Last-minute thoughts for July 4: light at the end of the tunnel

Last-minute thoughts for July 4: the light at the end of the tunnel

by Jon Rappoport

July 5, 2013

For 95% of the population, if you give them hope they eat it like candy and forget it an hour later. Then they want more. They’re hooked on the hope machine.

They somehow believe Hope is Action.

They are the fearful, the submissive, and the delicate.

They have an endless capacity for self-delusion.

Hoping for hope is what elects presidents, one after another. Whereas, what would happen if enough of us refrained from voting for either of the two major criminals campaigning on behalf of the double-headed Washington crime family?

On election day we would crash the system by withdrawing our consent, the consent of the governed.

We wouldn’t be hoping for hope.

Today, the American people registered an astonishing 13% turnout and loudly expressed their no-confidence in government. Washington is lying in electoral ruins.”

If the live audience for one of those half-cocked presidential television debates roared with derisive laughter at every turn, they would sink the whole charade, in front of millions of viewers.

…a better day ahead for all Americans…”

Laughter cracks like thunder through the hall.

It bounces off the walls and runs up and down the aisle. It invades people all over the America in their homes. Despite themselves, they begin chortling.

Pretty soon, they’re rolling off the couch and hitting the floor. They call other people to make sure they’re watching the debate, but they can’t talk. They can only shriek with laughter.

The whole country bursts its androidal bubble. Waking up from the big trance.

I’m sure you know about movements in states to nullify federal laws on the grounds they’re constitutionally illegal. Ultimately, this is a form of corrosive laughter.

Decentralization of illegitimate power should be a laughing matter. It should stage parades with surreal floats. It should walk along sidewalks with crazy signs. It should bellow from billboards. It should come blasting out of churches.

You want to make a difference? Organize a hundred parents in your town and have them make guns out of pink cookie dough and give them to their kids, to take to school. It’s a start. It stimulates the dormant absurdity-center of the brain. It screws with the robots in charge of things.

I want to hear what a million people standing in the Washington Mall laughing at the federal government sounds like. I really do.

When was the last time you laughed so hard you thought you were going to die? Remember how that feels? Reality explodes. Which is the whole point.

Last week, I was watching the news—a form of self-torture I try to avoid. I can’t even remember what the item was. It was some kind of baroque political jive. I went into hysteria-land all of a sudden. It was one of those laughing-weeping blow-ups out of nowhere. I ended up with my head on my knees.

I don’t know about you, but I need that once a day. I really do.

This isn’t the red pill or the blue pill. It’s the crap-in-your-pants pill.

A few years ago, it happened to me in the Vatican. We were there to see Michelangelo’s ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. Have you ever gone? The room is like a steam bath. It’s hot and humid. You’ve got these people, who’ve come from all over the world, and they’re sitting on benches around the periphery and standing—and they’re all looking up.

It only takes a few minutes to realize Michelangelo wasn’t a happy camper lying on that scaffold. On most of the panels, he did fast cartoons. Now and then he’d bear down and execute an immortal face. But most of the time he was aching and grumbling and wondering how he’d let himself get roped into the commission.

This struck my funny bone. I held it in until we got out of the room and were walking back toward the entrance. Then I started laughing. A few people saw me and didn’t like it. Too late. That made me laugh harder. The whole thing, the whole edifice of the Church, with its specialized access to God through licensed priests, was now bleeding into my laugh-center. I was a goner.

It took me a hundred yards along the carpeted corridors to calm down. But then I was at the counter where they sell prints of the Michelangelo—horrifically bad prints—and I was in stitches again.

Wait a minute. What about the millions and millions of people around the world—the billions—who are in chains of one kind or another, who are starving and dying, who are fighting manipulated wars, who are suffering…

The point is, that’s all coming from centralized criminal power. It’s no joke. But when you start to decentralize, when you think about it and find ways to DO it, the whole frame of the Matrix wobbles, the whole arch of consensus bullshit reality and the media that promote it do become a matter for laughter.

And not just a giggle or two. I’m talking about immortal laughter that wipes them off the face of the Earth. I’m talking about a natural and repressed impulse that, unless it’s exercised to the fullest, can turn around and ruin your well-being and take you down.

