FAQ on Rappoport Logic & Analysis Course

by Jon Rappoport

I’ve been getting requests to describe my logic course–hence this FAQ, which answers a lot of questions.

Note: The Logic & Analysis Course is part of a much larger collection, The Matrix Revealed. The course was selling, alone, for three times as much as the entire Matrix Revealed collection but I decided to roll it into the Matrix Revealed collection to reach a wider audience.

I’ll make this FAQ as complete as I can.

Q: How long is the course?

A: Eighteen classroom sessions. That includes a final exam.

Q: So it isn’t just a workshop or a seminar.

A: No, it’s a real course.

Q: At what pace would you recommend teaching it in a home-school setting?

A: Three sessions a week, if possible. An hour per session.

Q: Is the course available online?

A: Upon purchase of The Matrix Revealed, you then download the document and audio files.

Q: What are the course materials?

A: A extensive teacher’s manual, student study sheets (text passages), and audio files.

Q: What’s in the teacher’s manual?

A: The manual contains a layout for all the lessons, in chronological order, and explanations for all the passages that are analyzed in the course.

Q: Passages?

A: Yes. There are short and long passages of text. I wrote these with logical errors embedded in them. Students and teachers work over the passages and discover the specific logical errors. The main passages are written to resemble news stories, press releases, political-speak, science journalism, and internet reporting.

Q: Why?

A: Because they resemble what you encounter in the real world. The whole point of the course is gaining the ability to deal with information in any form, in life. That means being able to take information apart and pinpoint the specific logical mistakes, and analyze those mistakes, in detail.

Q: If an adult is studying the course on his own, how does he proceed?

A: Actually, whether the adult is studying the course on his/her own or preparing to teach it to children, the approach is the same. Go through the entire teacher’s manual, step by step. Master everything.

Q: What is on the audio files?

A: My analysis of the six long passages of text that make up the core of the course. I wanted to do this part in audio, so the teachers can listen to me attacking the text and pulling it apart. It gives a sense of what it’s really like to dig out each logical error and identify it.

Q: When a home-schooling adult teaches the course, is it a process of the teacher and students mutually discovering logical fallacies?

A: No. The teacher already has mastered the course and knows where all the errors are. However, in class, the children first battle through a passage on their own, with the teacher noting their findings. Then the teacher explains each actual logical error in detail. Then, as homework, on their own, the students go back to that passage again and find all the logical errors, and describe them in writing.

Q: These logical fallacies—are they written in stone or did you dream them up?

A: The traditional fallacies have been discovered and described, in various ways, over the last 2400 years. They are very real and very exacting.

Q: What is your background?

A: As a college student (Amherst College), I studied logic as part of my major in philosophy. I had extensive training in logic there. I taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and tutored remedial English at Santa Monica College. I’ve had a 25-year career as an investigative reporter—LA Weekly, CBS Healthwatch, Spin Magazine, Stern (Germany), etc. During this period, I applied logic to my investigations on a regular basis. Particularly in the area of medical fraud, I had to use logic to get behind the PR pronouncements of various “authorities” and find the inconsistencies and deceptions that were occurring in published research.

Q: On what basis do you sell your course to home-schooling parents?

A: They may use it with any size class for as long as they want to teach it, as many times as they want to teach it, but the course must be taught in their own home-school. The course is copyrighted and cannot be sold or given away to other teachers.

Q: I have a plan to teach it to people in my community. Is that all right?

A: Absolutely. You can deliver the course as many times as you want to–as long as you are the teacher.

Q: Is your course given for academic credit in home schools?

A: No. It is for enrichment. I don’t use sanitized and silly politically correct passages in the course—most if not all school systems would refuse to allow real-world-type passages. They want largely unrealistic material. That would defeat the whole purpose of the course.

Q: Why is logic so important?

A: Because it is the foundation on which all other fields of study are built. It is a priceless Western tradition, and it is being lost. We need to reverse that trend. A student can’t be truly literate unless he can analyze what he is reading. This fact is ignored in most schools.

Q: Do you oppose rote learning?

A: Actually, no. I oppose learning that is exclusively and only rote. Students also think. Everybody thinks. There is a choice. You can learn how to think clearly, or you can remain passive and accept whatever is thrown your way. People have a confusion about this. They sometimes believe independent thinking is the same thing as rebellion. Clear thinking is clear thinking. It enables you to face information, reporting, and argument head-on, and make judgments on the merits. The logical merits.

Q: But what about, say, faith? How does logic relate to faith?

A: Learning how to think lucidly strengthens any faith or first principles you live by, because logic is about something else. Logic shows you the difference between profound faith and analysis. You don’t need to confuse the two.

Q: How many long passages are there in the course?

A: Six. They are taken up and analyzed during twelve classroom sessions. They are analyzed deeply.

Q: Is each classroom lesson of the course based on the prior lessons, or can it be taught in any sequence?

A: You follow my sequence. The course is built in a traditional fashion. The easier and simpler material comes first. Then, the more complex lessons and passages.

Q: Can I read an outline of the course?

A: Yes. I’ve included it at the end of this FAQ.

Q: Are eighteen classroom sessions enough to become a logical thinker?

