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

In his recent speech in Pennsylvania, Trump clarified and intensified his anti-Globalist position. The Associated Press reports:

“’This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally our middle class,’ said Trump.”

“Trump…criticized [Hillary Clinton’s] past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP trade deal], which he described as ‘the deathblow for American manufacturing.’”

“He vowed to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] to get a better deal ‘by a lot, not just a little,’ for American workers – and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the deal if his proposals aren’t agreed [to].”

“Trump has vowed to bring back [US] manufacturing jobs, in part, by slapping tariffs on goods produced by [American] companies that move manufacturing jobs offshore.”

“He said the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by Bill Clinton, was a ‘disaster’…”

Trump didn’t leave much room for doubt on his anti-Globalist stance.

There are many people who have yearned to hear this rhetoric from a major Presidential candidate…but absolutely don’t want to hear it (or anything else) from Trump.

To them, he’s a fast-talking cowboy, a hustler, a bullshitter of the first order, a rank egotist, a narcissist, a racist.

Fine.

Well, we had another candidate who was a mad dog for attacking Globalism, although he didn’t go quite as far. We had Bernie Sanders. He’s gone. He’s voting for Hillary.

Too little, too late, Bernie just wrote an editorial in the New York Times. His subject: Globalism. Here’s an excerpt:

“In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous [Globalist] trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries…”

“We need to fundamentally reject our ‘free trade’ policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP].”

Sounds pretty much like Trump.

Of course, Bernie points out that this new revolution must NOT be headed by Donald Trump. It must be led by Hillary Clinton. Bernie doesn’t actually mention Hillary by name. He uses the phrase, “a new Democratic President.”

That’s because, as he well knows, the idea that Hillary will overturn free trade treaties and slam back the force of Globalism is so absurd it’s laughable. Bernie knows Hillary is the last person in America who would try to torpedo these trade deals. So he just bites his lip and writes “a new Democratic president.”

But Bernie is a straight shooter. He’s not a bullshitter. Heavens, no.

I wonder which new Democratic President Bernie has in mind? Perhaps it’s Moses coming down from the mountain with ten strategies to create jobs in America.

In past months and years, we’ve had other candidates who’ve come out strongly against Globalism—Rand Paul (didn’t have the intensity); Ron Paul (lacked intensity of delivery, and the media/GOP cut him out of debates and withdrew coverage); Ralph Nader (never had a prayer).

So, for all those people who can admit Trump is saying the right things about Globalism and making all the right promises—but hate him for various reasons—we obviously need someone else who will say what Trump is saying, get it across, attract huge crowds, and garner widespread support. Who is that? Where is he? Where is she?

Nowhere.

Therefore, let’s all vote for Hillary, right? Because at least she isn’t a bullshitter or a wild cowboy, and she can maintain stability here at home while US forces launch a few dozen wars under her guidance. No? No good? Hillary’s a…what? A demented vulture? Really?

Hmm.

Is it possible to perform some kind of surgery on Trump’s brain, so he emerges saying the same things about Globalism, but actually means them, minus the ego and the narcissism? Could his brain be shifted over from that of a hustler to a man of the people? No? No such surgery exists?

Too bad, eh? Because this real estate gunslinger is actually talking about canceling NAFTA and refusing to ratify the TPP, two cornerstones of the Globalist agenda. He’s talking about punishing US companies who shift manufacturing jobs overseas, by laying on tariffs when they export their products back to US customers.

Maybe brain-dead indoctrinated college students don’t understand what all this means, but US workers who’ve been thrown out of their jobs sure as hell do.

Trump actually makes a distinction between Globalism and what’s good for America. He doesn’t pull back from doing that. Because, after all, if you bring the lost US jobs home from the clutches of Globalists, that is, in fact, good for the people of the US, right? And therefore, it’s good for America.

But of course Trump is completely insane and he’s a major league liar, so he’s out.

How about this? A mind-control experiment in which everything Trump has been saying about Globalism is automatically transferred into the brain of LeBron James. Then LeBron shows up at the Democratic National Convention, announces his candidacy, throws down a few thundering dunks, and steals the nomination from Hillary.

Can we pull that off?

No?

Oh well. It’s only 4.8 million lost US jobs (and more coming). It’s only 60,000 US factories closed down (and more coming).

So where are we? Let’s look at the leaderboard.

On one side, we have Hillary Clinton. She’s in the pocket of Big Pharma, she’s dedicated to the advance of Globalism on every possible front (“it takes a village”), she can’t sleep at night unless US planes are bombing some helpless population.

On the other side, we have Donald Trump, who’s saying all the right things about Globalism’s attack on America, but he just happened on this rhetoric by accident, he doesn’t mean any of it, he’s lying all day and all night, he wants to change the name of the White House to Trump Tower II. We know he’s lying because Bill Maher and John Oliver say so.


Exit From the Matrix


I have an idea. Finally. Let’s all pledge our allegiance to HUMANITY without describing what the word means. Let’s just go with the generality. Let’s feel good about it. We’re pledged to The Human Family and The Future. Just leave it hanging out there. No need to get specific. That’s how we’ll ID ourselves. “We’re for humanity, we’re for everybody else.” See, isn’t that better?

Then we can say, “Hillary is also devoted to Humanity. She says so every chance she gets, so it’s a perfect match. Let’s give the political leadership of the country to her. And then, whatever she does, we can assert it’s because she cares. And so do we. We all care. It makes us virtuous.

And that’s all that important: giving the appearance of being virtuous.

All those factories that have closed down and all those people who are out of jobs? Screw them. They’re impediments to a much higher cause.

What are they complaining about? The government will take care of them. Right?

The government will take of everybody. That’s what caring means. Right?

We and Hillary are on the same page.

I knew it would work out.

I knew it would.

It always does.

