A key clue to Trump’s presidency: American Empire

A key clue to Trump’s presidency: American Empire

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2017

That clue is embedded in a statement Trump made in his inaugural address:

“We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world… We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”

Is Trump absolutely serious?

Does he intend, in this respect, to follow in the footsteps of Ron Paul, who helped pave the way for Trump’s success by impacting millions of Americans on the subject (among others) of American Empire and foreign conquest?

Does Trump intend to “stay at home” and abandon the long-standing policy of making war and policing the planet and toppling regimes and using the CIA to create frontiers for US corporations?

Does he intend to go up against the military-industrial complex?

Will he try to sideline slimy neocons?

In his inaugural address, Trump also said this:

“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones — and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”

Warning: Depending on how he prosecutes that campaign, wiping out terrorism could continue to function as a cover for foreign wars launched with more traditional goals: destabilize governments and install leaders who will bend to America’s will; extend American Empire; assume the role of international policeman.

In other words, the eradication of terrorism could reinstall every motive and intent Trump says he wants to take away.

Will he dare to keep America’s overall war machine at home?

Trump should understand that, if he does indeed intend to keep this promise, untold numbers of people all over the world will rally to his cause.

And if he doesn’t, the enormous blowback won’t merely affect him; it will keep America in the same horrific bind it’s been in for a long, long time: war is money; war floats a basically bereft economy; war destroys lives; war kills hope; war keeps putting the lie to “America, the bastion of freedom for every person on Earth”; war serves the Globalist operation to invent a need for one planetary management system; war makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; war harnesses the worst impulses of soul, mind, and body, when it is launched on false pretenses.

After all, look at Hillary Clinton, warmonger par excellence. Look at what it has done to her and her followers. They can’t tell up from down.

Many times during the campaign, and since his election, Trump has said he’ll stop the insane wars of American Empire. No American president, going back as least as far as Kennedy, has made such a statement with any emphasis.

I’m not sure the American people understand what Trump is claiming he’ll accomplish here.

Given our government and its domestic partners, given the military-industrial complex, this claim is astonishing.

Does he really mean it?

Because, if he does, this is a revolution.

And therefore, we should be paying close attention. Very close attention.

Yes, we should looking at some of Trump’s appointments with a jaundiced eye. Of course. But beyond those men and their potential hidden motives, we have to look at Trump himself and what he does.

In particular, I urge the supporters of Ron Paul, who made his critique of American Empire and foreign wars crystal clear, to keep their eyes open. Those supporters, many of them, were fully aware of what Paul was saying and how revolutionary it was. For that reason, among others, they came to his side. Now they need to be watchdogs on the Trump presidency.

As I’ve written before, the movement that formed around Trump is more important than the man. I’m talking about the people who stand for both freedom and honor.

Is it possible these people have made a grave mistake? In politics, that’s always a risk. But it is no crime to want the right thing and judge that there might be a candidate who wants the right thing, too. In other words, it’s not shameful to be wrong—as long as those supporters refuse to dream about phony rainbows, as long as they hold up the standard of freedom and honor to their candidate and use it to demand that promises be kept.

We’re past the point of needing to be fooled. Way past that point.

The current president of the United States has taken a de facto oath to reverse the course of Empire.

This is the oath we have been wanting to hear for a long time.

The Matrix Revealed

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

We know all about the short con and the long con and every kind of political con. We’re well prepared in that respect. Now we want to see proof.

Not merely a few symbolic gestures.

Great energy surrounds the person who promises the honorable thing; especially when he wins.

Especially when he is not alone.

Especially when he reflects the thing fervently wished for.

Is Trump crazy enough to go up against the entire establishment and the Deep State?

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.”

Let us be vigilant.

See something, say something.

And in the meantime, in every way possible, demand the end of Empire. Let that demand come in from every place on Earth.

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.




By Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2012



Yes, of course it was the Federal Reserve. Paul wanted to investigate it and audit it thoroughly, and if by some remote chance he became president, he would have had the leverage to go deep and deeper. And then the global banksters would have tumbled out of the woodwork, for all to see.


But Paul also wanted to bring all the American troops home and get them out of foreign wars. That was just as big a deal. He was stepping on some huge toes there.


So let’s explore a few pieces of America’s current military adventurism and see who’s hiding under what rocks.


Once you laugh off the ridiculous idea that the government is promoting democracy through the Arab Spring, strange questions surface.


Who’s running the real op in the Middle East, and what is their goal?


Obama’s obvious propensity for all things Islamic…how does that fit in?


According to one sensible scenario, the spreading Arab Spring is merely a front for a covert op, whose real ambition—using Libyan and other trained terrorists and NATO surrogates—is a US takeover of the Middle East and North Africa.


