Globalism, Socialism, Technocracy: three names for the same thing

Globalism, Technocracy, Socialism: three names for the same thing

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2018

Every “universal” solution for humankind presupposes a gigantic flaw in the way things are.

That flaw must be corrected.

It must be corrected from above, by a better system, which locks the door against an escape back into the old way.

The first casualty in this utopian process is freedom.

In fact, freedom is viewed as THE flaw. It opens Pandora’s Box, thus releasing all human ills, crimes, devastations, and inequities.

Globalism (elites ruling the planet as one nation); Socialism (international governments and mega-corporations owning the means of production and distribution); and Technocracy (engineering world society as if it were a machine); these are all names for the better system that replaces freedom with…what?

With control.

With control described as: fair and equitable benefits given to every human. “Guaranteed security.” “Guaranteed survival.”

And THAT is, of course, the con.

The con can be dressed up in all sorts of ways. “Public-private partnerships.” “Distributing energy fairly in an energy-scarce world.” “Saving the environment.” “Reducing manmade warming.” “No child left behind.” “Open borders.” “Tolerating and celebrating diversity.” “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” “It takes a Village.” “A kinder gentler government will take care of you.”

The price of your ticket? Your freedom.

At the heart of the con is the effort to reprogram the “inherently flawed human biological machine.” In other words, erase “the basic delusion that freedom exists.”

Once that operation has been achieved, a better world will follow.

“The blueprint of your mind was ABC. We will change that to XYZ.”

This horrendous concept forms the link between Socialism, Globalism, and Technocracy. It is “science” deployed to bring overall methods of control “up to date.”

Edit the genes. Insert visual images directly into the brain. Use drugs to dampen and neutralize emotional responses. Sidetrack and take away impulses that are considered “anti-social.”

Consider this question contained in a 1952 CIA MKULTRA memo: “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?”

—The worst part of all of this is the dejection it causes among many intelligent people. They give in to the idea that massive mind control of populations is inevitable, and nothing can be done to stop it. They jump to this conclusion because…

They have given up on the power of their own freedom.

They have formed an inherently self-defeating world view.

They’ve decided that Technocracy is irresistible.

In effect, they’ve joined the tyranny.

Well, that’s exactly what the controllers are looking for. As Gary Allen points out in his brilliant book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971), one of the cardinal propaganda ideas permeating worldwide Socialism was, and is: It’s inevitable.

That fallacious notion has been used to wear down the opposition. “Socialism is taking over the world, and nothing can be done about it.”

Nonsense.

We did not arrive at this point in history to give up the ghost.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made several references to the people they considered “enemies of benevolent control and the new world order”: bitter clingers with religion and guns, and a basket of deplorables. This was an effort to characterize “hold-outs” who insisted on freedom. Freedom, in elite eyes, is the resistance, plain and simple. It is archaic and dangerous. It is ignorant and senseless. It is primitive.

Sophisticated minds would, of course, understand that “togetherness” is the true answer to human problems. Meaning: dependence on centralized power. Centralized and globalized power.

To justify the expansion of Globalism, Socialism, and Technocracy, to put a humane face on this triple catastrophe, it is necessary to proliferate the number of victims with needs—and what better way to do that than by demanding Western nations take in and support unlimited waves of migrants?

Freedom, on the other hand, implies self-reliance, self-sufficiency, inviolable private property, and the protections expressed in the Bill of Rights.

O how deplorable!

The Founding Fathers of the American Republic were all deplorables, weren’t they? They saw a light at the end of the tunnel of history, and they moved toward it, armed with ideas that would shake the world.

The controllers strive to decimate that disturbance and return, behind their triple mask, to the era of entitled rule. They are the revisionists. They are the oligarchs. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They enlist “the downtrodden” to front for them.

They bark and howl about social justice, when justice is the last thing on their minds.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Technocracy vs. the creative force

Technocracy vs. the creative force

by Jon Rappoport

January 22, 2018

“The individual is not a poker chip in a game. He isn’t a marker or a cipher or a symbol. The individual is an independent creative force. More energy is expended on denying that creative force than the sum required to light all the lightbulbs and run all the machines on the planet.” (THE MAGICIAN AWAKES, Jon Rappoport)

The analysis in this article is based, in part, on the work of Patrick Wood, and his book, Technocracy Rising, which is a major breakthrough in understanding the elite plan for our world.

As you read this article, you’ll notice some Technocratic changes are long-term plans, while other changes are already underway.