A: Yes. You certainly don’t exhaust the whole field of logic, but you move into a new sphere. You can no longer be deceived or taken in by illogical presentations. You can take those presentations of information, in whatever form, apart and dissect the logical errors.

Q: Illogic is rampant in our society?

A: It’s the “way things are done” now. You have to realize that the higher you go on the educational ladder, the more subtle bias and coercion creep in. Teachers and institutions have their slant on things. They cleverly sell that slant and disguise it. If students don’t know what’s going on, they become captive to some form of bias. They become “products” of the system.

Q: Your course is an antidote to that?

A: It is. In our society, there are many political points of view masquerading as pure knowledge. The question is, do you want your children to fall under the sway of these strategies, or do you want their heads to rise above them.

Q: As an adult, will I be able to master the course myself?

A: Of course. The reading level required for the course is “bright high school.”

Q: I have children I want to home school, but they’re young.

A: I have several parents who have young children. These children are readers, but they’re not yet at the level of the course. So the parents are taking them through the course by reading parts of it to them, and then discussing the logical issues in those passages. Later, when these children are old enough and are reading at a high school level, the parents will teach the course to them again—fully. It’s a very good strategy, and it gives the kids a fine head start.

Q: There are several different types of illogical arguments?

A: About ten basic ones.

Q: Certain patterns of illogical argument emerge and you can recognize these patterns?

A: Exactly. I once had a student who worked for a big company. He was on the receiving end of many reports from a particular manager. After studying logic, the student was able to see that this manager was making the same basic illogical argument over and over, in different situations. He was costing the company a great deal of money.

Q: On the whole, would you say that people who offer illogical information are unable to see what they’re doing, or are they intentionally trying to deceive others?

A: Mainly, these people who chronically commit logical errors are uneducated—they don’t know logic. They’re struggling along in the best way they can. But a surprising number of people are just trying to sell their own personal bias. They’re slanting things intentionally to fit that bias. It happens in politics all the time, but I can say from experience that it happens just as often in science, and in other fields. Economics, history, psychology, for example.

Q: And students who can see this clearly and specifically would be ahead of the game.

A: Such students would have a towering advantage.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me at “qjrconsulting [at] gmail [dot] com”.

Here is the course outline:

The course has 18 classroom sessions. The last two sessions are the final exam and the teacher’s step-by-step review of the exam.

The teacher’s manual explains how every lesson is laid out.

EVERY CLASSROOM LESSON IS FILLED WITH EXAMPLES THAT ARE STUDIED BY THE STUDENT, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE TEACHER.

LESSON 1: The student learns how generalizations and vague terms can infect the reasoning process and make it useless and misleading. What is a generalization? What is a vague generalization? What is a vague term? Examples are studied. Vague terms and generalizations are the most common errors found in the reasoning process.

LESSON 2: The student learns to analyze several traditional logical fallacies that occur in a line of reasoning. These fallacies are shown in many examples. They are concise and clear. These are the flaws first described by Aristotle in ancient Greece.

LESSON 3: The student now begins to examine actual passages of text that contain multiple logical errors. The passages are short. With the teacher’s guidance., the student comes to see how these passages are misleading. This lesson is the groundwork for everything that is to come in the course.

LESSON 4: The student tackles a whole host of text passages that contain logical flaws. These passages illustrate such fallacies as: polemic; attacking the person rather than the argument; vague terms; inappropriate analogy; “sales pitch”; omission of vital information; circular reasoning.

LESSONS 5-16: The student now embarks on the analysis of six much longer and more complex text passages. Each long passage is studied for two classroom sessions. These passages resemble news stories, political promotion, internet journalism, science press releases—in other words, just the sort of material we all come across every day. The teacher has the students take apart each passage and offer up the errors they find; then, the teacher explains ALL the errors.

In my audio files that accompanies the teacher’s manual, I go through each of these long passages and describe the errors contained in them.

Lessons 5-16 are the core of the course. The student gains confidence in being able to dissect, SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL, realistic written material that contains multiple logical errors. Step by step, passage by passage, the student learns how to find the flaws and see through the misdirection.

LESSONS 17 AND 18: The student takes the final exam. In it, the student examines a new long text passage and writes down all the SPECIFIC errors he/she can find. Then, after grading the exams, the teacher gives, in the last class, a detailed analysis of the exam passage.

The teacher’s manual is very complete. It contains every passage contained in the course–and a detailed explanation of how the major passages are flawed. Essentially, the teacher studies the manual, listens to the audio files of me breaking down the text passeges, and then teaches the course.

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

Here are the contents of my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

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.

Socialism: opiate of the masses

Sep1

Socialism: opiate of the masses

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2017

Let’s get something straight. There is no pure form of socialism, where “the government owns the means of production.”

The means of production own the government, and vice versa. It’s always collusion. Elite power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.

Socialism can be done with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.

In 1966, Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope, wrote: “The Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] is the American branch of a society which originated in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”

You could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship—it doesn’t matter. For the sake of brevity, I’ll call it socialism.

At street level (not within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist “solution” either has no idea who installs it and runs it, or he astonishingly believes “the government” can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.

Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom of populations. They want to impose those limits.

Hope and Change, the slogan of the former US president, was perfect for street-level socialists. It was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.