The Presidency is a character issue. Hillary pretends she has character. Trump doesn’t. That’s all we need to know or ever will need to know.

Jon Rappoport

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

Vicente Fox’s immigration gibberish

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Vicente Fox (twitter) is two important things: the former President of Mexico, and the former head of all Coca Cola operations in Mexico.

Over the last few months, he’s made several statements about Trump and immigration:

“I’m not going to pay for that fucking wall.”

“He [Trump] is the hated gringo because he’s attacking all of us, he’s offending all of us, I mean imagine – that could take us to a war – not to a trade war…Don’t play around with us. We can jump walls. We can swim rivers. And we can defend ourselves.”

Regardless of what you think about immigration or Trump, there are a few points to remember about Vicente Fox and the history of Mexico.

First, Fox, on his mother’s side, is Spanish. As in: she comes from Spain.

From biography.yourdictionary.com: “He [Fox] was born July 2, 1942 in Mexico City but was raised on a communal farm in the state of Guanajuato near Leon. His father was a rancher of Irish descent and his mother came from Spain.” (Oh, wikipedia update: “The family was unaware of its German origins and they believed the Fox family [on Vicente’s father’s side] had their origins in Ireland until it was discovered otherwise later in Fox’s life.”)

What difference does that make? The bottom-line argument for UNLIMITED Mexican immigration is based on history: namely, the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, and the peace treaty that surrendered Mexican California, plus territories east of California, to the United States—and solidified the US hold on Texas.

So the current immigration flood has the goal of “taking back what rightfully belongs to Mexico.”

Except for one other historical fact: starting in 1519, Mexico no longer belonged to the native Aztec population. It was grabbed by force. The Spanish conquistadors won a war and overthrew the Aztec empire.

So if you want to argue history, “native Mexicans” aren’t “winning back Mexico for themselves.” If immigration means winning, it’s on behalf of the men who took control of Mexico: Spanish conquerors.

Again, on his mother’s side, Vicente Fox is Spanish. He isn’t a “native Mexican.” Not even close.

Indeed, native Mexicans have been buried at the bottom of the political structure in their own country for five centuries.

If you want to say that unlimited immigration will somehow win back Mexico’s lost territories in the US, be accurate. Immigration will win back the territories for the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors.

But Vicente Fox has other matters to explain as well, and they have to do with the effects of the Coca Cola Company on native Mexicans. Remember, he was, for a time, the head of all Coke operations in Mexico. Here, from a stunning article at mexicolapchs.blogspot.com (“Coca-Cola’s Exploitation of Mexico,” 5/8/2011), is another piece of history, this one more recent:

“While having a tight grip on the native people, Coca-Cola managed to exploit Mexican land and its natural resources. ‘Coke is also widely produced in Mexico, an arrangement that is threatening the country’s water supplies and undercutting indigenous control of natural resources. It takes three cups of water to make one cup of Coke’… As Coca-Cola is using up Mexico’s water supply to produce Coke, they are limiting water for the native people, forcing them to consume more Coke. Health issues like diabetes and obesity began to worsen as more Coke was consumed because of the sugar and caffeine intake.”

“Without natural resources to provide a healthy diet, the Mexican people resorted to drinking only Coke which caused a rise in diabetes and obesity. Due to Coca-Cola’s economic venture, Mexico must cope with its depleted resources, disintegrating government, and mistreatment of the people. If Coca-Cola continues their profit making schemes, the people of Mexico will have no control over their own government and land. Their water supply will ultimately be destroyed and the health of the people will plummet.”

If Vicente Fox is arguing on behalf of “true Mexicans,” he should look to his own past, and the grotesque effects his company has had on that population.

If you opened up the major media to authentic original Mexicans, with no Spanish descendants of the conquistadors on board, the first thing the native Mexicans would begin talking about is the 500-year suppression of their rights and lives in their own land, right down to the present day. They wouldn’t be talking about immigration to the United States.

The native Mexicans would have very interesting things to say. Their statements would cut to the bone of Mexican history, the real history. Not the laid-on Spanish history.

And if justice were the objective, it would begin right there.

It definitely doesn’t begin with anything Vicente Fox has to say.

The argument for unlimited immigration, based on history, is spurious from the get-go. And if you want to go back to the native Aztecs, even there you’re talking about people who took over large territories and populations by conquest.

Who the Aztecs’ native Mexican victims were, at that time, I’ll leave for scholars and historians to sort out. Whoever they were, if you can find them in Mexico today, they have zero political or economic power. They’re at the bottom, where they’ve lived for a long, long, long time. And their need starts with what the leaders in Mexico (not the US) have been doing to them:

Burying them.

You just might find a few descendants of original Mexicans growing corn in their native land. That’s possible. And if you did, you’d immediately run into the effects that NAFTA, the 1994 Globalist treaty, has had on them. It put 1.5 million of them into bankruptcy, because NAFTA permitted the US to export cheap corn to Mexico. That’s why many of those farmers have been crossing the border and coming up into the US.

Yes, NAFTA, the treaty that Vicente Fox has called “a miracle,” and a “total success.”

The man can tap dance. I’ll give him that.

Coda: In case you think giant tracts of land in California, with their sprawling estate villas, were once owned by original Mexicans, from whom Imperialist Yankees stole those properties in the settlement of the Mexican-American War, think again. There was a time (19th and early 20th century) when remaining wealthy Mexican families in California were giving each other islands off the coast, as wedding presents for their sons and daughters—but these were really Spanish landowners. They were the descendants of 1519 Hernan Cortes, Juan Diaz, Andres de Tapia, Garcia del Pilar, Francisco de Aguilar, Pedro Alvarado, and their merry band of marauders who stole central Mexico, spread their influence, and kept the native population under their rule, deep under their rule.