The Matrix is a joke because it’s designed to stand in for your own power to create reality. That’s the biggest joke of all. If I were the king of that most insane of all human endeavors—”mental health”—I would rewrite the books and point out that Sanity is, in fact, solely defined as: being able to comprehend the biggest joke of all…and that’s all Sanity is.

If you can’t access your imagination, you can’t laugh. Simple.

And you’re dead.

Exit From the Matrix

So, for Independence Day, this is a call to remember that most profound of kiddie tales: The Emperor’s New Clothes.

He’s so naked in so many different ways. When millions of people see it and know it and point it out and respond to it and laugh at it, we have a different kind of revolution.

We’re no longer sucking pipe on the Hope Machine.

We now live in a society where people feel they’re entitled to complain: “I can’t laugh!” As if this rates sympathetic notice.

Not only must we find a way to laugh, we must find a way to make it penetrate to the depth of the Matrix itself. We must find a way to expose the whole joke at the bottom of the despicable power system, so it dies, so it stands naked and decapitated.

This kind of comedy isn’t a light brush-off. It isn’t a modest chuckle. It’s a typhoon that attacks the ship and blows enough holes in it to make it sink.

Sink it.

Every human was once a child who knew how to laugh at lunatic buttoned-up eyes-straight-ahead deadly Reality. Then we became card-carrying members of that buttoned-up farce.

We lost our way. We died and forgot.

It’s time for a resurrection. And an insurrection.

I have absolutely no doubt that some readers will to choose to misunderstand what I’m saying here. So be it.

They’ll claim I’m some sort of gooney Rainbow man. That will definitely make me laugh. Definitely.

So anyway…the war on drugs and the war on cancer and the war on terror and all the other phony wars are efforts to make people fear danger.

Brian (“I’m just a boy scout on a bike with a newspaper route”) Williams; Scott (“I’m not a licensed doctor but I’m performing brain surgery on you”) Pelley; and Dianne (“don’t cry for me, America, I’m weeping for all of us”) Sawyer are beaming this fear at the population every night.

Underneath it all, they’re worried that you’ll see through the scam and start laughing at them. The whole stench-ridden corpus of the news will then collapse in slime and dust.

In other words, danger is the cover story they sell to keep a lid on the massive impulse to ridicule entrenched power into the ground.

This strategy mirrors how many people talk to themselves: “Things are too dangerous and serious to laugh at. I have to march forward with my eyes locked on the next automaton in line.”

Laughter is a trigger for Decentralization of life.

Laughter seems impotent only to the people who can’t laugh.

My advice: shun those people. Their minds are swamped with Literal Reality. If they hear the world is their oyster, they’re down in the sand on the beach digging for the one that will change everything for them.

Don’t think so? I recently wrote a piece about 150 MILLION Americans going to Mexico, swimming back to the US, and becoming instant welfare millionaires. There were readers who were convinced this was a news story.

Satire? Parody? Never heard of it. Because they can’t laugh. They don’t believe in the concept. They’re against it.

Defeating laughter is, in fact, their bottom-line cause. They’re the Matrix People.

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




by Jon Rappoport

October 20, 2012


An old professor of mine once told me that the purpose of learning was to “escape.”


He said that insight was the experience which would lead you beyond a system that was trapping your mind.


He gave a very interesting informal lecture to a group of us about the dawning age of science. He put us at the threshold of the great change, when people began to realize that science was real, that it worked.


So,” he said, “imagine you’re living then. You absorb some of this new scientific method, and the more you think about it, the more you see that superstition is a skin you can shed. It’s quite a discovery.


You track this new thing called science, you roll it around in your mind, you grasp what the experimental method is, and you suddenly break through. You reach a new level. You don’t need all those superstitious habits anymore. You can look with clearer eyes.


At that point, you’re awake. I hope you understand this is the purpose of learning, to make that breakthrough. That’s why learning is a serious thing. It’s not just a game.”


Fifteen years later, spurred by several articles on American politics, and some comments from an American original, Karl Hess, I came to one of those threshold moments: If people on the political right moved far enough to the right, they’d see the insanity of big government and its embrace with big corporations. If people on the left moved far enough to the left, they’d see that big government and its corporate partners were solidly and unalterably against individual freedom.


