Goldman’s Global Domination Is Now Complete As Its Mark Carney Takes Over Bank Of England – BlackListedNews.com


Goldman’s Global Domination Is Now Complete As Its Mark Carney Takes Over Bank Of England

0 3 3Reddit0 0

November 26, 2012

Source: Zero Hedge

Back on July 3, we made an explicit and very simple prediction: “now that the natural succession path at the BOE has been terminally derailed, it brings up those two other gentlemen already brought up previously as potential future heads of the BOE, both of whom just happened to work, or still do, at… Goldman Sachs: Canada’s Mark Carney or Goldman’s Jim O’Neil. Granted both have denied press speculation they will replace Mervyn King, but it’s not like it would be the first time a banker lied to anyone now, would it (and makes one wonder if this whole affair was not merely orchestrated by the Squid from the get go… but no, that would be a ‘conspiracy theory’.)”

A few weeks later, in “On The Path To Global Goldmanation: Former Goldmanite Mark Carney To Head The BOE After All?” we added:

Granted both have denied press speculation they will replace Mervyn King, but it’s not like it would be the first time a banker lied to anyone now, would it (and makes one wonder if this whole affair was not merely orchestrated by the Squid from the get go… but no, that would be a ‘conspiracy theory’.)” We wonder if this speculation can be upgraded from conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact, now that Bloomberg itself has written a major article discussing just this suddenly very likely outcome.

From Bloomberg:

Carney Leading Bank of England Seen as Scandal Remedy

London is losing so much trust as the global financial center that Prime Minister David Cameron may need to consider an unprecedented choice for Bank of England governor: Mark Carney, the Canadian who polices the world’s financial system and has no ties to the bailouts or rigged markets tainting Labour and Conservative governments alike.

The 47-year-old Carney, who received his masters and PhD degrees from Oxford University, is no stranger to the City of London after working there with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Now serving as governor of the Bank of Canada and the head of the Financial Stability Board, he is unscathed by the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis.

“Mark Carney is one of the brightest, most capable people I’ve ever met in global finance and central banking,” said Tim Adams, a former U.S. Treasury undersecretary who worked with Carney at Group of Seven meetings. “I’ve been around these circles a long time and he’s smart, politically savvy, a good manager and has an outstanding track record. It’s tough to find all those elements in a single person.”

Domestic candidates for the job include Gus O’Donnell, former head of the U.K. civil service, Financial Services Authority Chairman Adair Turner and Bank of England Deputy Governor Paul Tucker, a three-decade veteran at the bank.

There is one problem regarding the domestic candidates: none of them have Goldman on their resume, something which sets not only Mark Carney, but also Bill Dudley and Mario Draghi apart.

As for the punchline:

“Why not get a head that’s global? Bankers aren’t very popular, and a Canadian sounds like a good choice,” said Kent Matthews, a professor at Cardiff University and former Bank of England researcher. “It may well be that to restore credibility they have to look outside.”

So that’s the strategy: play Carney off as a Canadian, instead of as Goldman. We wonder how many minutes the general public will be fooled by that particular strawman.

* * *

We are, once again, 100% correct, and have beaten all the bookie odds which had Tucker as a favorite and Mark Carney as a long odds outsider. Pity: all one needs to realize and remember how the events in the world play out is to remember one simple thing: GOLDMAN SACHS RUNS IT. Everything else is secondary.

As we expected months ago, it has just been confirmed.


And as we showed back on July 26…

Europe before:

and After:

Finally, our conclusion from that article, which today merely encapsulated:

  • Because with money printing squids like these, who needs sovereign states?



Goldman Sachs Completes Economic Takeover of Europe


Goldman Sachs Completes Economic Takeover of Europe

“Surprise” BoE pick Mark Carney attended Bilderberg meeting earlier this year

Paul Joseph Watson
November 26, 2012

The “surprise” announcement that Canadian Mark Carney is to be appointed Governor of the Bank of England means that the 2012 Bilderberg attendee completes Goldman Sachs’ virtual domination over all the major economies of Europe.

Carney’s appointment has come as a shock to many who expected current BoE deputy governor Paul Tucker to get the nod, but it’s not a surprise for us given that we forecast back in April Carney would be headhunted for the position.

Carney is a former 13-year veteran of Goldman Sachs and was involved in the 1998 Russian financial crisis which was exacerbated by Goldman advising Russia while simultaneously betting against the country’s ability to pay its debt.

Carney’s appointment arrives just six months after he attended the 2012 Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia, an annual confab of over a hundred of the most powerful people on the planet who have routinely flexed their kingmaker status.

The Guardian reports that Carney is “largely unknown outside the cloistered circles of central bankers and financial regulators,” why is why his appointment came as a surprise to many, including JP Morgan’s Malcolm Barr who considered Paul Tucker to be a “shoo-in” for the job.

Carney’s status as a foreign national is cited as one of the reasons his selection came as a shock, but being Canadian he is after all a “subject” of the Queen of England, who confirmed his appointment after he was recommended to her by Prime Minister David Cameron.

The presence of Carney at this year’s Bilderberg confab undoubtedly helped him curry favor amongst the global elite and helped him to secure the position as Governor of the BoE, just as it has aided other luminaries in exalting them to higher office, such as Herman Van Rompuy, who was picked as President of the European Union just days after he attended a Bilderberg Group dinner meeting.

Carney’s ascension to BoE head also represents the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle in Goldman Sachs’ quest to control virtually every major economy across the European continent.

Last year, former EU Commissioner Mario Monti was picked to replace Silvio Berlusconi, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Italy. Monti is an international advisor for Goldman Sachs, the European Chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and also a leading member of the Bilderberg Group.

“This is the band of criminals who brought us this financial disaster. It is like asking arsonists to put out the fire,”commented Alessandro Sallusti, editor of Il Giornale.

Similarly, when Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou dared to suggest the people of Greece be allowed to have their say in a referendum, within days he was dispatched and replaced with Lucas Papademos, former vice-President of the ECB, visiting Harvard Professor and ex-senior economist at the Boston Federal Reserve.
Papademos ran Greece’s central bank while it oversaw derivatives deals with Goldman Sachs that enabled Greece to hide the true size of its massive debt, leading to Europe’s debt crisis.