Colleges—or as I call them, Academies of Great Generalities—have been turning out these fantasists by the ton. “If I feel it, it must be true and good.”

One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man named James Kunen. But smarter by far than most of his comrades, he wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary. A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:

“…at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables—the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government—tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.”

“…They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”

Rockefeller elites moving to the political Left? What?

Look at it this way. If you’re a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to sell your con? The “Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)”, or the “we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government (Rightist)”?

Since any brand of rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place—global control—you’re going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.

It’s simply a matter of workability and expedience.

That’s why the lingo of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.

That’s the only reason.

If a Rockefeller operative could use, to good effect, tales of enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.

In 1928, the historian Oswald Spengler wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that [operation has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”

Is there a college anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false trails laid down by elite deceivers.

David Rockefeller, writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: “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.”

Of course, Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his “one-world” cause. He never admitted the notions of “social justice” and “equality” were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.

If he had come clean, victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and controlling them.

The sought–after global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.

“Thanks for your help. Now that we’ve won, you’re under the gun. Our gun.”

Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, etc.) The corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they’re proponents of “digital socialism,” which they ludicrously define as open access to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can’t eat a YouTube video for a breakfast they can’t afford.

This nonsensical fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top, who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate competition. Share and care doesn’t apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their lesser rivals can’t obtain.

“We love everyone and care about everyone, but don’t challenge us. We’re the bosses. We own the game.”

The tech giants want much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance State.

They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are “data-points” to be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is constructed.

Notions of fairness, equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive operation.

Some might say this version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.

But they would be wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist “political philosophy” was never anything more than paper-thin propaganda.

It was a nothing made into something.

It falls apart and blows away, and the skull-grin of control comes into view. The same grin existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.

Only the language of the sellers to the buyers has changed.

Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung), founding father and ruler of Communist China, openly declared: “Socialism…must have a dictatorship, it will not work without it.” Mao didn’t beat around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make sure, he killed them.

But don’t worry, be happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world—as long as citizens willingly give up their independence.

For example, you could opt for Tony Blair’s vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million dead), but on the bright side, he didn’t massacre huge numbers of his own people. In 1983, Tony stated:

“I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.”

I’ll let you try to translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words “rational,” “moral,” “co-operation,” “fellowship,” “equality in our economic circumstances,” and run them to ground. Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and regulations would flow from them.

Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is appearing earnest and sincere.

He shares that attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They’ve learned their tricks at the feet of mentors, and you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.

“We’re not Stalin, we’re not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We’re all in this together. There’s a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work.”

Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, “I feel your pain.”

No one heard him say, under his breath, “Of course, I pay no attention to feelings.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Matrix Revealed: Why logic disappeared

Aug31

Matrix Revealed: Why logic disappeared

by Jon Rappoport

August 31, 2017

Over the past year, I’ve been in communication with several teachers who are telling me about the descent into more social programming in school classrooms.

From so-called environmental agendas, to discussions about gender orientation and choice of gender identity, to sex education, to teaching about “liberalism,” the indoctrination is getting thicker and deeper.

This whole mind-engineering approach would suffer a devastating blow if logic were introduced into the curriculum, particularly at an early age.

One prime factor becomes clear the moment a student explores logic as a formal subject. That factor is THE PREMISE.

Deductive arguments begin from premises, also known as assumptions or givens.

Although logic focuses on the process of reasoning launched from the premises, there is no way to avoid looking at these basic assumptions, once the student learns how to find them.

“Is this premise true?” “Does it make sense?”

And then all bets are off, because social programming is short on reasoning and long on givens.

That’s how mind-programming is done—by pouring assumptions into the student.

Once he begins to look at them, study them, consider them, assess them, he is SEPARATE FROM THEM.

He can then gauge their truth or falsity.

He can decide whether they’re grounded in fact, or are merely arbitrary notions designed to forward an ideology.

At that point, the roof caves in on the programmers.

This is one reason I designed a basic introductory logic course for high-school students and included it in my collection, The Matrix Revealed.

Students should have the opportunity to experience analyzing passages of text. They should learn what that process does for them, how it wakes them up and eventually makes them independent.

Educators are aware that treading on the path of logic endangers what they are covertly putting into students’ heads.

That’s why logic has disappeared.

That’s why it needs to come back.

Shepherded by parents.

Every home is a civilization.

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

Here are the contents of my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

Chemical-dosing experiment to force friendship toward migrants: not science fiction

Aug30

Chemical-dosing experiment to force friendship toward migrants: not science fiction

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2017

I really hope you understand this.

It is not a fantasy. It isn’t science fiction. It isn’t satire.

It is Brave New World, but not the Huxley novel. It’s happening now.

It’s a new published study that appears on the website of the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The title of the study is, “Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection.”

Xenophobia is defined as: “fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers.” (Dictionary.com)

Oxytocin, the chemical used in this study, is described by Medical News Today: “Widely referred to as the love hormone, oxytocin has also been dubbed the hug hormone, cuddle chemical, moral molecule, and the bliss hormone due to its effects on behavior, including its role in love and in female reproductive biological functions in reproduction.”

“Oxytocin is a hormone that is made in the brain, in the hypothalamus. It is transported to, and secreted by, the pituitary gland, which is located at the base of the brain.”

