What law says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

What law says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

To the US Congress: reveal the contents of the TPP now

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

It seems like a case of mass hypnosis. People claiming they can’t say what’s in the TPP trade agreement. And mainstream media accept this premise.

“That’s right. Congress must stay silent.”

Pop quiz: who says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

Under what authority?

Members of Congress are scuttling around like weasels, claiming they can’t disclose what’s in this far-reaching, 12-nation trade treaty.

They can go into a sealed room and read a draft, but they can’t copy pages, and they can’t tell the public what they just read.

Why not?

If there is a US law forbidding disclosure, name the law.

Can you recall anything in the Constitution that establishes secret treaties?

Is there a prior treaty that states the text of all treaties can be hidden from the people?

I see no authority anywhere that justifies withholding the text of the TPP.

Government legislators in the other 11 nations: why can’t you reveal what’s in the TPP?

Mass silence around the world. “Sorry, we can’t say what’s in the treaty. We’ll vote on it, but you the people have no input. You have to take what we do on faith.”

Who says so? By what authority?

If a US Senator held a press conference today and explained everything he read in that sealed room about the TPP, what exactly would happen to him? Would he be arrested?

Would he be charged with a federal crime?

What crime?

If he used his cell phone to take pictures of pages of the TPP, and came out of the room and sent the pictures to 500 press outlets, what would happen?

Would the DOJ roll a few tanks up to his house and put him in cuffs? Would he be placed on trial?

If so, on what charge?

Would the trial itself be secret?

Or would everyone suddenly look at each other and say, “We never realized it before, but the emperor has no clothes!”

What would happen if a Senator went into the sealed room, picked up the whole TPP text or the laptop on which it’s stored, bulled his way out of the room, passed the text to his security staff, and had them forward every page to a few hundred media outlets around the world?

Would DHS agents shoot these people in broad daylight, just to protect the interests of David Rockefeller and his Globalist heavy hitters?

Why haven’t the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, the BBC and other outlets run major stories that detail under what precise authority the TPP text is being kept secret?

What are we missing here?

power outside the matrix

Is it simply that a bunch of national leaders and corporate big shots and trade representatives nodded and said: “Keep the text a secret”?

Did they arbitrarily give the TPP negotiating process a name, a label, with the word “authority” in it?

I just met with myself and decided to establish The Naked TPP Authority. I gave it primacy over all other negotiating bodies, and by its declaration, the full text of the TPP must be published for the whole world to see, for two years, before any further votes take place.

There. It’s done.

I fully believe my Naked Authority carries more Constitutional justification than the current scheme, which is clearly criminal.

US Congressman: “I’m sorry, my lips are sealed, I’m bound, I can’t reveal what’s in the treaty that will adversely affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people.”

“Wrong. You’re lying. You can reveal secret text. In fact, it’s your duty. Otherwise, you’re guilty of cooperating in a RICO criminal conspiracy. Now, let’s start at the beginning. Who told you that you had to remain silent? What US law did they cite? Take your time. We’ll stay here as long as it takes.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Nothing there about secret treaties. Nothing there about the President having the discretion to keep the text of treaties secret.

Of course, a President could argue that treaties, if exposed to the light of day prior to a Senate vote, would face so much criticism and cross-talk that they would never pass.

But that’s a practical issue and problem. It’s called “free speech.” It’s also sometimes called “dissent.”

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.

Corporate Gods: “Obama, remember why we hired you; ram the TPP through”

Corporate Gods: “Obama, remember why we hired you; ram the TPP through”

by Jon Rappoport

May 14, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP.” (Wikileaks)

“Since 1945, no American President has escaped vetting by elite Globalists. Partisan politics plays no role in this process. The one overriding issue of every Presidency has been: make sure Globalist legislation and treaties pass through to completion. Do not obstruct them. A little crooked President named Nixon got it in his head to erect anti-Globalist tariffs. He found himself on the floor looking up, with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller’s man, staring down at him, assuring him his days in the White House were over.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Obama is under the gun. Not since he pressured Congress, on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, to pass Obamacare, has he worked so hard and sweated so much.

The latest Globalist treaty, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), is on the table.

Elite mega-corporations all over the world, the Council on Foreign Relations (Rockefeller), the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission (Rockefeller) want the TPP to be ratified by the 12 member nations. They really want it. They insist on it.

Obama has run into Congressional roadblocks. They appear to be temporary, but make no mistake about it, he was put into office to bring this treaty to fruition. Failure is not an option.

Whatever Obama has to promise, to whomever he has to promise it, he’s making deals. Side deals, back room deals, upside down deals.

His masters don’t care that he’s a lame duck President at this point. Lame duck, waddling duck, it makes no difference. He’s got to come through.

And he knows it.

He also knows, because the TPP is another Globalist treaty, that more jobs will flee the US, more cheap imported goods will flood the US market from countries where slave wages prevail, where environmental laws aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. He knows those cheap goods will sink more American businesses.

He knows no private citizen anywhere in the world who doesn’t run a big corporation has read the contents of the TPP—and won’t read them before its passage.

Obama has had his marching orders for 10 years. He realized going in who his bosses were.

The Globalists don’t play games when it comes to a treaty like this. The TPP is their baby.

Remember Pelosi? She blew the whistle during the midnight negotiations on Obamacare. She said to her Congressional colleagues: “If you want to know what’s in the bill, you have to vote for it. Then you can read it.”

People began to wake up to the fact that, when thousand-page bills are on the table, legislators either can’t read them or choose not to. They just vote the way they’re told to.

So here is another one: the TPP. Congressional representatives have to go into a sealed room and read it. They can’t make copies. They can’t tell the public what’s in it.

Senator Rand Paul just went into the room. When he came out, he said he didn’t even know whether he’d read a draft or the final version.

He said he couldn’t disclose what was in the treaty. Why not? Who made that decision? Under what illegal authority are legislators prohibited from revealing the details of a treaty that will, when passed, bind all Americans and citizens of 11 other countries?

Leaks indicate that the TPP will set up private courts to rule on disputes between corporations and governments. For example, a foreign corporation tries to export a product to the US. They’re blocked. They appeal to this court. Relevant US law and US courts are ignored. Questions pertaining to environmental harm or toxicity re the product are decided in secret.

