The Globalist Trade Agreement You Didn’t Hear About

Source: TheInternationalForecaster
James Corbett
May 6, 2017

You remember the SPP, don’t you? The attempt to create a North American Union by harmonizing the border controls, environmental and business regulations and security forces of Canada, the US and Mexico?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report caught wind of it, publicized its secret meetings, and organized widespread resistance to expose the plot (and expose police provocateuring in the process).

Remember SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA, the attempt by globalist corporations and totalitarian control freaks to crack down on the free and open internet under cover of copyright policing?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report warned you about them and the masses organized to derail them at the last second.

Remember the TPP, the attempt to create a free trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific that would have enriched the globalist corporate elite at the expense of everyone else?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report sounded the alarm in the early days of the agreement and explained the finished deal in plain English when it finally emerged from the swamp, whipping up a populist backlash that ended the deal.

Remember the WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement? You know, the all-encompassing agreement between the WTO’s 164 members (97% of global GDP) that has been hailed as “the most significant multilateral trade deal concluded since the establishment of the World Trade Organisation?” The one that implements the globalists’ wet dream of harmonizing export and import processes and trade infrastructure among the majority of the world’s population?

No? Doesn’t ring a bell? Hmmm…I wonder why that is?

Don’t worry. If you’re only hearing about the agreement now, it’s not because you weren’t paying attention. It’s because almost no one was paying attention, including me. If the daily flurry of craziness that is the Trump-era news cycle has ever left you wondering what you’re being distracted from, here is one answer. It’s called the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, and it just entered into force in February.

That’s right, it’s in effect as we speak. No time to familiarize yourself with this one. No time to organize opposition. No time to examine the implications. It’s already here.

For those of us who haven’t heard about the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) before, here’s the crash course:

Part of the long-fought, arduous, hotly contested negotiations surrounding the WTO’s so-called “Bali Package” trade agreement of 2013, the TFA specifically aims to reduce bureaucratic red tape and regulatory uncertainty around trade issues between WTO member nations, by, among other things, harmonizing customs procedures, removing delays on clearance and movement of goods, and reducing fees, formalities and roadblocks to legal recourse for importers and exporters.

Or, in the official gobbledygook of the WTO’s PR-ese:

“The TFA contains provisions for expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit. It also sets out measures for effective cooperation between customs and other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues. It further contains provisions for technical assistance and capacity building in this area. The Agreement will help improve transparency, increase possibilities to participate in global value chains, and reduce the scope for corruption.”

The WTO’s own 2015 study about the agreement shows that it will reduce the trading costs of member nations by 14.3%, reduce average import times for goods by a day and a half and export times by two days, increase global merchandise exports by $1 trillion, and make blind lepers walk on water again. Or something like that.

So what’s not to love?

Well, in the broader sense this agreement can be seen as a life-saver for the WTO, whose very raison d’être as a type of global governing body for world trade has been called into question by the fact that, before the TFA, it hadn’t actually managed to ratify a single trade agreement in its 22-year history.

That’s right, the so-called “Doha Development Round” of talks that the body began in 2001—its “ambitious effort to make globalization more inclusive and help the world’s poor,” to quote the Rothschild-mouthpiece, The Economist—has been ongoing for a decade and a half and currently remains in limbo after years of rancorous debate. Even the much-ballyhooed Bali Package was just the framework for what has now become the TFA, meaning that this agreement has single-handedly brought the WTO back from the brink of irrelevance that the NAFTA, the TTIP and TPP, and numerous other regional, multilateral and bilateral trade agreements have pushed it towards.

But more specifically, the TFA is a perfect example of everything that’s wrong with globalization: Under cover of “development” and “trade,” and with a lot of flowery rhetoric about helping the poorest of the poor and facilitating global cooperation, this agreement in fact does little but penalize the poorest countries by forcing them to adopt standards and practices that are as expensive and difficult to implement as they are useless to local industries, farmers and laborers. At the same time, it further erodes local autonomy by forcing almost the entirety of the planet to adopt the same standards and regulations on imports and exports. And, to top it all off, it is the backbone upon which backdoor implementations of various unpopular policies and ideas, from regional trade agreements to the cashless control grid, will be built.

As the Business Standard notes: “This deal will not only resuscitate the WTO, whose relevance was fast eroding due to proliferation of free-trade agreements, but will also revive multilateralism in global trade. Most important, it demonstrates that trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs — they are also about making trade easier, whether through dovetailing domestic regulations, or through easing actual paperwork.”