Technocracy, in its most radical form, which IS the form on the planning table, would eliminate private property in exchange for “a better life for all.”

Every person would have an energy quota. During a given time period, he would only be allowed to “spend” so much—calculated from how much energy has been used to produce the goods he buys. (The smart grid is a step in that direction.)

Real time tracking would calculate all energy inputs and outputs on the planet.

The tracking of a) energy use by each citizen and b) overall energy production would be the true purpose of the Surveillance State. Not the defeat of terrorism.

Terrorism and wars exist to mount sufficient chaos to “require” the imposition of a “better order.”

Politicians would eventually subordinate themselves to engineers and “computer professionals,” who believe they can create a society that operates like a well-oiled machine. Every person would have a cog-role in the machine.

Obviously, this new system is not meant to compete with any version of free enterprise; therefore, self-determined nations would disappear, and One Planet, under managed Technocracy, would be the only nation. So borders would have to be erased—and this is the ultimate purpose of unlimited immigration, worldwide.

Most people would view this basic sketch of the new world order as pure science fiction.

It is not.

Under Technocracy, every person would have to give up his freedom.

Strive, as an individual to achieve what you profoundly desire? OUTMODED.

Own Property? OUTMODED.

Vote out technocratic rulers? OUTMODED.

Opt out of automation on any front? OUTMODED.

Assert any of the rights in the Bill of Rights? OUTMODED.

Demand the freedom to voice an opinion, judgment, or fact that others might find offensive or disturbing? OUTMODED.

None of this even begins to cover the interior changes that would be made to human beings, through genetic reconfiguration and other techniques.

In other words, this is Huxley’s Brave New World. But as Huxley was writing his novel, the nascent technocratic movement was already underway.

Several French philosophers had already touted the Planned Society based on science, as if the same means for control of Nature’s forces in the physical world should be applied by humans, to themselves. In order to evolve.

All problems could be overcome, as long as humans were looked at as parts in an overall mechanism. Then, formulas would work.

Take all wild cards and jokers out of the deck.

Bring about order.

Call it harmony.

Even call it love…

Huxley, in Brave New World, writes about a future Technocratic society in which the “science” of human behavior, organization, and operant conditioning have triumphed:

“Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot turn untended, there must be men to tend them, men as steady as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment.”

“’Fortunate boys!’ said the Controller. ‘No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy – to preserve you, so far as that is possible, from having emotions at all’.”

“One cubic centimeter [of soma, the wonder drug] cures ten gloomy sentiments.”

“The world’s stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get. They’re well off; they’re safe; they’re never ill; they’re not afraid of death; they’re blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they’re plagued with no mothers or fathers; they’ve got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they’re so conditioned that they practically can’t help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there’s soma.”

In the ultimate Technocratic society, there is no need to deny the creative force within. It’s been conditioned into amnesia.

Therefore, as long as the walls of narrow feeling and perception hold steady, people are content.

If you asked a member of that society whether he missed experiencing and acting on his own creative impulse (or asked many members of this society, now), he would give you a blank look. He wouldn’t know what you were talking about.

Create? Create what?

Exactly.

“What do I want to create?” Far from the madding crowd of Technocracy, that is the question every person should ask.

It opens the door to a new life.

It puts every individual at the center of his own destiny.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires

Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires

by Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2018

“Once private property is abolished, the advocates for utopia win. They build their heaven on earth, which means they can take what they want and run civilization, top-down. They can keep saying nobody owns anything, but in fact they own it all. They execute this squeeze play as if they were messiahs eradicating the prime evil. This is such a preposterous stage play that, in a sane society, it would close down after one night.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

PART ONE

Newsflash: There is a difference between an idea and the way that idea is applied in practice.

The idea of private property can certainly be twisted to mean, “I will steal what you have, make it my own, and then declare it is my property, over which I have control.”

But the idea of private property remains independent of what people will do to distort it. A child used to be able to see this.

Centuries of struggle resulted in a shift from monarchs and priest classes owning all available land, to individuals having the right to own land.

Once that principle was firmly established, groups immediately tried to modify the principle to their advantage.

In 1776, a group called the Illuminati declared its existence in Bavaria. One of its guiding ideas was: the abolition of all private property. That concept traveled down to Karl Marx and the Communist agenda.

Private property was called an inherent crime. Instead, the people/everybody would own all property.

This garbled incoherent pronouncement would be backed up by the ruling government, who would act as stewards for the masses—meaning the government would take control of all property until such time as the people evolved to the point where the State was unnecessary.