As Wikileaks notes, “Similar mechanisms have already been used. For example, US tobacco company Phillip Morris used one such tribunal to sue Australia (June 2011 – ongoing) for mandating plain packaging of tobacco products on public health grounds; and by the oil giant Chevron against Ecuador in an attempt to evade a multi-billion-dollar compensation ruling for polluting the environment. The threat of future lawsuits chilled environmental and other legislation in Canada after it was sued by pesticide companies in 2008/9. ISDS [Investor-State Dispute Settlement] tribunals are often held in secret, have no appeal mechanism, do not subordinate themselves to human rights laws or the public interest, and have few means by which other affected parties can make representations.”

Like GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA, the TPP is a Globalist treaty that expands the power of mega-corporations around the world. At will, they move their manufacturing operations to places where workers are virtual slaves. They sell goods across borders, without paying billions in tariffs, regardless of the effects on smaller competitors, who are torpedoed and forced out of business.

All treaties under consideration should be published in full, at least two years before member nations vote on them. Then we would have time to see and understand what’s in them.

The secret shroud surrounding the TPP is a criminal farce.

Mainstream media dupes are fond of saying that those who warn against global dictatorship are crazy conspiracy theorists.

Well, what do you call it when a secret treaty expanding the international power of mega-corporations is passed into law, when that law supersedes every other law and court of the member nations?

Would you call it “a good business decision?” “Employment enhancement?” “Smarter people helping the rest of us?”

In the US, Congressional legislators are prancing and dancing and fencing. They aren’t at all sure they know what’s in the TPP. But their debates are taken seriously, as if they actually mean something.

It’s the blind leading the blind leading the blind. But behind it all, the architects of the TPP are fully aware of the meaning and consequences of what they’re doing.

They plucked Barack Obama out of obscurity to carry out a job. This job. Passage of the treaty.

So much for “the leader representing the people.”

Ditto for the other 11 members of the TPP.

Puppet show. Shadow play.

Organized crime.

The TPP treaty is a kind of religious document. We have to take it on faith. We have to accept what the priests are telling us.

They’re our pipeline to the corporate gods.

The Matrix Revealed

I’ve quoted the following interview in previous articles. It reveals the kind of Globalist power I’m talking about.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two (Globalist/Rockefeller) Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of exactly who was formulating US economic and political policy, which would include trade treaties like the TPP.

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

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

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” edited by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview “slipped under the mainstream media radar,” which is to say, it was ignored, buried, sat on, censored.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, much later, was Obama’s mentor in the months before he was sworn in for his first term as President.

To inhale the scent of Obama’s approach to TPP negotiations, here is a quote from his first appointed US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk. Replying to his critics, Kirk wrote: “I am strongly offended by the assertion that our [TPP negotiating] process has been non-transparent and lacked public participation.”

This comment, in the face of the fact that the exact terms of the TPP are still secret.

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.

The taboo against paranormal experience is a taboo against freedom

The taboo against paranormal experience is a taboo against freedom.

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2015

Power Outside The Matrix

For those who want to examine a rigorous presentation of the paranormal, based on a long history of laboratory experiments, I recommend Dean Radin’s classic, The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. (HarperCollins, 1997)

This article is not about that.

It’s about a taboo.

On the one side, we have people who denigrate the possibility of the paranormal. On the other side, we have people who, ungrounded in the physical world, try to stage what amounts to a paranormal escape operation, only to fall back into their increasingly chaotic circumstances.

In the middle are persons who have genuinely experienced the paranormal, know it, feel no obsession to shout it from the rooftops, and go on with their lives.

With the rapid decay of organized religion throughout the 20th century, huge numbers of people felt a need to attach themselves to new and old ideologies proclaiming The Extraordinary was at hand. Assertions of paranormal import accompanied this faux revolution.

At the same time, 20th-century life was shaping up in a world of National Security States, and was all about citizen behaviorism, repression, operant conditioning, and various forms of mind control—aimed at curtailing the freedom to experience whatever might lie beyond the prescriptions and slogans of governments.

What exists outside a psychic prison defined by rabid consumerism, limited and false science, and pressure from peers to accept idealized and cartoonish middle-class imagery without question, without deviation?

What is paranormal?

Is it, in childhood, an ecstatic hour’s walk through a park on a summer afternoon, when every leaf, flower, and cloud is irresistible? When space itself is so present that every shred and iota of anxiety or confusion disappears?

Is it the foreshadowing moment when you know what a person is going to say next, how he is going to say it, how he is going to move, how he is going to look as he says it?

Is it the sudden realization that the entire realm and round of emotions you have been experiencing has vanished, leaving in its place an escalating joy that can’t be contained?

Is it in standing at a window, late at night, looking out at a city, possessed of a vision of what you most profoundly want to do for the rest of your life, realizing that you will, in fact, do it?

Is it in standing in a room, where a researcher is showing you a pack of photos, one of which a person, in another room, six miles away, has just tried to send you, telepathically—and knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt which photo it is?

Is it in getting out of bed in the morning and becoming aware that you, non-material you, exist forever?

Is it in watching a cat walk away from you, across a carpet, sending him a silent message to roll over, and watching him do it?

Is it in the easy and majestic silence you feel, after sitting on the floor and breathing in and out for a half-hour?

Is it in your child’s face?

The truth is, paranormal experiences are everywhere, and people have them. The experiences exceed the ordinary boundaries material reality.

They tend to lead to a new view about life, and they certainly go beyond societal tenets about what one is supposed to know and feel.

And yes, the waters are muddied by people who feel compelled to chime in and report experiences they only wish they had, hoping for badges of honor. But no matter.

In certain respects, this is, in fact a prison planet. Through upbringing, education, peer pressure, training, indoctrination, propaganda, citizens are expected to maintain “normal status.”

Steady-state normal.

No leaking of fuel, no blowing of gaskets.

Functional.

People condition themselves with the goal of fitting in.

It’s a grand stage play, and one picks a role and lives it out.

But one day something happens, and if you admit it, everything has changed.

