MONEY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS

 

MONEY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS

 

By Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2012

 

“The American people have been bamboozled on two counts. First, the Republic that was established in the Constitution was stolen from them, and what eventually replaced it was a conquering American Empire. Then the Empire was integrated into Globalism, which meant that America was gone altogether, because the ultimate plan is for a single world-nation.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda master, interviewed by Jon Rappoport in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

In the last ten years, the American people have been treated to an intensification of The Democracy Op.

 

It’s really nothing new. It’s been going on for a long time, in various incarnations. But the pace has stepped up. A diplomat once described it to me bluntly as “crap on toast.”

 

We are supposed to believe that in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Uganda, Iran, and other places, the so-called uprisings of the people—aided modestly and strategically and compassionately by our own government—have tried and somehow failed, so far, to bring about a genuine Constitutional revolution of freedom.

 

But, we are told, this establishment of freedom abroad IS the US government’s fervent foreign-policy wish and aim.

 

Well, no. The truth is somewhat more sordid. The foreign policy of the American government, in opposition to the will of the American people (were they to understand what is going on), is to open markets for American corporations and military bases and platforms for our Armed Forces.

 

And somewhere in the upper mists of this expansive operation, there are deals to be worked out, so that the final winners will be multinational players (corporate and finance), and what would otherwise have been American Empire will merge and blend with the ambitions of elites from other countries, and we will have de facto global management of the planet.

 

The good news is that the upper-echelon Globalists aren’t quite as smart as they think they are. They create their own problems and they keep trying to solve them, and the worse the problems are, the more desperate they become for answers.

 

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the money game. Why do I say that? Because an internal contradiction rises like a mad flame, in the middle of their plans to bankrupt governments and make populations poorer.

 

Among the elite global players are multinational corporations, who not only want to play a central role in running the planet, but also want to…SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS.

 

And if the bulk of those consumers can barely shop at a 7-Eleven, those corporations are going to go down the toilet.

 

It’s that stark.

 

About 20 years ago, author William Greider (“One World, Ready or Not”) pointed out that many mega-corporations were operating their assembly lines at about half-capacity, because there were only a billion people on the face of the Earth who could afford their products.

 

Since then, the situation hasn’t noticeably improved.

 

Therefore, it doesn’t really matter how the Globalists restructure the money system or bail out governments they demolished. The question remains: who is going to buy the goods of the mega-corporations?

 

As early as 1940 (!), Bucky Fuller was writing about the feasibility of supplying the essentials of survival to every human on Earth. The secret was out. It could be done, and over time, with technological innovations, it would be easier to do.

 

At that moment, corporations faced a choice. They could find a way to carry out a plan for universal abundance, or they could continue on the track of cutthroat competition based on a notion of scarcity.

 

Scarcity was really a myth, of course. But it enabled those who wanted more wars and more control.

 

Obviously, the corporations turned a blind eye to Bucky Fuller’s revelations.

 

And now they are paying the price. They are literally spinning their wheels.

 

China and India, with their enormous populations, are the current Holy Grail of the global market, but that is only a temporary fix.

 

There are two ways to solve the problem these corporations face. The first is exemplified by ObamaCare. Under this plan, government itself will manage, more and more, the sickness-care industry that currently sucks up (2009 figure) 2.5 trillion dollars per year.

 

Given the multiple scandals in Medicare, the prospect of government handling the books for a far larger system is unappetizing, to say the least. And this factor doesn’t even touch on the nightmare of forced toxic medical/pharmaceutical care decimating the population at new levels.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if the federal government moved in and really took over the food supply, lock, stock, and barrel—and then began to distribute everything from beef to peanut butter, according to a “fair plan” designed to produce “abundance for all?”

 

Destroying the free market in this way, crushing it, pulverizing it has been tried. It fails. And to push such a program forward on a planetary basis would cause mega-corporations to feel a kind of pain they don’t even dream of now. The idea might seem, on the surface, to be workable, as long as corporations are married to the elites who run Central Distribution for Planet Earth. But that’s an illusion. In the long run, fewer and fewer companies would stay on board. Why? Because everything that motivates individuals within corporations to work, to innovate, to market their products, to compete, to win would be hammered into submission.

 

You can say these business motivations are selfish or greedy or vicious, and should be eradicated, but try to stamp them out by law and by force, and you won’t get far. You’ll have the USSR writ large and writ worse.

 

The other option is to preserve the free market with one great change. If corporations realized that providing the essentials of survival to every man, woman, and child in the world is a goal THAT COULD INCREASE THEIR BOTTOM LINE, you could see a change.

 

In other words, compare selling a million coats at $40 a coat to selling fifty million coats at $8 a coat.

 

In the “new free market,” the corporate goal would be to expand sales and charge less, while actually improving the quality of the goods.

 

I fully recognize the pitfalls, complexities, and challenges of such a system, when applied to the planet—not the least of which is the VOLUNTARY conversion of corporate types to a different perception of the world and their place in it.

 

Nevertheless, it is a solution, and right now solutions are not on the horizon.

 

Make no mistake about it, there is a hot dagger in the heart of the Globalist plan to run the planet. Crushing and enslaving people, in order to control them over the long term, runs into the corporations who are trying to make these very people into consumers.