As a straight con, it was very weak. A two-bit hustler on a street corner with a folding table and three cards could see through it in a second.

The people evolving? The State withering away on its own? Equality defined as everybody owning everything?

Of course, if people injected their own utopian fantasies into the mix, if people assumed the government was a beneficent force for good, if people assumed there was an “everybody” operating unanimously, if people fantasized about a history of tribes (who fought wars against each other) gracefully abdicating the whole notion of individual property…well then, yes, the abolition of private property became a marvelous proposition.

In the light of day, however, with a clear mind, the idea was terrible. It was quite insane. It signaled a transfer of property from the individual to power-mad lunatics posing as “the people.”

Needless to say, this idea of no-private-property is alive and well on planet Earth today. We are in another round of fantasy-drenched propaganda.

In a nutshell, the threat of pure private property is: it establishes individual rights that stand against the unchecked force of the government-corporate-banking nexus. It implies the individual is free, independent, and the ruler of what he owns.

To which the addled mind replies: “But suppose a person is polluting his land and the poison is running beyond his borders and endangering others?”

Well, that is called a crime. It should be prosecuted. It should be stopped.

The fact that it is often ignored doesn’t negate the whole assumption of private property. It points to the corruption of public officials who refuse to prosecute the offender.

Here is utopia laid bare: the government and its partners, who are doing everything they can to limit, squash, and outlaw the individual right to own property, are the same force that is acting as the wondrous representative of all the people; surrender to this force; give it power to appropriate all property and hold it in trust, for that day when the population has risen to enlightenment, when the open sharing of “everything” is a natural impulse. Then victory will be ours.

Not the iron fist. The open helping hand. Not the hammer. The smiling guide. Not the monarch. The servant of humanity.

If you buy that one, I have waterfront condos for sale on Jupiter’s four moons. No terms. Cash up front. Construction begins in 2058. Promise.

The Homeowners Association actually owns the condos and the land. They are a subsidiary of the Jupiter Government Authority. There are rules. No flags of any kind flying from porches. No privately owned electricity generators. No growing of vegetables or fruit on the land. No weapons. Domiciles must be shared with migrants arriving from Earth. The migrants are given beds, meals, and clothing. Possessions are shared. The prime directive: everything belongs to everybody. Power to the people.

PART TWO

There is a direct line from Adam Weishaupt’s secret society, the Illuminati, which he formed in Bavaria in 1776, to Karl Marx, and onward to the modern Globalist agenda.

One of the key shared ideas: the abolition of private property.

Many people hold a negative view of Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and especially Marx, and so it fell to Globalists to couch their ideas about property in more acceptable terms.

That feat (one of many attempted) was expressed, in 1976, by Carla Hills, US Trade Representative and a key member of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Hills is credited as the principal architect of the Globalist NAFTA Treaty, which has destructively affected the US and Mexican economies.

Patrick Wood, author of the classic, Technocracy Rising, unearthed Hills’ brief statement on private property. I’ve broken her remarks up into three parts, so I can comment after each mind-bending point.

Carla Hills: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.”

Her use of the term “human settlements” is curious, as is her reference to “crucial role it [land] plays.” Is she trying to take us back to an ancient period in human history, when people were first abandoning nomadic existence and turning to agriculture and fixed communities? It appears so. She wants us to think of land in terms of “oh, look, we can stop wandering and live here, and this space of soil will play ‘a crucial role’ in our future.” It’s been centuries since private ownership of land became a reality. But Hills doesn’t like acknowledging that. And through her use of “human settlements,” she also wants us to believe that the ancient concept of an entire community moving on to land to live is the only valid view. An individual staking a claim to land or buying it is verboten. It’s a corruption of the natural order.

I assume Hills isn’t living in a kibbutz or a commune. I feel certain she owns a home. But as an elite socialist, she’s excused. The arbiters who should decide the disposition of all lands, for the rest of us, deserve their perks. They need their own space, in order to think more clearly.

Hills asserts that private ownership of property isn’t ordinary and can’t be thought of that way. Individuals shouldn’t “control it.” And the free market causes problems. Well, of course, the free market causes problems, if you assume that no one should own more land than anyone else. And yes, private ownership, based on hard work, is inefficient, if that means some super-government can’t take land away “for the public good.”

Hills stops short of saying government should own all land, but that’s where she’s going.