What then? Do you continue to obey and subscribe to the taboo?

Or confess that the true normal is paranormal?

Do you tighten your grip on the card that identifies you as a citizen of the realm? Or do you drop it in a waste basket?

Do you cling to the old? Or do you opt for possibilities wider than you previously imagined and shove in all your chips on a new life?

The taboo against the non-ordinary is as old as the hills. In many cases, the establishment was a State religion, and the priest-class labeled paranormal experiences heretical witchery. Why? Because, of course, free consciousness, unburdened of church doctrine, was a threat to priestly power.

Modern science, with ridicule as its primary method, attacks the paranormal because it cuts too close to home. It tends to expose what science cannot explain.

For example: freedom.

power outside the matrix

Nowhere in the lexicon of conventional physics is there room for such a concept. The predetermined and inexorable flow of tiny particles is assumed to be everywhere at all times, even in the composition of the brain…and therefore, all thought and feeling and action, which stem from the brain, are predetermined and inexorable as well.

No choice. No freedom.

The absurdity of this notion is plain to anyone who can think.

If the brain and the body are just another collection of sub-atomic particles, then the capacity to make a free and independent choice about anything is null and void—unless the entity doing the choosing, YOU, is beyond those particles, beyond matter and energy.

When I say paranormal experience is everywhere, this is what I mean. Freedom exists. Freedom is paranormal. It always was.

It takes a severely limited state of affairs not to recognize it.

It takes a long, long history of repressive societies not to recognize it.

It takes a considerable amount of indoctrination and mind control not to recognize it.

The notion that various key political documents established freedom is extremely short-sighted. Heroic though the efforts were, they only uncovered what was already there in a natural state.

That natural state is anything but normal. It speaks of the human ability to move out of the chain of cause and effect and make choices.

Changing lives, changing futures.

For most people, most of the time, the sense of their own freedom is a rather dull given. There is nothing thrilling about it. They choose A or B within a grossly limited context.

This fact is, in itself, an indication that a monitor has been placed on their own experience, on their own emotions.

If, however, this cover is blown, a transformation occurs; and then they know, in an entirely different way, that freedom is, and is supposed to be, the most natural kind of ecstasy in the world.

Paranormal.

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.

Rappoport interviews a dead Albert Einstein

The invention of robot humans

Free will vs. determinism

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

I love it when people tell me philosophy isn’t important. It makes me feel like a shark in a pool of farmed fish.

I’ll put this simply. If a person doesn’t think having his own philosophic stance is important, then he should consider that other people have philosophies, and they are bent on creating reality FOR him…and in doing so, they use that philosophy “thingo” he doesn’t think matters at all.

And one of the great philosophic issues—it flies under the radar—is free will versus determinism. Determinism means: events and lives and reality itself are a parade of happenings entirely devoid of choice. No freedom.

In labs all over the world, brain researchers are pushing this notion, believing that someday they will be able to control the brain to an absolute degree. For them, you see, it really doesn’t matter what they do to that organ in our skulls and how that will affect the global population…because they’re sure people were never free to begin with.

Get it? So nothing much is riding on the question of free will vs. determinism except the future of the human race.

In the next 50, 100 years, will we see billions of fully-programmed, “new-brain” human androids everywhere, or will freedom survive?

Armed with a philosophy of determinism, researchers will try to install whatever programming they want to, “for the good of all.” And they won’t feel even a twitch of guilt.

I was searching through a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with Albert Einstein. I found an interesting quote:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

I’m always shocked but not surprised when I come across statements like this from scientists.

I guess after Einstein escaped from the Nazis in 1933, he eventually came to America because our brand of no-free-will just happened to be better. Or something.

So I decided to pull Einstein back from the past and engage him in conversation.

Every time I do one of these interviews with dead people, somebody thinks it’s real. I don’t know why. So again, for clarification, this is fiction. However, sometimes fiction makes a point more clearly.

Does free will exist?

Q (Rappoport): Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A (Einstein): If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Certainly.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we analyze the brain into its constituent elements, we find those same tiny particles, which are no different in kind from other sub-atomic particles anywhere in the universe.

A: That’s true. Actually, everything inside the human body is composed of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to avoid that conclusion.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain or what some would call the mind that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you and what your answer will be…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of sub-atomic particles in the brain. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering is not done freely with a range of possible choices. I know that sounds harsh. It may be hard to swallow. But there is no free will.

Q: The notion of considering is, you might say, a cultural or social delusion.

A: I guess that’s so, yes.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than the products of atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: But the earnestness with which we try to settle the issue of free will versus determinism, the application of feeling and thought and striving—all that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so. Yes.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: That’s hard to say.

Q: Is imagination made up of the same tiny particles that inhabit the whole universe?

A: That’s an odd idea.

Q: Let me broaden it. Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: I see. Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe?

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t. They just are.

Q: And does “they just are” include understanding?

A: No.

Q: Then, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from? Is it just an automatic reflex, a delusion, as “being conscious” is a delusion, as “understanding” is a delusion?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. There would nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: They are facts.

Q: Based on what?

A: …I don’t know.

Q: If we accept your depiction of a universe of particles without free will, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we? We are not truly conscious, we are making sounds, we are “going back and forth,” the outcome is not within our choice, and we don’t understand what we are saying to each other. Again, there is no room for understanding in your universe.

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be.

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious.

A: But that would open the door to all the religions that have fought with each for centuries.

Q: Why? Does “non-material” of necessity translate into “religion?”

A: Well, no, I suppose not. But non-material consciousness would certainly be a mystery.

Q: Is that acceptable?

A: The mystery?

Q: As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that is coming from something other than particles in motion. And freedom would be another quality, a non-material quality that exceeds the “grasp” of particles in motion. In fact, without these non-material qualities, you and I would be gibbering and pretending to understand each other. And both the gibber and the pretense would be no more important than a rock developing a trace of fungus after a thousand years.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the human body and brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to these qualities of understanding and meaning? There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying.

A: Well…

Q: There are many people who would say this conversation is terribly old-fashioned and outmoded—and much newer concepts on the frontier of exploration have relegated what we are talking about to the dustbin of a bygone era.

