Category Archives: Trump

The secret political issue: Health Freedom

The secret political issue: Health Freedom

by Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2016

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

Six years ago, on the eve of the midterm elections in Obama’s first term in office — which happened to be seven months after Obama had signed Obamacare into law — and, with another 3-years to go before Obamacare went into effect, I posted this article.

Fast forward to now… on the eve of one of the most historic presidential elections in American history…

I would like to hear from you my loyal readers on the topic of Health Freedom. What does Health Freedom mean to you? What has changed over the last six years? What have been some of the victories? What have been some of the setbacks? Let me know in the comments below.

For Part 2 of this two-part re-posting series, click here.

(OCTOBER 21, 2010) As this year’s election draws close, it’s business as usual, as far as Health Freedom is concerned. This issue isn’t just in the shadows. It’s in the closet behind the shadows, locked in tight.

The avalanche of pharmaceutical ads on TV drones on. The attacks on natural health set off firecrackers here and there: “Patients shouldn’t be allowed to choose alternative remedies, because that will take them away from medicines that really help.”

“We, the medical elites, know what’s best for you, and we’ll shove it down your throats.”

But wait. This is supposed to be the Year of the Conservative. Conservatives want less government intrusion, more individual freedom. Why isn’t Health Freedom front and center?

I have four answers to that question. One, the pharmaceutical lobby and money machine are bankrolling overwhelming numbers of candidates. Two, the millions of people who participated in the Health Freedom movement of the early 1990s have gone back into their cocoons, and the funding of that movement, which came from nutritional companies, has dried up. Three, many leaders of the old Health Freedom campaign actually believe Barack Obama is a forward-thinking guy who would never permit a real crackdown on the nutritional industry. And four, conservative candidates running for office see no reason to put Health Freedom up high on their agendas, because they’ve never had to before—the pressure to do so is minimal. Why rock the boat?

In case you’ve forgotten, Health Freedom means: every person has the right to choose how to take care of their own body and health. The government has no business interfering. The right extends to refusal to accept conventional medical treatments. It’s a simple thing, really.

And perhaps reading this, you imagine there is no urgent need to press home this issue at this time.

Well, Health Freedom is always a major issue. The federal government, in the person of the FDA, an agency that is actually a bought and paid for subsidiary of the drug companies, is always seeking new ways to apply a chokehold on nutritional companies and natural health practitioners.

In a radio interview I did with Jonathan Emord, the most successful American lawyer in cases launched against the FDA, Emord told me he has sufficient reason to believe the FDA never intends to abide by the court decisions rendered against them. That’s right. In other words, the FDA is a rogue agency.

In another interview, this one with Dr. Barbara Starfield, of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Starfield confirmed that, in the wake of her 2000 finding that FDA-approved drugs have been killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 people a year, no federal agency has approached her to consult on ways of reducing this horrendous outcome. Not in the past ten years. Her virtually unchallenged report, published in the July 26, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, has stirred no government response.

How much willful political ignorance and avoidance does it take to walk away from A MILLION DEAD AMERICANS over the last ten years?

In reading a number of conservative political blogs, I’ve seen no mention of the Health Freedom issue or the effects of Big Pharma on Americans. Why is that? Is it because drug companies are blithely assumed to be bastions of free enterprise and, therefore, sacrosanct? That’s my suspicion, because I do encounter statements that ObamaCare is trashing the greatest medical system in the world. Obamacare is a disaster in all ways, but “greatest medical system” is a massive lie.

The Matrix Revealed

Face it. The overwhelming number of Americans are still, after all these years, hooked on drugs. Medical drugs. They live to swallow pills. They live to receive diagnoses from doctors. Therefore, the notion that we all have the right to choose whether to take a medical drug or an herb is beyond their ability to think and reason. They’re in the hole deep, and they don’t even know they’re addicted.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, take notice. You’re missing the boat here. You’re way out in left field. You’re a victim of doctor-induced hypnosis, and it’s time you woke up and put this issue on the table. You’ll be surprised at the response, once you open the gates. Millions of people will come out and respond. And that’s called RATINGS.

Bottom line: even if you worship at the altar of modern medicine, in all cases, all the time, the right to choose any form of healing therapy is basic to the intent of the Constitution, and that right is always in jeopardy as the Parental State decides what’s best for you, decides what “science” is good science, decides how stupid you are and how much help you need to see the light.

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.

Lester Holt: android, wisdom figure, computer brain

Lester Holt: android, wisdom figure, computer brain

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2016

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

Others have pointed out how many times debate moderator Lester Holt slanted criticism toward Trump, rather than Hillary. Others have suggested Hillary and Holt were a tag-team, with Hillary throwing hand signals to Holt indicating she was ready to hit Trump with a zinger.

On a different level…

Watching the debate-host, Holt, working his way through Trump vs. Hillary, sitting in his chair, bathed in a spotlight glow against a sea of total darkness, eerie metallic glimmers reflecting from his glasses, I was reminded of Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the barely human chairman of the corporation that designed androids in the film Blade Runner.