She continues: “Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

Social injustice, that familiar theme. Some people might own more land than others. That’s not right. That’s unjust. There should be no reward for hard work and intelligence. No. Instead, there is only planning from above. The wise demi-golds, who have our best interests at heart, can decide all the uses to which land is put. They can own huge tracts of land themselves, because they are gods. But the rest of us must submit to the development schemes they lay out. Only bitter clingers, who actually work for a living and strive and make their own way in the world, believe in private property. They’re for social injustice. They don’t want to give way to Greater Sharing.

Finally, Hills states: “Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

Kinder and gentler vision. Just launch a plan to give EVERYONE a decent dwelling and healthy conditions. That’s how land should be used and thought of. No more private property. EVERYONE, of course, includes people (in unlimited numbers—no ceiling) who come here from anywhere in the world. And they come because here they’ll get justice. They should get free housing. They should get “healthy conditions.” No problem. Eventually, everyone gets a 20-foot by 20-foot square box to live in.

What could go wrong?

Carla Hills is couching her statement to avoid the heavy philosophy and militant threat and totalitarian thrust of the Illuminati and Marx, but she’s on the same page. She’s “sustainable” and “green” and “kind” and “thoughtful” and “caring.” She’s perfect for self-styled liberals and the virtue-signaling Clueless.

She’s part of the tradition that wants to take down the individual spirit and stuff it in the collective.

I know many people (and I’m sure you do, too) who have worked hard, bought land, built a home, raised children, who would nevertheless applaud Carla Hills’ statement. They’ve succeeded in compartmentalizing their minds. It never occurs to them that if the Globalist dream came true, they would wake up one day with their homes and property ripped out from under them. If they think about it at all, they think they can have it both ways. They can continue to live as they’ve been living, but somehow, at the same time, social justice will be served.

They’re in a dream. It’s so pretty. For them.

There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All the land is dotted with lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and it’s spring, and the trees are flowering.

Down a country road, in his wheelchair, comes arch-Globalist George Soros, cackling and humming and talking on the phone with his broker. He’s flanked by bodyguards. Perched on nearby hills, snipers are in position, just in case a threat develops.

A young boy approaches him. Soros raises his hand, signaling his hidden shooters to hold their fire.

“Mr. Soros,” the boy says, “I’m studying civics in school, and I’m trying to figure out who EVERYONE is. Because EVERYONE owns everything.”

Soros chuckles. “That’s an advanced lesson, son. You’ll learn about it in college.”

Soros reaches into his pocket and tosses the boy a dime. “Go buy yourself an ice cream soda, and remember where you got the money. I stand for charity. Good works hold us all together.”

“What’s an ice cream soda?” the boy asks.

Soros shrugs. “I have no idea. It’s just something I say. But if you study hard in school, perhaps someday I’ll contact your parents, take you under my wing, and teach you how to short the currency of a whole nation and make a billion dollars in a few weeks, while simultaneously preaching that no one owns anything and everyone owns everything. It’s the most beautiful hustle you’ve ever seen.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The vision of technocracy and your future

Technocracy for planet Earth

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2018

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; allotting production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society?

All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, and sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

This is how technocracy views the future…your future.

The ultimate technocratic vision? Your brain is a processor, and your brain is your mind. That’s all your mind is. Therefore, connecting your brain to a super-computer, or to the Cloud, will magically expand your mind and make it “more than human.”

You will become trans-human. A hybrid of human and machine.

This is the fairy tale to end all fairy tales.

It’s wishful fantasy dressed up as science.

The idea is: you will become More. You will overcome the limits and problems associated with being an individual.

Every individual will receive the same information and the same answers and the same solutions from the Cloud. AUTOMATICALLY.

This is the programmer’s wet dream.

Technocrats will thus be able to build a global society and control its every facet.

That’s the revolution.

The counter-revolution is YOU.

The free individual.

Never forget it.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Utopian fantasies vs. a better world

Utopian fantasies vs. a better world

What happened to the Republic? Democracy happened

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2017

“When you come to the subject of who should ‘fix things,’ the government or private individuals, you could throw up your hands and confess that neither choice works, in which case you’re left with a terminal disease, and a fine excuse for doing nothing; or you could refer back to the principles of the Republic, and understand why the Founders put chains on government, and you might a find a clue for navigating out of the maze.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This piece is for anyone who can understand it—but it’s also for THE ENTREPRENEUR, who in his soul wants to do something large and bright and radical and successful, to turn the tide of human affairs in an enormously good direction and, yes, still make a substantial profit.

And no, “the universe” doesn’t rule out those two motives existing side by side.

The United States was created as a Republic.

That meant severely limited central government.

Why?