And then, those people who had gone far enough in their chosen left or right directions “would meet around the back of the barn.” I believe this was a phrase Karl Hess used.


At that moment, the whole left-right division crumbled in my mind.


I was “out of the system.”


To one degree or another, in one way or another, many Americans catch a glimpse or a full-on view of this false political dichotomy. When they do, they wake up.


Then comes an election season. Two actors take the stage and run for president.


The veil that was lifted drops again. The people who woke up go back to sleep. The freedom of escaping the system now looks dangerous. “This time,” in this election, the issues are just too important. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. And so on and so forth.


If there were a few hundred thousand citizens packed together at the back of the barn, their ranks quickly thin out. People flee so they can vote for one of the two actors.


They re-enroll in the system.


I thought I wanted freedom. But now I realize how foolish that was.”


Here is my image: there are three men on a modest boat at sea. A lefty, a righty, and a neutral. Things seem to be going well. It’s a nice cruise. The boat keeps slowing down, but not to worry. It’s still moving, and the weather’s fine.


Then one morning, just after breakfast, the neutral is walking on the deck and he sees…something different. In a second, he realizes what he’s seeing has been this way since the outset of the trip, only now, for the first time, he’s noticing it.


The lefty is chopping holes in the boat with an ax. So is the righty.


The neutral begins yelling. He tries to take the axes out of the hands of these lunatics, but he isn’t strong enough.


Finally, the lefty and the righty stop chopping and come over to him. They begin talking in reasonable voices. They tell him that the boat is in danger, yes, but not for the reasons he, the neutral, believes.


No, the lefty is the problem. No, the righty is the problem. They tell him there is a very serious debate here, and he, the neutral, has to choose sides, because the survival of all three of them is at stake. That’s the true situation.


In other words, “for the good of all,” the neutral has to reject what he was just seeing with his own eyes. There was no chopping. There were no axes. Water isn’t pouring into the boat.


Hmm, the neutral thinks. There are two of them and there is one of me. They are the majority. Nothing can change that. Two against one.


But the two of them are opposed to each other. I have to cast the deciding vote. I have a grave and important responsibility.”


The neutral was awake, but he didn’t wake up.


So he goes back to sleep, and in his haze he listens the arguments of the lefty and the righty. At first, they sound like gibberish. He struggles to make sense of them.


Eventually, he figures out why their assertions seem so garbled. He’s seeing into their true character, and he can separate what they’re saying from their actual intentions. He can see the deception. He can watch the words float by like absurd little balloons.


So, accepting his new responsibility, the neutral shuts down that part of his own perception that can assess character. He turns it off. Instead, he just concentrates on the words.


That’s better. Now the words have some degree of meaning. He can “score” them. He can put THESE words into THIS category and THOSE words into THAT category. Better.


Yes. Much better.


Of course, the neutral doesn’t notice that his eyes are closed and he’s snoring. He doesn’t register that. As water continues to pour into the boat, he’s hearing the words and he finds them interesting, even intriguing.


He believes he’s getting a grip on what politics are all about.


The whole point of emerging from the hypnotic tunnel of deception is to stay emerged. That’s called progress. To go back and hide in same tunnel is counter-productive, to say the least. It’s self-induced narcosis.


For millenia, what we now call the controlled media have brought populations under their spell and put them into a trance that defines reality. For the first time in the history of planet, we are seeing new truth-telling media come to the fore in an explosive way.




One thing is certain. The old ways of creating positive action, based on the truth, are changing.


It’s up to people everywhere to imagine new ways and implement them. Imagination is another item which has been put in the deep-freeze for a long time. It is thawing.


Don’t assume that knowing the truth is paralyzing. It’s only paralyzing if you can’t invent ways to use it. Don’t wait around for a message to float out of the clouds. Don’t say, “But now that I’m awake, what do I do?” That’s a close cousin to surrender, and it’s a precursor to going back to sleep.


Don’t whine, don’t complain. INVENT. IMAGINE. CREATE.


Conceive of innovative ways by which you can effectively take this emerging consciousness/truth/wakefulness and make it work.