Papademos and Monti were installed as unelected leaders for the precise reason that they “aren’t directly accountable to the public,” noted Time Magazine’s Stephen Faris, once again illustrating the fundamentally dictatorial and undemocratic foundation of the entire European Union.

Shortly afterwards, Mario Draghi – former Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International – was installed as President of the European Central Bank.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary at the beginning of the 2008 financial collapse was Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. When Paulson was replaced with Tim Geither, Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson was hired as his chief advisor. Current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 10 times. Goldman Sachs spent the most money helping Barack Obama get elected in 2008.

Zero Hedge, who also predicted that Carney would defy the odds to secure the position at the Bank of England,notes today that, “All one needs to realize and remember how the events in the world play out is to remember one simple thing: GOLDMAN SACHS RUNS IT. Everything else is secondary.”

As the graphic below illustrates, the economies of France, Ireland, Germany and Belgium are also all now controlled by individuals who harbor a direct relationship with Goldman Sachs. The international banking giant, notorious for its corruption and insider trading, now has massive influence over virtually every major western economy on the planet.


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.



Susanne “Copy-Paste” Posel’s Plagiarizing Ways Exposed | ExplosiveReports.Com


Susanne “Copy-Paste” Posel’s Plagiarizing Ways Exposed


Jurriaan Maessen
November 26, 2012

Occupy Corporatism’s Susanne Posel Claims To Publish “100 % Original” Articles While Plagiarizing Writers Like It’s Going Out Of Style

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they say. Although it’s possible one could feel an element of flattery when confronted with literal copies of ones own work, it doesn’t take two seconds to remember that robbers are generally speaking not in the business of flattery.

Quite by accident I found out that entire segments of my articles have made a magical reappearance in later articles written by Occupy Corporatism’s Susanne Posel. At first I figured our articles probably smell similar because of the information-swamp we both wade through. But as I checked again I realized that Posel bluntly re-posts entire fragments of my articles a few days after the original appears, sometimes in quick copy-paste style, oftentimes with minor alterations, always omitting the name of the author she copies from. Chances are many more writers in the alternative media have been “poseled”- I’m sorry: inserted in Posel’s articles without even a meager mention.

An illustrative sample to start out with. Compare the first paragraph of my April 10 2012 article http://www.infowars.com/ehrlich-hansen-lovelock-we-must-build-an-entirely-new-kind-of-global-society/ with Susanne Posel’s April 16 2012 article http://occupycorporatism.com/un-supporters-write-paper-calling-for-depopulation/. Right in my first paragraph I recount how three eco-maniacs call for worldwide population reduction, starting out as follows:

“The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has recently published a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, including eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, climate dictator James Lovelock and NASA’s own terror-endorsing James Hansen.”

This was rewritten by Posel in her April 16 2012 article:

“The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has published a assortment of “key messages” titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act” written by eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, climate change alarmist James Lovelock and NASA’s own James Hansen.”

In the second paragraph of the April 16 article, Posel writes:

“These spokesmen, under the support of the UN, wish to coerce the global populations into acquiescing to their vision of a global society. These three men have shown themselves to be terrorists who use the guise of environmentalism to ultimately put in place their one world government.”

Six days prior my original second paragraph reads:

“These eco-fascists clearly stop at nothing as they attempt to terrorize the world into accepting their envisioned “global society.” (…) All three have revealed themselves to be eugenicists who only seize upon a (in this case imagined) calamity in order to establish world government.”

See how it works. With the help of tiny grammatical adjustments an existing article is re-tailored to look like a Susanne Posel original- when in fact it is at best a bad replica.
For example, my third paragraph reads:

“Lovelock also arrogantly stated in 2010 that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change- therefore governments worldwide, preferably a one world government, must prevent it for them.”

While Posel writes a week later:

“Lovelock also stated in 2010 that average people are too stupid to stop man-made climate change themselves; and therefore need governments to help them stop themselves.”

Don’t get me wrong. I applaud and encourage the information to be spread far and wide, like a blanket over us mesmerized masses. In fact I consider it critical that my research is being disseminated. The information is not any writer’s to take credit for, of course, for it is after all public, and so it should be. The only precondition I do insist on, is that writers do their own thinking about the information uncovered. It would also be nice if they went about their copying endeavors a little less obvious so as not to insult reader’s intelligence.

Consider for example my article http://www.infowars.com/more-sickness-from-un-social-engineers-conditioning-children-into-accepting-abortions/ from April 4 2012. In the article I write about UN social engineers engaging very young children with sordid propaganda:

“One of the results of this systematic campaign, largely coordinated through UNESCO, is the general acceptance of abortion as a viable option when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. In the not too distant past the very notion of terminating the unborn would have outraged most people. Now we even see those who call themselves conservative readily entertaining the notion.”

Posel, in her April 10 2012 article http://occupycorporatism.com/uns-plan-to-indoctrinate-our-children-into-globalization/ writes:

“The UN’s social engineers have begun a new indoctrination campaign. Through UNESCO comes the general societal acceptance of abortion as a viable form of birth control. Although traditionally terminating a pregnancy would have enraged our ancestors, today, we think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it suits a social meme that tells women this is a right of control over our own bodies.

Or this one, from Posel’s April 1 2012 article http://occupycorporatism.com/mainstream-scientists-say-human-populations-should-live-in-un-mega-cities/:

“These scientists are suggesting the directives of the UN’s Agenda 21 plan for controlled mega-cities within mega-regions. All other land in America will be cut off from human habitation for the sake of environmentalism under the Wildlands Project. To be able to control the populace within the mega-cities, RFID chip technology will be utilized. As the scientists in the MSNBC article eluded, the rest of the landscape will be set aside for the global Elite only.”

And now from my March 25 2012 article http://www.infowars.com/un-backed-scientists-call-for-mega-city-population-lockup/

“The call for compact cities, filled to the brim with humans, is part of the UN’s depopulation agenda for sure. Within these proposed mega-cities humans will be allowed to use RFID technology so they can be kept in check. The rest of the world, the “countryside” as one of the scientists told MSNBC, is reserved for the elite.”