Because the Founders knew the long experience of Europe: overarching tyrannies; bloated kings emboldened with the doctrine of divine right to rule; theocracies; gigantic theft of land; force, coercion; slavery.

The new 18th century American central government, through enumerated powers and checks and balances, had to be limited and even hamstrung.

On that basis, individual freedom would be maximized.

That was the whole point of a Republic.

The individual would be free to do whatever he wanted to, as long as he didn’t interfere with the life and liberty of others.

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM—THE HALLMARK OF A REPUBLIC.

However, in order for a Republic to have a chance of success, the population would have to remain small. A Republic is not for an enormous population. The people are too remote from the federal center of power.

And there needed to be a population of moral people, who understood basic rights and wrongs, beyond legislation and law.

As the American population swelled, there should have been many Republics founded on this continent. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Instead, men in and around central government conspired to multiply their own power through a variety of means, thus creating monopolies of great strength, in government and business and money.

And gradually, these men and their descendants came to see they could foist a grand illusion on the people: they could promote the idea that “the people’s wishes were paramount” and should be served at all times.

Thus arrived Democracy.

Rule by “everyone.” Rule by “popular decision.” Rule by “meeting needs,” whatever they might be.

Meeting needs, of course, necessitated a more powerful and extensive government—shattering the severe limits originally imposed in the Constitution.

Marry these democratic elements to a decline in general morality—grab whatever you can at the expense of your neighbor—and the fate of the Republic was sealed.

The Republic was never perfect. Far from it. Perfection wasn’t its goal. But it was a noble effort, and the ideas on which it stood still survive.

Particularly, freedom of the individual.

That freedom is the launching pad for everything the individual can imagine and create, in order to build a greater future.

And the rule barring the individual from interfering with the life and liberty of others is still a basic principle.

Democracy cultivates mobs. It embodies the idea that any group which can gain attention must have its purported needs met.

Just one step to the left of that, we find the socialist/Communist maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

What able individuals produce will be taken from them and given to those of “lesser ability.”

Limited government, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights—these are mere pieces of paper, old pamphlets trampled on in the streets by the mobs shouting their endless demands.

If the ancestors of these groups, at one time, had legitimate objections to the way government was being run (against them), now all that is swept away in a sea of base anger and revenge—which turns out to be the elite plan for the end-game…

If the elites can pull it off:

Chaos. Out of which a new level of order will be imposed—which takes us back to the kind of tyranny that existed before the struggle for individual freedom and limited government was won.

And all the while, these elite planners pose as utopian altruists. Socialists.

And yet…as of 2010, there were 27.9 million small businesses in the US.

Somehow, the heritage of the Republic still lives.

Freedom of the individual.

The core idea on which America was founded.

Liberty of the individual is more than an invented “construct.” It’s a reflection of an inherent truth: the individual is at the heart of what life is all about.

A major point needs to be entered into this mix: ABUNDANCE. Planet-wide abundance of resources, technology, and energy.

As Buckminster Fuller made clear 80 years ago, there is “enough for everyone”—which is to say, every person on Earth can have the essentials of survival. Food, clothing, shelter.

However, Fuller (and others) stalled on the vital question: WHO WILL DELIVER THIS ABUNDANCE TO THE GLOBAL POPULATION, AND HOW?

In the arena of fuzzy thinking, the answer is, of course: “the government” will deliver abundance.

This is fatuous, idiotic, and impossible.

“The government” is controlled by men who, amidst their many crimes, have no intention of sharing the wealth of Earth’s resources and technology. I can’t emphasize this fact enough.

The government is there to promote socialism and technocracy as “better-world” answers right around the corner. THIS IS THE MASK.

Behind the mask is cruel top-down scarcity, upheld and maintained, despite the truth that there really IS enough for everyone.

No, government will not be the provider of abundance.

NOR SHOULD IT BE.

That task falls to…wait for it…private business.

What?

Here is the capper: if private businesses—including major corporations—realized they could sell food, clothing, and shelter to the global population for relative pennies—and make more profits than they’re making now—because of the size of that consumer base—they might reassess their position.

They might…but they won’t. Not without our help.

Boiling down the situation: you have the potential consumer base of some eight billion people; you have the means to sell this base the means of survival—food and clothing and shelter—for pennies; you have the technology needed for the job; you have the bright promise of a better future.

And you have the individuals who, armed with this understanding, could create businesses to bring such a vision to fruition.

Actual capitalism is preserved. Free market is preserved. Profit motive is preserved. Doing good is preserved. And all this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

No one said this job I’m proposing would be easy. Of course it’s not easy.