“In chemistry, oxytocin is classed as a nonapeptide (a peptide containing nine amino acids), while its biological classification is as a neuropeptide. It acts both as a hormone and as a brain neurotransmitter.”

The published study details a successful attempt at chemical mind control. The goal is making people more “happy and friendly” about mass migration, by changing their hormonal response toward migrants.

Nothing in the study cites inherent migration problems, such as increased violent crime, back-breaking financial pressure on government budgets, and the eroding of local cultures. It’s all about shifting feeling and reaction toward waves of immigrants.

Here are extensive quotes from the new study:

“Here we report the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment showing that enhanced activity of the oxytocin system paired with charitable social cues can help counter the effects of xenophobia by fostering altruism toward refugees. These findings suggest that the combination of oxytocin and peer-derived altruistic norms [social cues] reduces outgroup rejection even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals, and thereby would be expected to increase the ease by which people adapt to rapidly changing social ecosystems [mass immigration].”

“Never before have individuals had to adapt to social environments defined by such magnitudes of ethnic diversity and cultural differentiation. However, neurobiological evidence informing about strategies to reduce xenophobic sentiment and foster altruistic cooperation with outsiders is scarce. In a series of experiments settled in the context of the current refugee crisis, we tested the propensity of 183 Caucasian participants to make donations to people in need, half of whom were refugees (outgroup) and half of whom were natives (ingroup). Participants scoring low on xenophobic attitudes [already accepting toward immigrants] exhibited an altruistic preference for the outgroup, which further increased after nasal delivery of the neuropeptide oxytocin. In contrast, participants with higher levels of xenophobia generally failed to exhibit enhanced altruism toward the outgroup. This tendency was only countered by pairing oxytocin with peer-derived altruistic norms [social cues], resulting in a 74% increase in refugee-directed donations. Collectively, these findings reveal the underlying sociobiological conditions associated with outgroup-directed altruism by showing that charitable social cues co-occurring with enhanced activity of the oxytocin system reduce the effects of xenophobia by facilitating prosocial behavior toward refugees.”

Here is the study’s basic backgrounder: “At this time, we are witnessing one of the largest movements of refugees since the end of World War II (1, 2). Ongoing conflicts, persecution, and poverty in the Middle East and Africa have continued forced displacement of more than 65 million people since 2015 (2). Accommodating the large influx of migrants not only challenges the humanitarian capacities of European countries but also requires their native populations to adjust to rapid growths in ethnic diversity, religious pluralism, and cultural differentiation. However, the impetus to adapt to changing social ecosystems is susceptible to considerable interindividual heterogeneity (3). Resistance to this transition often goes along with xenophobic sentiment (4), and as a consequence, recent elections in Europe have favored populist candidates who have openly expressed xenophobic attitudes toward refugees (5). However, at the same time, volunteer work for migrants in the hosting countries has reached all-time highs and is estimated to exceed 1.6 million hours per month in Germany alone (6). In the face of growing tensions over differences in ethnicity, religion, and culture (3), there is an urgent need for devising strategies for helping foster the social integration of refugees into Caucasian societies.”

The truly disturbing and mind-boggling aspect of this study is: many people would accept it as a reasonable way to “solve” the migrant crisis.

Forget about the actual effects of immigration. They’re irrelevant. Instead, focus on re-shaping people’s minds, through chemical intervention.

The authors of the mind-control study are basically saying, “If you have a problem with mass immigration, the problem has nothing to do with facts. It only has to do with your hormone system. Basically, you have a deficit of oxytocin.”

I have written many articles about the effects of philosophic materialism, including its conclusion that humans are merely biological machines and, therefore, can be manipulated at will by “those in charge.”

“Free will? A delusion. Individual choice? Unacceptable. Humans are inherently programmed in every respect, and badly programmed at that. The central flaws must be fixed. Humans must be reconfigured so they automatically respond to stimuli in new ways. ‘More humane ways’.”

Lost in this study, as well, are the effects of dosing with oxytocin on a person’s overall hormone system. You don’t suddenly ramp up one hormone without changing levels of others—testosterone, for example. But who cares, when the social and political goal must be attained? If men become more passive in the process, why not?

Perhaps that notion will be the formation of the next study. “Let’s cut testosterone and see what happens. How much of it do we need to reduce before men just lie around and play with toys and dolls?”

Interestingly enough, the authors of the study never considered dosing male immigrants of military age with the oxytocin “love hormone.” Heaven forbid. That would be “interfering in their culture.”

That’s called a clue.

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

Jon Rappoport

Exclusive: mind-boggling FDA confession about the smallpox vaccine

Aug30

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

The FDA has just released a statement (8/28) about its crackdown on a California company pushing an unapproved treatment for cancer patients: stem cells mixed with a smallpox vaccine.

But that’s not the big story. The big story is buried in the FDA press release. Here is the Agency’s statement:

“Serious health problems, including those that are life-threatening, can also occur in…people who…have problems with their heart or immune system if they become infected with the [smallpox] vaccine virus, either by being vaccinated or by being in close contact with a person who was vaccinated.”

The FDA states that those with certain prior health conditions who pick up the smallpox virus, as a result of vaccination, are at exceptionally high risk. AMONG THOSE PRIOR HEALTH CONDITIONS IS: “IMMUNE SYSTEM PROBLEMS.”