—Holt, the man who had the script and the questions and the facts at his immediate disposal. The brain. The wisdom figure. The synthetic guide with a touch of humanity built in.

Quite an archetype.

As I pointed out recently, the ridiculous notion of a debate with a moderator is modern. When Lincoln and Douglas famously debated slavery for hours at a time, over the course of several weeks, there was no intermediary voice. One man spoke for an hour, and then the other man spoke for an hour.

The moderator is a prop, a pretense of introducing objectivity into the proceeding.

The moderator is the “voice of rationality,” as it were. From that perch, he can, of course, slant the event—and Holt certainly did.

His dry speech patterns, in fact, resembled those of Barack Obama, when the President is reciting script.

Watching Holt operate, I was also reminded of the technocratic wet dream of a human brain hooked up to a computer, from which emanates undeniable wisdom.

Holt adopted the persona of a machine, and he pulled it off.

Which means? This is where the world is heading, if the technocrats have anything to say about it. You “need the best data—and one day soon you’ll get the data from a computer your brain is connected to. All will be well.”

Holt is also NBC’s national news anchor, which means he tells the stories of our time, every night, to millions of tranced viewers who are seeking a voice not their own.

Anchor and debate moderator—a powerful combination.

Hypnotically commanding.

Replay the debate moment when, out of nowhere, Holt’s words suddenly crackled like dry autumn leaves: “[Stop and frisk] was ruled unconstitutional.”

The narrator thus spake.

A brain not their own…a voice not their own…a narrator of reality…a fount of instant wisdom…the answer from on high…there are many, many people who want those things, and they want them embodied in a machine-like structure that assures them of dispassionate “honesty.”

Holt provided.

It’s no surprise that giant television networks have made these debates their own property. After all, the companies consider the events media-moments. Hosting them and appointing the moderators is no different from designing and presenting the nightly news broadcasts.

Of course, when you stop and think about this arrangement for debates, it’s absurd. Why would Lester Holt be more qualified to guide the proceeding than a car mechanic from Peoria?

Why have a guide at all?

Why allow media companies or government entities or even non-profit organizations a place in the debates? The two ruling political parties are the correct sponsors. We’re watching their candidates.

Holt was a well-groomed device. A hint of the near-future. A figure of “just-enough-authority” sitting in the darkness, dispensing voice-of-god to the masses, backed up by a production crew with split-screen, miced-up, podium-on-stage technology to provide a fatuous imitation of a real debate.

Instead, let there be a stage in a glen. Two or three television cameras. Let there be a topic. Foreign policy. Hillary ascends the stage and speaks for an hour. Then she leaves. Trump appears. He talks for 90 minutes. Then Hillary comes back for 30 minutes. The candidates never speak to each other. There is no moment-to-moment exchange of daggers or jokes or gotchas. This isn’t entertainment. It isn’t grins or hair or dress or tie or teeth.

If there is a moderator, he stands down off-stage and to the side, grumpy and frowning, holding an umbrella in case it rains. He reads a book while the candidates speak, he eats a hot dog. He combs and re-combs his hair. He waits. He thinks about his 20-dollar-an-hour salary. He must remain absolutely silent.

He’s an actual prop put there to remind people of a time when things were different, when the so-called news was delivered by media stars, who competed to see which ones were the most clever at inventing reality that seemed factual, but wasn’t.

In a world with a shred of sanity, that’s what Lester Holt would be doing.

Exit From the Matrix

What is modern television news (including debate moderation)?

From their perch, anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right.” “You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.

The anchor is the narrative voice of his time, for all people everywhere. The voice that replaces what is going on in the heads of his audience—all those doubts and confusions and objections in the heads of the great unwashed. The anchor will replace those and substitute his own plot line.

The network anchor is The Wizard Of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor must become comfortable with having very little personality of his own. On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control.

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The other night, Lester Holt was the machine-like agent of the Cosmic Charity of All Souls dedicated to higher wisdom from an unimpeachable source. That was his role and he played it.

“I take no sides. I have no opinions. I am objectivity personified. I am…The Fact Checker.”

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.

Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

by Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2016

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

As I wrote before the debate yesterday, it’s all about the staging.

I won’t go over everything NBC moderator Lester Holt did to tilt the debate to Hillary. Others are covering his performance. I’ll point out one vital thing. It happened right at the beginning.

Holt framed the debate by stating that the US economy, particularly employment, has recovered well since the 2007-8 meltdown. Of course, he lied. When you factor in how many people now have low-paying jobs who formerly had good jobs; and when you also consider that people who give up trying to find jobs are eventually no longer listed as unemployed, you get the true picture: the US economy hasn’t recovered. Not by a long shot.

Understandably, Trump was focused, at the moment when Holt lied, on Hillary and the audience in the hall. He was blindsided. From the get-go, he should have pinned Holt and denied Holt’s “facts.” He should have exposed Holt as an errant “fact-checker” and put him back on his heels. That could have changed the whole tone of the evening. Holt’s stone-faced “objective” calm would have been broken. He would have been under the gun.