This isn’t the old model, where you sit around and hope someone will come up with a really great idea. This isn’t I’M A VICTIM, TELL ME HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD. This isn’t any of that crap.


This is going light years beyond watching two phony clowns on television telling you why they should be president.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at




By Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2012


Was Barack Obama handed the Jimmy Carter script from day one of his presidency?


Both men were political amateurs who came out of nowhere. They were tutored and mentored by the radical Globalist, Z. Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security adviser and Obama’s informal but vital foreign policy consultant.


Obama and Carter are both creatures created by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Carter’s administration was rife with TC members, and of the 87 TC members who live in the US, Obama appointed 11 of them to key posts.


Carter’s political downfall was the Iran hostage crisis. One of Obama’s major perceived failures has been his handling of “the nuclear weapons crisis” in Iran.


During Carter’s term, an attack on the US embassy started the Iranian hostage crisis. During Obama’s term, the flashpoint was an attack on the US embassy in Libya. Both events made the sitting presidents look weak and ineffective.


In truth, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the ascendance of the Ayatollah was engineered by Carter, who ordered the restraining of the Shah’s secret police and troops, in the face of “student protests” against the Shah. It was Iran’s “Arab Spring.”


In a similar manner, Obama has promoted phony Middle East “popular democratic uprisings” and the overthrow of ruling strongmen in that region.


Both presidents injured their standing by blandly observing rising oil prices on their watch. They promoted humility and fairness in dealing with major oil-producing nations, sending a signal that gasoline at the pump was not a crucial issue.


In truth, they welcomed higher prices. Carter was hell-bent on his “religious” policy of conservation and asceticism, and Obama wanted to make expensive alternative energy finally cost-effective and competitive with oil.


Carter and Obama launched rhetoric about “a new kind of honorable politics,” a messianic call for greater “social justice” in both the domestic and foreign-policy arenas. As a result, both men were perceived as “weak.” Carter then fell to the “stronger” Ronald Reagan. Obama is running against the “stronger” Mitt Romney.


Obama and Carter both promised sweeping change that would take place immediately after their inauguration. For Carter, it was a (specious) comprehensive energy plan that would free Americans from dependence on foreign oil. For Obama, it was the (specious) stimulus that would put millions of Americans back to work. Both men vastly overplayed their positions, and both men failed utterly.


It’s hard to imagine either man wanted his grand plan to succeed. It’s much easier to conclude that both men wanted to diminish America.


Interest rates played a central role in both presidencies. For Carter, it was crippling escalation. For Obama, it has been massive manipulation to keep rates extraordinarily low. The result in both cases has been a significant degradation of the dollar and rising prices of goods.


Obama and Carter became intimately involved in Afghanistan. For Carter, it was about undermining the Soviet war there, and the training and arming of Arab proxies to attack Soviet troops. Obama has extended the Bush war in Afghanistan, and he has armed Arab proxies to launch wars in the Middle East (made to look like home-grown popular rebellions).


Both men have faced crises that involved their secretaries of state. Cy Vance resigned when Carter ordered a mission to rescue the 53 Americans held hostage in Iran. Now, Hillary Clinton, embroiled in the disaster in Libya, has “taken responsibility” for it. At this moment, whether she will resign is an open question. But both Vance and Clinton chose their strategies to subtly point fingers at the presidents they were serving. In Clinton’s case, she was essentially saying, “Somebody around here has to stand up and take the blame, and since Obama won’t, I will.”


The most powerful similarities between Carter and Obama, though, relate to their bosses, the Trilateral Commission. This is the least-talked-about key.


David Rockefeller created the TC 40 years ago. Its purpose then and now? The erasure of sovereign nations and the establishing of a single global management system.


Carter and Obama submitted to that influence. They pretended they were independent, innovative, unique political figures possessed of a vision that would, finally, transform Washington and business-as-usual politics in America.


They both played the “innocence” card. They came into power promising unique change. They both used religious speech to bolster their claims. They both paraded themselves as humanitarians, first and foremost, who had somehow skirted the corrupt vetting process for presidential candidates.


They both knew this was a lie.


To ensure there is no misunderstanding, a comparison between the stances of Reagan and Romney would provide equally disappointing content.