I once lived on Alvarado Street in Los Angeles. Only decades later did I realize this name was no holdover from, or recognition of, Mexico. It was apparently a reference to Juan Bautista Alvarado, Governor of Alta California (1836-42). It pointed to “Spanish Mexico.” As in: Spain.

Conquest.


The Matrix Revealed

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


The people who want unlimited immigration from Mexico to the US should keep that in mind. Arguing from history brings up some unpleasant truths.

According to ancestry.com, the most common surnames (2013) are Garcia, Fernandez, Gonzales, Rodriguez, Lopez, Martinez, Sanchez, Perez, Martin, Gomez—these are the most common names in…

Spain.

That tells you something about who has really been running Mexico since the early 16th century.

It isn’t the native Mexicans.

Jon Rappoport

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

Facebook, CIA, Hillary: off the books and into the Oval

Facebook, CIA, Hillary: off the books and into the Oval

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2016

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

Facebook is censoring pro-Trump posts.

Facebook, since its inception, has had CIA money-connections.

Once before, the CIA illegally supported a Clinton for President. Bill Clinton, in 1992. He was their man.

Now, another Clinton is running. She is the same kind of deep Globalist her husband is.

Are we seeing a repeat of history?

As with any probe where the players and their actions are purposely hidden, we’re dealing with degrees of probability—and in this case, the degree of probability is significant.

Let’s start at the top: Facebook is censoring pro-Trump posts.

Paul Watson, writing at Infowars:

“After it was revealed that Facebook is deliberately blocking conservative news sites from appearing in the social media giant’s ‘trending’ section, it now appears as though the company is also censoring pro-Donald Trump posts.”

“..one [Facebook] post was removed simply because it expressed support for Trump’s policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration due to concerns over ISIS attacks… Another user asserted that he had been slapped with a 30 day Facebook ban simply for posting the hashtag ‘#Trump2016’.”

“Last month it was also revealed that Facebook employees appear to believe that they should not remain impartial, but should instead take action to prevent Trump from becoming president.”

Let’s move on to the Facebook/CIA connection.

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now, with Facebook/CIA presenting an anti-Trump stance, which means a pro-Hillary stance, let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.

The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill he was still “their man” for the upcoming 1992 run for the Presidency.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.


the matrix revealed


Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

“I’m not here to threaten you. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….

“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first Presidential campaign.

That speaks of major planning.

Does the same CIA plan apply now to Hillary Clinton?

Is one among many threads of the project the use of Facebook?

Jon Rappoport

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

Trump and Bernie on the same ticket; take the ride

Trump and Bernie on the same ticket; take the ride

The mass hallucination called 2-party politics in America

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2016

(New article up on Outside The Reality Machine. Click here to read it.)

Don’t lose your lunch or your cookies or your marbles. Follow this one to the end.

As Bernie throws charges at Hillary for vote-rigging to gain the nomination; as Hillary solidifies her prurient control of so-called super-delegates (Democrat insiders and hacks), thus overturning the force of Primary voting; as Trump, Cruz, and the Republican leadership heat up an internal war over delegates; as Colorado and other states reject the validity of Republican Primary voting; the hallucination that is 2-party politics in America is on the verge of cracking. And if the crack widens, the foul creatures who emerge will reveal an oozing Hell in broad daylight.

We’ve gone past crazy.

And since that’s so, anything goes. It’s important to understand “anything,” which is why I’m dreaming about an independent ticket of Bernie Sanders, fresh off his rigged loss to Hillary, and Trump, emerging from his stinging defeat at the hands of Republican Beelzebubs. The two enemies on the same side.

Bernie and The Donald. Donald and The Bernie. Can’t agree on much, but who cares. Burn the political house down. Walk away and start a new campaign for the White House.

Left populism plus right populism. Together.

A realistic winner in November, as long as they have a cold-blooded army of pros investigating the voting machines.

Bernie: “I hate Donald, except for his stance on trade treaties that are stealing millions of jobs from Americans.”

Donald: “I hate Bernie, except for his stance on trade treaties that are stealing millions of jobs from Americans.”

Could be a lot worse.

A lot.

How about this? “The ticket,” a new independent party spokesman declared at a Washington Press Club gala, “is Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. Deal with it.”

Why not?

Remember, the 2-party hallucination is matched by the American-public hallucination. Both sides of the equation represent absolute insanity.

The public is ready to accept the fact (after a few huge protests) that the Primary votes aren’t votes at all. Just a beauty contest. The two parties pick their candidates in whatever way they decide to.

“Okay, you voted, now shut up and let us give you the most corrupt candidates we can conjure. That’s how the system works.”

“Who’s more hideous? A or B? B, right? So let’s give them B.”

Here’s a plus for a Bernie-Donald ticket: the media will gnash and weep, weep and gnash.

“How can you possibly explain running with Bernie, Mr. Trump?”

“I don’t explain. I hate him, but he’s a pretty good guy. When we’re elected, we’ll argue every point. We’ll hammer it out. We’ll have to. Just last night, we both decided we don’t want any unnecessary wars. That was big. It’s better to defend America than go off attacking people overseas. What else? I think he sort of likes Putin. So do I. So we’ll go over to Moscow and see him and tell him this new Cold War is ridiculous. We’re going to cancel the strategy of surrounding Russia with bases.”

“And you, Mr. Sanders. How can you possibly explain running with Mr. Trump?”

“I hate him. He stands for everything I oppose. But I kind of enjoy talking to him. We’re working on a plan to stop US companies from shutting down factories and going abroad. We want to bring jobs back here. Turns out there are a lot of things we can do.”

“But Mr. Sanders, just a few months ago, you said Mr. Trump was a sleaze-bag capitalist.”