The tight debate format does not suit Trump. The whole set-up goes against his style. Brief statements, the back-and-forth between candidates, the moderator questions and interruptions—it plays against his energy and rhythms.

Within that structure, Trump tended to talk to Hillary and Holt—instead of directly to the American people.

That created problems for him throughout the evening.

Trump’s whole campaign has been based on him going out there, from city to city, talking to large crowds.

In the debates, he has to maintain that position. He’s still speaking directly to the American people, even though he’s in a small hall, with network coverage, with Hillary standing near him, with a media moderator running the show. He has to make that clear—he’s speaking to The People.

The debate set-up is 2 against 1. Holt (or any network moderator) is the anchor. Hillary, with her polished delivery (she’s spoken these lines hundreds of times), functions, in a sense, as another anchor. That leaves Trump as the “disgruntled guest” on the show, trying to make his points and go against the grain.

Exit From the Matrix

An old word describes what Trump should be doing: “oratory.” It’s what elevates a speaker beyond his immediate circumstances and environment, imparting the sense that he’s talking to “everybody.” Forget Hillary. Forget Holt. Forget the people in the hall. Many of them are political pros. Talk to America.

Trump is supposed to be a populist. He’s supposed to be speaking to, and on behalf of, the citizens who feel they have no voice. If that’s true, he can’t leave them out during the debates.

For her part, Hillary was sheer empty perfection. She used all the buzzwords and generalities, while maintaining a cheery and bright attitude. She delivered exactly what she’s been delivering for years and years, straight from memory.

It doesn’t matter what the debate after-polls show. As this campaign moves to its final moments, her anchor-like gloss is going to make serious inroads on Trump, if he continues to be the disgruntled guest on the show.

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.

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Every television newscast: staged reality

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2016

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

Watch how tonight’s Trump-Hillary debate is set up.

Are the two podiums the same size? No? Who has the bigger podium?

Is the lighting even, or are there shadows? Where do the shadows fall?

Is there blue color in the background, which exudes a “calming effect?”

How is the moderator, Lester Holt, lit? Is he spotlighted, haloed, to impart the sense that he’s the ultimate authority in the room?

What about camera angles on the two candidates? Are they receiving the same coverage, or is one more prominent? Are there close-ups?

Will cameras impart a sense of distance, in order to reduce dramatic effect and give the impression that the whole event is somewhat monotonous?

Will the audience be allowed to applaud and boo, or will Lester Holt control that?

To what degree will the candidates be allowed to wander off-topic? Will the reins be tight or loose?

How much time will each candidate be given to make statements? Will either or both of them be pinched, so they can’t say anything of substance?

Ah yes, substance. Context. Network news is famous for thin context:

The news is all about artificially manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time…

Let’s consider some general background on the news:

The network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style. The overall effect: hypnotic, yet stimulating.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the (thin) context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the recent school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns.”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

power outside the matrix

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

The average viewer, having been entrained through years of watching the news, is going to come to tonight’s Presidential debate ready for thin context and no depth.

That’s the subconscious expectation.

Can this expectation be reversed in 90 minutes, regardless of what either candidate says?

And if either candidate suddenly punches a hole in that expectation, will the average viewer welcome it, or will he feel shocked and disturbed by the intrusion? Will he resent it?

Or to put it another way, which candidate more closely resembles a network news anchor—the familiar words, the familiar generalities, the thin context.

The networks that will broadcast the debate consider it a media/news event.

They will try to keep it within that space.

They think they own that space, which includes the viewer’s mind.

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.

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

—assuming Hillary shows up—

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2016

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

I didn’t invent the liberal press. If the MSM were overwhelmingly conservative, I’d be writing about how they’re going to game Monday night’s debate.

Here’s the problem the MSM faces. Most Presidential debates are snoozefests during which the two candidates float high-flying, empty, vapid, brainless generalities. The press can then easily pick their favorite person, in the aftermath, because neither one said anything. But here we have something different:

Trump is famous for potent wise cracks; dismissive comments aimed at his opponents and the media; and sharp-tongued critiques of policies (e.g., Globalism) which are never aired during election campaigns. He’s a fast-talking cowboy who starts shooting as he’s walks through the door of the saloon.

So the MSM will have to scramble, to slant perception away from Trump and for Hillary.

It’s quite possible that, during the debate itself, a little army of liberal fact-checkers will analyze a Trump statement, decide it’s false, and relay the information to Lester Holt, the moderator, who will frame an accusatory question for Trump on the spot, hoping to catch him up and expose him.

Holt may also try to pop Trump for interrupting Hillary; portraying him as a rude, over-weaning, coarse jackass.

And if Hillary criticizes Trump on a foreign policy issue, and he comes back with one of his patented bombs—“You should talk, Hillary, you destroyed Libya and turned it into a hellhole”—Holt could insist Trump is going off the reservation and not replying directly to Hillary.

“Mr. Trump, I keep trying to bring you back to the subject at hand, and you keep wandering away from it…” (The MSM would replay that clip hundreds of times.)