It’s all about script. The “strong” (Reagan and Romney) were put in place to provide contrast to the “weak” (Carter and Obama).


It’s the old whipsaw effect. “You didn’t like that president? Well, here is an entirely different one.”


Meanwhile, the federal government, like a fungus, grows. It encompasses and steals more power, as the monopolistic two-party system fortifies the dark canopy under which the fungus can thrive.


The real message to the American people, from the top of the power ladder, is: “You can vote for X, or you can vote for X.”


Faced with that rank insanity, the public consciousness spins its wheels in place and tries desperately to invent fairy tales in which one of those Xs is really a Y. But it isn’t.


It’s all about the script.


That’s why even one vote scrawled on a piece of paper in an alley at midnight, for a man like Ron Paul, means more than 30 million taps on a touch screen for X or X in three weeks.


Barack Obama is the first black Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was the first white Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the first Hollywood Mitt Romney.


It’s all about the script.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at




by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2012


For decades, disaffected Americans have been trudging to the polls and voting for the lesser of two evils. That’s how they register their preference for a presidential candidate.


Choices based on that dubious strategy seem to work for the short-term (at best). But in the long run, the law of diminishing returns sets in.


Term after presidential term, the lesser of two evils lowers the quality of life for everyone and keeps nudging the decline of the American Republic. The hole to dig out of becomes deeper, and successive presidents—each one the lesser of two evils—are less capable and willing to do the necessary digging.


That’s the story of leadership in America.


But prompted by new and more desperate created crises, citizens resort to the “lesser” strategy every four years, believing they must.


Carter-Reagan, Reagan-Mondale, Bush-Dukakis, Bush-Clinton, Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry, Obama-McCain, Obama-Romney.


I’m not that enthusiastic about either man, but I have to choose one. I have to go with the lesser of two evils, because this country is in real trouble.”


Where does it stop?


Look, this time I’m picking the lesser of two evils, because the national crisis is so terrible. But next time, I promise I’ll do something else.”


Really? What else will you do? Hope the sun comes out?


The voter who is chronically addicted to the lesser of two evils is like a man in debt who borrows to pay it off. Each time he borrows, the debt gets bigger. He says, “I know this is crazy, but what else can I do? Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is the lesser of two evils. If I don’t do it, I’m sunk. I promise I’ll straighten this mess out—but not right now. I have a payment coming due. I have to borrow again.”


And just like the federal debt, which keeps swelling, the election of one lesser after another as president keeps expanding the national misery. Finally, the idea that voters can step outside the two-party system to find a real president who actually believes in the Constitution seems like a pipe dream, because all the prior lessers have screwed things up so badly, have sold so out badly, have trampled on the Constitution so crazily…the shell-shocked public accepts these lessers as the status quo.


At that point, people say, “Stop all this nonsense about a third-party candidate. Get real. We have to choose from the two candidates in front of us. That’s what life and elections are all about. Be an adult. Make your decision. Go for the lesser of two evils.”


If this is wisdom, a strawberry is navigating a space ship to Jupiter.


Hmm. You know, that’s not a bad idea. If we could insert four or five hundred new DNA strands in a strawberry, give it artificial eyes, install tiny computers in its skin, it might work. Captain Strawberry. It’s better than having a human pilot the craft. The distance is so great, a human could never sustain concentration for the duration of the voyage. All in all, the strawberry is the lesser of two evils.”


A national poll might prove quite interesting. Ask people, “In the presidential election, are you voting for the lesser of two evils? Are you voting for the candidate who is “less bad” than the other guy?”


Better yet, let’s have a candidate who says, up front, “Hi, I’m Fred Goober. I’m the lesser of two evils, and I’m running for president. Let’s not kid each other. You know, I know, and everybody knows that my opponent and I are both morons and sell-outs. We got where we are by lying and stealing. What else did you expect? We’re both puppets for larger forces. But at least I’m willing to admit it. And I believe, in my heart, that I’m the lesser of two evils. What do you say? Cut me a break. I really want to live in the White House and be the commander-in-chief. And my wife? Don’t get me started on what she wants.”