And then? Previous dictators in that region, overthrown, will give way to Muslim states, and new Islamic leadership will pay back under-the-table promises to US elites, who want…what?


A better oil deal?


What’s really going on here?


There are those who believe US ambitions in the Middle East have everything to do with establishing a ring of military bases close to Russia. Such moves on the planetary chessboard would signify an enduring competition between the two primary Cold War players. If true, is the only way to achieve American military hegemony through igniting the whole Muslim world? Isn’t that a bit risky? A bit crazy?


Assuming the current chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is all a US plan to utilize Islamic proxies, how sensible and pragmatic is the strategy, given the unpredictable range of future consequences? Is this a genius maneuver?


With countries in the Middle East coming, for example, under Muslim Brotherhood control, is the US more likely or less likely to preserve the unimpeded flow of oil? Is a “better oil deal” really in the offing?


Is there another way to look at US actions in the Middle East over the last two presidencies?


One thing is clear. George W Bush and Barack Obama are not highly rated war planners or foreign policy pros. They’re neophytes. They’re also, of course, like the whole parade of modern US presidents, instruments of higher forces. They’re front men.


This doesn’t mean Bush and Obama really comprehend who they’re actually working for. It simply means they’re dupes.


Just as it was eminently predictable that Bush, after 9/11, would want to invade Iraq (“Saddam tried to kill my dad”) and would go along with plans that were on the drawing board long before 9/11, it has been predictable that Obama would show “warm support” for and special treatment to Islam, imagining its modern destiny in terms of “a great self-determined uprising.” Hence, Obama’s key role in Arab Spring.


In other words, both Bush and Obama were carefully profiled long before they ever took office as president.


Profiled by whom?


If we draw an arc of power, extending at least as far back as Vietnam (or from the beginning of the 20th century), coming forward through the latter stages of the Cold War, and then into “the age of terrorism,” the question of who benefits has an answer.


It is the same answer you would get if you inquired into the objectives of the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the elite bankers who breathe life into economies and take life away, according to their private timetable.


Who benefits from the last decade of manipulated US foreign policy and military wars?


The military-industrial complex? Yes.


But above and beyond that?


The great beneficiaries are the elite Globalists who are determined to establish a planetary management system, a political New World Order.


And by using tools like Obama and Bush, they have made headway toward achieving a major item on their agenda: degrade and sink and weaken, and ultimately destroy the United States by keeping it at war.


The United States, from the Globalist perspective, needs to be brought down. It needs to have its pillars crumble. It needs to go away.


There are two reasons. One, it is the primary place in the world where the idea of individual freedom is still alive. And two, its government’s persistent ambition to create unilateral Empire is a threat to international Globalist control of the planet.


American empire and Globalist empire are not exactly the same thing. In the long run, as far as the Rockefellers of this world are concerned, they are mutually exclusive.


So what better way to weaken America than to cater to its government’s empire-building obsession, and to use that obsession to propel it into high-risk military adventures that dead-end in disasters?


Disasters such as:


Huge budget expenditures on wars and ensuing debt. Demoralization of American citizens through wars, to say nothing of the injuries and deaths and debilitation of soldiers. An embrace with radical Islam, and all the blowback that brings. The eventual pinching off of oil supplies in the Middle East. International chaos. Engendering hatred of America abroad. Inculcating self-hatred of the US among Americans at home. Confusion, passivity, despair.


A classic takedown.


In his Memoirs (2003), David Rockefeller wrote: Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


Did you think David was just playing patty-cake, that his plan was only about subverting the money supply, that this was going to be a gentlemanly world domination scheme? No. This is also blood and guts and fear and terror.


The Globalists play for keeps.


US foreign policy and military aggression over the last decade makes no sense because it wasn’t supposed to. That policy was using two dupes, Bush and Obama, to achieve something these preposterous presidents were only dimly aware of.


Of the two, Obama, with his Marxist background, is more cognizant. But he, too, is caught up in his private vision. For him, it is all about some grand “liberation” scheme and imagined “payback” for past oppression.


He was chosen to be president because that is his character.


No, the Arab Spring isn’t ultimately about American hegemony and domination in the Middle East. It’s about a grand American failure there. That’s what’s on page one of the grand Globalist plan. And it’s coming true.


The American war-mongers are following their playbook, and they are being directed, unknowingly, by the Globalist princes, who are using that war-mongering to sink America.


From that perspective, what is happening in the Middle East makes sense.


If Romney wins the election, he will fit neatly into the Bush mold. He’ll join the war party. He’ll see America defeating evil everywhere by continued force. He’ll jump right into the trap.