The definition of plagiarism is a “wrongful appropriation”, “close imitation”, or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions”, and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” It would be lovely if Posel would just copy the information provided and add her own comments to it. The personal comments I embed within articles are limited by my own horizon and not impressive enough to be rewritten, not by a long shot. In the case of Susanne Posel it is clear we are dealing with clear cut copy-paste style journalism combined with a boundless disregard for professional dignity. In her April 10 2012 article http://occupycorporatism.com/uns-plan-to-indoctrinate-our-children-into-globalization/ she writes:

“In 2009 a draft report from the UN ‘International Guidelines on Sexuality Education’ describes desensitizing youth beginning at age 5 to the ideals of masturbation and supporting their education on abortion as part of their adult life. In the final report titled Conference Ready Version, those ideals were not removed, although they created a small controversy among readers.”

Copied almost literally from my April 4 article http://www.infowars.com/more-sickness-from-un-social-engineers-conditioning-children-into-accepting-abortions/, reading:

“A 2009 draft report on ‘International Guidelines on Sexuality Education’ proposes desensitizing children as young as 5 to the concepts of masturbation and incrementally preparing them for the concept of aborting life. Although the report sparked a mild controversy in the beginning of September 2009, the final ‘Conference Ready Version’ of the abject report has not removed the proposals.”

In my article from April 4 2012 I conclude by saying:

“Here we have it: at a very early stage children are first being introduced to the idea that “some people are unable to care for a child”; in the next stage (9 to 12) the concept of abortion is being introduced as a means to resolve that issue. In the last stage (15 to18) the “Key Idea” is to explicitly advocate abortion. Whatever one’s position in regards to the subject, everyone should agree that it is nothing less than a crime to desensitize children to such ideas at such an early age.

Posel’s article from April 10 2012 concludes as follows:

“While small children are being taught that some people are not fit for caring for children; thereby making the idea of abortion the only decent thing to do, abortion is then transformed into a means to an end by ages of 9 – 12. By the ages of 15 – 18, these young adults have become advocates of abortion. Yet, regardless of anyone’s personal stance on abortion, it is inappropriate to desensitize children through these impressionable years to a specific agenda.”

Again: an almost literal reproduction. A simple reference to the source would have been most appreciated. In any case, my personal musings hardly need to be copied to convey the nastiness of the subject. When I wrote in my April 16 2012 article http://www.infowars.com/the-ultimate-euphemism-un-calls-its-blueprint-for-mass-death-a-virtuous-green-path/:

“The “fair representation” Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the “Danish Text”, drafted for the Copenhagen conference in late 2009, clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.”

I did not expect to find an almost identical regurgitation of the text on Occupy Corporatism (dated April 19 2012):

“Sachs closes this out by saying that the IMF and World Bank should have the final say over any constructive international system.”

Here the plagiarism steps on its own toes. Sachs did not in his 1991 manuscript say that the IMF and World Bank would have final say. In my article I point to the “Danish text” stated this was the case. This only goes to show one should never let haste get in the way of your rewriting. Apart from these almost literal reproductions, Posel also tends to outright copy the chronology of subjects in my articles. In at least 7 instances Susanne Posel uses the exact same chronology I used earlier. One would think that even plagiarists have some sort of professional dignity, like for example con artists are rumored to have when they enjoy a reproduction of some painting they just copied.

An extreme professional nosedive, from whatever angle you look at it. In my April 30 2012 article http://www.infowars.com/international-scientific-order-needed-to-facilitate-the-big-die-off-top-un-adviser-says/ I cover some notes by a UNESCO advisor who calls for depopulation of the human populace.

“For those who think that the entire population reduction-mantra is somehow the end result of rigorous scientific thinking, the calculated, incremental and synchronized move toward a brave new world should inform them about its true origins. It is not a bottom-up thing, somehow evolving naturally from the grass roots; it is a top-down scientific dictatorship rather, posing as grass roots, but carefully crafted to brainwash as large an audience as it can through the use of mass media, schooling systems and other available instruments of propaganda. In 1974, the Director-General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, stressed the importance of gathering all media, irrespective of its medium, under the great wing of UNESCO and the globalists. At a banquet of the International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsburg, USA, Maheu starts out by giving some insight in UNESCO’s long-term vision for mankind (page 2):
“The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.”

On May 4 2012 Posel covers the same subject in her article http://occupycorporatism.com/american-representative-to-the-un-calls-for-worldwide-depopulation/, writing:

“UNESCO, in 1974, was integral in using clever mind-control and brainwashing techniques in all facets of societal controls; including mass media, public and private school programs to steer the public perception about depopulation. By the hand of the then Director General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, popularized the scientific dictatorship with a speech at a dinner for the International Coordinating Council of Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsberg.

“The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.”

Enough. I could go on listing examples for some time. But this entire affair has already taken as much time and energy as I’m willing to waste. I would however like to share one last thought with my shadow on the other side of the Atlantic.

Posel’s writings reveal a definite knack for repackaging existing material to a readable format. It is true that many researchers, including myself, tend to spread out a lot of information. A meal not easily digested by readers. For that reason there is certainly a great need for bringing these lengthy articles to an acceptable size, condensing them to their essence. Such labor is nothing to be snubbed at. I would advise Susanne Posel to profess her paraphrasing art openly, quit featuring banners which say “100 % original’” and other such silly claims of authorship and just put her excellent plagiarizing skills to use.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

November 26, 2012 Leave a Reply


If all your thoughts were made public?


If all your thoughts were made public?


By Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2012


Where do these insane professors come from? Maybe they’re hatched from eggs in a lab. The neuroscientists, in particular, are prime candidates for the funny farm.

One wants the human brain to be recast as a hologram and planted in a robot. Another wants the robot to be made out of pure energy.

But Professor Michael Persinger, of Laurentian University in Canada, is promoting a utopia in which everyone’s thoughts are made public.

Of course, Persinger hopes humanity will embrace the notion voluntarily. I think.

In his lecture, “Just Suppose You Could Know What Others Are Thinking: No More Secrets,” Persinger tells us that utopia is just one step from creation. All we have to do is allow all our thoughts to be made public.

Brain-mapping, electronic translation of thoughts into digital form? A master library where we can tap in and find out everything David Rockefeller or a janitor at Yankee Stadium is thinking and has thought? Or maybe Persinger thinks we’ll do this telepathically. If so, it sounds strenuous.