“He is. But I’ve come to realize he has advantages over Hillary Clinton. To your point, he’s somewhat less sleazy. Actually, far less sleazy. I presented him with my plan for worker-owned businesses in America. Not as a mandate, but through tax breaks and minor funding. He wasn’t opposed. In fact, he said he was willing to try that with one of his companies, which I understand is going broke. I convinced him this isn’t some Communist plot. It’s motivating to employees. It’s participatory democracy. And if it works, it’s good.”

“Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders wants to revisit the federal bailout of big banks. As you know, he pegged that fiasco at many trillions of dollars—far more than the government was willing to admit.”

“Bernie’s four hundred percent right on that one. We gave away the farm to those bastards. They held us up. It was highway robbery. I’ve been talking about the banks and Wall Street for years. They’re running a long con on the American people. We should get a large chunk of the actual bailout money back. I mean, what do those guys actually produce? Nothing. They sit there and make money make money. I build hotels and casinos and golf courses. I’m a builder.”

“Mr. Sanders, isn’t Mr. Trump unconscionably and disgustingly rich?”

“It makes me sick to think about it. But at least he does put people to work. That’s more than I can say for Wall Street traders. Now, when we get to immigration, Donald and I are definitely on opposing sides. But I’ll admit our screening process to detect potential terrorists coming here is broken. Donald and I have been talking to border officials. They’re honest and hard-working. They’re at the end of their rope. We’ve got to give them help, if we want to prevent what happened in Paris and Brussels from visiting our shores. I’m not in favor of public places in our cities blowing up. Are you?”

“Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders is a declared socialist. How can you put up with that?”

“I can’t. Socialism is the most stupid form of government humans have ever tried. Obamacare is a complete mess. Bernie sees some of the flaws, too. He wants single-payer. I tell him that’ll be far worse than what we’ve got now. I want free competition among companies, so the best plans attract the most customers. Bernie and I are still arguing on this one. But he’s open to the concept that we want a healthcare system that works. What an idea, right? Something that works? And the medical people—we can’t let them off the hook, either. Too many drugs. The big drug companies are killing us with their marketing campaigns. They’re inventing diseases to fit the drugs they’re developing. I think Bernie and I are both beginning to see that. Their lobbyists are feasting off the Congress and the President.”

“Mr. Sanders, what about—“

At this point, the live television feed suddenly goes dark.

Trump’s voice can still be heard for a few moments.

“They’re censoring us. Don’t worry, folks, we’ll pick this up on the Web. Go to our site, ‘Trump plus Bernie’. If they shut that down, you’ll know we’re under martial law. Go to the White House and make your voice heard…”

Trump plus Bernie? Horrible? Unthinkable?

Worse than Hillary or Cruz or Ryan or Romney? Really?

Is the hallucination that “everything is all right and everything is under control and everything is standard” better than cracking the political two-party egg?

Is it?

Is the endless media gloss better than the media desperately trying to deal with Bernie and Donald on the same ticket?

If this country is internally starting to pull itself apart even further, into two battling camps, is it better to put a war-crimes gargoyle like Hillary in the White House, and listen to her babble about national unity—or is it better to shove the two men who represent the great separation out there together?

And if putting those two men out there together on one ticket drives the American people nuts…is the contradiction actually making people crazier or is it starting to bring them back toward sanity?

What’s the fear of two opposing candidates on the same ticket all about?

Is the fear authentic, or is it just a reaction to the fact that we’ve been fed fake unity wall-to-wall forever? Candidates and leaders have been selling us fake unity to cover their crimes and their hunger for control. They’ve been pledging togetherness while they’ve been tearing us apart, because divide and conquer is still the first rule of politics.

Instead of pretending the fake unity is real, why not dump that delusion and put two men who are, in many ways, opposed to each other on the same ticket?

Why not bust the delusion?

Why not let them argue?

Why not let them come to some agreements—because they would.

Why not show the American people that endless whining and moaning about issues and differences is best displayed by taking the differences to the top of the political food chain, in the form of two men who might actually believe at least some of what they’re saying?

Let them argue, disagree, and try to hash out their problems with each other. In full view.

At the very least, it will create a pause in the mind.

The public mind, such as it is, will spin wheels and break cogs, and flip and grind and stop—because it can’t process the new situation, because it can’t deal with an actual dialogue between two enemies. Because it can’t conceive of the possibility that it’s viewing two extremes having voices in the same space, out in the open, on the same ticket. Because the public mind has been tuned to thinking that never the twain will meet. Because the public mind wants the conflict to seethe and boil under the surface rather than on the surface. Because the public mind wants non-resolution. Because, yes, the public mind wants to moan about what can never be resolved. Because the public mind is a mad insane child who can’t be satisfied and wants it that way. Because the public mind is a vast loser. Because the public mind is an artifact, a synthetic substance molded from a thousand personal dissatisfactions into exactly the kind of Mass Victim our politicians need and desire.


exit from the matrix


And even for those who have escaped the left-right, black-white, yin-yang, ding-dong status quo, who have seen through the divide and conquer formula and the two-political-parties- with-one-head ruse; the prospect of seeing two men who are apparently on opposite ends of the spectrum put their cards on the table in public, together, and go at each other, in order to come to some understanding—that would be a relief. That would be a start of something interesting in a White House that has, for decades, been rigged to disable the country and the people and the world.

If there is a sliver of a chance of turning fake share and care into real share and care…why not?

Break the trance.

Shake and bake.

Put those two boys on television every night and let them go up against each other, all out, while running together on the same side.

Make the impossible possible.

Shred the “this-or-that” set-up.

Explode the American political cover story.

Bernie AND The Donald in 2016.

Yin plus yang equals what?

Take a chance, for once, and find out.

We already know the sum of fake reality plus fake reality.

Jon Rappoport

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

Trump, violence, MoveOn.org: it’s 1968 all over again

Who backs both MoveOn.org and Hillary?

Do anti-GOP convention street protesters plan to incite violence?