That simply means weak and compromised immune systems.

And yet…during the years 1966-1980, a massive smallpox eradication campaign was carried out in Africa, under the auspices of the World Health Organization. Roughly 100 million doses of the smallpox vaccine were given to Africans, MANY OF WHOM ALREADY HAD COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS.

How much devastation was wrought by this vaccination campaign?

The World Health Organization, in 1980, celebrated the eradication of smallpox on the African continent—but was that what really happened?

Or was it this? The visible signs of smallpox receded, but people with already-compromised immune systems began dying in large numbers.

The FDA has just unwittingly implied what researchers have known for decades; the so-called smallpox eradication campaign in Africa was one of the most dangerous medical interventions in history.

In the late 1980s, a respected biologist with close knowledge of the Africa eradication campaign, told me, off the record, that after the World Health Organization celebrated their “victory,” they held a very secret meeting in Geneva.

At this meeting, it was decided that the smallpox vaccine they deployed in Africa would never be used again.

I asked him why.

Because it caused cases of smallpox, he said.

So the African eradication campaign had a double effect. In some people, the vaccine caused smallpox, which it was supposed to prevent. In others, who already had very weak immune systems, it wrought extreme devastation and death without giving the appearance of smallpox.

More lies, more widespread destruction from the vaccine establishment.

(For more on this topic, see Enormous basic lies about vaccination…)

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

Jon Rappoport

The trial of John Doe vs. [Censored]

Aug29

by Jon Rappoport

August 29, 2017

The trial took place in a quiet empty room, in an underground bunker, at an undisclosed location in [Censored].

The Judge sat behind a high table. John Doe stood below him.

Judge: You are John Doe? You have a website called Doe Doe?

Doe: Yes, Your Honor. May I know your name?

Judge: Of course. It’s Judge.

Doe: That’s your title.

Judge: It’s also my name.

Doe: You’re Judge Judge?

Judge: Correct. Now, let’s get down to business. You’re the author of an article you posted on your site. The title of the article was, “A Catalog of Sexual Assaults and Other Crimes Committed by Migrants in [Censored], 2015-2017.” The subtitle was, “Soaring Migrant Crime Rate Is a National Disaster—[Censored] Women Fear for Their Safety.”

Doe: Yes.

Judge: How did you assemble this “catalog?”

Doe: I cited articles in the [Censored] press. I obtained access to police reports in [Censored]. I interviewed over two hundred citizens and their families. I interviewed law-enforcement officials.

Judge: You traveled to [Censored].

Doe: Correct.

Judge: And as you were exiting the country, you were detained by [Censored] Customs and Immigration and told your visa was canceled and you were banned from returning to the country.

Doe: That’s true.

Judge: That’s certainly a black mark against you.

Doe: I don’t see it that way. The government didn’t want me to accumulate all that information and spread it.

Judge: You’re aware of a foundation called “Anti-Hate-Crime Speech?”

Doe: I am.

Judge: The foundation was formed by GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTubeFooFooShooShooAmazonStarbucksMerckTheCIA
FoundationForBetterLiving and 167 other groups.

Doe: So I understand.

Judge: And several of those groups canceled your donation account, de-monetized your videos, deleted your site from six search engines, and convinced a local delivery service to stop bringing pizza to your house.

Doe: Right.

Judge: You’re accused of hate speech against immigrants.

Doe: I published facts. I wasn’t speaking against anyone off the cuff.

Judge: But that’s how it was interpreted. Your article was incendiary, because it inspired a negative view of immigration.

Doe: Inspired? I wrote facts. How others took those facts was their business.

Judge: It’s a question of the greater good. Exposing a few cases of wrongdoing versus alarming and biasing a whole population.

Doe: There is another element. Suppressing important information. Keeping people from seeing what’s happening to their communities and their nation.

Judge: Hate speech cannot be tolerated.

Doe: Who says it’s hate speech?

Judge: A non-profit in Alabama. Two media outlets. They’ve been hired by the Anti-Hate-Crime Speech Foundation to scour articles and identify hate.

Doe: Well, they’re wrong.

Judge: They can’t be wrong.

Doe: Why not?

Judge: Because they’re authorities.

Doe: According to whom?

Judge: These groups are setting a standard. Someone has to.

Doe: How about someone else setting a standard?

Judge: Who would that be?

Doe: The point is, I was exercising my 1st Amendment rights.

Judge: Your what?

Doe: I have a right to speak and write.

Judge: Not if it upsets the good order of the community and causes suffering on the part of people associated with those you accuse of committing serious crimes.

Doe: I disagree. And why shouldn’t I disturb “the good order” if the order is ill-advised and based on the fear of speaking out?

Judge: Let me explain something, Mr. Doe. You have created a generality of hatred.

Doe: A what?

Judge: By publishing your article, you created a generality of negative reaction against a whole group.

Doe: I reported facts, not generalities.

Judge: What you reported can’t be divorced from the effect it had on other people.

Doe: Of course it can. My work didn’t have an automatic effect on other people. They inferred whatever they inferred from my article.

Judge: The overriding principle is: everything is connected to everything.

Doe: You lost me there, sir.