So the next time a “smarter, wiser” friend, who “really knows how the world works,” tells you you’ve got to choose the lesser of two evils, realize who’s smart and who the idiot is.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2012

Dear Gary,

I’m writing because I believe you, as the Libertarian Party candidate for president, can perform a great service for the country.

As you know, there is a growing awareness across America that a vote for Obama or Romney is not going to get us where we want to go.

It’s only going to worsen the situation we’re in.

We’re close enough to the cliff already.

The Libertarian Party fully understands that the Democrats and Republicans—the one Party with two heads—have been violating the Constitution at an egregious level for decades.

The whole notion of limited central government, on which the American Republic was founded, is now buried under mountains of illegal laws, regulations, and practices.  To spell out a complete bill of particulars would take years.

Now is the time for us to take public action, and I believe that action can best be capsulized as: Choke the Vote.

Don’t vote in this presidential election.  Don’t vote for anyone.

Let those of us who are aware stand up and say, “We’re not voting for Obama or Romney.  We don’t want either one.  And if you are voting for either candidate, it’s you who’ll shoulder the responsibility for what the eventual president does to make things worse.”

Let’s place the burden where it really is.

Gary, you could, in one stroke, make more of a difference in this election than through all the campaigning you and the Libertarian Party are doing.  You could tell your supporters, your Party, and all America: DON’T VOTE.  DON’T VOTE FOR ME.  DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE.

You could further urge other third-party candidates to tell their followers the same thing.

“In this election, don’t vote for me.  Don’t vote for anyone.  This time around, that’s what I’m campaigning for.”

Contrary to the notion that this amounts to political suicide, it could galvanize thousands, maybe millions of Americans, who are sitting at home grumbling about Obama and Romney, who are profoundly dissatisfied, as they try to figure out what to do about the dilemma they’re facing.

We’re not as small a group as some people imagine.  If a spark is created, we could ignite a dormant sense of outrage that has been boiling under the surface of the population for years.

We could make ourselves known.  We could state our case, connect, and show our true preference by staying home on election day.

Since we can’t go into the voting booth and select “none of the above,” we need to make our voices heard beyond the ballot.

How many people, in the wake of the first presidential debate, saw their worst fears realized?  How many people shook their heads and said, “I don’t trust either candidate”?

How many people would like to feel their no-vote could send a clear positive message?

How many people retain enough knowledge of the Constitution to know that each of these candidates is planning to keep violating that document if he is elected?

How many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution feel in their gut that Obama and Romney would keep leading us down the wrong path?

We should do all we can to legitimize that feeling, because it is real, it is true, and it is distinctly necessary.

The Democrats and Republicans have been asserting a monopolistic chokehold on the government for a very long time.  Through incessant promotion to vote, through PR about “the lesser of two evils,” and in other ways, Americans have been made guilty about withholding their consent from the two-party system.

When are we going to say Enough?

Gary, a vote for you as president, a vote for what you stand for as a Libertarian, is a good thing.  But consider that the best thing is you taking one step further on the road, in 2012, and leading a grassroots revolution.  Now, make a course correction and run on a platform of DON’T VOTE.  DON’T VOTE FOR ME.  DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE.

Apply a shock to the system.  Express how profoundly you feel about what the two major parties have been doing to the American Republic.

This is the leadership we need now.  This is the voice we need.

Make a beginning.

It doesn’t matter whether, in the wake of your announcement, we would suddenly hear ten supporting voices or ten thousand.  What matters is that we start.

Let all the counter-rhetoric flow.  Let the critics who demand that we vote say what they will.  It will give us a chance to point out the flaws and lies in their pronouncements.

Does the government, as represented by Democrats and Republicans, own this country, or do we?  Are our authentic voices confined to choosing between two alternatives that don’t reflect our best thoughts and desires?

Is that our diminished and subservient role?

I hope you’ll give these issues some thought.

And to all free-thinkers, independent citizens, and artists everywhere, I hope you’ll take up the banner of CHOKE THE VOTE in your own imaginative and compelling way.  Somewhere up the line, we could see the moment when so many people stay home on election day, the nation will come alive with the No Confidence its citizens righteously express.

We can say, “We can’t do anything,” or we can do something.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.




by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2012


Since these two guys are actors, can’t they get better actors to debate? Since these two guys are gangsters, can’t they get Tony Soprano to square off against Sonny Corleone? That would give us some fabulous TV viewing.