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Do you think the builder of false realities tells you he’s going to deceive you?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

History comes around again to bite you like a louse in a hotel-room bedsheet, long after management was supposed to have sanitized the place.

In 1968, 10,000 anti-war protestors at the Chicago Democratic Convention went up against local police and National Guardsmen. The violent riots had a reverse effect.

Americans, aghast at what they were seeing on their television sets, turned out in droves a few months later and elected Republican pro-war candidate Richard Nixon.

It was odd, to say the least, that the protest groups chose to show up at the Democratic Convention. The hand-picked Presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, was in favor of continuing the Vietnam War, but the Republicans were a greater threat in that regard.

The days of violence in Chicago made Nixon giggle. He couldn’t have asked for a better show.

And now we have MoveOn.org, funded in part by George Soros (see here), ramping up their nationwide protests against Trump. They’re clearly pointing toward the Republican Convention in July in Cleveland (see also this).

Their whole strategy depends on how much blame for their protests and violence can be successfully attributed to Trump himself—which is the clear media strategy. The standard line is: Trump started this whole thing with his incendiary statements about immigration and Muslims; therefore, everything that happens after that is his fault. He is the prime mover. The protests are merely a response to him. “The blood is on his hands.”

If that can be sold, and if the action in Cleveland in July can rise to a new height of violence, then a significant number of fence-sitting voters would decide to opt for Hillary, who will, of course, position herself as the peacemaker and the uniter.

It doesn’t matter that she’s never met a war she didn’t like (or could invent). She’s the “calm force that will lead the nation into eight years of collective tolerance and sanity.”

In other words, Hillary stands to benefit the most from the planned and highly organized attacks on Trump.

It’s not hard to trace a connection between Soros, one of the money men behind MoveOn.org, and Hillary Clinton. Just for starters, as Politico noted, on 1/31/16 (“George Soros donates $8 million to boost Hillary”):

“George Soros in December donated $6 million to the leading super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, marking the return of the billionaire financier as among the biggest givers in all of American politics. The massive check brings to $8 million the Hungarian-born investor’s total 2015 giving to pro-Clinton groups.”

Apparently, though, these obvious connections don’t rate major coverage in mainstream media.

Let’s see: the man who funds the group who is organizing protests against Trump is also funding the candidate who stands to gain the most from the protests. No, nothing important here. Just a coincidence.

The 2016 election season in America is devolving to resemble what happened in 1968. It remains to be seen whether the ‘68 reverse/rebound Nixon victory will now turn into the Hillary victory.

Hillary, Soros, MoveOn, and their media allies (the useful idiots) are betting it will. They think it’s their game to run and control.

How far could the anti-Trump forces go this summer? How far could they go in pushing an agenda of “societal change,” which demands a government-centered solution for all ills and problems? “The government must transform America on behalf of equality”—whatever that generality is supposed to mean.

The basic thrust of these forces would be to raise government power to new heights, fantasizing that it would somehow be turned toward “broad positive outcomes for the underclass.”

Well, for instruction, we can look back to another event that occurred in the summer of the 1968, in Paris. Most Americans don’t even remember it, but it was a searing stroke across the landscape. Its vision, if you can call it that, extended further than anything that could happen now in America—and the stunning outcome is one of those “teachable moments.”

From Wikipedia (“May 1968 events in France”):

“The volatile period of civil unrest in France during May 1968 was punctuated by demonstrations and massive general strikes as well as the occupation of universities and factories across France. At the height of its fervor, it virtually brought the entire economy of France to a dramatic halt.”

“The unrest began with a series of student occupation [of colleges] protests against capitalism, consumerism and traditional institutions, values and order. It then spread to factories with [Leftist union] strikes involving 11 million workers, more than 22% of the total population of France at the time, for two continuous weeks.”

“The student occupations and wildcat general strikes initiated across France were met with forceful confrontation by university administrators and police. The de Gaulle administration’s attempts to quell those strikes by police action only inflamed the situation further, leading to street battles with the police in the Latin Quarter, followed by the spread of general strikes and occupations throughout France. De Gaulle went to a French military base in Germany, and after returning dissolved the National Assembly, and called for new parliamentary elections for 23 June 1968. Violence evaporated almost as quickly as it arose. Workers went back to their jobs, and when the elections were finally held in June, the Gaullist party emerged even stronger than before.” (emphasis added)

In other words, government power rose to a new height. That was the outcome. That was how this towering rebellion came to a close.

If, in the summer of 2016, the “forces of change” in America stage vast protests and initiate violence, on the pretext that they are trying to defeat Donald Trump, the result will be a mandate for federal government to assume more control.

Hillary Clinton, would certainly embrace that mandate with open arms.

She would be the Nixon and the De Gaulle.

She would call her power agenda “uniting the people” or “equality together” or “it takes a village” or “respect for diverse points of view and cultures” or “a new day for America.”

Whatever she calls it, it would be 1968 all over again.


power outside the matrix


“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Everybody knows that chunk of wisdom. But how many people are willing and able to remember what they need to, in order to understand what is unrolling before us now:

—Designed protests that, no matter what they espouse, will deliver more power to government, under the banner of a better life for all.

And if you salute that banner, I have condos for sale on Mars. The summer nights are heavenly.

Jon Rappoport

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

Brussels attacks: the next step: bye bye Europe

Brussels attacks: the next step: bye bye Europe

by Jon Rappoport

March 22, 2016

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

Hours after Donald Trump suggested the US should downsize its role in NATO (also here), bombs went off in Brussels.

In the wake of the attacks, the Globalist party line is shaping up: Downsize? Absolutely not. NATO must respond. Led by the US, it must, wait for it, invade Syria, an ISIS stronghold. With ground troops.