Of course, thoughts don’t equal action. But in this age of thought-crime, does it matter? If it’s discovered that a housewife in Little Rock was thinking, for three seconds, about killing the president of Egypt at 3:57 on a rainy Tuesday, between thinking about the frosting for a cake and getting the brakes fixed on the SUV, why she’s an open book. She’s a potential killer, right?

Then, at her next dinner party or picnic, her friends can ask her whether she’s planning to carry out the hit with a Glock or a drone.

And if the president of the United States, after a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, thinks he wants to bomb England, that’s the top headline in the Washington Post. Of course, he thought about the attack for a tenth of a second, and his next thought was about having sex with Angelina Jolie, and this was followed by a thought about pizza.

But who cares?

It’s all in the master library, and we can all tap in, and that’s utopia.

Then there is this: suppose someone hacks into the library and inserts thoughts for you you never had? For example: it’s falsely claimed you thought about declaring war against all gay men on the planet. Might that cause a ripple?

The purely technical aspects of translating all the thoughts of ten billion people into a readable library are, I must say, absurd. How many thought-impulses does one person generate in a 24-hour span? Even the dullest among us must rack up at least a million.

Eventually, somebody would come up with an algorithm and a computer model to highlight “certain thoughts that are more important than others.” And after a decade or so, it would be discovered that these models were wrong, useless, and politically motivated.

But not to worry. The whole point of Professor Persinger’s program is the elimination of secrets and privacy. The very existence of the program would force people to admit “we’re all liars,” because we don’t say everything we think. And this would be good, because then we would become suitably humble, passive, and non-threatening. We would become meek, submissive, and universally tolerant.

And the people controlling the whole system (who can have their own thoughts fabricated or blocked) would have a very simple time controlling us. Yes, it’s perfect.

If you want complete fascism.

Thanks, professor. We’ll take up your proposal at the next meeting of the Looney Tunes Society.

And by the way, who says thoughts are stored in the brain? Who says brain is the same thing as mind?

Professor Persinger has published widely during his long career. He’s written papers on telepathy, remote viewing, and the induction of spiritual experiences through electromagnetic stimulation.

This last area of research is particularly significant. It reveals the neuroscience bias toward assuming all “non-scientific” experience comes from physiological causes. In other words, everything we do, think, feel, or say is completely grounded in the physical.

This version of materialism is the justification for managing and manipulating human life. If we’re only biological machines, as these researchers assert, what difference does it make how we’re re-engineered?

If all our thoughts can be made public and universally available, why not do it? Why not wipe out all privacy and create the ultimate capstone on the Surveillance State?

Of course, “it’s for our own good.” It always is.

Naturally, we believe proposals like Persinger’s are ridiculous and would never be implemented. But back in the day when the FBI was obtaining an occasional warrant to wiretap a suspect, who imagined we would come to a time when our every electronic communication would be collected, sorted, and scanned by government agencies?




Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com


Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Why psychiatry and big government are in a pornographic embrace


Why psychiatry and big government are in a pornographic embrace


by Jon Rappoport

November 24, 2012


Modern psychiatry is based on the premise that there is something wrong with almost everybody. But when it comes to dependence, psychiatry takes a distinct back seat to big government.

Psychiatry and big-government actually share a bed. They both need dependents; otherwise, they’d fade away. In this pornographic intimacy, psychiatry functions as a medical and cultural salesman and PR hustler.

It ensures a steady supply of diagnosed and designated victims for government.

Dr. Marcia Angell, for two decades the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world, The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a devastating piece on psychiatry for the The NY Review of Books.

In the “The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?”, Angell points out that a staggering 10% of Americans at least seven years old take antidepressants.


She also reveals that these drugs, observed to increase levels of a neurotransmitter called serotonin, were the springboard for claiming that depression was caused by a serotonin deficit. In other words, the whole theory of depression was invented backwards, to fit what the drugs were doing.

This would be somewhat like saying the flu is caused by a lack of Tamiflu in the body.

That was “the science” behind the whole chemical-imbalance theory of depression.

“We’ve got this drug (Prozac) that raises serotonin levels, so let’s say depression is caused by a deficit of serotonin, and let’s sell that idea.”

Angell cites a study done at the National Institute of Mental Health (a federal agency) showing that 46% of randomly selected adults qualified for a diagnosis of mental illness, according to the definitions of disorders established by the American Psychiatric Association.

This is victim-creation at its finest, especially since none of the official 297 mental disorders are diagnosed by any chemical or biological test. They are merely menus or checklists of behaviors.

This would be like going into a doctor’s office for a conversation, after which he brings in a team of doctors who sit around and discuss what you said, take a vote, and decide you have cancer.

The class of psychiatric drugs called anti-psychotics (or major tranquilizers), including Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, is now the best-selling class of meds in the US.

Going back two decades, perhaps the number-one person in America dedicated to the psychiatric hustle was, indeed, a government representative. Wife of a two-term president, then senator, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton campaigned tirelessly for accepting the diagnosis of mental illness “without stigma.”

She led the way; others followed.

The objective was to enable a cultural revolution. “We’re all victims.” “We all have some kind of mental problem.” “We all need treatment.”

The revolution succeeded. And in its wake, big government could and did expand the theme of dependence.

Angell, in her highly readable article, makes a further point that is often overlooked. At one time, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression experienced relatively brief episodes. But with the onset of the drugs for treatment, patients now find themselves dealing with chronic conditions.

The obvious conclusion? The drugs are creating abnormal brain function.

Chronically debilitated patients are a perfect set-up for big-government dependence.

In the US, the use of psychiatric drugs increased 22% from 2001 to 2010.

In 2010, 21% of adult women took antidepressants.

In his book, Anatomy of an Epidemic, Robert Whitaker provides the capper: in 1987, 1.25 million Americans were on government disability as a result of mental illness. By 2010, that figure had risen to 4 million.

Yes, big government and psychiatry are in love. And it isn’t pretty.

The formula for creating this ever-expanding dependence?

One: Continually add new mental disorders to the official list. These labels have no basis in reality. They aren’t accompanied by any diagnostic tests. But they enable many more people to be assigned a mental illness.