Only Ron Paul had it right. Bring home everybody. Bring home all the soldiers and stop the madness. That’s why the Bilderberg people hate him so much. He sees a bigger picture. The whole defamation of the Tea Party makes sense, too, at a much deeper level. The Tea Party supported Ron Paul. Many of them, too, saw there was something very, very wrong about Americans For a New Military Century.


Paul and the Tea Party had to be stopped. They had to be stopped, because the Globalist elite wanted the American government-military-contractor-corporate nexus to pursue their insane goals of Middle East domination and fail.


Does this sound too complicated to be real? It’s no more complicated than using a bully’s force to defeat him. Only in this case, the victor is a larger bully.


See? These crazy American war-mongers want to invade everybody and defeat the world. Why stop them? We have to encourage them. We have to engineer what they’re doing so it makes some kind of sense to the American people, so the people don’t rebel. We’ll supply the presidents who’ll supply the rationale, and we’ll keep stoking the fire. Sooner or later, the war-mongers will run out of steam. They’ll crash on the rocks and we’ll pick up the pieces. Let’s make sure they go to the Middle East. There isn’t a better place to fail utterly. Except maybe Afghanistan. Oh, let’s make sure they go there, too, for a long time. Fantastic! Let’s support and massage and polish and push those mad goals!”


Of course, the picture I’ve drawn here becomes a little more complicated when you factor in the role of mega-corporations, who want their considerable piece of the global pie. The American War Mongers and the Globalist Princes “share” certain corporations. Yes, there are overlapping interests. But there is a strong division between those who want American Power and those who want Globalist Power.


The picture of America supporting the Arab Spring and encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood and covertly using terrorists to overthrow dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria looks crazy because it is crazy. It’s failure waiting to happen. Obama is presently going along with it, because he is predisposed to want “the liberation of Islam.”


The neocons stand for American empire. People like David Rockefeller stand for destruction of America.


I know there is a tendency to say, “Oh, they’re all bastards and traitors, who cares what their goals are. They’re our enemies. We don’t need to draw subtle differences.”


I suggest the differences aren’t subtle at all. In the first case, you have the government-corporate nexus of the United States directing its energies to become a Roman Caesar extending unilateral empire to far horizons. In the second case, you have Globalist agents pushing those ambitions forward because they know the failure will be huge and spectacular.


Do you think Julius Caesar was entirely alone in his tent cooking up plans to stretch the Roman Empire to the ends of the Earth? Don’t you think there were a few key people planted in his circle of advisors who wanted to take Rome down? These covert agents bolstered Caesar, encouraged him, showed him why Rome could only survive by conquering more lands and people. They fed him whatever worked to egg him on toward an eventual future of ruin.


To boil it down to a stark analogy: one crazy man drives his car every day across a plateau toward a cliff. He’s convinced he can go faster and faster and still stop in time. The second man, who is his covert enemy and who is crazy like a fox, tells him, yes, driving faster is a great idea, keep going, don’t stop at 80mph, take it up to 90 and 100, you’re a fantastic driver, I bet you can go 200mph and still stop in time…


The neocons of America actually believe they can take over and transform the whole world through military force. Their remaining shreds of common sense are blasted away by Globalists, breathing down their necks telling them how great and powerful they (the neocons) are, showing them how they can extend empire right into…gigantic failure.


Ron Paul and his supporters saw pieces and sections of this whole insane situation and said, “Stop it all. Bring all our soldiers home. End the madness.”


They threatened everybody in power on all levels. They cut to the chase. That’s why they had to be scrubbed from the picture and sent to the bleachers, like embarrassing cousins from the hills.


That’s why, for example, the idiots at MSNBC pounded on the Tea Party night after night and never mentioned that many, many of these “hicks and racists and bitter clingers” wanted an end to American wars much more fervently than MSNBC’s Messiah, Barack Obama, did. That fact was never brought up. It went against the script.


FOX and CNN never brought it up in any serious way, either. The three other major networks stayed away from it like the plague, too.


Ron Paul, before he dropped out of the race, was educating millions of Americans about war. In the history of outsider “peace candidates” for president, there has never been anyone at his level.


Historically, several peace candidates have been socialists. They wanted an end to American aggression so the Soviet Union could advance its agenda more easily. Ron Paul wanted peace because the Constitution was framed to permit war only on the basis of defense of the nation—and not on the basis of empire-building.


And to media agents of Globalism, the Constitution is like a silver bullet to a vampire. The Constitution promotes life and decimates the Walking Undead.


I believe there is a lot more to this story, including the future role of multinational corporations under a Globalist New World Order. But this is a start. And it offers a reason (among several other reasons) why Ron Paul was stopped in his tracks, a reason not cited nearly enough.