Judge: Everyone in this world is connected and interdependent. Therefore, whatever you do spreads like ink on a blotter.

Doe: How can that be? I gathered specific facts. Those facts don’t apply to all people.

Judge: That’s the old view of things. Now we know that all of us are together as One. A charge against a few is a charge against many.

Doe: That’s illogical. It’s also dangerous. If what you’re saying were true, no one could speak out…

Judge: But you see, there is an important exception to the general rule. I have a list of groups. Certain groups are protected against accusation or slander. Other groups may be accused. In fact, they must be accused.

Doe: Where did you get the list?

Judge: From our leaders.

Doe: Our who?

Judge: Leaders. The people who have knowledge of these matters. The people who understand history. The people who are—

Doe: I see. I exposed certain members of a group that can’t be accused.

Judge: Correct.

Doe: This is over-complicated. I come back to the principle of free speech.

Judge: There is no such principle. At one time, there may have been, but not anymore.

Doe: You’re losing me again, sir.

Judge: It’s quite simple, really.

At this point, six men in black masks holding rifles and burning torches entered the room. One of the men said, “This proceeding is over. We are [Censored]. We have taken the sacred oath of [Censored]. We are cells of the body of the Soros.

Judge: Welcome. Was your oath the [Censored]?

Masked Man: Yes.

Judge: I, too, have taken the oath of the [Censored]. We are One. What message do you bring?

Masked Man: Our leader instructs us to tell you that the defendant, John Doe, is to be sentenced to six days without food or water in the burning desert of [Censored], after which he will be transported to a re-education camp in [Censored], where he will undergo a one-year period of [Censored]. This is the Word.

Judge: I see. Very well. My sentence is thusly made.

Doe: You take orders from these men, Your Honor?

Judge: These men and I are not separate. We are One.

Doe: How did that happen?

Judge: Once upon a time, we were losers. Now we are winners. We overthrew the old order and instituted a new one.

Doe: That must have taken a great deal of planning.

Judge: Decades. More.

Doe: Why haven’t I heard about it?

Judge: Because you are one of those people who would have tried to expose our agenda. Suffice it to say, we worked in secret. We introduced chaos. As just one strategy of many, and I only mention it because it’s one of my favorites, we introduced, into the culture, a long series of absurd rulings and situations that defy logic and rationality. Such rulings paralyze the mind. The mind retreats. It becomes passive. Quiescent. A grandmother grows vegetables on her lawn. She is hauled into court and prosecuted for defacing the appearance of the neighborhood. A child brings a pastry to school and bites it into the shape of what might look like a gun. The child is suspended. Colleges offer rooms with dolls and hot chocolate to students who are triggered by a pronoun. A college student council decides that all white people are demons and must be excluded from decision-making roles. A four-year-old child is encouraged to talk with his parents about the child’s “choice” to change his gender. A manual used by elementary school teachers suggests discussions on all possible forms of sexual intercourse, even sex with animals. Parents are told their vaccinated children are protected from disease, but must not play with unvaccinated children, because then they could get sick, even though they are protected. A state which is in debt to the tune of half a trillion dollars proposes accepting immigrants without limit and giving them many government services without charge. Any politician who speaks with a Russian faces a potential charge of trading with the enemy. Do I need to go on? Over time, one fantastic and absurd thing after another is piled up upon the consciousness of the public, until the insanity reaches to the sky. What is the effect of all that? The befuddled public surrenders and becomes passive. And then we come in behind that and impose our agenda.

Masked Man: Enough. We will remove the defendant now and take him to [Censored].

Judge: Of course.

Doe: So I’m not really guilty.

Judge: You are what we say you are. That overrides all questions of guilt or innocence. There is no more guilt or innocence. There are only rulings. For centuries, guilt and innocence have been twisted by men in power to suit their own ends. We have stopped that. We have stopped the corruption. Now we make decisions based on the greater good. We are the pure ones. We have no agenda except service to the people.

Doe: You’re destroyers.

Judge: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Doe: You’re going to lose.

Judge: Why is that, Mr. Doe?

Doe: You’ll go too far. You have no idea what people will do when you put them against the wall. That passivity you spoke of is going to evaporate.

Judge: We will see. We will see.

Doe: Are you even human?

Judge: Of course I am. Do you think I’m AI android number 3012-6-B, third generation, extruded at Factory [Censored], produced by [Censored] in accordance with regulations under the [Censored] code of [Censored]…?

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

Jon Rappoport

Socialism: thick lipstick on a global pig

Aug29

Socialism: thick lipstick on a global pig

by Jon Rappoport

August 29, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except in the specifics of its updated lies, it is just another form of top-down tyranny—as old as the hills.

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

—As if blindness were a reason not to worry.

As you can see from the elements of socialism I’ve listed above, America is moving more and more into the socialist orbit.

Protesting that America is, instead, a system of greed and inequality is merely saying that the central government is protecting certain corporations and favored persons.

The real and true definition of socialism accounts for that favoritism and protection.

SOCIALISM WAS NEVER ABOUT UNIVERSAL EQUALITY AND UNIVERSAL SHARING.

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

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

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

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

The raving of a madman.