A: Yes. But I could also say the notion of solid objects is passe, because we know nothing is actually solid. However, as long as I can stub my toe on a rock and break the toe, the notion of solidity is still relevant.

Q: So you believe what we’ve been discussing here is significant.

A: I do.

Q: And you admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—this picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: I’m forced to. Otherwise, this very conversation is absurd to a degree I can’t fathom.

Q: You and I understand each other. What we are saying has meaning.

A: I had not thought it through all the way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles and their processes that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything, and I mean everything, is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. I see the contradiction. The absurdity.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. Yes.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the unimportant pre-determined attempt to substitute one delusion for another, one reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that’s so.

Q: In one way or another, there is a great impulse to deny the non-materiality of the qualities that are inherent to human life. There is a reason for this impulse. Scientists, for example, would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering and discovering in the physical and material realm, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to their power. You know, I don’t like leaving this mystery hanging in the air.

Q: Which mystery is that?

A: We’ve come to agree that basic qualities of human life—meaning, understanding, consciousness, freedom—would have to be non-material. But where does that leave us? “Where” is the non-materiality?

Q: It’s certainly not going to be in the physical universe. By definition, that would be impossible.

A: I know. I can see that.

Q: Let me suggest that your capacity to understand, your ability to comprehend meaning, your freedom, your consciousness, are wherever YOU ARE.

A: I’ll have to think about that.

Q: I could say, “Well, you see, throughout the universe there are other levels of energy, and they aren’t based on atomic or sub-atomic particles. These other energies are ‘spiritual,’ they are most certainly conscious, and they impart to us our capacity to understand, to comprehend meaning, to have freedom, to imagine, and so on. This other energy is part of our very consciousness, or our consciousness is an aspect of this other energy.”

A: You could say that, yes. But that’s just a convoluted way of asserting that consciousness, meaning, understanding, freedom, ad imagination are beyond the realm of physical causation. It’s a hypothesis that doesn’t open the door to actual research, to science. To me, it’s just a kind of passive, permissive religion.

Q: Not only that, it tends to allow the idea that freedom, free choice are not really our own, and therefore, we don’t have to pay any price for the choices we make. We can become passive and quietly pass the buck to “the universe.” I’ve seen that outcome in many people who take this “cosmic view” of energy.

A: I wouldn’t like that at all. If we’re going to let freedom in the door, then we need to act on it in a dynamic way, and also accept the results of the free choices we make.

—end of interview—

Exit From the Matrix

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

Einstein disappeared in a puff of wind, and I saw a note he left on my kitchen table. I went over to it and read it:

“If everything in the universe is composed of sub-atomic particles, including us, then this conversation and its outcome are HG^&&%DSE^. Gibberish. If there truly is freedom, consciousness, meaning, and understanding, then each one of us is, at the root, a non-material being.”

I put the note down.

Finally, consider that, for a non-material being operating with a physical form called the body, perhaps his most valuable adjunct, aid, and “assistant” in that partnership is the brain.

Scientists and elite planners believe the brain can be programmed and reprogrammed and surgically altered at will, because freedom has never existed.

They believe they’re simply changing the specifications of a robot, an android.

Actually, they’re interrupting and changing a vital link between the non-material and free and conscious YOU and your brain, in order to make your potential actions simpler and less capable.

The result would be a civilization of androids.

Which says a great deal about the importance of that rejected item called philosophy.

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.

Matrixology: The true and final goal of the Surveillance State

Matrixology: The true and final goal of the Surveillance State

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“If you or I had a pot full of money and set out to help a community become more prosperous and self-sufficient, we could find a way. When big government steps in with its money, the objective is different—it’s to appear to help, while actually demeaning and reducing everything in sight…

“Ever wonder why so many law-enforcement types, government bureaucrats, and corporate worker bees are control freaks? Do you think it’s just the result of their job training? Think again. There is a selection process. The plan is for the new society to be run by massive numbers of little control freaks.

“…Predicting the future, based on current trends, leads us to some horrendous conclusions about the dystopia toward which we’re heading. But there is an upside. We can view the conflicts and the polarities with greater clarity. We can see, for example, what freedom means in a much deeper way. We can become more fierce defenders of that freedom. We can see what the stakes are. This view gives us power, if we want to take it.

“…Mind control is ultimately about inducing the sacrifice of freedom and power. And thus manufacturing a prison planet. People who register a blank look when the subject is their own freedom and power should understand that they are already operating under some form of conditioning. There is a paved-over spot in their consciousness, in their energy, in their desire, in their ambition.

“That’s right, ambition. In this case, the desire and motivation to do something big and important with their freedom, instead of just lying down and surrendering.” — (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The Surveillance State aims to profile every human in the United States. This profile will include a psych eval.

The eval, plus psychological tests will be mandatory for all government employees, including public school and college teachers, counselors, and wall-to-wall bureaucrats.

The objective? To qualify those people to judge the rest of us.

In other words, they will be the Normals, and we will be viewed as the Freaks.

These new government arbiters will also be selected on the basis of their feeling like put-upon victims.

Given new powers, they will have a field day.

I’m talking about a cultural revolution that turns things inside out and reverses vectors.

It’s already happening, of course, but the intensity is expanding.

Here is the view from the top: install “the underclass” as the officials who will run and police day-to-day society.

Make a list of every real or imagined victim group you can think of. From these groups, the millions of clerks and bureaucrats who operate the levers of intrusive public life will be chosen.

They are the natural allies of big government.

“Never had a chance to wreak revenge on the people who are holding you down? Come see us for an interview. We may have a position for you. We’ll give you a test, put that together with a profile we’ve already assembled on you, and voila…you could be working in an office tomorrow, collecting a paycheck, receiving benefits, and dropping the hammer on anyone who has an independent or errant thought in his head…”

Big government wants to make more people poor and dependent, yes. But beyond that, the plan is to “rescue” them and give them power in government jobs.