Holt could do a lot of things to try to upset Trump’s rhythm and tempo and cast him in a negative light. You can bet Hillary’s people have been sending messages through to Holt, urging him to keep Trump on-topic, “so the debate doesn’t turn into an unseemly circus.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will certainly refrain from mentioning that many of Hillary’s remarks were substanceless generalities (her stock-in-trade). They’ll actually fill in the blanks for her. They always have.

If Hillary shows up and endures the full 90 minutes, without collapsing or leaving the stage in a coughing fit, the liberal press will automatically claim “she looked strong and fit” and her health is not a problem. “Apparently, those questions have been answered.”

If Hillary energetically pushes back against Trump just once, during the whole evening, even if she’s telling an egregious lie in the process, the MSM will seize on it, play it over and over, and crow about her “toughness.”

If Trump decides to tone it down and look and sound “Presidential,” the MSM will say he was “subdued” and off his game. If he attacks, they’ll say he was “un-Presidential,” as well as “sexist.”

If Hillary physically survives the debate, the MSM will say she’s “on track” to becoming the next President, “as the polls have indicated, despite Trump’s recent surge.” In other words, they’ll try to make it look as if she’s been running a seamless and successful campaign all along, based on her “vast experience”—instead of ducking reporters, hiding out, canceling events, and trying to find enough energy to carry on.

If Trump stumbles at any point, the MSM will punch that up, highlight it, run the clip over and over, and claim it shows he’s really unprepared for “the major leagues.” “He was exposed.” “He’s really an amateur, as many critics have warned all along.”

As usual, based on zero evidence, the MSM will claim Hillary played well to certain voting blocs: the young, unions, minorities, the elderly.

Any sort of vaguely competent performance by Hillary will be hailed as a major victory, as if a coma patient in an ER suddenly sat up and spoke a few complete sentences.

The MSM are well aware of her fragile health (“fragile” is an understatement), but they’re trying to sit on the information, despite huge pressure from independent reporters all over the Web. At this point, the MSM is like a starving dog that will seize on any bone in its vicinity and make it into a full-course banquet: “She walked, she talked, she was coherent. Therefore, she’s a genius.”

“Despite her recent bout with pneumonia, she appeared strong and in charge.”

If Hillary can’t finish the debate, if she has to leave the stage or collapses, the MSM will try to blame it on Trump.

Who will be in the house Monday night? Will we see a stacked deck? Will people shower Trump with boos? If things get very rough for Hillary, will a protest break out against Trump to give her cover?

Anything is possible, including lights in the hall going out; spotty audio; cutting the televised feed, due to “technical problems” or even “a mysterious hacker.” The MSM are quite aware that Trump has no respect for them. They’re terrified that, if Trump is scoring heavily at the debate, their status as dispensers of truth for the masses will take another major torpedo. They know the public’s regard for them is already plummeting.

power outside the matrix

I have reason to believe media honchos have been in touch with the Trump campaign, on the issue of “credibility.” They’re telling Trump people the debates must be conducted in a dignified manner, in order to preserve the reputation of the office of the Presidency.

Obviously, this effort is aimed at toning Trump down, convincing him to behave. In other words, the media are trying to get him to abandon his most popular approach and turn him into another android candidate.

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

You can be sure, as well, that people inside Trump’s own campaign (infiltrators and typically standard fools) are urging him to back off, act Presidential, and consolidate his gains. They’re telling him his best hope is to build better trust with voters by “acting normal.”

“Too many people are still scared of you, Donald.”

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

They may as well be telling him, “Act more like Hillary.” Hillary has a patent on that act. He can’t match it.

On Monday night, the MSM will be looking for any possible Trump sliver they can use to claim, “The man revealed himself as dangerous.”

That’s their hole card. That’s what they want to sell: “People all over America are feeling fear and disgust. They’re reluctant to believe what Trump is saying—and they doubt his ability to perform competently as President.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will try to take that position, based on something Trump said or did.

Trump can view all these obstructions as a mine-field he must navigate carefully.

But if he does, he’s done.

This is a national debate. For many, many viewers, this will be their first lengthy exposure to the candidates. Hillary will keep (vaguely) emphasizing her experience and credibility as a political leader, versus Trump’s complete lack of real knowledge. She’ll try to act like a frontrunner, a fount of confidence. Trump has to crash that celebration and ruin it.

And the liberal media have to characterize his attacks as something on the order of childish tantrums.

“Trump offered little in the way of substance. He was mostly bluster, and people could see it. Hillary, on the other hand, displayed restraint befitting a veteran who, certainly, based on the record, knows foreign policy like the back of her hand…”

Hillary, on stage, will have a few zingers ready to go, if things start to turn against her, if Trump’s energy is overwhelming her. Something like, “Donald, I know you. I’ve known you for years. How you can even think about running for President? The whole world is watching. Millions of people know you and your campaign are a sham, a fake. Why don’t you make everybody happy, pick up your marbles, and go home. Go back to your Tower and forget about it!”