 

If you think the mega-corporations are going to lie down for this, you need to think again.

 

And when the players draw up their chairs to the conference table at the Bilderberg meetings, the CFR meetings, the Trilateral meetings, the Skull and Bones alumni meetings, they are, in some part of their minds, thinking about this. They are thinking about this more and more.

 

If they continue to see reality through their old eyes, they’ll end up killing each other off.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE TRAYVON MARTIN OPERATION

THE TRAYVON MARTIN OP

NBC LIES, EDITS 911 ZIMMERMAN CALL

WILL DO “INTERNAL INVESTIGATION”

THE STORY GOES MUCH DEEPER

APRIL 2, 2012. Let’s start here. The racially divisive Trayvon Martin case was shoved up a false ladder by NBC News. As reported by Eric Wemple in his Washington Post blog post of 3/31/12:

Begin Washington Post blog post:

“NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the ‘Today’ show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

‘We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.’

“Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the ‘Today’ segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

“Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

“The difference between what ‘Today’ put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the ‘Today’ version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person ‘looks black,’ a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

“In an appearance on Fox News’s ‘Hannity,’ Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, called this elision on the part of ‘Today’ an ‘all-out falsehood’ — not just a distortion or misrepresentation.

“And it’s a falsehood with repercussions. Much of the public discussion over the past week has settled on how conflicting facts and interpretations call into question whether Zimmerman acted justifiably or criminally. That’s a process that’ll continue. But one set of facts in the [sic] is ironclad, and that’s the back-and-forth between Zimmerman and the dispatcher. To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting.”

End of Washington Post blog.

My comments:

Assuming the Washington Post has its story straight, what NBC did wasn’t a mistake. It was intentional, and it was done to inflame the narrative about George Zimmerman. It wasn’t just some sort of “rush to judgment,” it was a false-flag operation designed to provoke mass reaction and create more racial tension.

Who at NBC was responsible? How is the network going to spin its “internal investigation?” Who, if anyone, is going to be hung out to dry? How many people at NBC were in on this operation?

Now here is where the story goes deeper. First, Obama inserted himself into the narrative in a very personal way, when he told the world if he had a son, he would look like Travyon Martin. This wasn’t playing DOWN the tension, it was playing it UP.

It was the president’s signal to his supporters to move ahead with the narrative—in an election year. It then became a cost-versus-risk proposition ABOUT the election. As in: can we make this situation do us more good than harm?

And clearly, the decision was: more good.

As Trayvon protests gather strength all over the country, the outlines of a campaign become clearer. The intentional escalation of this black-versus-white tension will play directly into the notion of an implied threat: don’t dare elect Romney. Don’t do that. Don’t put this stereotypical white man in the White House.

And NBC just handed Obama a favor with its corrupt editing of the 911 call, with its RACIALLY INFLAMING editing of that call.

And why shouldn’t NBC do a favor for the president? After all, NBC is a joint venture between Comcast and GE. GE was one of Obama’s big supporters in the 2008 election campaign. As we speak, Obama and his minions are still trying to push a high-speed-rail bill through Congress that will benefit GE to the tune of billions of dollars, because a division of GE is the leading manufacturer of diesel-electric locomotives. GE and Obama are in an embrace. Obama appointed the former GE CEO, Jeff Immelt, to head up the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Obama bailed out GE to the tune of $16 billion, during the financial meltdown.

These are not small matters. Get a favor, do a favor, especially when billions are on the table.

And now that the racially divisive Trayvon Martin promotion is on the move, there are other ripples. Commentators have been mentioning that the Supreme Court Justices, in their deliberations on Obamacare, might be thinking about the social consequences of a No vote. Would there be riots in the streets? These pundits weren’t even referring to the Trayvon Martin escalations. Add THAT into the volatile mix, and who knows what Justice might change his mind from No to Yes, “to preserve order?”

It was clearly within the White House’s power, a week ago, to try to minimize the rhetoric about the Martin case. They could have leaned on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and told them back off. They could have taken legal action against the New Black Panther Party, after its Wanted poster for Zimmerman was issued. But Eric Holder, the Attorney General, had already given the Panthers a green light after he apparently looked the other way when members of the Party staged a voter-intimidation moment during the 2008 election-vote. And Obama himself, of course, could have spoken vastly different words about Martin’s death. But none of that happened. Instead, it was full speed ahead.

Finally, when you add up the differences and similarities between Obama and Romney, it’s clear that on the vital issues—like Globalism and a continuing mega-corporate-government world juggernaut, both men are in the same camp. Both men are, as Clinton was, as both Bushes were, on the same basic Team.

Therefore, what difference does it make who wins the next presidential election?

And if that is true, the present promotion of racial strife is a box within a larger box. In one sense, it is being worked to help Obama win. But in the bigger context, it is divide and conquer along racial lines because, to make Globalism succeed, every possible means has to be employed to weaken, divert, demoralize, polarize, and destabilize the one holdout against Globalism: the American people.

Major ops have more than level. They are played to produce advantages for more than one reason.

And so it is with the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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 www.nomorefakenews.com