“Border tax”: word-manipulation used to destroy Trump’s economic plan

“Border tax”: word-manipulation used to stop Trump’s economic plan

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2017

I’ll get to the devious word-manipulation in a minute, but first a bit of background.

Corporate Globalists are now gathering their forces to destroy Trump’s economic plan.

Their goal: stop Trump from laying tariffs on goods exported to America.

Trump has announced a simple and straightforward idea. If US companies shut down factories here and set them up in Third World hell holes, with slave labor and no environmental rules, and then export those goods back to the US, they’ll have to pay a stiff tariff.

That tariff will cut them off at the knees. They won’t be able to sell their products so cheaply here. In fact, they’d be better off re-opening their factories in the US and re-employing all those workers they threw out of jobs when they left the US.

Trump’s other obvious idea: countries where the labor is cheap have their own native companies, of course, who are producing goods and exporting them to the US—undercutting American companies who make the same products. Those foreign companies would also have to pay a stiff tariff, putting them on an equal footing with US manufacturers.

Globalists hate these plans. They want predatory corporations to roam free all over the world, gutting economies, and exporting their products to one and all, without paying tariffs.

This is what 50 years of conferences (1945-1995) on the treaty called GATT were all about. Knocking out tariffs. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade culminated in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a pillar of the new world economic order.

Now, there is panic as Trump appears to be going after the WTO and its grand foundation.

And so we come to the word-manipulation.

Here are current news headlines. Read them and then I’ll explain.

New York Times: “Profitable pickups may be in cross hairs of Trump’s border tax.”

Marketwatch: “Target, Gap, Best Buy and other retailers going to DC to oppose border tax…”

Reuters: “Retail CEOs head to Washington to try to kill US border tax.”

Automotive News: “US border tax could raise vehicle tax…”

Wall St. Journal: “Border tax could upend global markets…”

Drudge summary of Financial Times: “BRUSSELS GEARS UP FOR HIGH-STAKES CHALLENGE TO ‘US BORDER TAX’ PLAN… Biggest case in World Trade Organization history…”

There are many more headlines along the same line. And they all mention “border tax.” What are they talking about?

Well, “border tax” equals “tariff,” a word that has been used since the founding of the American Republic. But suddenly the memo has gone out to mainstream news to use this other term instead.

Why? Because “border tax” suggests the idea of a tax connected with immigration, as in “border.” Yes, tariffs are traditionally collected at a nation’s border (a port) when imported goods arrive. But no one had been calling a tariff a border tax until now, when Trump is under heavy fire for his temporary immigration ban.

In order to pile on, and give a negative twist to the idea of a tariff, conflating it with immigration, we have “border tax.” Another bonus: everyone dislikes more taxes. So “border tax” has two negatives.

It’s called mind-control propaganda by word association.

War is peace.

Ignorance is strength.

And tariffs are (immigration) border taxes.

In the same way, sheer corporate greed (demanding an end to tariffs) has long been called “free trade.” It sounds positive. It’s the opposite of “slave trade.” More language manipulation. Wouldn’t you prefer being free to being a slave?

When “new world order” and “new international economic order” came into vogue, decades ago, the psyop was based on the idea that “new” was preferable to “old,” and “order” was much better than “chaos.”

Of course, “new world order” backfired, because millions of people saw through it.

Hopefully, the same thing will happen now to “border tax.”

As in: “Why yes, borders are good. They should be solid and well defined and protected. And that’s where tariffs are collected. Plus, draconian corporations should pay their taxes. Border-tax. It’s a terrific idea. Let’s do it.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


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.

Advertisements

6 comments on ““Border tax”: word-manipulation used to destroy Trump’s economic plan

  1. Eliza Ayres says:

    Tariff, not “border tax”. The manipulations of the globalist owned mass media is mind-blowing. Tariffs are just common sense for a country whose economy is going down the tubes due to the flagrant criminal activities of international corporations.

  2. Joy says:

    I think we all underestimated the full ramifications when Trump said he wanted to “drain the swamp” (at least I know I did)! The draconian nest of demons has been stirred up, and it is pure hatred and fury that is being unleashed against everything Trump. I would suggest it is time for those of us who are awake and aware to do an “incredulity check,” so that these daily punches don’t knock us off balance. After days of this, I am making an even stronger commitment to doing my part with powerful Imagination work!

  3. Sunshine says:

    MSM is counting on a gullible audience. They’ll get it. A lot of people don’t really listen to the news or they’d hear the contradictions, the gaps, the ludicrousness of the many stories and interviews. All they’ll take away is “free trade = good, border taxes=bad), because they’re only half following (as there isn’t any logical track to follow anyway) and believe the media is incredibly smart, truthful and in their court.

    NPR makes for good dinner conversations. A couple of weeks ago NPR interviewed a high end fabric store and dress designer in New York. The store owner moaned about having to raise prices if he had to pay tariffs for imported fabrics. The dress designer stated that if a 20% tariff was imposed her dress prices would go up. For example, a dress that a consumer would spend $500 for would go up to $800. What? Nine out of the 10 voices in my head thought this was insanely funny. One thought was, “If I didn’t think twice about dropping 500 on a dress, 800 wouldn’t phase me.” Another thought, competing for attention, asked “why isn’t the highly intelligent interviewer calling her on this?” Only the cost of the imported items are taxed at 20%. So let’s say the imported fabric and notions for the dress cost $250. The added tariff would bring the cost to $300. If the fabric store owner added a little something for himself instead of just passing the 20% added cost on to the buyer, the fabric might sell for $350. So if the dress designer was just adding 100% to the cost of materials for her labor, the dress price to the consumer would be $700. There are other scenarios that include very costly fabric with low designer cost, or low fabric cost with high designer fees, that might make the math seem okay… The tenth voice in my head was not laughing, but thought the tariff may very well be an opportunity for more greed, as demonstrated in the NPR interview.

  4. From Quebec says:

    These bastards can not believe that ONE individual (Trump) can win against them .

    Trump is like David against Goliath.

    I’ll bet on Trump versus the NWO scum elites who will lose badly..

    • Vaclav Nemec says:

      Jon, this analysis is worthy for the Nobel price but I am afraid this will not be your case.

      In these days I am in Paris. When comparing new personal experiences meeting some world scientists here with fresh news from my native Prague, there is NO difference in the manipulation by simple words.

      On the other hand I feel that a certain irreversible process of erosion has been started leading fortunately to the needed ethical way of thinking and acting.

  5. Back to the “good old days”, Jon.

    It doesn’t take too much imagination to win a war.

    Best
    OT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s