Two: Prescribe drugs that are, in and of themselves, destructive and debilitating, and therefore create long-term patients.

Three: Deny the drugs are the culprits. Blame the deterioration of the patient on his “mental disorder.”

Four: Encourage a culture in which patients think of themselves as struggling to “regain normalcy,” but need constant outside help for the rest of their lives.

Five: Offer government assistance in this regard. The assistance, of course, is based on the person remaining “mentally ill.” The assistance is therefore a bargain. “As long as you continue to think of yourself as ill, we the government will help you.”


For detailed evidence that psychiatry is an arbitrary pseudoscience, and for an introduction to evidence that the prescribed drugs are toxic, see my previous articles:



Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com


Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Caught On Tape: What The Israelis Really Think Of Us | The Ugly Truth


Caught On Tape: What The Israelis Really Think Of Us

Justin Raimundo

In 2001, Bibi Netanyahu paid a condolence call on a group of Israeli settlers in the village of Ofra, widows whose husbands had been killed in the Intifada: the videotaped conversation has just been leaked, and broadcast by Israel’s Channel 10, and it is a blockbuster.

At one point, Bibi is telling the widows that the Palestinians “think they will break us,” but don’t worry, ladies, Bibi has a plan:

“To hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne. The price is not too heavy to be borne, now. A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing…

“Woman: Wait a moment, but then the world will say ‘how come you’re conquering again?’

“Netanyahu: The world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.

“Woman: Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?

“Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction.”

A child speaks up, and, surprisingly articulate, avers: “They say they’re for us, but, it’s like…”

Yes, even the children are little ideologues. Today that boy is a teenager on the verge of adulthood, and likely a fervent supporter of Israel’s ultra-rightist government, led by Bibi, who, back then, quickly assured him: “They won’t get in our way.” The child, hardliner that he was and no doubt still is, seemed doubtful: “On the other hand,” the kid ventured, “if we do some something, then they…”

That’s when Bibi really let his hair down:

“So let’s say they say something. So they said it! They said it! 80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have that kind of support…. Look. That administration [Clinton] was extremely pro-Palestinian. I wasn’t afraid to maneuver there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton.”

Of course he wasn’t, because he knew he’d win, what with the Republicans in Congress passing resolutions unconditionally supporting the Israelis and AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby going all out to mobilize their fifth column against Oslo and the very idea of a rapprochement. Oslo was a dagger placed against the throat of the hard-line Likud movement, which explicitly embraces the rather nutty idea of a “Greater Israel,” and there was no way Netanyahu or his party could accept it without betraying who and what they were and are. So when one of the women denounced the Accords as “a disaster,” Bibi agrees with her – and takes “credit” for neutering them:

“What were the Oslo Accords? The Oslo Accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: ‘Will you act according to them?’ and I answered: ‘yes, subject to mutuality and limiting the retreats.’ ‘But how do you intend to limit the retreats?’ ‘I’ll give such interpretation to the Accords that will make it possible for me to stop this galloping to the ’67 [armistice] lines.’ How did we do it?”

Easy: the Accords had a loophole big enough to drive an IDF tank through, premising the handover of “land for peace” on the condition that the land in question encompassed neither settlements nor military sites, as Netanyahu explained to his adoring fans:

“No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

“Woman: Right [laughs]..

“Netanyahu: … How can you tell. How can you tell?”

Bibi goes on to boast of how he stood up to Clinton, insisting that it would be the Israelis, and not anyone else, who defined where and what was a “military site.” When the US balked, Bibi refused to sign on to the Hebron Agreement, stopping the peace process in its tracks: “Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.”

The settler comes back at him, however, interrupting Bibi’s self-congratulatory rapture by reminding him of Hebron, and other concessions embodied in the Accord. Netanyahu’s answer sums up the current position of his government. He cites his father (“Not exactly a dove, as they say”) who advised him:

“It would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent. The trick is not to be there and be broken. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.”

This limns the current state of the current political dialogue in the Jewish state: the debate is between those who want 98 percent and those who demand 100 percent. (The only difference today, as opposed to 2001, is that the latter seem to have the upper hand: witness the rise of Avigdor Lieberman and his party of nutcases, who are the Israeli equivalent of Al-Qaeda.)

What’s interesting – and embarrassing – about this leak isn’t the “revelation” that Israel’s amen corner in America exerts a decisive influence on US policymakers: who didn’t know that? The Israel lobby constantly boasts of it, while critics of US subservience to Tel Aviv consistently decry it. What we didn’t know, however, is how much the Israelis disdain us for it: “It’s absurd,” avers Bibi, and the settler lady, laughing, agrees with him. She, being an ardent nationalist, cannot conceive of a government that puts the interests of another nation over and above its own. Perhaps Bibi has a better idea of how the Israelis pulled that particular rabbit out of Uncle Sam’s hat, but emotionally it’s clear that he, too, finds the weakness of the Americans incomprehensible.

After all, it’s odd when you think about it: why would the mightiest empire the world has ever seen – a nation that spends more on its military establishment than all other nations of the world combined – kowtow before a country barely the size of Delaware? How is it that every attempt to heal this breach in our national security armor and our interests in the region – the running sore of the Palestinian question – has ended in utter failure, due entirely – as Bibi boasts – to the efforts of the Israelis to undermine it? How does the prime minister of a dinky little country almost entirely dependent on American largess stand up to the Emperor of the World – and win?

The answer is that American imperialism has spawned a global hegemon quite unlike the empires of the past: the British, the French, the Romans, the Macedonians, and as far back as it’s possible to know, all planted their flag on foreign soil to the glory and in the name of the nation. That is, they were nationalists, albeit of the dangerous outward-looking sort (as opposed to the inward-looking, contemplative variety that held sway in the US until the turn of the last century, commonly derided by our elites as “isolationists.”)

We, on the other hand, have a different self-conception. By no means do we ever acknowledge that we are indeed an empire, except when someone is trying to be provocative (or unless he’s a foreigner). We are supposed to be different from all the rest, because, you see, America – according to both neoconservatives and liberals – is a nation founded not on a sense of place, but around an abstract idea. To the neocons, it’s the idea of meritocracy (which, they figure, puts them on top), to the liberals it’s “equality” (which, they figure, puts them on top).