I tried watching the debate. I got so bogged down in numbers I gave up.


No, it’s not the 600 percent added on to the rebate on the other tax, it’s the minus 40 percent, and then you divide by 2, not 3. And that’s what I’ve been saying since day one.”


Well, if you divide by 2, the figures don’t match up to what happened to my grandmother.”


The postmortem media reaction was, of course, all about performance. The pundits were schoolteachers in a public speaking class.


You looked down at the podium. You didn’t stand straight. You were slumping. You have to keep your shoulders back and your head level. Try to smile more. Never look at your hands. The moderator is your friend. Don’t interrupt him…”


The country is falling apart, the economy is taking hits from all sides, the food supply is brimming with GMOs, the US is fighting covert wars all over the Middle East, crime in the streets is spreading, the surveillance state is recording everything that moves, the Fed is printing money like it’s toilet paper, but…Obama kept looking down at the podium, that’s the takeaway from the debate.


The stretch I watched was two accountants trying to figure out how to cook the books.


I would have preferred matching clips of Romney water-skiing versus Obama shooting hoops on the White House lawn.


Here are a couple of the incisive after-debate poll questions from CBS and CNN: how do you feel now about (candidate) caring about your needs and problems; did (candidate) perform better than you expected.


Caring about my needs and problems? What the hell does the president have to do with my needs and problems? I need the dissolution of the two American political parties. My problem is they’re actually one party with two heads.


Perform better than I expected? I expected both of them would be mind-numbing, and they exceeded even Dr. Phil.


The psychology of elections boils down to something simple. If people see two guys in suits disagreeing about something, people think what they’re disagreeing about must be important. That’s it. That’s all you have to know.


That’s how you stage politics. The real issues and the real crimes are buried, because the candidates agree on what they’re supposed to argue about up front.


They won’t take questions on the obscene number of medically caused deaths, on GMO destruction, on the explosion of surveillance, on the phony war on terror or drugs, on the patent crime of stock manipulation, on black budgets, on the encroaching forces of Globalism, on the fake science behind global warming, on chemtrails, on the massive failure of public education, on US-government empire building, on corporate statism, on the bureaucratic army of unelected regulators who run federal agencies and illegally make laws, on Agenda 21, and on a host of other issues.


They’ll skirt all that.


They’ll fiddle while Rome burns.


You want a Monsanto president? Elect either Obama or Romney. Facts show both men are in the pocket of that heinous corporation.


CBS, NBC, and ABC accentuate “performance” in the debates. FOX slams Obama; MSNBC slams Romney. CNN tries to look neutral while supporting Obama. It’s all for show. Nobody dares say both candidates (and thus both political parties) are disasters. That would derail the ratings of the stage play. That would blow the ongoing cover-up.


During the run-up to every presidential election since 1980, I have heard people say that THAT ELECTION was the most important in history, and a failure to vote would be treasonous. That’s because engendering fear is the primary way to keep the population locked into two-party electoral politics. In every election season, there is always some “overriding issue” that demands picking sides. There is always a new disaster, a new crisis.


In that sense, the purpose of the election is not to solve the crisis; the crisis is generated to make the election seem vital.


The best after-debate comment of the night was delivered by Al Gore. Obama coming to Denver at the last moment, Al opined, could have created, at that altitude, a brain oxygen deficit. On this basis alone, if Obama is reelected, Al should win the directorship of the Dept. of Health and Human Services.


Speaking of brain cells, any American with at least two functioning cells should realize that the road to the presidency, coming up through the two-party system, means any puppet who gains the job is a lowest common denominator. It’s not just about party, either. It’s about the men who control the parties. The Rockefeller types who run the whole show delight in superficial presidential thinkers who can’t separate the real wheat from the phony chaff.


These presidents actually believe their own “secret agendas” have a chance of success. They refuse to understand that what they want is just a minor flea on the body of the true Plan: global takeover by Globalist elites.


This isn’t conspiracy, this is history going back at least as far as 1913.


Why don’t people want to see it? Because they’ve struggled to assert and cement in a picture of reality by the time they’ve reached the age of consent. And having done that, they can’t face the idea that what they’ve begged, borrowed, and stolen might be completely wrong.