Applause will break out in the hall, and the liberal press will hope and pray it spells the end of the Trump fantasy.

They’ve been trying to put this guy away ever since he announced his candidacy, and everything they’ve done has not only failed, it’s backfired.

Hillary should be their ultimate backup. She should be the one to seal his fate. After all, she’s supposed to be the next President, isn’t she?

Does she have what it takes to be a closer? Or is she so burned out and ill she can barely make it to the show?

According to reports, Gennifer Flowers, one of Bill’s former girlfriends, has accepted Trump’s invitation to sit in the front row at the debate. If so, it appears Trump is doubling down, and remains in full attack mode.

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.

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2016

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

We are approaching the 2016 Presidential debates. Hillary and Trump.

So I want to remind you of another time, another debate format, another capacity of the public mind. Way back when.

Consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.

But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format—get this: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.

The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.

Those were debates. No moderator. The men talked. And talked.

They weren’t asked questions.

They didn’t interrupt each other with insults and wise cracks.

They didn’t shift from issue to issue.

And when they were done in each town, denizens of the media weren’t around to weigh in on how “Presidential” they sounded and looked.

Current TV debates preclude the possibility of something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and said:

“During my remarks in the next ninety minutes, with no interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’ against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life. Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail. Some of these documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a time…”

There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.

And just in case you think the American public is so addled they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the proceedings.

After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly from the fact that so few politicians explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble itself.

How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul debated, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas had, the following: “What is socialism, and is it good for America?”

If either candidate had been unable to do more than spout vapid generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely have become obvious.

How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.

People wonder whether Hillary can get from her van to the podium without a golf cart and three assistants. Forget about it. This would be seven debates in three weeks, during which she would speak for a total of 630 minutes.

That would be real.

She and Trump would have to lay out their positions in full.

The public would have to pay attention. And if they couldn’t or wouldn’t, so be it. Maybe next time they would.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence is a grotesque side-show that has taken center stage.

The point is to aim high and force things.

Bring back meaningful debate.

Get used to the long form again.

Push this nation up, not down.

The Matrix Revealed

I would certainly like to see Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O’Reilly compelled to analyze each of seven full debates. That alone would be worth the price of admission.

Even more thrilling, let Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, do the full seven debates against, well, anyone. The Libertarians are supposed to be true intellectuals. Well, let’s see IQ on parade, as their leading nitwit engages on an issue of vital interest. Then cut up his presentation and make a sit-com out of it.

Let’s have a few dozen intrepid college professors tell their classes: “We’re going to take apart all seven, long-form, Lincoln-Douglas-type debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Piece by piece, step by step. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about ‘being triggered’ or ‘needing safe spaces’. If you can’t handle it, you get an F for the course. If you know nothing about traditional logical fallacies, you’d better bone up quickly, because I have a feeling we’re going to be exploring those fallacies. And don’t bother feeding me vapid generalities and slogans when you write your papers. You’re on the hook. I expect you to be alert and smart. If that’s beyond your capacity, you shouldn’t be here. Go back to high school or middle school or wherever it was you checked out of your education. Play time is over. Whining is over. This is college…”

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.

US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?

Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

power outside the matrix

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

It’s not as if media outlets are unaware of her. From shesource.org, here is an excerpt from her bio:

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

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.

Did you really think Bernie Sanders was playing it straight?

Did you really think Bernie Sanders was playing it straight?

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2016

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

—Bernie Sanders can’t just wink and nod at his supporters, letting them know he’s faking his Hillary endorsement. No. He’s in the clutches of the octopus. He’s feathering the vulture’s nest. He’s delivering pints of blood to the vampire—

Bernie Sanders’ followers are moaning and weeping and gnashing their teeth. O the betrayal. O the horror.

He…what? He endorsed Hillary for President?

Yes, indeed.

They supported and voted for Bernie because he was righteous and independent and above party politics. He was for the people. And they hated Hillary.

But now, Bernie has gone over to Her.

Make no mistake. Bernie’s loyal army wasn’t just vehemently battling against Trump. They were repulsed at the prospect of Hillary winning the Presidency.

And now their hero, their idol, the “last honest man in American politics,” has crossed over to The Dark Side.

Well, remember, he gave up his long-time status as an Independent when he entered the race for the Presidency. He joined the Democratic Party. He knew the score. He enrolled on the team. He knew, if he lost, he would have to endorse the Democratic candidate. Play ball, or you don’t get to play at all.

He can’t just wink and nod at his supporters, letting them know he’s faking his Hillary endorsement. No. He’s in the clutches of the octopus. He’s feathering the vulture’s nest. He’s delivering pints of blood to the vampire.

This is big-time Democratic politics. This is major-league. This is when compromises are made and deals are struck. And Bernie isn’t feeling the same burn anymore. This fire is a camp fire, and Bernie is sitting there along with other Party operatives and hustlers and propagandists and strong-arm closers and creatures of the night.