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

July 6, 2012



Fifty years from now, if nothing is done to stop it, all food grown on planet Earth will be genetically modified. And children growing up in that era won’t be able to imagine food ever existed in another form.


In America, people think of the two-party system of politics in the same way. How else can you do business? It has to be candidate A versus candidate B. Sure, you can spin off small parties and people can run as Independents, but it never works, so why try? Get real. It’s Democrat or Republican. Choose one side. If you have to, hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils. That’s life. That’s reality.


Even if choosing A or B is like choosing between the Corleone and the Barzini crime families, it’s all we have. Get used to it. Nothing else works. Nothing else stands a chance.


The inevitable is the inevitable.


However, suppose voting for Obama or Romney AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEY REPRESENT really IS like choosing between Corleone and Barzini. Is that choice, by any reasonable measure, sane?


Actually, it’s madness, and once you can accept that, certain strategies open up and become available.


If Ron Paul had been fully willing to look at the two dominant political parties FOR WHAT THEY ARE, he could have, as a maneuver, begun his run for the presidency as a Republican, and then, when it became apparent the GOP was trying to steal Iowa and Maine from him, he could have used that occasion to bolt and declare himself an Independent candidate.


Then he could have gone on the attack, full-bore, by which I mean he could have begun talking to the American people about the deep and intrinsic and terminal corruption of the Democratic and the Republican parties.


Then, instead of talking to crowds of five or 10 thousand people, he would have ended up in stadiums talking to 50,000 people.


Some analysts and historians actually presume that the checks and balances instituted in the Constitution, to keep the central government weak, were also supported, for the same checks-and-balance purpose, by the evolution of the two dominant political parties.


Nothing could be further from the truth.


These two parties do NOT have the primary function of creating gridlock or canceling out each other’s excesses. That’s not the game.


The Republican and Democratic parties, as they have existed for a very long time, actually ensure the prolongation of a vast criminal enterprise, in which the creation of an illusion of difference is foisted on the American people.


It’s rather easy to see how that happened. The generations of leaders of both parties quickly realized that this illusion of difference could define, in the public’s mind, what Democracy was supposed to be all about. And under that cover, money, property, freedom, and lives could be stolen.


And the size of government itself could expand voraciously, because when you own a criminal organization, don’t you want to rule more territory? Isn’t that your objective?


Ask Al Capone. Ask Meyer Lansky or Sam Giancana or Santo Trafficante.


When you own the whole game through a phony two-party apparatus, you have a license to steal.


Now, the bigger this two-party mob becomes, the more obvious it is that a line of propaganda is needed to explain the bigness. You have to explain that BIGNESS OF GOVERNMENT is a good thing. You must. Otherwise, people will catch on. So you say: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” You say: “We’re helping everybody.” You say: “We’re fulfilling needs.” You say: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”


Now you have Collectivism.












The two-party system as “the lifeblood of politics?” A giant steaming pile of propaganda.


The two-party system as “the only way to get things done in this country?” Another giant steaming pile.


The two-party system as “a proper reflection of the conscience of the people?” One more pile.


Whenever someone challenges the two-party apparatus, he is told about governments that have sixteen parties and the unworkability and corruption of that system. As if anyone in his right mind would suggest that more parties is the solution to two parties. It isn’t.


The solution to the two-party Collectivist concept is:










And the whole reason know-it-all high-IQ idiots will tell you this won’t ever work is because they no longer know what a free individual is. And when they vaguely sniff out a free individual, they recoil in horror.


That’s the bottom line.


If what I’m proposing seems unworkable or absurd or naïve, it’s because the two-party system has buried the American people under a low ceiling of Collectivist thought.


In order to run for office and win, you have to be affiliated with one of the two political parties.”


Translation: “You have to pledge allegiance to the political mafia, not the United States.”


If Ron Paul had declared himself a total and complete and absolute Independent, and if he had exposed to the hilt both parties, and explained what their game really is, he would have acquired at least 20 times the number of supporters he presently has.


But Ron thought he could be in and be out at the same time.


That was his problem. It still is his problem.


Imagine what America would have been like if, after the Constitution was ratified, NO POLITICAL PARTIES EMERGED AND ONLY INDIVIDUALS EMERGED AS CANDIDATES.




John Adams, in the early days of the Republic, saw it correctly and saw it exactly:


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting [organizing] measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble opinion, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”


Even more tellingly, George Washington laid the system bare as he struggled to extricate himself from it: “…party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through which channel to seek it [truth]. This difficulty, to one [a person], who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented.”


Thomas Jefferson, who on a number of occasions registered his acceptance of political parties as inevitable and natural, broke ranks in this very personal assessment: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction [to a party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.”