Don’t even bother trying to figure out the logic behind that idea. It goes something like this: get rid of President Assad (who is in a war against ISIS) because somehow the Brussels attack is all his fault.

Led by the US, NATO should attack ISIS in Syria—ISIS, the group funded and backed and armed by the US government (see here and here). Perfect.

Gibberish.

I can just hear a US general trying to decipher his marching orders: “Let’s see, we have to go into Syria and get rid of President Assad, and he’s the one fighting against ISIS. Hmm. And we also have to decimate ISIS. In other words, we should more or less level the whole country, wipe out everybody, and turn the place into a wasteland worse than the wasteland it already is. Right? And while we’re doing that, we have to ignore the fact that our government shipped weapons to ISIS from Libya (see here). How about this instead? Locate the key people who are urging this insane military campaign and put them in prison where they can’t do more harm. Or let’s launch an operation against the moon. That would be good, too.”

French President Hollande is also right up there on the insanity index. His latest statement, after the Brussels attacks, assures one and all that this is a war against Europe, not merely Belgium. But he is the one who has been asserting that Europe has no right to question the flood of immigrants streaming across the continent. Border controls? No, no. What possible relationship could any of these immigrants have to terror attacks? They were trained outside Europe on how to mount bombing operations against civilian populations, after which they came into Europe with that intention? Sure, but so what?

Housed within Brussels, of course, is the headquarters of the European Union, which is Globalism Inc. for Europe. Its covert aim is to drown all nations of the continent in immigrants, so that within a few decades there will be no more recognizable countries—at which point a simple declaration that all of Europe is one indivisible entity will carry the day. This intention must never be spoken of. It must be hidden. Instead, the population of Europe must enlist in a universal, what shall we call it, Tolerance Corps, grinning from ear to ear wherever they go, urging acceptance of the new status quo, now and then grieving as new terror attacks blow people up. Who could doubt the efficacy and wisdom of this plan?

Do not offend the people who are blowing you up. Do not realize who is covertly backing the people who are blowing you up. Instead, rely on these backers to stop the people who are blowing you up.

Keep smiling. Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. Your tolerance and compassion and good cheer will earn you a gold star on the heavenly blackboard. Keep opening your door to all who enter. Extend them a helping hand, just as your government does. Your visitors will make your land a better place. Let us all sing a hymn of joy.

The realities of the situation don’t matter. The only thing that matters is your basic desire for kindness. You must give lip service to that. You must sing the hymn, because it marks you as a good person. Stop thinking. Mark yourself as a good person.

The US/Globalist wars of decimation in the Middle East and Northern Africa? The blowback from the wars? Not important. Not relevant. Well, they are relevant in one respect. You personally are guilty for those wars. Therefore, you must now surrender to whatever happens. You must give up everything as a sign of your humility and guilt. You have no right to defend yourselves. Nor do you have the right to insist that your governments defend you. Of course not.

Everything is all right. Everybody is all right. We are everybody.

One great cheese glob of the coming utopia.


power outside the matrix


Somewhere in the bowels of the EU headquarters, a high-ranking official is standing in front of a mirror, applying tan base to his parched pale face, combing his sparse hair, rehearsing his upcoming statement to the press:

“Let’s see. Reality versus appearance. The reality is, this is perfect for us. An attack within a mile of our building. We couldn’t have anything to do with it. We’re victims. We’ve been making sure the governments of Europe keep their borders open, to let in terrorists, and so on. Now, when I appear before reporters…the appearance. I need to affect an expression of outrage mixed with sadness. Dignified. Do dignified. ‘The terrible events of today, the assault on Europe, on the stability of society. We will not rest until we bring the criminals to justice. At the same time, we must not fall into the trap of believing that all people coming to our lands are’…no, scratch that last part. Too early for that. The bodies are still lying on the ground. Stay with the outrage and the sadness. And assurances that we will work harder to gain control over the situation. We all stand united. Together. Our thoughts are with the grieving families…”

He walks out into a large hall, exits the building, and stands before a throng of reporters. He nods, steps to a podium. He looks out into the distance, as if summoning up a greater understanding.

But he already understands. He understands very well.

Only a complete fool wouldn’t.

Jon Rappoport

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

5 threats Trump poses, and 6 plans to stop him

Underneath all the familiar charges leveled at Trump, there is one that has the shadow government deep in thought.

Trump: the loosest cannon.

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: When I say “GOP,” I also include “Globalist.” Both major Parties are in the pocket of Rockefeller Globalists (Bilderberg, WEF/Davos, CFR, Trilateral Commission).

—Here cometh the loose-talking cowboy and hustler, walking into the saloon; The Donald; and the customers are cheering.

Cheering?

What?

What went wrong? What in the world went wrong?

The first 4 threats Trump poses:

Threat One: The way he talks. It isn’t measured sing-song generality, which is the standard form of hypnotic prose in America for both politicians and media. The rise and fall of empty words isn’t his style, and believe me, that is disturbing to the establishment.

Big-time politics and news in the US must be delivered in hypnotic cadence—otherwise they fall apart, because they have no inherent substance. But everything Trump is advocating is carried on the waves of far different rhythms—casual, direct, non-teleprompter, jump-around, zig-zag, off the cuff; as if, out of some bygone era, he’s saying: “Hey kid, here’s a dime, run down to the corner and get me a newspaper, and here’s a nickel for yourself…”

Blown dry, androidal, high-flying, empty, sentimental, super-clean, sing-song—these are qualities drilled into, or already possessed by, successful pols and media stars. Trump cuts across and buries that style. He’s a disruptor, and he violates the cardinal rule, which is:

Don’t wake the children.

I can’t emphasize too strongly what a threat that poses to the status quo, which can only sustain itself through a tacit agreement, on all sides, to engage in trance-inducing speech.

On top of all this, Trump is delivering messages that are beyond the pale, according to current standards of political correctness. Another jolt.