As a last gasp, Bernie tried to insert a plank in the Democratic platform opposing the TPP, another hideous Globalist trade treaty. And he failed. That would have been a good time to revolt and bolt and take a stand against the Party and go back to being an Independent—but it didn’t happen. Bernie ate the poison pill.

Meet Mr. Sanders; a Democrat; a dutiful soldier in the ranks.

Hillary, Ms. Darth Vader, her helmet removed, her blonde hair blowing in the wind, strides down the line, inspecting the troops. When she comes to Bernie, she pauses for a moment and inclines her head an inch toward him in acknowledgement. He was, briefly, a minor opponent. Bernie blinks, like a lost recruit in the middle of a nightmare who doesn’t know how he arrived at this moment. She moves on. She’s on her way. She sees the future.

Far away in the distance, a cry of anguish goes up from a huge rag-tag tattered mass of The Disappointed Ones. Bernie’s people.

Duped again. Bamboozled. Cut loose from the passing vision of a Papier-mache utopia of equality.

Did they really think Bernie was playing it straight? Did they really think he would remain above the corruption?

What they and the rest of the American public failed to realize was: this was a unique Presidential campaign in all of modern history. There were two major candidates (Bernie and Trump) who, although they hated each other, were standing for the same thing:

The defeat of Globalism. The defeat of the Globalist trade treaties that destroy communities across the land, as jobs flee overseas, as huge corporations set up shop in places where they use virtual slaves to produce goods that are then sold back to America, minus any fair tax or fair tariff or penalty of any kind. Thus the US economy sinks deeper and deeper into a massive swamp.

Exit From the Matrix

And between these two major candidates, Bernie and Trump, who were standing at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but who were advocating the same thing—Hillary Clinton, arch-Globalist, has been cruising right up the middle stripe in her gold and jewel-encrusted limousine, smiling and waving and laughing and conniving her way toward the Oval Office.

She’s shaking her head at the sheer beauty of it. Divide and Conquer is, once again, working like a charm.

And you’d better believe it, she knows that a goodly number of those young people protesting and rioting in inner cities are the uncomprehending sons and daughters of fathers and mothers and their fathers and mothers who were thrown out of work, cast out into the streets by the Globalist plan and program. She knows. And she doesn’t care.

And the beat goes on.

—Bye, bye, Bernie. You had your moment.

You inflated your balloon, then let the air out of it, walked away and joined the team.

Fold up the chairs, take down the banners, turn out the lights, exit stage left.

Bernie’s back home, inside the Beltway, in Washington, where the loons come out and play their grotesque games.

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.

Trump vs. the Globalists: gunfight at OK Corral

Trump vs. the Globalists: gunfight at OK Corral

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2016

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

In his recent speech in Pennsylvania, Trump clarified and intensified his anti-Globalist position. The Associated Press reports:

“’This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally our middle class,’ said Trump.”

“Trump…criticized [Hillary Clinton’s] past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP trade deal], which he described as ‘the deathblow for American manufacturing.’”

“He vowed to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] to get a better deal ‘by a lot, not just a little,’ for American workers – and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the deal if his proposals aren’t agreed [to].”

“Trump has vowed to bring back [US] manufacturing jobs, in part, by slapping tariffs on goods produced by [American] companies that move manufacturing jobs offshore.”

“He said the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by Bill Clinton, was a ‘disaster’…”

Trump didn’t leave much room for doubt on his anti-Globalist stance.

There are many people who have yearned to hear this rhetoric from a major Presidential candidate…but absolutely don’t want to hear it (or anything else) from Trump.

To them, he’s a fast-talking cowboy, a hustler, a bullshitter of the first order, a rank egotist, a narcissist, a racist.

Fine.

Well, we had another candidate who was a mad dog for attacking Globalism, although he didn’t go quite as far. We had Bernie Sanders. He’s gone. He’s voting for Hillary.

Too little, too late, Bernie just wrote an editorial in the New York Times. His subject: Globalism. Here’s an excerpt:

“In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous [Globalist] trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries…”

“We need to fundamentally reject our ‘free trade’ policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP].”

Sounds pretty much like Trump.

Of course, Bernie points out that this new revolution must NOT be headed by Donald Trump. It must be led by Hillary Clinton. Bernie doesn’t actually mention Hillary by name. He uses the phrase, “a new Democratic President.”

That’s because, as he well knows, the idea that Hillary will overturn free trade treaties and slam back the force of Globalism is so absurd it’s laughable. Bernie knows Hillary is the last person in America who would try to torpedo these trade deals. So he just bites his lip and writes “a new Democratic president.”

But Bernie is a straight shooter. He’s not a bullshitter. Heavens, no.

I wonder which new Democratic President Bernie has in mind? Perhaps it’s Moses coming down from the mountain with ten strategies to create jobs in America.

In past months and years, we’ve had other candidates who’ve come out strongly against Globalism—Rand Paul (didn’t have the intensity); Ron Paul (lacked intensity of delivery, and the media/GOP cut him out of debates and withdrew coverage); Ralph Nader (never had a prayer).