“Look, we’ve assembled psych evals on 300 million Americans. Here are the ones we’ve identified as troublesome. Guess what? They’re the folks who don’t like you. But now you’re working for us, the government. So we’re setting you loose. Go after them, find a reason to harass them, block them from getting ahead…”

Make no mistake about it, there are ways to make poor nations, from which immigrants are flooding into the US, far more prosperous—just as there are ways to make poor communities inside the US prosper. But those ways are verboten. Instead, big government, despite its pronouncements, is intent on exacerbating poverty and dependence.

Gradually, the difference between receiving government benefits and having a government job will be completely erased.

Freedom of the individual? Never heard of freedom or the individual.

The Bureaucratic Society is shaping up before our eyes.

The Surveillance State is the framework within which this goal can be accomplished, by the use of psych profiles and evals, which are filters deployed to separate the “put-upon people who thirst for power” from everyone else.

If you think all this is too crazy to be true, go to publicintelligence.net and read the report, Identity Dominance: The US Military’s Biometric War in Afghanistan. The program involves securing extensive background information, including “threat potential,” on every single human in the country. Every single human.

With a shift of target, such a program could be transferred back home to the US, where it would mesh with NSA operations to achieve the same goal.

Have another look at the 1974 film, The Parallax View. Reporter Joe Frady infiltrates The Parallax Corporation, which carries out assassinations on contract. Frady has to pass a series of psychological tests to win a job as a killer for hire. He has to present himself as a violent man with an axe to grind.

His recruiter, Jack Younger, spins Frady the following sales pitch: “Your tests suggest that you have remarkable talents…has it ever crossed your mind that it’s everybody else’s problem that they don’t get along with you?…the very quality that gets you into trouble makes you potentially invaluable…your aggressiveness.”

Imagine the same kind of build-up used on 30 million prospective petty bureaucrats:

“We want you to be a little angry. You deserve to be resentful. We consider that a plus. It makes you better at your job. You’ll have an edge. All the people who see you as a loser? They’re the freaks. This is your chance to work for the government and put them in their place. This isn’t the old government. This is new. This is a revolution. The people who were on the outside are now inside. You’re one of ours. We know how valuable you are…”

Translation: “We engineered society to create millions of people stuck in material and psychological poverty. Dependent. You’re one of those. Now we need employees to run this wall-to-wall welfare state and corral the ‘independent ones.’ We’ve let you soak in misery and suffering for a while, and now we think you’re ready to make other people follow the hundred thousand rules and regs we’ve set up…”

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Smart meters give us one clue. Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We see (planned) drought and famine. We are told about desperate shortages and a frying Earth. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

The surveillance is expanded, not because we are constantly under threat and must be protected from terrorists, but because we can then be labeled and entered onto 10 billion squares of the game board, to be moved around or held in place.

This is the vision.

It isn’t ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

The Matrix Revealed

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, “Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?”

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, “You don’t understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics.”

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those “missing elements.” They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.

They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It’s the wild card. Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

I’m reminded of a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi:

“In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps…”

Today’s technocrats will admit no such disappointment or existential crisis. They flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they’ll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They’ll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: “free=uncontrolled=dangerous.”

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs and other remedies.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. When freedom is not understood beyond a superficial level, the question, WHAT IS FREEDOM FOR, goes begging.

Of all the criticisms of our education system, this one should be primary. Thomas Jefferson envisioned public education purely as a way to teach children what being a citizen in a Republic meant—because, until the Constitution was enacted, there had never been an experiment in freedom on such a scale. It was a new premise.

Several years ago, in one of our greatest cities, Chicago, people were scrambling to ensure that, during a teacher’s strike, schools could remain open as baby-sitting warehouses for half-days. That is how far the system has sunk.

Technocrats contemplate changing the game of life so that it essentially becomes synthetic. Natural was just a way-station. To really exercise control, it’s necessary to remake humans from top to bottom. Then you know exactly what you are dealing with, because you made it, you invented it.

As Aldous Huxley wrote, “’Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines!’ The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history’.”

Yes, because you made the twins in hatcheries and the machines in factories.

Technocrats are their own brand of problem solvers. Solving the problem of Planet Earth, as they see it, requires human constants, as many as possible, and the fewest possible human variables.

Therefore, re-engineer the brain. Reconfigure the nervous system. Insert preferred images directly into the brain.

That’s what these useful (high-IQ) idiots are working on these days. That’s where they’re going.

That gives us a wider picture of what freedom really means and will mean in the coming years. It’s to our benefit to know that.

When I write about individual power, as I frequently do, this is part of what I’m referring to. The coming years. The coming struggle.

When I write about imagination, despite the fact that most people don’t have a clue about their own imagination, this is what I’m talking about, in part: the individual inventing new strategies to protect and expand freedom.

The wild card is: us.

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.

Canada, welcome to the US-style Surveillance State

Canada, welcome to the US-style Surveillance State

Obama likes to say, “We’re all in this together.” Well, our 2 populations are now together as targets of spying

by Jon Rappoport

May 11, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The notorious Bill C-51 to expand spying on citizens in Canada has passed the House of Commons, by a vote of 183-96. It now moves to the Senate, where passage seems inevitable.

A few comments:

It’s likely that much of this “expanded spying” is already taking place in Canada. Making it law protects the spying agencies from accusations and recriminations.

Here is how a law like C-51 will operate as time passes: every federal agency in Canada with a taste for meddling (in other words, every single bureaucratic agency) will horn in on the action, using the justification of “national security.”

Every agency will hop on the bandwagon, because “national security” justifies their budgets and makes them seem more important.

Concurrently, more citizens, activists, and groups will be labeled “potential threats.”

Interested in natural health? Want to live off the grid? Want to protest against politically correct free-speech restrictions? Want to expose the dangers of genetically engineered food? Are you a home schooler? Do you speak out against vaccines?

There is a federal agency you’re impinging on, and that agency will be interested in you and what you’re writing, saying, and doing.

That agency will cook up a new and vague definition of “potential threat” in order to include you.

That’s how the game works.

What starts out as a “carefully crafted law, designed to protect the nation against real terrorism, balancing security against privacy concerns,” will grow new branches.

Here are a few features of the present version of Bill C-51:

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) will no longer simply collect information and turn it over to law-enforcement agencies. CSIS will be able to take direct action against citizens.