Trump is doing one of these:

“Listen, folks, they’re all lying to you. You know who I’m talking about. Last month I was in Cincinnati and this reporter came up to me, I could see she was all ready to do me in, you know? She had this big question she wanted to ask me, like she was going to kill me with it—I’ve known lots of people like that, you have, too. People all over the country are out of work but all she can think about is her pet question…jobs, we’ve got to bring them back…I’m calling those companies that went overseas and telling them, pack your bags and come back or you’re going to face…(pointing) he knows what I mean…I can see it on your face, what’s your name?…I’ll bet you know someone close to you who was thrown out of his job, or maybe you were…”

Trump comes across every which way. Right side up, inside out, sideways.

Threat Two: He gets in the face of media personalities and slaps them down and topples them from their pedestals. He doesn’t bow. He doesn’t play the game. On a moment’s notice, not by script, he attacks when ruffled. He doesn’t care. This amounts to a declaration of war against media hegemony and media hypnosis. This is akin to a person telling a hypnotist, “Hey, take that pendulum out of my face, you idiot. I don’t need to go to sleep. I’m awake.” Media are supposed to be the providers of every slice and tidbit of information that’s important. They’re the eyes, ears, and mouths for the public. Trump is telling them to shut up and go away. His attitude flies in the face of the Program.

Threat Three: He knows what Globalist trade treaties have done to destroy jobs in America. He knows the American economy hasn’t come back after the 2008 crash. He doesn’t care who has signed on to these treaties. He says he’s going to make new deals and change the landscape and bring back jobs.

Whether he will or not, whether he can or not, he’s exposing the Globalist agenda, as well as the politicians on both sides of the aisle who have surrendered their minds and souls to it.

This Globalist agenda is the real third rail of politics, and Trump is not only stepping on it, he’s licking his fingers and putting his hand on the electricity and living (so far) to tell the tale. Once again, he doesn’t appear to care.

Is he for real? Is he a fake? Regardless, he’s talking about what is supposed to remain hidden, and he’s clicking with people all over the country who have lost their jobs to the insane trade policy of the Rockefeller forces.

This is verboten. This can’t happen. But it is happening.

And he isn’t going into a long song and dance about the theory of Globalism. He’s keeping it tight and simple. He’s keeping it emotional. He’s actually speaking a real language real people can understand and want to understand. In other words, he’s committing a grave crime.

He’s telling people their jobs and money and prosperity have been stolen and he’s going to get them back.

Threat Four: Immigration. In a nation that already has 60 million immigrants living here, which makes it the number one “importer” of immigrants, per capita, in the world, and generous to the hilt by most standards, he’s saying: yes, but now there is a problem, a very serious problem—and he’s going to solve it. The problem is crime, drugs, potential terrorism. And since the federal government admits it has no proper screening program to spot terrorists, he’s going to put a pause on allowing Muslim immigrants to enter the US. What could the man say that is more politically incorrect?

Whether you agree or disagree with any or every item of his proposal, consider what he’s wreaking on his comfortable liberal opposition—the people who believe open borders should be endless and forever, people who would never, under any circumstances, put a ceiling on it, because they only care about being seen as tolerant and kind and generous and self-effacing and wonderful…people who would, if necessary, walk down streets naked in the rain carrying whips and flagellating themselves to prove their motives are pure.

Based on these four points (I’m saving the best for the end, for later), Trump is a clear and present danger to the political establishment—both Parties and their Globalist handlers.

He’s a “narcissist, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Stalin, a loon.”

The GOP, his own Party, is the first line of defense. They must try to sweep him off the board. What can they do?

One: Change the nominating rules so Rubio and Kasich can easily shift their delegates to Cruz. Right now, for example, those three men have 703 delegates among them. Trump has 671. (Rolling update here.)

Two: Induce a complete deadlock at the Convention and bring in a “compromise” candidate from the closet. For instance, Mitt Romney. Creating that deadlock could involve more rule changes that would strip delegates away from Trump by declaring they aren’t bound to vote for him.

Three: Let Trump have the nomination, but then back/encourage a third-party or independent candidate to run. This would be a person who’d obviously suck votes away from Trump in the general election, giving Hillary a walk in the park to the White House.

Or alternatively: allow a straight-on Trump vs. Hillary contest, and rig enough voting machines to make sure Hillary achieves victory in key states.

Four: Covertly back more riots leading up to the Convention, casting Trump as the cause, as the “divisive one” leading the nation over a cliff. The “law of consequences”—support Trump and this is what you get; you get fear; you get looking over your shoulder as you walk down the street.

Another version of the op: stage a grisly crime and set up a “racist Trump patsy” as the perpetrator.

Another version: stage so many violent protests the message is clear: vote for Trump and this will be a nation in permanent chaos.

Five: If all else fails, the campaign to stop Trump could be taken out of the GOP’s hands, and he would be rubbed out.

Those people calculating the success of any of these five strategies would certainly be considering blowback from Trump’s supporters. The risks are many. Exposure is a virtual certainty.

“Cooler heads” would be saying: “Look, give him the nomination. Hillary’s going to win anyway.”

And if by a miracle Trump somehow gains the Presidency, the sixth option is:

“Let’s get serious.” People with deep knowledge of the political establishment and significant clout would approach him and let him know, in no uncertain terms, that his radical plans are destined to fail. Therefore, compromise is in order. What would President Trump settle for in the real world? What would he give up?

Those are questions whose answers would define his Presidency. He could just step back into his familiar role as the ordinary maker of the ordinary deal.

But before deciding whether to capitulate, Trump might, on the spur of the moment, arrange a sit-down with, say, President Putin. He might lay his cards on the table and say, “Look, this is what I’m trying to do at home, and this is the opposition I’m facing. I think we have issues in common. How can we help each other?”