So, for all those people who can admit Trump is saying the right things about Globalism and making all the right promises—but hate him for various reasons—we obviously need someone else who will say what Trump is saying, get it across, attract huge crowds, and garner widespread support. Who is that? Where is he? Where is she?

Nowhere.

Therefore, let’s all vote for Hillary, right? Because at least she isn’t a bullshitter or a wild cowboy, and she can maintain stability here at home while US forces launch a few dozen wars under her guidance. No? No good? Hillary’s a…what? A demented vulture? Really?

Hmm.

Is it possible to perform some kind of surgery on Trump’s brain, so he emerges saying the same things about Globalism, but actually means them, minus the ego and the narcissism? Could his brain be shifted over from that of a hustler to a man of the people? No? No such surgery exists?

Too bad, eh? Because this real estate gunslinger is actually talking about canceling NAFTA and refusing to ratify the TPP, two cornerstones of the Globalist agenda. He’s talking about punishing US companies who shift manufacturing jobs overseas, by laying on tariffs when they export their products back to US customers.

Maybe brain-dead indoctrinated college students don’t understand what all this means, but US workers who’ve been thrown out of their jobs sure as hell do.

Trump actually makes a distinction between Globalism and what’s good for America. He doesn’t pull back from doing that. Because, after all, if you bring the lost US jobs home from the clutches of Globalists, that is, in fact, good for the people of the US, right? And therefore, it’s good for America.

But of course Trump is completely insane and he’s a major league liar, so he’s out.

How about this? A mind-control experiment in which everything Trump has been saying about Globalism is automatically transferred into the brain of LeBron James. Then LeBron shows up at the Democratic National Convention, announces his candidacy, throws down a few thundering dunks, and steals the nomination from Hillary.

Can we pull that off?

No?

Oh well. It’s only 4.8 million lost US jobs (and more coming). It’s only 60,000 US factories closed down (and more coming).

So where are we? Let’s look at the leaderboard.

On one side, we have Hillary Clinton. She’s in the pocket of Big Pharma, she’s dedicated to the advance of Globalism on every possible front (“it takes a village”), she can’t sleep at night unless US planes are bombing some helpless population.

On the other side, we have Donald Trump, who’s saying all the right things about Globalism’s attack on America, but he just happened on this rhetoric by accident, he doesn’t mean any of it, he’s lying all day and all night, he wants to change the name of the White House to Trump Tower II. We know he’s lying because Bill Maher and John Oliver say so.

Exit From the Matrix

I have an idea. Finally. Let’s all pledge our allegiance to HUMANITY without describing what the word means. Let’s just go with the generality. Let’s feel good about it. We’re pledged to The Human Family and The Future. Just leave it hanging out there. No need to get specific. That’s how we’ll ID ourselves. “We’re for humanity, we’re for everybody else.” See, isn’t that better?

Then we can say, “Hillary is also devoted to Humanity. She says so every chance she gets, so it’s a perfect match. Let’s give the political leadership of the country to her. And then, whatever she does, we can assert it’s because she cares. And so do we. We all care. It makes us virtuous.

And that’s all that important: giving the appearance of being virtuous.

All those factories that have closed down and all those people who are out of jobs? Screw them. They’re impediments to a much higher cause.

What are they complaining about? The government will take care of them. Right?

The government will take of everybody. That’s what caring means. Right?

We and Hillary are on the same page.

I knew it would work out.

I knew it would.

It always does.

The Presidency is a character issue. Hillary pretends she has character. Trump doesn’t. That’s all we need to know or ever will need to know.

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.

Vicente Fox’s immigration gibberish

Vicente Fox’s immigration gibberish

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2016

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

Vicente Fox (twitter) is two important things: the former President of Mexico, and the former head of all Coca Cola operations in Mexico.

Over the last few months, he’s made several statements about Trump and immigration:

“I’m not going to pay for that fucking wall.”

“He [Trump] is the hated gringo because he’s attacking all of us, he’s offending all of us, I mean imagine – that could take us to a war – not to a trade war…Don’t play around with us. We can jump walls. We can swim rivers. And we can defend ourselves.”

Regardless of what you think about immigration or Trump, there are a few points to remember about Vicente Fox and the history of Mexico.

First, Fox, on his mother’s side, is Spanish. As in: she comes from Spain.

From biography.yourdictionary.com: “He [Fox] was born July 2, 1942 in Mexico City but was raised on a communal farm in the state of Guanajuato near Leon. His father was a rancher of Irish descent and his mother came from Spain.” (Oh, wikipedia update: “The family was unaware of its German origins and they believed the Fox family [on Vicente’s father’s side] had their origins in Ireland until it was discovered otherwise later in Fox’s life.”)

What difference does that make? The bottom-line argument for UNLIMITED Mexican immigration is based on history: namely, the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, and the peace treaty that surrendered Mexican California, plus territories east of California, to the United States—and solidified the US hold on Texas.

So the current immigration flood has the goal of “taking back what rightfully belongs to Mexico.”