Here is another myth: if all candidates for the presidency and the Congress were individuals and there were no parties, the range of opinion would be so great that nothing would ever get done in government.


I suppose that’s true IF the reference point of the Constitution is ignored. But it’s far more likely that 535 independent representatives and an an independent president would remember the Constitution.


Assessing the damage to liberty, private property, individual security, the honest prosecution of criminals at all levels, how has the two-party system fared? How has that system performed?


All major media outlets, and a surprising number of alternative outlets, will not declare the two-party system a hoax. People want to hold on hard to “reality.”


The philosophical underpinning of this “reality” is Collectivism itself. Specifically, it is collectivist perception, the means by which “everybody knows” becomes the consensus.


The primary feature of The Group is: its members look at events indirectly; they look at events in accordance with what they think other members are seeing; they don’t look at or judge an event through their own eyes or minds.


This method of seeing is, in fact, empty. It’s a fantasy. It’s like passing around an unknown object, from hand to hand, and describing it as you believe everyone else will describe it.


You are always listening for “an echo effect” before it happens.


And you claim the echo effect is what you perceive.


It’s a rank absurdity.


On the basis of this absurdity, people say the two-party system of politics is unshakable.


What they really mean, or should mean, is: the two-party system is an illusion, a zero.


Living on the foundation of such zeroes, in all areas of human life, and asserting they are obvious and factual, is the hallmark of The Matrix.


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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.










by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2012



After my last article about Ron Paul, and after my conversation with Alex Jones two days ago, I’ve had a chance to reflect further on this whole fiasco, and I’ve seen a deeper operating level. So I’m writing a follow-up.


The Paul family and the Romney family are friendly, so it isn’t much of a stretch to imagine Romney telling Rand he agrees with Rand on many points, but that it will take time to introduce “real change we can believe in” to the current American political system.


This is a classic bait and switch. “Join us for the long haul. We need men like you. We’ll win the fight.” Then Rand joins, and lo and behold, the inside game isn’t what he thought it would be. It’s something else entirely.


Meanwhile, Rand is thinking that if Romney loses to Obama in the election, he, Rand, could strengthen his position within the GOP and launch a run for the presidency in 2016, while retaining his father Ron’s wide base of support all over America. Rand is thinking that maybe the Republican Party can’t win national elections without the liberty movement, and he is the liberty movement.


This is all a delusion. First of all, the Republican Party doesn’t need Rand Paul or his ideas. It needs the Democratic Party. And vice versa. That’s the game. As long as both Parties control the dialogue and the conflict between them, and as long as these Parties can exclude outsiders, they have things exactly as they want them. The last thing they want is a sudden demand for the Constitution.


And if Rand believes he can pick up the liberty movement again, like a coin lying in the street, after he’s joined the mainstream Republicans, he’s in for a surprise.


This was the year for an Independent candidate for president, and his name is Ron Paul. But Ron walked out on that notion. Ron should have bolted the Party and declared his candidacy as an Independent. Not as a Libertarian, not as a member of any party.


And to those who would have screamed that he was handing the election to Obama, Ron should have said the Romney doll and the Obama doll were made in the same globalist factory.


The takeaway lesson from this Ron/Rand fiasco is: don’t invest all your trust in anyone close to The One Political Party With Two Heads.


How many times, how many blowups, how many scandals does it take to convince us that the Republicans and the Democrats are chronic globalist racketeers?


To try to revolutionize the Republican/Democratic Party on a national level is a mission Don Quixote would have rejected out of hand.


The liberty movement, in all its forms, is far from finished, but it will remove itself from Republican/Democrat national politics, if common sense prevails.


When you try to reform an endemically corrupt system by working inside it, by cozying up to it, you find yourself receiving marching orders, and if you don’t march, they kick you to the side of the road.


The two major political parties in America are striving to place the nation under the control of a global management machine. That is their unspoken agenda, and it has been their agenda for a long time.


Rand Paul is working from a playbook others have studied. They have failed, and so will he. The playbook is called “reforming and enlightening career criminals.”


Note: I’m not talking about what can happen on a local political level, I’m talking about the national scene, and especially about presidential politics.


Frankly, many people in the liberty movement have opted for the easy way out. That’s right. They saw Ron Paul as a man who could utilize “the equipment” of the Republican Party to move into the presidency of the United States. The Republican Party was already there. The apparatus of the GOP was already there. There was no need to reinvent the wheel. No need to start from scratch with a truly Independent candidacy, which would have required the herculean task of waking voters up from the delusion that Republicans or Democrats are somehow legitimate agents of the American Republic.