For example, it can detain private citizens on grounds of “suspicion” for seven days.

Federal agencies can more easily share information (e.g., medical records, surveillance reports) on private citizens.

The government can, without notice, stop private citizens from traveling.

Even jokes about terrorism can be viewed as utterances carrying hostile intent toward the State.

Websites that link to other sites that contain information which can be construed as a threat to national security can be cancelled, deleted, removed.

And all this is just for starters. Once federal agencies get their hands on C-51, they will frame thousands of pages of regulations which spell out how they will enforce the law.

These regulations always give the agencies more work to do—in this case, more spying, more analysis of data on citizens, more sharing of data, more defining and parsing what constitutes a “threat.”

The overall rationale behind C-51 is identical to that of the US Patriot Act and the programs of the US National Security Agency: collect as much information as possible on everybody all the time—and then sort it out and decide what is actionable.

However, this is a ruse. As Snowden and others have pointed out, accumulating so many tons of data makes it harder, not easier, to ID real and true terror threats. The system becomes clogged, overloaded, unworkable.

You could call this method wrong-headed, but you would miss the point. Spying on everybody is a conscious choice, and its motive has nothing to do with preventing terrorism.

If it did, a better and more selective approach could be devised in a matter of months. No, this program is built to track, tag, observe, catalog, and analyze the entire population, as a giant step forward to greater control of the citizenry.

From above.

In the eyes of the State, freedom is the enemy.

It always was, and it always will be.

The Matrix Revealed

As soon as severely limited central government becomes a thing of the past (which is usually about five minutes after that government is formed in founding documents), the State focuses on its own survival, expansion, and power.

What does the State have to work with? What is the raw material it grinds up for energy?

People. Citizens. The population.

To the State, “power” means “power over,” “power against.”

Pretending otherwise is extreme folly.

Sprinkle in a motley collection of incompetents, outright crooks, dupes, true believers, power-hungry losers, and outright psychopaths, and you have a broad syndicate of organized crime, under the flying banner of the law. Called the government.

The modern up-to-date version of this lunacy involves technology contractors and bureaucrats, who are dying to utilize their latest tricks and systems for the purpose of spying on everything that moves.

And thus you get Bill C-51.

Welcome to the show, Canada.

No one will be able to say you’re lagging behind America.

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.

Australia: mandatory vaccines and the secret treaty

Australia: mandatory vaccines and the secret treaty

Connecting the dots

Brave New World

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“There is never a decay of organized religion. When one church falls, another is built. During the 20th century, the new church was Science—in particular, Medical Science. It was constructed to extract the maximum amount of compliance from the population. This is what all orthodox churches do. So in addition to the countless numbers of diagnoses and drugs, there was the element of mind control: ‘Follow our orders. We know the truth and we are giving it you for your own good; we love you and care about you, unless you rebel; then we consign you to Hell.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Globalism is the New World Order. There is no mystery about it.

The alliance between mega-corporations, banks, and governments is ever-growing, as they extend their power over populations.

In this article, I use the example of Australia to illustrate a hidden point that applies to nations all over the world:

The medical cartel is “a compliance arm” of the New World Order.

The principle is simple: expand the degree of citizen-obedience in one area, and you expand it in all areas.

You create the core habit of obedience. That habit extends down into the subconscious mind.

Globalism and the New World Order need that obedience, because its methods are often so outrageous only robots would fall into line.

For an example of outrageous lunacy, take the upcoming Globalist treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). When ratified by 12 nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam), it will establish the right of corporations to bypass national courts and demand that their products be sold, without tariffs, without concern for workers who are paid slave wages, without concern for poisoning the environment with toxic chemicals.

This is a secret treaty. In Australia, it will be signed by the cabinet before any supporting legislation is considered.

Here is a brief quote from tppaustralia.org:

“It [the TPP] has over 20 chapters which include everything from labour and the environment, to intellectual property and telecommunications. The negotiations have been kept secret even from our own Parliamentarians and Senators, but from leaked drafts of the TPP text, we know that there is legitimate reason for concern.”

Did you catch that last part? Australia’s own elected legislators haven’t read the treaty. They’re not permitted to. In the US, legislators have only had access to limited sections.

A secret treaty deeply affecting the lives of all people in those 12 countries, and only a chosen few know exactly what’s in it.

From the Globalist point of view, this means one thing: populations must be rendered into a state of unquestioning obedience. They must go along with the program on what amounts to a hypnotic basis.

Otherwise (if awake) they would rebel en masse. This is what any population would do if they were alert.

“You’re going to ratify a secret treaty that will put us further under the gun of mega-corporations? Not on your life.”

But there are no massive protests in Australia, or in any of the other 12 TPP countries.

Since 1988, when I wrote my first book, AIDS INC., I warned about medical covert ops. At that time, I also began speaking about the overall program of the global medical cartel, the overall goal:

To place every person on the planet into a cradle-to-grave system of diagnosing and drugging. To make every person, first and foremost, a medical patient. To thereby condition every person to obey orders.

Obey.

The doctor knows. Don’t question him. Just do what he tells you to do. Comply. From now until they lower your body into the ground. Take the drugs, and become more debilitated and, therefore, more obedient at a much deeper level.

This is the foremost system of eliciting obedience in the world.

We’ve recently seen the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, issue a dictum about vaccination. Former exemptions have been canceled. Families receiving government aid will be cut off from that money if they refuse to vaccinate their children. No more freedom.

Obey or else.

When you can get citizens to obey in one area, there is a spillover to other areas. They become accustomed to a life of surrender. They give in. They go along. They yield on one front, so they yield on another.

It’s no accident that, historically, the one family most responsible for the emergence of modern medicine AND the Globalist agenda is: Rockefeller.

Whatever else it is (and I have covered the details in many articles, ARCHIVE:MEDICAL FRAUD), the system of modern medicine is a mind-control operation designed to create slavish attachment on the part of the patient.

Attachment to the authority of the doctor and whatever he commands. Attachment to the toxic drugs he prescribes. Attachment to the disease-labels he pronounces.

In these and other respects, modern medicine is a secular Church, and the doctors are the priests in white coats. They are everywhere in contemporary societies. They rule. They subject the parishioners (patients) to arbitrary fiats.