But, for example, the next generation of techies—after this generation of air heads who seek to worship at the knee of brain-computer mysticism has faded away—the next generation might be persuaded to revisit the core ideas of the Republic and see how free enterprise, freely undertaken, could work a true revolution and distribute abundance to the planet at the same time.

Imagine a near-future corporate boardroom meeting. The CEO stands up and says:

“OK, people, I’ve brought you here because we’re going to try something new and radical. Face it, we’ve been selling crap to our customers for a long, long time and gouging them in the process. Today, that stops. We’re going to shift over to a different theme. Our board will approve, because we’re going to show them this new effort will expand our bottom line. WE’RE GOING MAKE NUTRITIOUS FOOD PACKS AND SELL THEM FOR RELATIVE PENNIES TO A BILLION PEOPLE. That’s the initial goal. We can do it. On another front, we’re going to sell a billion people good clean food seeds for growing food crops. We’re going to buy acres of land in the so-called Third World and then sell parcels, for farming, to the poor for pennies and take a small share of their profits…

“Now, at first, we’ll have to work through a bunch of foreign governments, because they control their people. This is tricky. But if we give these tinpot leaders enough money, they’ll go along….”

Of course, there will be problems. Serious problems. The CIA, for example, which supports government control and scarcity around the world.

That’s where GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS PUBLIC RELATIONS ENTERS THE SCENE. That visionary CEO and his company will have to publicize the hell out of their radical new plan and expose the problems and barriers and ops the old guard throws up against them.

Wake up the people to what is going on.

“Are you kidding? This will never work.”

That’s what was said in the middle of the Dark Ages, when a few people said THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE FREE.

“This will never work.”

But it did.

With enough courage and determination and intelligence and vision and work and imagination, over a very long period of time, it did work.

Up against forces of evil and deception, it did work.

And it can work again.

“But this time it’s different. The situation is worse, much worse.”

No it isn’t.

Here’s a clue. It’s always worse. That’s the way it always looks. But it’s always possible.

The free and independent and creative individual has been lulled into thinking that he has to limit his entrepreneurial vision and goals to a few self-contained enterprises in a small corner of a much larger space.

That’s called brainwashing.

He can think and plan and work in as large an arena as he wants to. If he wakes up.

If he’s a rocket ship with a range of 100 light years, and he’s operating on an old route that travels 50 miles, back and forth, something is seriously amiss.

There is much more to say…

But this is an introduction. This is a sketch of the core. This is about the individual unleashed. This is about sacrificing nothing in the pursuit of individual success while making abundance into fact.

This is about wiping away the delusion that “the government will generate a new and better world.”

If you want a better world, if you want abundance, you can choose government or the individual as the carrier. You can put your eggs in either basket. You can analyze both answers and decide.

You can roll the dice on either choice.

You can put aside the mantra of “nothing works” and look into the psychology of the individual and government and find truths.

An analogy: you’ve got a gigantic oil tanker that’s been heading in the wrong direction. You want to turn it around. Who is going to take the helm and do it?

On one side, you have 50 individuals, 47 of whom are corrupt and consumed with criminal greed. The other three are different. They glimpse the possibility of doing the right thing.

On the other side, you have that amorphous swollen blob called government. It’s not only consumed with greed, it preaches The Good as a deceptive front to cover its crimes. A few individuals who might want to do the right thing are laden with connections which command the continuance of crimes.

Your choice.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Here’s what real US-Russian collusion looks like

Here’s what real US-Russian collusion looks like

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2017

The late great author and researcher, Antony Sutton (1925-2002), labored for many years to unearth US-Russian collusion at the highest levels. That’s why Sutton was censored by mainstream news and academic institutions.

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986), and his three-volume classic, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, published between 1968 and 1973, exposed the deep historic relationship between US and Russian power players.

The recent Clinton Uranium One scandal, which gave Putin control over 20% of American uranium, should be viewed in the context of a much larger history.

Sutton meticulously documented the transfer of key technologies from the West to the USSR.

Why would the Rockefellers, Armand Hammer, and others take the lead in such a covert transfer program, over the course of decades? Because: money and profits, on one level.

On another level, bolstering the Russian Communist/Socialist State was part of the elite Rockefeller plan to expand socialism, in many forms, across countries all over the world.

Under the phony guise of helping the downtrodden establish a new and better world for all, the socialist goal was, as usual, top-down control. The theoretical foundation (Marx) was modern; the tyranny was as old as the hills.