If that happened, Trump would drive the American neocons out of their minds.

And so now we’ve come to the fifth and greatest threat Trump poses:

His unpredictability.

As President, he could meet with any world leader at the drop of a hat. He could consult all sorts of unconventional sources. He could find out that solutions to national problems are available outside normal channels. Who knows?

Who knows what an un-vetted President, with a large sense of curiosity, might find out, vis-a-vis a number of issues the public is also quite curious about?

This is why men who have operated in the shadows for a long time are truly worried.

Trump has no visible pattern. When he talks, one idea sparks another and then he goes off on a third. A man like that, with the clout of the Presidency, rummaging around in the halls and basements of power and secrets? Are you kidding?

Pick your issue. Chemtrails? Black-budget ops? The extent of NSA spying on US government officials and subsequent blackmail? Extant technologies far in advance of what has been shown to the people? Including suppressed energy technologies?

Might Trump be just the sort of unhinged cowboy who would wander into one of these forbidden areas and start shooting his mouth off?

What does he care about propriety or the rules of the game? He’s Donny Trump who came out the Bronx, where he was hustling commercial buildings; he parlayed his wins into bigger and bigger properties downtown, he went bankrupt three or four times, he dealt with the mafia princes of concrete in NYC, he fired everybody in sight on The Apprentice

He’s the loosest cannon.

Conspiracy researchers cite their prime reasons for the 1963 assassination of JFK, but there is one possibility they rarely, if ever, mention. It’s just the sort of project a wandering bored-in-the-middle-of-the-night Trump might come upon.

Passamaquoddy.

For some 90 years, it’s lain fallow, up in the state of Maine. The basis of it is quite simple. It’s a way to provide energy for the people that doesn’t involve conventional resources buried under the ground:

Off-shore turbines.

Taking advantage of the daily difference between high and low tides, ocean water literally turns the wheel and produces electricity.

For decades, utility companies and governments in the US and Canada and town councils and all sorts of other players have fought and delayed and blocked Passamaquoddy. JFK’s interest in it started when he was a Massachusetts Senator, and when he was President he ordered a report on its status. He was more than interested in it.

He saw the implications. If off-shore turbines in Maine could produce a great deal of electricity, how many other inlets off the coast of America could fit that bill? And why only in America?

Since JFK’s death, technical research has been done, in fact, on very small turbines that would sit in the flow of rivers and yield up electricity for small communities all over the world.

Bone-headed academics have declared that water-turbine energy isn’t cost effective. The truth is, with a tiny fraction of the government money and a fraction of the favors and loopholes that have been bestowed on the oil and nuclear industries, water-turbines could change a great deal of the energy picture today.

I point this out as merely one example of the sort of secret a properly vetted US President isn’t supposed to query or expose. Presidents know the rules of the game. In most cases, they behave.

But suddenly…an intruder in the Oval Office? A man who is either pretending to be, or is, a rabid populist? A man who loves to talk and talk and talk in front of his people? A man who doesn’t seem to assess consequences in the way that other groomed candidates do? A man who has no discernible pattern?

“Listen, everybody, I just found out about something JFK was working on. It’s fantastic. In fact, it’s super-fantastic. Let me tell you all about it. Those media jerks and professors will say it doesn’t work, but President Kennedy, who was a truly great guy, thought it would. Some super-educated friends of mine have been studying it and they agree. They’ve got a whole lot of degrees and credentials behind their names…It’s called Passamaquoddy…”

There are people in the shadows with a great deal of power who couldn’t care less about the morality of Trump’s stance on immigration. What they do care about, what they do guard are the boundaries of this propped-up fantasy world of scarcity we live in together. That is their first concern.

The idea of a sitting President hunting and pecking and stumbling around in secrets whose exposure would crack that system puts their teeth on edge.

What about this strange man, Trump, who, for whatever reasons, likes to stick his hand in dark places and pull rabbits out of rabbit holes?

That would be a cause for great concern.

That would be a threat that demands action.

To grasp this situation, you have to look past the op to divide America into two warring camps. You have to look past the media piling on as they try to make Trump into the destroyer of all human civilization. You have to look past the attempt to elevate his enemies into saviors of humanity. You have to look past obvious strategies to bring in agents to stir the pot, step up violence, and threaten peaceful communities.

According to the unspoken rules of political life in this country, no un-vetted President must ever move into the White House. It must not happen. Presidents have to understand their roles and their assignments.

Trump isn’t merely another puppet set up to hand the election to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. At the start, Hillary’s allies may have seen it that way, encouraged him, helped push him out on the national stage. But then things spiraled out of control.

Once in a while, that happens. A plan falls apart and the supposed dupe takes on a life of his own. He exceeds the limits. He strikes a nerve in the public. He starts listening to himself and realizes he might actually believe in his own ideas.

As of now, the men who operate the levers of this country at several upper strata see Trump as a wild card.

And they don’t like what they see.

They don’t like it at all.


power outside the matrix


In his better moments, this crazy cowboy seems to have a penchant for solutions that actually work. He isn’t mired down in standard actions designed to yield up more stagnation and more despair.

That makes him both unpredictable and dangerous, because there are real secrets that have been buried over the years—secrets that could restore prosperity and abundance for populations.

He might be crazy enough to unearth them and hold them up and talk about them, and new allies might come to his aid.

This is what is at the bottom of elite fear about the candidate who was never supposed to jump up out of nowhere.

Don’t assume such a threat could never, ever come in the form of a wise-cracking self-inflating hustler from way back. Don’t assume there is some correct archetype of the person who will blow the lid off the grave of secrets. This isn’t a spy novel in which the hero fits the reader’s fantasy. This is the American Empire, and it has been ruled, for a long time, by lunatics.

It might not be a surprise that a wild-talking cowboy exposes a few of their holy of holies.

Jon Rappoport

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