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

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

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

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

Here is a relevant backgrounder I recently wrote about private property—

Once private property is abolished, the socialist crime bosses win. They build their heaven on earth, which means they can take what they want and run civilization, top-down. They can keep saying nobody owns anything, but in fact they own it all. They execute this squeeze play as if they were messiahs eradicating the prime evil: private ownership. This is such a preposterous stage play that, in a sane society, it would close down after one night.

Newsflash: There is a difference between an idea and the way that idea is applied in practice.

For example, certain groups will take the idea of freedom and interpret it to mean, “We have the freedom to steal everything we can.”

Based on this practice, many people will claim freedom was always a failed and corrupt idea at the core. This is wrong, absurd, and dim. Very dim.

In the same way, the idea of private property can certainly be twisted to mean, “I, an elite banker, will steal what you have, make it my own, and then declare it is my property, over which I have control.”

But the idea of private property remains independent of what people will do to distort it. A child used to be able to see this.

Centuries of struggle resulted in a shift from monarchs and priest classes owning all available land, to individuals having the right to own land.

Once that principle was firmly established, groups immediately tried to modify the principle to their advantage.

In 1776, a group called the Illuminati declared its existence in Bavaria. One of its guiding ideas was: the abolition of all private property. That concept traveled down to Karl Marx and the Communist agenda.

Private property was called an inherent crime. Instead, the people/everybody would own all property. This garbled incoherent pronouncement would be backed up by the ruling government, who would act as stewards for the masses—meaning the government would take control of all property until such time as the people evolved to the point where the State was unnecessary.

As a straight con, it was very weak. A two-bit hustler on a street corner with a folding table and three cards could see through it in a second.

The people evolving? The State withering away on its own? Equality defined as everybody owning everything?

Of course, if people injected their own utopian fantasies into the mix, if people assumed the government was a beneficent force for good, if people assumed there was an “everybody” operating unanimously, if people fantasized about a history of peaceful tribes (who fought wars against each other) gracefully abdicating the whole notion of individual property…well then, yes, the abolition of private property became a marvelous proposition.

In the light of day, however, with a clear mind, the idea was terrible. It was quite insane. It signaled a transfer of property from the individual to power-mad lunatics.

Needless to say, this idea of no-private-property is alive and well on planet Earth today. We are in another round of fantasy-drenched propaganda.

In a nutshell, the threat of pure private property is: it establishes individual rights that stand against the unchecked force of the government-corporate-banking nexus. It implies the individual is free, independent, and the ruler of what he owns.

To which the addled mind replies: “But suppose a person is polluting his land and the poison is running beyond his borders and endangering others?”

Well, that is called a crime. It should be prosecuted. It should be stopped.

The fact that it is often ignored doesn’t negate the whole assumption of private property. It points to the corruption of public officials who refuse to prosecute the protected and favored offender.

Here is utopia laid bare: the government and its partners, who are doing everything they can to limit, squash, and outlaw the individual right to own property, are the same force that is acting as the wondrous representative of all the people. Surrender to this force; give it power to appropriate all property and hold it in trust, for that day when the population has risen to enlightenment, when the open sharing of “everything” is a natural impulse. Then victory will be ours.

Not the iron fist. The open helping hand. Not the hammer. The smiling guide. Not the monarch. The servant of humanity.

If you buy that one, I have waterfront condos for sale on Jupiter’s four moons. No terms. Cash up front. Construction begins in 2058. Promise.

The Homeowners Association actually owns the condos and the land. They are a subsidiary of the Jupiter Government Authority. There are rules. No flags of any kind flying from porches. No privately owned electricity generators. No growing of vegetables or fruit on the land. No weapons. Domiciles must be shared with migrants arriving from Earth. The migrants are given beds, meals, and clothing. Possessions are shared. The prime directive: everything belongs to everybody.

Power to the people.

Any alert mind blows apart this delusional nightmare in a minute.

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

Jon Rappoport

Forgotten history: US bankers financing US enemies—and why it is important now

Aug28

by Jon Rappoport

August 28, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

Over the years, several million copies have been sold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“After the Bolshevik Revolution, Standard [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, they are the real target of the Globalists, who want to neutralize and disperse them and make them passive and demoralized.

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

Jon Rappoport

To Trump: how to win the war in Afghanistan

Aug28

by Jon Rappoport

August 28, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Win the war in Afghanistan? Impossible, you say?

Dear Mr. Trump: it can be done, I assure you.

There is a pattern. It’s tried and true. It’s been tested in America for decades. So let’s rely on this accumulated wisdom and put it to good use. Finally.

Ready?

Buckle up. This doesn’t need an executive summary. It isn’t a position paper. It’s an all-out attack. Let’s roll!

From hundreds of planes, drop fast food all over Afghanistan. Burgers. Fishsticks. McMuffins. Legs, breasts, wings—two weeks of chicken done right. It’s a good intro. Lightens everybody up a little. Hey, they’ve been cooking vulture over yak excrement for centuries. They’ll love the change. And the numerous chemicals in the food will begin to slow them down. That’s a given.

Then, from those same planes—candy! Fifty thousand tons of gum drops, jelly beans, Almond Joy, Reese. Hell, Reese all by itself is unstoppable.

Sugar! You’re telling me people can resist sugar? They’ll be scooping that stuff up off the frozen ground. In high mountain areas, tribes live on lichen. All of a sudden, here come 20 colors of Reaganesque jelly beans out of the sky!