What they have in common, in spite of their superficial differences, is their insistence on deviating from the traditional concept of nationhood and, instead, conjuring up an ideological construct to put in its place, just as the Jacobins tore down the religious artifacts of Paris and erected in their place a statue to the Goddess of Reason. Thousands of lives were sacrificed on that bloody altar before it was over, just as many hundreds of thousands have been offered up to the American god of “Democracy” over the years.

Yet this democracy we claim to practice is the fatal chink in our armor, the means by which a much weaker enemy can easily manipulate and even fatally undermine us from afar, without any show of force except political strength. And this strength need not be derived from the support of the American majority. Since most could care less about foreign policy matters, this indifference allows a weird coalition of pro-Israel neocons, Democratic party “liberals” in debt to pro-Israel donors, and fanatical Christian “Zionists” to dominate the debate, capture elite opinion, and set US policy on a course Bibi admits is “absurd.”

What this conundrum underscores is the truth of the Paulian-paleoconservative principle, repeated many times in many different ways in this space, that you can’t have a republic and an empire: it’s one or the other. This is true not only because empires are constantly defending and extending their frontiers, and are in a state of constant warfare, which requires a centralized authority and the consolidation of State power, but also due to the peculiar vulnerability of democratic institutions to foreign subversion. An America that refused on principle to interfere in the affairs of other nations would have little or nothing to fear from foreign lobbyists and fifth columnists: on the other hand, a “democratic” empire in which the emperor is subjected to all sorts of political pressures, including the necessity of raising obscene amounts of money just in order to keep his throne, is indeed “something that can be easily moved,” as Bibi put it.

Take, for example, this new “Emergency Committee for Israel,” chaired by Bill Kristol, Christian nutball Gary Bauer, and Rachel Abrams, wife of neocon heavy-hitter Elliott Abrams, which is running ads in Pennsylvania against Democrat Joe Sestak. Sestak’s crime: insufficient subservience to the Lobby. As an article in Politico put it:

“The new committee declined to disclose its funding – as a 501(c)4 advocacy organization, it isn’t required to – but said it had raised enough to air its first ad, starting this week, on Fox and CNN and during a Philadelphia Phillies game. The ad attacks Sestak for signing a letter criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza while not signing a defense of Israel circulated by the group AIPAC, and for appearing at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which it describes as an “anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front-group for Hamas’.”

Of course the new committee refused to disclose its funding – for the simple reason that a good deal of the money that fuels the pro-Israel lobby in this country comes from overseas. This was true in the early days of AIPAC and its predecessor, as Grant Smith’s invaluable research has underscored, and there is little doubt this tradition is continued unto the present day, with such groups as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, JINSA, and the American “Friends of the IDF” having open links to the Israeli foreign ministry and the IDF leadership. Ostensibly “American” groups that subsidize Israeli settlements in the West Bank enjoy tax exempt status, while pro-Palestinian groups that try to operate similarly are shuttered and their supporters jailed as supporters of “terrorism.” Of the billions we send every year in “aid” to the Jewish state, a significant portion returns to us in the form of pro-Israel propaganda.

Legally, the “Emergency Committee” is not required to disclose its funding – but they ought to anyway. Unless, that is, they’re content to leave the impression Israel is directly intervening in American elections. Or maybe that’s precisely what they intend.

David Frum gleefully called the committee “The New In Your Face Israel Lobby.” As in-your-face as the anti-Americanism and outright contempt for Washington expressed in that candid video of Netanyahu. It’s as if they’re saying to this administration: “Go ahead and go after us. We dare you!”

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).
He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.


Do your job | diggerfortruth


Do your job

Do what you are being comfortably paid to do – to protect the public and serve the law.

You are doing neither – you are protecting pedophiles, criminals and demonic plunderers. Do your job.

Start to work within the law not as outlaws. Work within Common Law under the Magna Carta as you should be; not within this filthy jewelian oppressive admiralty/maritime contract law. Do your job.

Start to act as a servant to the public, to the people and not to elite Jewish families as you currently are. Do your job.

Start to have self worth, pride in your occupation and levels of conscience with your role in life as a policeman/woman should have. Do your job.

Begin to act under integrity and have depth of character by serving the greater good, not mammon and your overlords. Do your job.

Wake up from your slumber and look at the despicable acts you are DIRECTLY supporting – the crimes, the degradation of society, the Orwelian state. Do your job.

THINK for a moment about what exactly you are doing. THINK about what impact YOUR actions are directly and indirectly going to have on your future, your families future – what nightmarish world you are helping to create. Do your job.

Look around at your corrupt colleagues and associates in other Jewish-controlled government organisations. How can you fail to not see this blatant evil?? Yet you CHOSE every day to go along with this nonsense. Do your job.

What does it mean to you to be a policeman, an ‘officer’? How does it honestly make you feel? Big? Special? Superior/better? Secure? Are you really satisfied with yourself at the end of a day’s shift? Do your job.

You are now a million miles away from the original purpose of policing. Your role now as a modern day policeman and woman is diametrically opposite to serving goodness – YOU ARE WORKING ON BEHALF OF EVIL. YOU ARE SERVING A DEMONIC FORCE. Snap out of your coma and

Do your job!

November 20, 2012 Leave a reply


GMOs plus Obamacare: your ticket to slavery


GMOs plus Obamacare: your ticket to slavery


by Jon Rappoport

November 20, 2012


At this late date, there are still people who don’t see the consequences of Obamacare. They cling to the notion that it’s simply a wonderful system that will allow more people to get vital medical care. That’s all they see or want to see.

They agree that medical treatment has an alarming toxic track record. But they don’t want to admit that Obamacare will spread that toxicity even further.

Why are these people blind? Because they think of themselves as caring humanitarians, and they fit Obamacare right into that self-serving picture. It’s part of their “religion.”

Also, they don’t want to “be negative.”

Some day, I’m sure, being negative will get you a public decapitation in the town square.

Okay. Here we go.

The recent study which revealed that rats fed with GMOs developed cancer is just one example of the health hazards of GMO food.

The argument advanced by the Monsanto forces and their allies is: “people who eat GMO food aren’t dropping like flies, so we’re all okay.”

