by Jon Rappoport

The following information comes from insider interviews with Ellis Medavoy and Richard Bell, two people I interview extensively in my collection, The Matrix Revealed. This is just a brief taste of what they have to say…

Major institutions on this planet that control Military, Money, Energy, Government, Medical, Corporate, Media, and Education are becoming, more and more, global cartels, horizontally integrated across national borders.

This is more than a top-down command process. It’s organically evolving. Three steps forward, two steps back. There is a great deal of competition among the components of a given cartel, but there is also cooperation. And in the long run, the see-saw is tipping in the direction of cooperation, as these entities realize they may well have more to gain that way.

I can’t stress too strongly this evolving process. All attempts to merely assume twelve men in a room run the planet fall woefully short.

Instead, over time, people who lead a powerful institution (like Energy, for example) look out and recognize more major players, and in this recognition there is an impulse to compete and win and destroy, but there is also an impulse to build commonality and therefore monopolize the entire territory.

During one conversation with retired master propagandist Ellis Medavoy, I asked him about the extent of mutual cooperation in his given field, psychological warfare. He responded:

“Twenty years ago, I would have said we were all operating separately and jealously. Each of us was mining his own contacts and building his false pictures of reality for the masses. But then things began to change. Globally. First of all, more of us were pushing the same holograms. And because communication and travel were speeding up so rapidly, we were working a lot of the same venues. We would run into each other more often. We began to share information. I mean, it was cautious. We weren’t gushing with unbridled love, I assure you. The competitive factor was still strong. And we had fights. But through all that, we began to see through the fog, so to speak. We began to understand the effectiveness of cooperating. We would test each other with privileged information, to see if we could trust each other to keep it private. A tidbit here, a tidbit there.

“And you see, behind us, other groups were finding commonality, too. For example, in the area of medical propaganda, where I operated a lot of the time. And these groups saw they could join together for specific operations, on an international scale. They could push enormous lies globally, and everyone of their class would profit and gain wider control. So I would find myself working with a psy warfare guy from, say, France, or Germany in a joint venture. We would rub elbows. We’d be feeding from the same basic money trough.

“We’d both be briefed by a team of intelligence experts, and those experts would be of several nationalities. Slowly, I saw a new kind of umbrella structure emerging.
“See, suppose during the secret lead-up to a planned economic crisis [money cartel], you can distract everybody with a phony epidemic [medical cartel]. Do you see? Leaders perceive a reason to cooperate. Planners become more intelligent and clever. They reach across lines they never would have reached across before…

“You begin to see the outlines of a much more inclusive future structure. This is multi-front warfare.”

Richard Bell, another former insider, said to me: “People like to assume that money is everything. If you can limit the amount of money the public has, eventually they weaken and cave in and they’re easier to control. And this is certainly true. But on the other hand, as mega-corporations gain more power and range and markets, you have a clash, because those corporations, which are now cooperating in ways they never have, as a cartel in some respects, want customers for their products. They don’t want abject poverty across the board. People have to be able to buy their products.

“So there is a heavy conflict. It’s a conflict between elite bankers [money cartel] and mega-corporations [corporation cartel]. It needs to be resolved through advance planning, over the long term. So now you have these powerful men sitting down and talking in a new way. Other big-time players get involved, too [government, media, energy cartels, for example].”

This is just the beginning of what these people have to say about the Matrix in their interviews and how it REALLY works.

(Jon Rappoport es el autor The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix).

by David Snyder
First Amendment Coalition

The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the protections of the First Amendment to be a bulwark against the “tyranny of the majority” — a shield to protect those with unpopular views against oppression by a popularly elected majority.

President Donald Trump has turned this concept on its head, at least in his rhetoric. His statements have offered the support of the most powerful elected office in the land to views that the vast majority of Americans have rejected. He has, perhaps, instituted a “tyranny of the minority,” in which a (vanishingly small) minority viewpoint has not only the protections of the First Amendment behind it, but the full force of the American government at its service.