Further, supplying Russia with vital technology it sorely lacked would eventually produce the Cold War. That mighty stand-off was a gigantic money maker. It was also created as a threat to Europe, which justified the rise of the European Union—another major Rockefeller/CFR/Bilderberg plan to extend the covert agenda of Socialist Globalism. The EU IS a regional face of Globalism.

With this brief introduction in tow, here are key Antony Sutton quotes from his 1986 book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. The quotes were compiled by Rolf Kenneth Aristos, at http://www.rolfkenneth.no/NWO_review_Sutton_Soviet.html:

“In Korea we have direct killing of Americans with Soviet weapons. The American casualty roll in the Korean War was 33,730 killed and 103,284 wounded…The 130,000-man North Korean Army, which crossed the South Korean border in June 1950, was trained, supported, and equipped by the Soviet Union, and included a brigade of Soviet T-34 medium tanks (with U.S. Christie suspensions). The artillery tractors were direct metric copies of Caterpillar tractors. The trucks came from the Henry Ford-Gorki plant or the ZIL plant. The North Korean Air Force has 180 Yak planes built in plants with U.S. Lend-Lease equipment. These Yaks were later replaced by MiG-15s powered by Russian copies of Rolls-Royce jet engines sold to the Soviet Union in 1947.”

“By using data of Russian origin it is possible to make an accurate analysis of the origins of this equipment. It was found that all the main diesel and steam-turbine propulsion systems of the ninety-six Soviet ships on the Haiphong supply run that could be identified (i.e., eighty-four out of the ninety-six) originated in design or construction outside the USSR [e.g., the US]. We can conclude, therefore, that if the [US] State and Commerce Departments, in the 1950s and 1960s, had consistently enforced the legislation passed by Congress in 1949, the Soviets would not have had the ability to supply the Vietnamese War – and 50,000 more Americans and countless Vietnamese would be alive today.”

“Who were the government officials responsible for this transfer of known military technology? The concept originally came from National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who reportedly sold President Nixon on the idea that giving military techno¬logy to the Soviets would temper their global territorial ambitions. How Henry arrived at this gigantic non sequitur is not known. Sufficient to state that he aroused considerable concern over his motivations. Not least that Henry had been a paid family employee of the Rockefellers since 1958 and has served as International Advisory Committee Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller concern.”

“Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum is, of course, Moscow’s favored deaf mute capitalist, possibly vying with David Rockefeller for the honor. However, Armand has a personal relationship with the Soviets that could never be achieved by anyone with David’s Ivy League background. One fact never reported in U.S. newspaper biographies of Armand Hammer is that his father, Julius Hammer, was founder and early financier of the Communist Party USA in 1919. Elsewhere this author has reprinted documents backing this statement, and translations of letters from Lenin to Armand Hammer with the salutation ‘Dear Comrade’.”

“That Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum would supply the Soviets with massive plants that can quickly be converted to explosives manufacture is no surprise. What is a surprise is that Armand Hammer has had free access to every President from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan — and equal access to the leaders in the Kremlin.”

“A tractor plant is well suited to tank and self-propelled gun production. The tractor plants at Stalingrad, Kharkov, and Chelyabinsk, erected with almost complete American assistance and equipment, and the Kirov plant in Leningrad, reconstructed by Ford, were used from the start to produce Soviet tanks, armored cars, and self-propelled guns. The enthusiasm with which this tank and armored-vehicle program was pursued, and the diversion of the best Russian engineers and material priorities to military purposes, have been responsible for at least part of the current Soviet problem of lagging tractor production and periodic famines…Since 1931, up to a half of the productive capacity of these ‘tractor’ plants has been used for tank and armored-car production.”

“Soviet tractor plants were established in the early I930s with major U.S. technical and equipment assistance. The Stalingrad tractor plant was completely built in the United States, shipped to Stalingrad, and then installed in prefabricated steel buildings also purchased in the United States. This unit, together with the Kharkov and Chelyabinsk plants and the rebuilt Kirov plant in Leningrad, comprised the Soviet tractor industry at that time, and a considerable part of the Soviet tank industry as well. During the war, equipment from Kharkov was evacuated and installed behind the Urals to form the Altai tractor plant, which opened in 1943.”

These quotes are but a brief sample of Sutton’s research on technology transfers to Russia from the US.

They open up a giant can of worms.

Understanding this history is understanding the elites’ political and economic system (absurdly) called Socialism.

It has never has been “bottom-up.” It has always been “top-down.”

The legions of young dedicated Marxists running around in the streets, under a variety of banners, railing against monopoly crony capitalists, have actually been forwarding these monopolists’ primary goals.