The result of this long-term conditioning: the patients develop a deep habit of loyalty to authority. This habit spreads like ink on a blotter. It begins to apply to all areas of life.

Eventually, the government can say: “Look, we’re going to sign a treaty, and you won’t know what’s in it. You’ll be completely in the dark. But it’s a good thing. It’s for the benefit of all. Don’t ask us to disclose the details. Would you ask your doctor to explain, in detail, the pictures he took of your brain? Of course not. It’s beyond you. You’re not equipped to understand. Well, in this treaty, which runs thousands of pages, you’re not equipped to understand the complex economic details, either. But you can rest secure in your (hypnotic) faith that we’re on your side. We want what’s best for you…”

There are various terms for this: brain-entrainment, operant conditioning, brainwashing, programming, mind control.

They all refer to the establishing of habitual behavior, unthinking behavior.

The Matrix Revealed

The brilliant hypnotherapist, Jack True, with whom I did research for several years (and who gave up the practice of hypnosis), once wrote to me:

“Nine out of ten of my patients walk through the door already convinced that I’m doing some form of medicine. That’s what they want. They want me to tell them what to do, while they’re awake and while they’re in a trance. They’re looking for another doctor. Our whole civilization is under a white-coat trance. It took me several years to get over my astonishment at this fact. This is mass-hypnosis on a grand scale.”

If you’re on the side of freedom, you need to look at a whole society and figure out where the deepest form of conditioning is coming from. You need to find out where the most successful form of hypnosis is coming from. Because that’s where overall mind-control is strongest. In modern society, it’s doctors. This is why governments ally themselves with doctors. It’s a perfect partnership. Someday, we could see a President in a white coat with a stethoscope around his neck and a syringe in his hand. He’ll be able to tell people the sky is the ground and stars are traffic lights, and he’ll be believed. The doctor is the trigger-man for the New World.

On a practical level, we could see secret treaties like the TPP give more global protection to the medical cartel: international exemption from lawsuits against pharmaceutical corporations; exemption from liability stemming from toxic drugs and vaccines; agreements to extend periods of court-ordered lockdowns in psych wards.

The medical cartel and the Globalists walk hand-in-hand into the future.

Maintaining the freedom to refuse medical care is imperative.

The Holy Church of Medicine and its allies and dupes are out in full force these days. They want compliant slaves.

They must not win.

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.

Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“I used to think people accepted manmade warming because they robotically equated it with ‘helping the planet’, ‘saving the planet’, and ‘hating the corporations’. Then I thought, these equations are intentionally being piped into people’s minds as a form of programming. Then I thought, most people can no longer even recognize a line of reasoning about manmade warming or any other subject. Then I thought, all these things are happening at the same time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

These days, what passes for logic is the effort to associate one idea with another favored idea. Then the first idea is accepted as fact.

If the first idea were “all Martians wear tuxedos,” and people associated that with “juicy burgers are delicious,” they would conclude that Martians, without doubt, all wear tuxes.

Associating with one idea with another is also, of course, a propaganda/advertising device.

Apparently, schools no longer teach students what a scientific hypothesis is.

If they do, those students disappear and are never heard from again.

First of all, a hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.

Confirmation, in this case, means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.

Let’s start with a trivial hypothesis:

“If it snows, there are clouds.”

We should be able to use that hypothesis to predict what we’ll see in the sky whenever it’s snowing. Clouds. So we record numerous instances of snow and we find that, yes, there are clouds in the sky every time. We were able to predict clouds.

Is that a useful prediction? This is a matter of opinion. Most people would say no.

Here is another example of a hypothesis.

“If a patient has fungal infection X, he will develop a fever.”

We examine 5000 people and establish that they have fungal infection X. We predict they will all have fevers. We test them, and they do have fevers.

We used our hypothesis to make a prediction, and we were correct. Was the prediction useful? Some people would probably say yes.

Let’s go one step further. The factual truth or falsity of a hypothesis is beside the point. Any hypothesis is acceptable, IF we can deploy it to make a useful prediction.

We could assert, for instance, that the moon is made of green cheese. From that starting point, if we could go on to make a useful prediction that we could then confirm by observation, the “green cheese” hypothesis would be acceptable.

Suppose, against all odds, conventionally speaking, we begin with this hypothesis: the space of the entire universe is filled with an aether.

And suppose we can describe this aether well enough to make a prediction about the positions of two previously unseen black holes. We then discover that, yes, these holes are exactly where we said they’d be.

The aether hypothesis would be acceptable. It’s useful.

And…the question of whether the aether actually exists? Irrelevant.

Something like this occurs in modern physics. These two hypotheses sit side by side: the basic composition of matter is particles; the basic composition is waves. Both hypotheses allow useful (and different) predictions. Therefore, both are accepted, even though they contradict each other.

Now, take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.

Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?

So far, the answer is no.

That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.

The Matrix Revealed

However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.

Not only that, investigation also reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to the recent warming trend.

At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a question of fact, a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes creating the observed changes.

Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.

In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.

So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.

Students, starting at, say, the age of 12, should be taught basic facts about hypotheses, how they function in science, and on what basis they should be accepted or rejected.

Then we would have far less ignorance and chaotic “debate” and partisan screaming about science.

Except for the scientists themselves, of course—those who are on someone’s payroll and are expected to falsify everything they touch on behalf of that special interest.

An educated public would go a long way toward laughing those professional liars out of court.

Which is why universities (who sell themselves to those liars’ bosses) don’t teach logic or the basic structure of science.

The status of a hypothesis becomes a radically different proposition in the hands of someone who understands how a hypothesis works, when it should be accepted or rejected, and therefore how much irrelevant noise, fabrication, and political nonsense are brought to the table by people with devious motives.

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.

Individual power in a decaying world

by Jon Rappoport

May 9, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here are quotes from my work-in-progress, The Underground. I wrote this material in the lead-up to putting together my second collection, Exit From The Matrix.