During my life, I’ve met two significant politicians. Norman Thomas, who for years ran for president on the Socialist ticket, came to our house for dinner. He was a bore. Nothing I heard or saw reflected a vigorous mind at work. As far as I could tell, he was just going over old cliches for the thousandth time.


The other politician was Senator Hubert Humphrey. My parents dragged me to a lecture of his when I was 16. I listened to the Hump talk for close to three hours, and at the end of it, I was convinced he was the greatest man in the world. At that time, he was at the height of his oratorical powers. He was something to see.


A week later, I couldn’t recall a single thing he’d said. It was then I began to wonder what politics was all about.


Last night, I watched two sold-out specimens take their show on the road in Denver. It was so, so tired. I waited for the water-skiing and the hoops, but they never came.


Democrat-Republican politics in America is a walking dead man. We who know this are trending, as they say. We need to expand our ranks. Two pernicious book-end gargoyles aren’t going to save the day.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.




by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2012


That reporter would be me. My reply, for starters, is a video cartoon. Watch it here:



I’m tired of celebrities who don’t have a clue, who think this election is really about the differences between Obama and Romney.


This election is about the pretense of differences. As any awake American knows, we have one political party in this country. It has two heads. Its heads are corporate. Its heads are Globalist.


Globalism has never been a campaign issue in any presidential election. That should be a clue, since what is happening in this world is, to a large degree, guided by Globalist forces.


Their goal is a New World Order. Not the narrow one Democrats think the Republicans fomented. The N.W.O. embraces both parties. Whenever there is a piece of legislation before Congress that would expand mega-corporate power at the expense of everybody else, such as the GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA treaties, requiring Senate approval, both sides of the aisle manage to engineer enough cooperation to pass it.


It doesn’t matter who is president.


Globalist banking forces have been busy bees in the last few years, torpedoing national economies, shoving populations over the cliff, preparing to install some version of a new currency that will encompass the planet. This currency doesn’t have to be paper, nor does it have to win formal approval of governments. In its first phase, it can simply rearrange debt.


Wait, the US and European bailouts have already been doing that. And now we have QE3 in America, which is a label for the endless “printing” of Bernanke dollars out of thin air.


Celebrities who think they have a grip on the real role of political parties in this country are absolutely clueless. In Mr. Jackson’s case, the fact that Barack Obama is black is about as important as a fragment of dust on Mars.


Obama and Romney are tools. Instruments. They front for forces over which they have no control.


When people like Matt Damon, Madonna, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, and Clint Eastwood make public pronouncements about their favorite politician of the moment, they’re doing nothing more than contributing to the confusion and deception in which American politics has been mired for generations.


They have the right to say anything they want to. But imagining they have the slightest clue about what is going on is laughable.


Wake the f**k up, America, in their mouths really means: go back to sleep for four more years. It means: be a sheep. It means: take your news from the mainstream media. It means: fall into the trap of believing one of two puppets will cure what ails us.


Haven’t we had enough of this nonsense and insanity? Haven’t we had enough of phony opposition that is created to keep us flailing away at each other? Haven’t we had enough of a federal government that is becoming more and more intrusive and controlling, no matter who is living in the White House, no matter who is playing golf or jogging or hosting galas?


Why aren’t these celebrities taking about the awesome power of the surveillance state? Why aren’t they mentioning the global takeover the food supply by Monsanto with its GMOs? Why aren’t they talking about the demise of the small farmer? Why aren’t they talking about the mass destruction being wreaked by the pharmaceutical empire with its oversold toxic drugs?


Are these issues, just to name a few, too hot to handle? Would coming out of the closet on these matters put a quick end to their careers? And if so, what, yes, global forces could cast those actors aside like so much debris in the wind?


Living inside the Hollywood bubble can be a precarious proposition, when the truth is on the table. That’s when these actors, who play fictional heroes, starting sweating for real, back up a step, and sense their fame and fortune is at stake. And then they feign ignorance and shut up. They disappear.


If you’re reading this article and are a committed Democrat or Republican, all I can say to you is: Wake the F**ck up.


Only I mean it.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.