The idea of Ron Paul “slipping into the presidency” via the Republican Party…that’s why many people in the liberty movement went along with Ron Paul as a Republican candidate. That’s why, against their better judgment, many people looked the other way and fed themselves a fairy tale about presidential politics.


I understand that fairy tale. I’m not blaming anybody. And you see, Ron and Rand told themselves the same tale. Apparently, they’re still telling it to themselves.


So you had an embrace-of-illusion between Ron, Rand, and a large number of their supporters. They were all in it together. That’s why the people who now feel betrayed and angry should stop for a minute and assess what really happened here. When you buy a false myth, you need to own up to it. You can’t go around being a betrayed martyr for the cause. That gets you nowhere.


Instead, you have face up to the reality that a person with the vision to run for the presidency of the United States, on behalf of liberty, in the face of the operating system called The One Party With Two Heads—and all that Party really stands for—a person who is going to take on that task as a true candidate IS going to have to start from scratch, as an Independent.


Ron Paul isn’t superman. Over the years, he’s bounced in and out of the Republican Party. He’s seen—and then not seen—that his real road was as a complete Independent.


When it comes to presidential politics, the Tea Party has expressed exactly the same in-and-out ambiguity.


So be it.


You live, you learn.


Some day, if he’s awake enough, Rand Paul will learn, too.


Where many people in the liberty movement have stopped short in their thinking is on the issue of what globalism really means, and how the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties are committed to it, day after day, year after year, presidency after presidency. Liberty advocates see it and then they don’t see it. They create a blur in their thought process. They avoid the fact that any presidential candidate who throws his hat in the ring, on the side of either major political party, is asking for a fall.


It’s as if a free and strong long-distance runner said to himself, “I’ll put myself in a wheelchair for a little while, and then I’ll stand up.”


The kind of limited central government that is needed to restore personal freedom is the nemesis of the core of the Republican and Democratic Parties.


For a long time, both Parties have been building out the federal government so that it locks hands with other governments, with international organizations, with financial controllers, with military establishments, in order to create empire. This, at times, has looked like an American empire, but as perverse as such an ambition is, that goal has been superseded.


Remember It Takes a Village (to raise a child)? Well at this point in time, the adage should be, It Takes a Village to Allow One Atom of Freedom for an Individual. That’s the blueprint. That’s the globalist goal. False flag operations, manufactured crises, whatever it takes, the plan is to derive the operation of planet Earth from Central Planning.


The real movers within the Democratic and Republican Parties are on board with this objective. They will stay on board.


Whether the Ron/Rand blow-up turns into a stew of lost opportunities, simmering with self-pity, anger, regret, and betrayal is simply a question about the second half of a fairy tale, about how a fairy tale ends, when the ring that was supposed to restore real justice and freedom is finally placed on the finger of the hero, and everyone sees that the ring was never the transformative object it was said to be.


Do the people become stronger, or were they never in it to become stronger?


Are they doomed to want to live in the first half of the fairy tale?


A year ago, Ron Paul could have stood up and given a speech that started out something like this: “My name is Ron Paul and I’m an Independent. I reject the central program of both political parties. I reject the idea that America is supposed to be part of some bigger scheme, because I assure you, that bigger scheme involves giving up your freedom. That’s why I’m running for president. I will never bow to the dictates of either party. I will not seek to belong to either party. And I think you understand why, and I think you are with me on this. You want individual freedom to prevail, and you want the kind of limited government our Founders created, to sustain that freedom. This is not an obsolete idea. It’s an independent idea, and that is precisely why I’m running as an Independent…”


But you see, he didn’t make that speech. You can blame him for not making it, but what good does it do to fashion him into someone he wasn’t? I’m not criticizing the man. I’m just saying people still have the choice of taking a scintillating vision of liberty and turning it into actuality. They don’t have to over-praise or attack Ron Paul. He walked his road, and he woke many people from their slumber. Nothing about that will ever change.


If the marathon for liberty develops the component of a relay race, we can crack open consensus reality that way, too. We can live with that. We can thrive. Ron Paul carried the relay-baton a long way. We don’t have to submit to the notion that his son now has the baton. We can take it.


I know some people are wondering whether Ron was really a “designer product” aimed at ultimately driving the liberty movement into a ditch, a dead-end. I know some people are wondering whether the Ron Paul movement was created as a safety valve, to blow off harmless steam from the tightening control operations of the federal government and the globalist elite. Unless hard evidence is brought forward to prove that, I say no. Ron Paul was a man who did what he could, within his own assessment of the political realities, to expose what has been happening to America and put it back on the correct path. He did this brilliantly. Not perfectly. Perfect is part of the fairy tale. Ron lived a lot of years inside the Dragon of Washington DC. Not many people with his ideas could have done that. He saw, up close, how the Dragon works, and if he came away believing that certain compromises are necessary, in order to win the day, so be it. We don’t have to eat our own to prove how pure our own vision is. The battle is not lost. The game is afoot. Freedom never dies. The free individual is forever. That’s not a fairy tale. It’s a fact that can sustain us through any crisis. And it will.