This is a case made by con artists for idiots.

GMO crops were originally introduced with no human safety studies. The crops were given carte blanche because the whole approval process was rigged.

People could be developing cancers as a result of eating GMO food and no one would know. People could be developing serious digestive disorders and neurological problems and no one would know.

To pursue this in detail, read Jeffrey Smith’s classic, Genetic Roulette: The Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Smith lays out 65 GMO health risks, with references. He also shows how safety assessments of GMO foods fall horribly short.

The GMO overlords need a cover-story-diversion for the harm their foods inflict. That cover story will, increasingly, be fashioned and sculpted by Obamacare.

Obamacare will eventually morph into a blueprint of all diagnosable diseases and disorders, and permitted treatments.

That’s what health insurance does. It assembles a comprehensive chart of what is covered by policies.

This will allow a perfect cover for the protection of “favored toxins.” In other words, when disease strikes as a result of GMOs, pesticides, other environmental chemicals, chemtrails, and so on, the medical diagnosis will fail to name the true culprits.

It’s called concealment.

Under Obamacare, who will put together that all-embracing list of permitted disease-diagnoses and treatments? The US Dept. of Health and Human Services. DHHS is a cabinet post under the president.

Therefore, the federal government (in collusion with pharmaceutical companies) will control, in great detail, the practice of medicine, and if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, I have condos for sale on Pluto. You think the CDC and FDA are overbearing now? You haven’t seen anything yet.

Here’s a case of how this con game would function:

Let’s say a young boy suddenly develops rapid mood swings. He’s up, he’s down, he’s all over the place. He throws tantrums, then he sits in his room and won’t talk to anyone.

Unknown to him or his parents, the cause of all this bizarre behavior was GMO corn. The inserted genes in the corn provoked a massive inflammatory response, in which his immune system attacked the myelin insulation surrounding his nerves.

But the medical diagnosis, according to the Obamacare chart of allowable interpretations: Bipolar disease.

Now come the Bipolar drugs. Lithium, Valproate, with their highly destructive adverse effects—and the sanctity of GMO crops is protected.

And to take this a step further, the company that produces and sells GMO corn seeds knows all this. It knows that many people who are being diagnosed with Bipolar are actually suffering from an autoimmune reaction to the genes inserted in the corn.

They have the perfect medical mechanism for covering up their secret.

In fact, this company is not just a GMO producer. It, like other giants, is also a chemical and pharmaceutical outfit. It makes a drug used to treat…Bipolar.

The circle is complete. The secret is protected, the money rolls in through several allied channels, and only the patient suffers.

Obamacare, in one of its several heinous aspects, is a stealth operation used to conceal crimes.

If you think this is science fiction, think again. It’s already happening. Researchers are madly probing for genes that cause cancer, and their PR people, based on no solid evidence, are trumpeting the “advances.”

Meanwhile, large numbers of people are developing cancer from exposure to pesticides. But the genetic diversion takes the public’s mind away from this fact into a more esoteric area.

As of 2012, people still have the right to enter a detox program aimed at ridding the body of stored pesticide chemicals. But up the line, the day will come when the Obamacare Program will rule that out as a permitted option for all people under the umbrella of the national health insurance plan. Meaning, everybody.

This is precisely what the drug companies want, which is why they participated in crafting Obamacare in the first place.

They want to lock down the population in a pharmaceutical arena and treat them from cradle to grave with their chemical agents.

No, you don’t see the lockdown now, as Obamacare enters the mainstream, but neither did you see drones flying overhead and giant computers recording every email, phone call, and product purchase you make, back in the day when the FBI was occasionally wire-tapping a suspect after obtaining a warrant.

These thing take time, but they happen.

Back when Lyndon Jonson announced an idea called The Great Society, you didn’t see the time when the US government would be spending a trillion dollars a year on means-tested welfare, or that at least half the country would want that sum to go higher without limit.

These things take time, but they happen.

In 1985, as the first word leaked out that corporations were experimenting with genes shot into food crops, you didn’t assume that, 25 years later, the world would be covered with GMO plants and that those genes would be floating and drifting into organic life from Pole to Pole.

These things take time, but they happen.

In the early 1950s, when Ritalin first arrived on the scene, you didn’t see that this highly toxic form of speed would be prescribed by doctors to more than five million children for a condition called ADHD, for which there is no diagnostic test.

These things take time, but they happen.

In the late 1940s, when young children received one vaccine, for smallpox, you didn’t see that the day would come when the CDC would recommend an incredible 55 doses of vaccines by age six, or that no studies would be done to assess the combined toxic effects of this vaccine load, or that the government would be trying to close down exemptions from vaccines.

These things take time, but they happen.

In the 1950s, as psychiatry was beginning to use a drug called Thorazine to treat “psychotic” patients, you didn’t see that the day would come when a bible of psychiatry, called the DSM, would list 297 distinct and separate “mental disorders,” none of which were diagnosed with any physical test. You didn’t see that the federal government would back, in every way possible, the pseudo-science of psychiatry, or that leading politicians and celebrities would endorse mental-disorder diagnosis and treatment with across-the-board toxic drugs. You didn’t see that some of these drugs would push people over the edge into committing murders.

These things take time, but they happen.

So it will be with Obamacare, as we move ahead. It will be used to lock down the population in a toxic pharmaceutical universe, and to gradually shave away competing forms of alternative healthcare.

This is the road we’re on. If, a few years ago, you didn’t think the freedom to pursue and manage your own health, according to your own desires, was important, you’d better believe it’s important now and in the future.

If you insist on clinging to the notion that Obamacare is a wonderful, wonderful thing, almost a religious sacrament, you don’t understand how history works, how things morph into other things, how agendas control that evolution, how what looked good at one moment turned into a nightmare, later on.

And as GMOs spread and cause disease, Obamacare will function as a steel barrier against doctors diagnosing patients with GMO-caused illnesses.

“You know, when the patient came to me, I was sure he was suffering from a form of autism. But now that I look more closely, I realize it’s the insect genes in the grain he’s eating.”