So when free-speech advocates such as myself opine that white supremacist Richard Spencer and his supporters are entitled to First Amendment protection against the “tyranny of the majority,” our pleas often fall on deaf ears. There is a broad sense that Spencer and his ilk should not be “given a platform” for their hate, the First Amendment notwithstanding — that speech which has the imprimatur of the White House behind it, and which is so harmful to so many, is the last thing in need of protection. Thus, calls to silence fringe views have grown over the course of the past year with alarming speed.

This is dangerous territory. Banning speech is banning speech, no matter how odious that speech may be. It’s something Americans don’t do — or at least something our better angels would have us not do.

So how to account for the apparently widespread belief that “hate speech” such as Spencer’s can and should be banned? Has there been some broad-scale, collective forgetting of the fundamental First Amendment principle that virtually all speech, no matter how noxious, deserves protection? Have Twitter’s terms of use — which generally bar “hate speech,” while the First Amendment does not — fundamentally altered our expectations of what speech is “allowed” and what speech is not?

Perhaps. But here’s another explanation: when the president of the United States asserts that “both sides are to blame” for the violence that erupted in Charlottesville, people rightly sense that a government elected by a popular (electoral college) majority is forcing a distinctly minority viewpoint down the people’s throats — that the minority is, in some way, oppressing the majority. The First Amendment feels more like a sword wielded by the minority than a shield to protect that minority.

This sense is not unusual in the annals of U.S. presidential politics. It is not at all uncommon for a president to embrace and promote some views or policies that a majority of Americans disagree with. What is unusual, and is perhaps sui generis, is for a president to embrace (or at least fail to unequivocally denounce) views, such as neo-Nazism, that have been overwhelmingly and vehemently rejected by the vast majority of Americans — and to do so on such a broad range of issues, from climate change (which more than three-quarters of American public believe is real, but which the Trump administration questions the existence of) to the need for Trump’s border wall.

But in both a “real world” and a legal sense, this feeling is wrong: neo-Nazism is a minority viewpoint and it is thus vulnerable, from a First Amendment perspective, to majority oppression. It is subject to protection by the courts, and the fact that the president appears to have at least tacitly endorsed it does not change the fact that an overwhelming majority views it as abhorrently fringe.

So, my advice to those who would reject the “tyranny of the majority” principle in light of the Trump administration’s perversion of the concept: This, too, shall pass. Don’t throw out your constitutional birthright for what may well be a passing outrage. Majorities change. An elected leader who repeatedly embraces truly minority views eventually will find himself in the minority at the ballot box.

To be sure, the “tyranny of the majority” concept can be an uncomfortable fit in a representative democracy. It requires the state — in practice, the courts — to protect ideas and viewpoints that a majority of voters have rejected. In a system where the government is supposed to express the popular will of the people, this “feels” like a rejection of the basic premise of democracy.

And yet the idea is fundamental to the American project. The Founders ascribed such importance to the right of free speech (among other rights) that they enshrined it in our Constitution, to be protected irrespective of the “will of the majority” — in other words, irrespective of the basic premise of any true democracy.

With Trump’s ascension, has an ideological minority “hijacked” the force and power of the political majority? Maybe. But the proper solution, reflected in our founding principles, is to replace a “majority” that does not truly reflect a majority of the population with one that does. This is the point of elections. Yet only time will tell whether Trump’s fringe views will harm him at the ballot box in 2020.

“The tyranny of the minority: A post-Charlottesville theory of the First Amendment” by David Snyder, Executive Director of the First Amendment Coalition, first appeared in The Hill.

by Jon Rappoport

The State, as now constituted, pretends it favors giving away the farm for nothing “to those in need.” What they really mean is: they steal the farm, and then they give a few pieces away on their terms.

There are people who don’t understand what a FREE INDIVIDUAL is. They want a world of Central Planning. They feel a welter of emotions, all negative, when they contemplate THE FREE INDIVIDUAL.

For the free individual, “the highest work possible” doesn’t involve leaving one’s desires behind, in order to become the abject servant of a Cause. He doesn’t suddenly develop an egoless and empty personality in order to “connect” with a goal that floats in an abstract realm.
The free individual isn’t shaped. He shapes.