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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.






by Jon Rappoport

June 11, 2012



Last week, Ron Paul announced he had lost his battle for the nomination. He urged his troops not to disrupt the Republican Party machinery in Tampa at the convention. In a coordinated declaration, his son, Senator Rand Paul, endorsed Obama’s twin, Romney, for president.


This has caused an explosion in the ranks of Ron’s supporters, Tea Parties, other Constitutionalists, and people who prize individual freedom and also vote. That’s a lot of people.


But was Ron ever intending to re-shape the Republican Party? Was that his proactive goal? Was he campaigning to win the nomination and become the titular head of the Republican Party and call the shots? Was he truly working to become the next president? Was he striving all-out to clean out corruption in Washington? Those are all heavy objectives.


Most importantly, when it surfaced there was the possibility he had actually won the Primaries in the first several states and had been robbed by his own Party; and when, much later, his campaign workers were going into states where delegates weren’t legally bound to vote for the announced Primary winner and grabbing off those delegates, did Ron come out and say, YES, LET’S DO IT, LET’S RECLAIM THE STATES THAT ARE OURS AND LET’S UPSET THE WHOLE APPLECART? DID HE? DID HE STAGE AN ALL-OUT REVOLT? DID HE SAY THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ONE BODY WITH TWO HEADS? DID HE LEAD THE CHARGE FOR A PALACE REVOLUTION?


Was that his goal?


We saw no real evidence of it.



Unless Ron comes out now and makes a tremendously convincing speech that explains his current position and reaffirms his underlying values, his political career on the national stage is finished. And if he imagines his son, Rand, who has just sold out by endorsing Romney, can take up the sword of the father in the future, he’s delusional. In one day, Ron has ditched his own political career and his familial legacy.


By 2008, Ron Paul had enough cache to start a run at the presidency on his own terms as an Independent, but he didn’t do it. He would have blown apart his status as a (barely) mainstream voice, but so what? Was there ever a chance the GOP establishment and its media allies would have permitted him to gain the Party’s nomination for president?


Running as an Independent is a different game. You’re no longer “a lone voice in the wilderness” of the two-Party system, because you have stepped outside the system. Something more is required of you. In this day and age of Internet access, you need to reach out for every inch and minute of space and time you can get online. You are supposed to stand strong and establish your beachhead and state your claim to, yes, power. The power to make real, not phony change happen.


Is this Ron Paul? Or has Ron decided that he has to shape his son’s future within the framework of the Republican Party?


Is Ron ready, as an Independent, to take the slings and arrows that would be shot his way by those who claim he’d be handing the presidency over to Obama by splitting his own Party’s vote?


The Republicans now have their ducks in a row for the convention. There are no candidates who are holding out. (Ron’s supporters could make some serious noise at the convention on their own, of course.) But the GOP has taken out its last symbol of opposition.


Think about this. Ron and Rand could have kept their mouths shut between now and Romney’s nomination. They could thus have given the impression of being “beautiful losers” and retained their base. But something intervened. Was that something Rand’s political future? Were the Pauls, father and son, told by GOP operatives that Rand would be blackballed and shut out of the Party forever if he didn’t climb on board and prove that he was a good Party man? Was that it?


Is membership in the Club now the overriding factor for Rand? And, therefore, for his father?


Months ago, someone from the Ron Paul camp gave (and/or sold) the very valuable and large list of its supporters to the GOP, a list that is worth millions of dollars. Whether Ron knew it at the time, he certainly found out. Did he come forward and speak up and fire people? Did he publicly say this was a betrayal of his campaign? No.


If Ron Paul wants his voice to mean something from this point on, he would need to leave his Party and run as an Independent. So far, there is no inkling that is in the cards.


I know a little about electoral politics. In 1994, I ran for a seat in the US Congress, from the 29th District of California, which was overwhelmingly Democrat and had elected Henry Waxman to the seat for 20 years. I decided I had no chance as an Independent or a Republican. My only shot was to go up against Waxman in the Democratic Primary. As a Democrat.


That was a mistake. The true path would have been as an Independent.


It always is, in this landscape.