Except for one other historical fact: starting in 1519, Mexico no longer belonged to the native Aztec population. It was grabbed by force. The Spanish conquistadors won a war and overthrew the Aztec empire.

So if you want to argue history, “native Mexicans” aren’t “winning back Mexico for themselves.” If immigration means winning, it’s on behalf of the men who took control of Mexico: Spanish conquerors.

Again, on his mother’s side, Vicente Fox is Spanish. He isn’t a “native Mexican.” Not even close.

Indeed, native Mexicans have been buried at the bottom of the political structure in their own country for five centuries.

If you want to say that unlimited immigration will somehow win back Mexico’s lost territories in the US, be accurate. Immigration will win back the territories for the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors.

But Vicente Fox has other matters to explain as well, and they have to do with the effects of the Coca Cola Company on native Mexicans. Remember, he was, for a time, the head of all Coke operations in Mexico. Here, from a stunning article at mexicolapchs.blogspot.com (“Coca-Cola’s Exploitation of Mexico,” 5/8/2011), is another piece of history, this one more recent:

“While having a tight grip on the native people, Coca-Cola managed to exploit Mexican land and its natural resources. ‘Coke is also widely produced in Mexico, an arrangement that is threatening the country’s water supplies and undercutting indigenous control of natural resources. It takes three cups of water to make one cup of Coke’… As Coca-Cola is using up Mexico’s water supply to produce Coke, they are limiting water for the native people, forcing them to consume more Coke. Health issues like diabetes and obesity began to worsen as more Coke was consumed because of the sugar and caffeine intake.”

“Without natural resources to provide a healthy diet, the Mexican people resorted to drinking only Coke which caused a rise in diabetes and obesity. Due to Coca-Cola’s economic venture, Mexico must cope with its depleted resources, disintegrating government, and mistreatment of the people. If Coca-Cola continues their profit making schemes, the people of Mexico will have no control over their own government and land. Their water supply will ultimately be destroyed and the health of the people will plummet.”

If Vicente Fox is arguing on behalf of “true Mexicans,” he should look to his own past, and the grotesque effects his company has had on that population.

If you opened up the major media to authentic original Mexicans, with no Spanish descendants of the conquistadors on board, the first thing the native Mexicans would begin talking about is the 500-year suppression of their rights and lives in their own land, right down to the present day. They wouldn’t be talking about immigration to the United States.

The native Mexicans would have very interesting things to say. Their statements would cut to the bone of Mexican history, the real history. Not the laid-on Spanish history.

And if justice were the objective, it would begin right there.

It definitely doesn’t begin with anything Vicente Fox has to say.

The argument for unlimited immigration, based on history, is spurious from the get-go. And if you want to go back to the native Aztecs, even there you’re talking about people who took over large territories and populations by conquest.

Who the Aztecs’ native Mexican victims were, at that time, I’ll leave for scholars and historians to sort out. Whoever they were, if you can find them in Mexico today, they have zero political or economic power. They’re at the bottom, where they’ve lived for a long, long, long time. And their need starts with what the leaders in Mexico (not the US) have been doing to them:

Burying them.

You just might find a few descendants of original Mexicans growing corn in their native land. That’s possible. And if you did, you’d immediately run into the effects that NAFTA, the 1994 Globalist treaty, has had on them. It put 1.5 million of them into bankruptcy, because NAFTA permitted the US to export cheap corn to Mexico. That’s why many of those farmers have been crossing the border and coming up into the US.

Yes, NAFTA, the treaty that Vicente Fox has called “a miracle,” and a “total success.”

The man can tap dance. I’ll give him that.

Coda: In case you think giant tracts of land in California, with their sprawling estate villas, were once owned by original Mexicans, from whom Imperialist Yankees stole those properties in the settlement of the Mexican-American War, think again. There was a time (19th and early 20th century) when remaining wealthy Mexican families in California were giving each other islands off the coast, as wedding presents for their sons and daughters—but these were really Spanish landowners. They were the descendants of 1519 Hernan Cortes, Juan Diaz, Andres de Tapia, Garcia del Pilar, Francisco de Aguilar, Pedro Alvarado, and their merry band of marauders who stole central Mexico, spread their influence, and kept the native population under their rule, deep under their rule.

I once lived on Alvarado Street in Los Angeles. Only decades later did I realize this name was no holdover from, or recognition of, Mexico. It was apparently a reference to Juan Bautista Alvarado, Governor of Alta California (1836-42). It pointed to “Spanish Mexico.” As in: Spain.

Conquest.

the matrix revealed

The people who want unlimited immigration from Mexico to the US should keep that in mind. Arguing from history brings up some unpleasant truths.

According to ancestry.com, the most common surnames (2013) are Garcia, Fernandez, Gonzales, Rodriguez, Lopez, Martinez, Sanchez, Perez, Martin, Gomez—these are the most common names in…

Spain.

That tells you something about who has really been running Mexico since the early 16th century.

It isn’t the native Mexicans.

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.