“Solutions to private problems and public problems require the ability to think things through, logically, and to reject what is unworkable or biased—but above and beyond that, a person needs to be able to imagine solutions that haven’t been tried before. He can’t keep asking other people to invent solutions for him. This is the hardest lesson. The habit of demanding that others come up with answers, that others find a way out of the tunnel—this habit is based on the assumption that one’s own power of imagination is grossly limited, which is a lie. You might say it is the central lie.”

“The world says defect from your own power. Never find out what it is. Assume it isn’t there. The world says all life is about the species, not about the individual. The world says you should use every excuse in the book to define how small and helpless you are.”

“When propagandists find a good thing, a message that works, they pound on it, they keep hammering away. Family, group, family, group, community. On and on. They never promote the message called The Individual with the same intensity. That would be counter-productive to what they are trying to accomplish: group identity; and amnesia about being an individual.”

“Civilization continues to erode and decay, as individual power is put on the back burner. But that doesn’t give the individual a license to surrender. If others want to give up, that’s their business. The individual, instead, finds new frontiers for his power, for his capacity to invent reality.”

“A confession of helplessness doesn’t earn you a gold star on the blackboard. There is no gold star or blackboard. There is you, expanding the scope and range of your own power. And what is that power? It comes in two forms or venues. First, there is the ability to apply logic to events and information; to think rationally from A to B to C; to analyze. And second, there is imagination, the capacity to conceive and then invent realities that would never otherwise exist in the world.”

“Individual power doesn’t need to make rigid distinctions between what is done for self vs. what is done for others. Social engineers and propagandists make those separations. You exercise your creative power to fulfill what you deeply desire; and that process will, in fact, spill over and affect others in a positive way. It will lift them up. It will remind them that they, too, have power.”

“Logic and analysis keeps you from being sent down wrong roads, keeps you from buying official reality. Logic also reminds you that you have a mind. Logic is a road that can take you deeper and deeper into more basic fallacies that underpin organized society and its branches of knowledge. Logic tells you there are always more fundamental questions to ask and answer. There are levels of lies. The deeper you go, the more confident you become. The more powerful. Logic also lets you know when you’re projecting basic pre-judgments over a whole landscape and neglecting to look at the details.”

Exit From the Matrix

“Despair about the condition of society and the world is not a function of your power. It’s a moment of reflection, or it’s yet one more excuse for inaction and passivity. “What can we do about it all?” is a misdirected question. The actual target of that question is you. You’re asking yourself. And with your power, you can find an answer.”

“Passivity is a disease. It spreads and takes over. It makes strong people weak, and weak people demented. The passive life is precisely and exactly a life without power. The cure is a life lived with power.”

“In case there is any misunderstanding, the ability to help others and defend them from oppression is part and parcel of your own power. How could you help them without your power? How could you accomplish anything at all in that direction? How would denying your own power possibly result in a good outcome? And most importantly, it is through imagination that you can devise new ways to expose and reduce oppression, ways that haven’t been thought of before.”

“As society continues to decay, more and people attack individual power and place their faith in a program that reduces every human to a lowest common denominator of dependence on some controlling entity. This article of faith is surrender.”

“Some people want to say that power is a neutral object that can be used for good or evil. That isn’t true. Your power is alive. It’s personal. It’s stunningly energetic and dynamic. It connects with your deepest understanding of what is true and good and right. But it never sacrifices itself on the altar of what others insist is good and true and right. It never deserts you for an abstract ideology someone else has devised. That ideology was formulated, in fact, to separate you from your power.”

“It takes great power and energy for a person to bury his own power.”

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.

Explosive: Pesticides in Paradise; the war on life in Hawaii

Explosive: Pesticides in Paradise: the war on life in Hawaii

If you were the President of the United States, and the land where you were raised was under attack, would you see something, say something, do something?

If you were a tourist, would you visit this place?

by Jon Rappoport

May 8, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The Hawai’i Center for Food Safety has just released a major report, Pesticides in Paradise. It details an ongoing chemical assault on the people and the land of Hawaii.

I’ll present several key quotes which, in a half-sane world, would force government officials to take immediate and drastic action to stop the onslaught and punish the corporate offenders with lengthy prison sentences.

Yet, right now, the voters of Maui County, who scored a victory last November, who created a new law temporarily blocking Monsanto and Dow from continuing these inhuman experiments, while a true investigation uncovered all the secret details…the voters of Maui are embroiled in a federal court room to make their entirely legitimate vote stand up.

Similar legislative actions on Kauai and the Big Island have been struck down.

As you read the quotes below, keep in mind we are talking about human experimentation with no informed consent from the population. This is not, for the most part, commercial agriculture.

From the report, Pesticides in Paradise:

“Since 1987 Hawai’i has hosted more cumulative [pesticide] field trials (3,243) than any other state. In 2014 alone, 178 different GE field tests were conducted on over 1,381 sites in Hawai’i (vs. only 175 sites in California).”

“DuPont-Pioneer applied 90 different pesticide formulations containing 63 different active ingredients on Kaua’i from 2007 to 2012. The company sprayed on two-thirds (65%) of the days over this period and made from 8.3 to 16 applications per application day on average.”

“The third-most frequently applied class of pesticides is also among the most toxic: the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos was sprayed an average of 91 days each year.” [The EPA has written, concerning organophosphates and carbamates: “Both of these classes of older insecticides are very highly acutely toxic to bees and…are also very highly acutely toxic to humans and wildlife.”]

power outside the matrix

“Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP) [the most toxic pesticides] sales data for Kaua’i show that 22 RUPs containing 18 active ingredients were applied in agriculture from 2010 to 2012.”

“The American Academy of Pediatrics recently published a major report entitled ‘Pesticide Exposure in Children’ that reviewed 195 medical studies; their chief concerns were that pesticides are linked to childhood cancers, neurobehavioral and cognitive deficits, adverse birth outcomes, and asthma.”

“In adult populations, pesticide exposure has been linked to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, bladder and colon cancers, Parkinson’s disease, depression, and disrupting our hormonal or endocrine systems.”

You can read more report highlights at the Center for Food Safety.

Corporate wars against populations don’t require Congressional approval or Presidential assertions of power. They only need the acquiescence of government. Silent permission. The pretension of ignorance. And oh yes, sold-out complicit major media.

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.