Aside from the obvious insanity of trying to convince Democrats that, for example, the 2nd Amendment is a key and vital fact of life, running within the two-Party framework allows voters to think, in their sleeping state, that you somehow represent interests and ideas that fall within the mainstream, you believe answers lie within the fundamentally corrupt framework of the One Party With Two Heads, you are in the same space and time Democrats and Republicans occupy.


Which is not true, if you are really an Independent.


By the end of my campaign in 1994, and about to lose to Waxman and witness what I would decide was vote-count fraud, my position had radicalized to the point where my main ambition—if I won—was to go to Washington and hire large trucks that would circulate the city every day all day. On the sides of these trucks we would place huge posters titled:




Below the name and photo of the “winner” of the week, we would list his key conflicts of interest, his sources of funding and his votes magically aligned with those monies.


I’m sure we would have thought up even more enjoyable torpedo-efforts.


I had come to the conclusion that the whole political system of the country was terminally rotten, corrupt, deceptive, and sold out, and therefore the duty of any elected official, first and foremost, was to expose that corruption in specific detail.


I had become an Independent.


If you listen to mainstream voices, everything outside the mainstream is impossible. That’s the message. It’s sometimes calculated and sometimes reflexive, but the gist of the message is: stay in the system.


But a lie is lie. A con is a con. A piece of crap is a piece of crap. A delusion is a delusion. It doesn’t matter where it’s sold or who sells it.


In the political arena, one has the option of nurturing the disappointment that comes with watching an idol fall, of cultivating a despair that looks like innocence-lost, until it becomes a pool of ugly misery. There is that option.


Or one can find roads to walk where the fallen do not go.


A little history is instructive here. In 1976 and 1980, Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan. But after seeing that Reagan’s budget was leaking a huge deficit, Paul criticized Reagan heavily and eventually resigned from the Republican Party and ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. So he has, in fact, been willing to leave the Republican orbit.


In 2008, after ending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Ron refused to endorse John McCain. He told his people to vote for any of the third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or Ralph Nader. Eventually, Ron decided to support Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate. So Ron has been willing, after dropping out of the Republican presidential race, to withhold support for the eventual Republican nominee.


What about now? Because his senator son Rand has closed ranks with the Republican Party, will Ron refuse to endorse a third-party candidate? Will he simply remain mum on the subject of Romney?


This is 2012. The sheer volume of online communication is far greater than in 2008. There are many more people who are fed up with the perverted de facto political system America is operating under. It’s much harder to remain silent. Ron Paul needs to say something, and soon.


As hard as this may be to swallow, the best option for freedom may be to not vote at all. Every person who values freedom and knows what it is has to ask himself this practical question: are we closer to electing a president who is truly independent, who will go into the White House and lay waste to the criminal insanity that has become American politics, or are we closer to recording new drastic levels of non-participation in the vote for president? Of these two long shots, which is longer? I know my position. It has been the same since 1994. Don’t vote for president. Make the election a farce, if possible, by revealing that we refuse to condone business as usual.


I realize this goes against every impulse to take action for positive change. Abstention is not a strategy I employ in any other area. But when the presidency of the United States is so heavily controlled, vetted, and filtered, when every president who gets access to the Oval Office has had to agree to a philosophy of globalism, with all that it implies, we need to open our eyes and see the truth.


The people of the United States are, as usual, being whipsawed between two ridiculous alternatives. Every four years, this happens by design. Stir up the hatreds and the rancor, make it appear that a new face is the answer, pin hope on Hope, vote for a better day, pick a leader who will take us to the promised land.


This con game has been operating since the dawn of time, wherever and whenever the people have had a choice. Do we need to keep falling for it until the whole planet is structured under one roof, until we’ve sold freedom all the way to the end of the line, because we think we see a Daddy we can believe in?


The only answer to this eternal dilemma is decentralization of power along every possible front.


Update: Infowars is reporting that Jack Hunter has posted a video (entitled: “Why Rand Was Right to Endorse Romney”) on Ron Paul’s campaign site explaining why Rand Paul needs to endorse Romney: if Rand runs for president in 2016, he’ll have zero Republican support if he doesn’t get behind Romney now. This is more delusional thinking. It’s postponement of principle now on behalf of invoking principle later. And it works about as well as wearing a sign on your chest that says: I’M LYING.


“Well, yes, I’m endorsing Romney, even though I don’t support him. I don’t support him at all. I think he’s a miserable excuse for a presidential candidate. But I’m endorsing him, because I want to run for president myself later. I’m sure all you Republican stalwarts will support me later, after my completely disingenuous support of your man Romney now. Right?”


I don’t know whether Ron Paul’s people vetted this Jack Hunter video before posting it, or whether this is really Rand’s strategy, but are Ron and Rand’s operatives trying to commit political suicide? If so, they’re doing a pretty good job.


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, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.