You might want to read that last sentence again.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The violent attack on Senator Rand Paul: will the punishment fit the crime?

The violent attack on Senator Rand Paul: will the punishment fit the crime?

by Jon Rappoport

November 10, 2017

Breitbart reports: “Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s injuries are more serious than previously reported, following an attack, allegedly by one of his neighbors, last week in Bowling Green, KY.”

“’A medical update: final report indicates six broken ribs & new X-ray shows a pleural effusion‬,’ tweeted the Republican senator Wednesday.”

“Previous medical reports stated that Paul suffered five broken ribs and lacerations to his lungs. Reports indicate a violent attack from Paul’s long-time neighbor, 59-year-old retired doctor Rene Boucher, after a dispute. The exact nature of the dispute remains unclear, but Boucher’s lawyer claimed it had nothing to do with politics.”

“Police arrested Boucher and charged him with fourth-degree assault.”

Breitbart also interviewed several neighbors of Senator Paul. They rejected the story that Boucher’s attack on Paul was the result of a “landscaping dispute.” The neighbors stated the Senator has been a very friendly homeowner, and there is no record of any complaints either against him or from him in the homeowner’s association files.

The Senator’s injuries are serious. I looked up the definition of 4th degree assault in Kentucky law, to understand what his alleged assailant is being charged with:

From reference.com: “According to the Kentucky Legislature Research Commission, fourth degree assault is defined as intentionally causing a physical injury to another, wantonly causing physical injury, or recklessly causing injury to another with a dangerous instrument.”

“The Kentucky Legislature Research Commission lists the possible penalties for fourth degree assault in Kentucky as fines, jail time and probation. Fines resulting from fourth degree assault cannot exceed five hundred dollars, and jail time for those found guilty of fourth degree assault cannot exceed one year. Fourth degree assault is a misdemeanor, and it is considered the least serious of assault charges in the state of Kentucky.”

“Wantonly causing physical injury” is the least serious assault charge? And it carries a maximum of a five hundred dollar fine and a year in jail? And it is a misdemeanor?

Preposterous.

Of course, when we’re witnessing mass shootings and mass murder with cars, it’s easy to view the attack on Senator Paul as a trivial event. But it’s not.

You’re mowing the lawn outside your house. A person sneaks on to your property, runs up behind you, and attacks you. You had no idea what was coming. As a result of this vicious and cowardly assault, you suffer six broken ribs and fluid in your lungs.

And this is a minor offense?

No, we don’t know all the facts, and the defendant has not yet had his day in court. But assuming the reports are correct, the misdemeanor charge and the potential punishment are absurd travesties.

The law has been twisted to allow grave offenses to become minor episodes. The reason is fairly clear: so many crime are being committed by so many people, the system has been adjusted to accommodate criminals.

“Well,” people say, “what about all the high-level felons who serve in government and lead corporations, and are never brought to justice?”

What about them? They too should be charged and convicted and given long prison sentences. Minimizing one group of offenses because another group of offenses goes unpunished is egregious bullshit.

If you need living proof, find a friend and ask him to violently attack you from behind, during the day, when you least expect it and are unable to defend yourself. Experience your injuries, and then think about whether this should be a misdemeanor in the lowest possible assault category.

What about forgiveness? What about loving your enemies? That’s another rationalization that pops up, now and then, after violent events. If you were the victim, would you really find it persuasive?

Would you be worried that having “negative thoughts” about your attacker and experiencing anger against him might “pollute your consciousness” and affect your life going forward? Would you rather paste a smile on your face and opt for marshmallows and rainbows?

Righteous moral outrage is a positive trait.

Young law students, who are considering a future as a money-grubbing sleazeball tactician, should contemplate the meaning of it.

In part, The Law was instituted as an expression of moral outrage. It was supposed to channel that emotion into avenues of fair retribution.

And at the highest level, it was supposed to protect an individual citizen’s private property and the safety of his person.

Apparently, in the case of Senator Paul, both rights were extraordinarily violated.

If current reports of the attack are true, Rene Boucher should spend a long time behind bars. It’s called justice.

No, Virginia, everything doesn’t belong to everybody in some fantasy of a socialist paradise. Individual property and person are real. Crimes against them are real. To demonstrate it, stroll into a bar where there is a very good chance your most precious possessions—your iPhone and iPad—will be stolen. Later, when you’re lying outside on the sidewalk, think about “everything belonging to everybody.” See how that works for you…


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.