Give them enough sugar, and they’ll be running in circles one minute and lying back and napping the next. It’s chemical determinism.

A month of heavenly candy.

Then next, a million cases of various diet sodas dumped out of our planes. Aspartame! Weird those dudes out. Three months, and they won’t be able to find their way back to their yurts. They’ll be bumping into rocks and trees, howling at the moon.

Now comes the heavy action. It takes a little longer. After installing an Afghan wireless grid, carpet bomb the joint with cell phones and iPads. Beam in Soaps, Judge Judy, Rachel Ray, Fallon and Colbert, Oprah, Little House on the Prairie reruns, Law and Order, and yes—sports! Soccer, and, of course, women’s beach volleyball! Kidding me? Amazons wearing G-strings running and leaping on sand, hour after hour?

“Hey, dude, it’s time for the Friday night tribe meeting.”

“Shh! First, two hours of Hermosa Beach Women’s Finals. Then Victoria and Billy just adopted a baby. She can’t have kids. Billy paid two million for a little girl. But it’s actually Daisy’s baby. Nobody knows it.”

The fabric of Afghan society comes apart at the seams.

US planes fly over with a few million cases of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin. Open the bomb-bay doors. Drop those suckers right down the slot. And tranqs! Valium! Old stocks of Librium. Opioids.

On the ground, pills and capsules everywhere. You can’t walk by without picking a few up and swallowing them. It’s another law of nature.

You’ve got the whole country hooked on meds. They’re weaving and wobbling and gnashing their teeth, when they aren’t completely zoned. A suicide problem begins to develop.

And finally comes the coup de grace. Porn programming! Linda Lovelace, Marilyn Chambers, Amber Lynn, John Holmes, Ron Jeremy, Suzi Suzuki, Rick Masters. The classics.

Dudes in Kabul and up in the Hindu Kush are eating Butterfingers, downing Zoloft, and getting their vicarious porn freak on. A certain amount of internecine murder is expected, to say nothing of what happens when the WOMEN get hold of the porn files for their own private viewing…

All this, in a matter of a year or two, will totally destroy the Afghan culture, such as it is. You see, Mr. Trump, we’ve got weapons we didn’t know we had. Real weapons!

So we let all this simmer for a while. We let things take their natural course. We’re already out of there. Not a single US casualty is being sustained.

And then, just to make sure we have the entire country enveloped and warped beyond repair, the CIA begins to beam, through all those cell phones and iPads—take a deep breath—ready?—the AFGHAN HOME SHOPPING NETWORK!

Boom!

Oh yes, Mr. Trump, where there’s a will, there’s a way. The Afghan people don’t have money? They’ll find money! They’ll sell each other if they have to! They’ll pawn their old muskets and CIA supplied weapons and take out second mortgages on their shacks and huts and yurts.

The Afghan Home Shopping Network won’t be denied. Shampoos, soap on a rope, shower caps, earrings, toe rings, rugs, couches, square-dance instruction CDs, food storage containers, kitchen knives, scarves, fans, belts, undies, shelving, shoes, pet food, bird houses, pot holders, battery-operated hair dryers, perfume, books on tape, storage containers, stockings, lipstick, eye shadow, bathrobes, bracelets…

Victory.

Absolute conquest.

And not a shot fired.

And after the whole population has developed MAJOR symptoms from this all-out campaign, send in the doctors and the shrinks, so they can diagnose! Diagnose diseases and illnesses and disorders from here to Sunday—and they’ll prescribe more toxic drugs! And vaccines, of course, which push compromised immune systems over the edge of the cliff.

It’s a party.

America does to the Afghans what it’s done to itself.

Because you see, that’s the pattern. America knows it intimately, because America has bought into it.

America is already that kind of society. Who better to impose it on another population?

There you have it, Mr. Trump. Bang-bang. The formula and the game plan for an ultimate takedown.

Throughout history, no one has ever really won a war in Afghanistan.

You’ll be the first.

You can preen and swagger and congratulate yourself.

You can declare victory.

Your generals may not like it, but who cares? They won’t be able to deny the outcome.

And Congress? Hardly worth a mention.

They’re already drugged to the gills with prescription meds, right?

You like slam-dunks, don’t you, Mr. Trump?

This is the big one.

Big, bigger, biggest.

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

Jon Rappoport

Antony Sutton, Skull&Bones, Hitler, the Bush family

Aug27

Antony Sutton, Skull&Bones, Hitler, the Bush family

by Jon Rappoport

August 27, 2017

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 (see also my additional piece here). 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 [Corporation] 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 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.

(This Dutch TV production is on YouTube in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2)

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? 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 collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

FAQ on Rappoport Logic & Analysis Course

Socialism: opiate of the masses

Matrix Revealed: Why logic disappeared

Chemical-dosing experiment to force friendship toward migrants: not science fiction

Exclusive: mind-boggling FDA confession about the smallpox vaccine

The trial of John Doe vs. [Censored]

Socialism: thick lipstick on a global pig

Forgotten history: US bankers financing US enemies—and why it is important now

To Trump: how to win the war in Afghanistan

Antony Sutton, Skull&Bones, Hitler, the Bush family