“Doctor, stop this nonsense. Consult your Obamacare Bible. Nowhere in it does it say there is a disease caused by GMOs. You can’t make that diagnosis. It won’t fly. You won’t get paid if you submit that insurance form. And you’ll get into trouble. Federal agents will visit your office. They’ll put you through the mill. They’ll threaten to cancel your ticket to practice medicine.”

“That’s ridiculous. That would never happen.”

“Oh no? Do you realize that, by statute, I’m required to turn you in? That’s right. I heard you say you wanted to make a diagnosis that wasn’t permitted by the Bible. I’m supposed to call Homeland Security. If I don’t, I’m guilty, too. I’m a co-conspirator.”

Give it time. Give it time.

Or if you don’t care, shut your eyes, and contemplate loving Obamacare, just as Winston Smith finally loved the State in Orwell’s 1984.

See: Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US health really the best in the world?” Journal of the American Association, July 26, 2000. Starfield revealed that, every year, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. Of those deaths, 106,000 are the result of FDA-approved drugs. Under Obamacare, these numbers will escalate.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com


Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Was the Yes on 37 campaign undermined by its allies?


Was the Yes on 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

By Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2012


Before you decide I’m just making this stuff up, answer this question: do you really think food sellers like Whole Foods wanted to see hundreds, maybe thousands of their store products suddenly say “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED” on them?

Are you kidding?

Well, that’s exactly what would have happened if YES ON 37 had won.

With that prologue, let’s begin.

I’m not talking about the workers for the YES ON 37 campaign. There is no doubt the ground game was fought by honest people. But at the top level, a few “suits” relied on advice from professionals who told them there was only one way to win the vote:

Focus on the consumers’ right to know what was in their food.

That’s it. That was the biggest message.


Because the other message would have exposed the natural foods industry. And that other message was:

GMOs are horrible. GMO food is destructive to health, to the soil, to farmers…and, by the way:

The natural foods industry, which is big business in California, sells tons and tons of GMO food.

It’s labeled “natural.” But in a huge number of cases, “natural” contains GMOs.

Get it?

Without all that “natural” food ringing cash registers, big health-food sellers would go belly up.

If YES ON 37 had gone all in on a campaign to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMOs, this would have inevitably revealed that the “natural” food that people were already buying and eating was contaminated to the hilt with GMOs.

And that would have been bad for business.

There were many people at lower levels of the YES ON 37 campaign who wanted to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMO food. But they were rebuffed.

Face it, some big natural food sellers in America have accepted the presence of Monsanto and other GMO crocodiles as permanent fixtures in the landscape. These food sellers reason this way:

“We sell organic food, which is free from all but small traces of GMOs. That’s what we offer to those who don’t want GMOs. All our “natural” products? That’s GMO territory, and there is nothing we can do about it.”

In any election campaign, you go after the undecided vote. Everybody else has already made up their minds. In California, the undecided people were on the fence because they didn’t know why labeling GMO food was necessary. They needed to be taught.

But that wasn’t the major thrust of the YES ON 37 campaign.

People needed to know they should want labeling because eating GMO food is dangerous.

The people of CA didn’t get that message loud and clear. It wasn’t delivered with great energy and power.

And that helped the natural food industry. It helped them a lot.

They can continue to sell thousands of food products with “natural” labels on them, and consumers won’t know they’re eating GMOs, and consumers won’t know why that’s a very bad thing.

People who already understand the GMO issue and what Monsanto is doing to the planet assume millions of other people know, too. They see the YES ON 37 campaign as the first big wedge into other states and other campaigns.

They don’t realize how many Americans don’t have a clue about GMOs and Monsanto.

The big-shot suits from the YES ON 37 campaign better take a long hard look at the pollsters and advisers they’re using. When those pollsters tell them, again, in other states, to focus only on “the right to know what’s in your food,” they should stop and ask themselves:

Whose side are these pollsters really on?

And the non-organic “natural food” sellers? Whose side are they on?

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com


Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Why the Prop 37 vote-count is too perfect


Why the Prop 37 vote-count is too perfect

Why the Prop 37 vote-count is too perfect

by Jon Rappoport

November 17, 2012


Late yesterday afternoon, I consulted a map of California counties on the secretary of state’s website. You can see it here:


This page has a summary of the Prop 37 vote-count so far.

This is an ongoing figure, because the state of California is still counting votes.

In the box, you’ll see YES on 37 has 5,329,994 votes. NO on 37 has 5,869,382 votes.

YES on 37 has 47.6% of the vote, while NO has 52.4%.

This is vitally important. Why? Because when the networks called the election early, on election night, a couple of hours after the polls closed, this was almost exactly the percentage breakdown they claimed existed then.

It’s no different from the vote percentages now: less than one percentage point.

Eleven days later, as millions more votes have been counted, and are being counted, these election-night percentages are still holding firm.

What are the odds of that happening?

Any sane person would demand to know how these percentage splits are being manipulated, created, invented.

We are led to believe the projections offered by networks on election night are astonishingly accurate, but this is a fairy tale.

It’s especially a fairy tale when, eleven days after Election Tuesday, when millions more votes have been counted, the percentage-splits don’t budge.

We know next to nothing about the people who actually make these early projections on election night. That is troubling. They are shaping the perception of the American people, and we don’t know how they operate.

We can say, yes., they work for Edison Media Research or the Associated Press, and they hand out early-call projections to media outlets, but beyond that, we have few clues.

Yet, as soon as the networks make their calls on who has won an election, everyone folds up his tent and walks away. It’s as if a magic wand has been waved, and everyone obeys.

These “projection gurus” do some exit polls and, poof, they predict winners. They pick the moment when they’re going to put the word out to media outlets: “it’s time to say Prop 37 lost.”

And then it’s over.

And then 11 days later, the percentage splits that existed when the media made the call, on election night, are virtually the same.

Only a fool drinks that Kool-Aid.

It’s as if these projection gurus were watching horses coming out of the gate in the Kentucky Derby. A hundred yards down the track they call the winner. Not only are they right, but their horse had a two-length lead at a hundred yards and the same two-length lead as he crossed the wire at the finish.

When are people going to give up their religious belief in the sanctity of elections? Are they afraid that, if they leave that church, they’re going to Hell?

Let’s rework PT Barnum’s famous dictum: “There are 300 million suckers born every election night.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com


Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series