He doesn’t fall on his knees and grovel to seek public acceptance.

The mob, the herd operates on debt, obligation, guilt, and the pretense of admiration for idols. These are its currencies.

The herd, seeking some reflection of its unformed desire, constructs a social order based on need—and the substance of that need will be extracted through coercion, if necessary, from those who already have More.

This need, and the proposition that the mob deserves its satisfaction, creates a worldwide industry.

Among the industry’s most passionate and venal supporters are those who are quite certain that the human being is a tainted vile creature. Such supporters, of course, are sensing their own reflections.

The great psychological factor in any life is THE DESERTION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Afterward, the individual creates shadows and monsters and fears around that crossroad.

Freedom is the space and the setting, from which the individual can generate the thought and the energy-pulse of a great self-chosen objective.

In that place, there is no crowding or oppressive necessity. There is choice. There is desire. There is thought.

“Being absorbed in a greater whole” isn’t an ambition or philosophical prospect for the free individual. He sees that fixation as a surrender of self.

The Collective, whether envisioned as a down-to-earth or mystical group, promises a release from self. This grand solution to problems is a ruse designed to keep humans in a corral, a prison. After all, how are you going to control and eventually enslave people if you promote the notion that each individual has freedom and free choice? The abnegation of self is a workable tactic, as long as it is dressed up with false idols and perverted ideals.

Self is fundamentally creative, dynamic, forward-looking, energetic, powerful, engaged. The Collective looks for shadows of those qualities in the government as its source of survival.
The free individual certainly helps others, but he is against a culture that is so preoccupied with “raising up the lowest” that it nurtures a hatred of liberty. And this is a crux, because growing millions of people are all too eager to shed the last fragments of Self to join in a fantasy of “everybody gets everything.”

The fantasy doesn’t work. The melting down of all of humanity into a mystical goo is an illusion that can’t stand the test of time. Eventually, a person falls out of that construct and remembers he must depend, to an alarming degree, on his own inner resources.

The free individual doesn’t act in ways that limit the freedom of others.

Self-sufficiency is both an essence and outcome for the free individual.

The free individual discovers his way through imagination and creative power, because that is the answer to the question: what is freedom for?

Without exercising imagination and creative power, freedom withers and dies. It becomes an empty slogan. It becomes an empty stage.

We are told, in a thousand ways, that the free individual is the personification of greed and theft and crime. That is false.

The free individual imagines and creates on a scale that supersedes and ignores the Collective. His work naturally spills over and benefits others.

Advocates of the Collective falsely claim the free individual is cold and uncaring and remote and “without humanity.” Meanwhile, their picture of a society based on need is a poisonous affectation; it is constructed because these advocates are walled off from their own power. Therefore, they substitute endless entitlement.

Their only nod of acknowledgment to the individual has been to propagandize him as an outsider, a potential danger, a lurking menace, a person waiting to be diagnosed with a mental disorder.
These days, it is the Group that is elevated. We must absorb the individual in the system so the Group is protected and safe.

Even accepting Mill’s specious pronouncement that society should be organized on the basis of the greatest good for greatest number, the questions remains: what is the greatest good? Is it that which makes us, more and more, into a Group? Or is it that which liberates the individual to pursue his highest aspirations?

The greatest good liberates the individual, and then the door is open. Who will walk through it? Every person who has divested himself of the collective mindset.

The titanic myths that have been foisted on humanity and the titanic acceptance of those myths by humanity are all focused on one lie: the individual cannot stand on his own; he must subjugate himself to a system.

I don’t care what form that higher system takes. It’s a lie. It’s all geared to promoting slavery. It’s all geared to allowing the few to control the many.

And the few WILL control the many, until the day comes when enough individuals throw off ALL the deceptions that permitted them to think The Individual was less than he is.

The day will dawn when the individual knows he is greater than any and all groups and collectives by any name flying under any flag, espousing any gibberish, elevating any fairy tale, seducing with any promise, hypnotizing with any idol or misbegotten legend.

That day will dawn.

But why wait?

Why not act now?

Why not launch your greatest dream?