This is an attempt not at a trade deal in the traditional sense, but at a reformulation of the idea of a “trade agreement” as an act of cross-border regulatory harmonization.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the agreement includes a mandate on electronic payments: “Each Member shall, to the extent practicable, adopt or maintain procedures allowing the option of electronic payment for duties, taxes, fees and charges collected by customs incurred upon importation and exportation.” The measure, fairly innocuous by itself, is yet another attempt to normalize the mandating of cashless payments in international trade. But it is supplemented by other unaccountable global governmental bodies like the UN’s Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, which, along with the usual Global Goals-y/Climate Change-y/Regional Coordination-y globalist mandates, also coordinates technical cooperation on trade issues, including E-payments and E-purchasing.

And when I say global, I really do mean global. There are no virtuous Chinese messiahs who are valiantly fighting off these insidious global processes, or Russian saviors who can save us from the big bad globalists, or Indian gurus who will protect us from the onslaught. Not only are all five BRICS members themselves vassal states of the WTO behemoth, but the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, yet another acronymed head of the United Nations hydra) has been hard at work promoting the Trade Facilitation Agreement as the “key to unlocking trade potential along OBOR” (which, for those without their special-issued globalist decoder ring, is an acronym for the “One Belt, One Road” initiative of China that we talked about last week).

So cross the Trade Facilitation Agreement off your list of worries. It has already arrived, and it arrived (as do all the most insidious global governmental structures and deals) not with a bang or even a whimper but a silent, self-congratulatory smile and a knowing nod among the globalist jet set. This is how the real structures of global government will be set up: Not in the blazing noon-day sun of publicity, not with fanfare and protest and tumult, but in quiet, backroom deals reached out of sight and out of mind of the general public.

So, the logical question to ask is: What are they working on next?

Read More At: TheInternationalForecaster.com

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 11, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What could go wrong?

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

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

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

They’re in a dream. It’s so pretty.

There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All 400 million or so people in the US have lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and it’s spring, and the trees are flowering.

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

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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 29^th 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.

Trumps, Watergate, Nixon, Rockefeller: The Real Lesson

—Two very different men, two very different presidents, Trump and Nixon; but the real reasons for attacking them are the same—

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 22, 2017

Watergate eventually became the story of two young rookie reporters who exposed and took down a president. Nixon.

Try to think of another major story in your lifetime where the reporters themselves took center stage, and in the process nearly eclipsed their own work. Odd.

One of them, Bob Woodward, expanded his fame. The powers-that-be permitted him to go on and, with extraordinary access, write books criticizing future presidents. Woodward became the in-house attack dog. Mr. Limited Hangout.

The other reporter, Carl Bernstein, faded into relative obscurity. Well, after all, he began exposing many journalists’ connections to the CIA. That wasn’t a productive career move. It was, perhaps, a case of him biting the CIA hand that, without his knowledge, had fed him during his Watergate investigation.

What Woodward and Bernstein didn’t know, during Watergate, was this: On the mega-corporate front, the Rockefeller proposal for world control—“free trade, no tariffs”—was advancing toward fruition, and Richard Nixon was standing in the way.

This man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, had gone off script. He had REALLY gone off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track, and get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Any historian who overlooks this is an outright fool or a deceiver.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man at the White House to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil. Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, David Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission, an exceedingly powerful force. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House; and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother were consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, stronger than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of UN “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, the incursion of a bewildering number of UN-affiliated groups sinking their teeth into local communities all over the planet to “manage sustainable development,” you see the plan.

And when you see “free trade” and no tariffs, you see the essentials nuts and bolts of the plan.

The innocuous-sounding “free trade” policy is the number-one priority of every American president. He must do two things: rarely speak of it, and allow it to move forward. That’s all. In return, he gets to act as if he’s the most powerful man in the world.

But if he wobbles and considers taking up a position against free trade (corporate domination of the planet), he can look back and see what happened to Richard Nixon. He can learn from that example.

He can re-learn the famous words of Zbiggie Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller’s intellectual flunkey: “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

Like Jimmy Carter, a president can espouse the most wide-ranging humanitarian philosophy and ascend to a cloud of beautiful altruism, admired by all. As long as he sticks to the plan.

If not, agents and reporters coming out of nowhere will try to demolish him.

—Suddenly, a swaggering, self-congratulatory, fast-talking cowboy named Donald Trump appeared as a presidential candidate. And lo and behold, he attacked Globalism by name. He claimed he would dump it in favor of American nationalism. He repeated this oath many times. And he won the election, unseating a lifelong Globalist named Hillary Clinton.

Whether Trump intends on keeping his promises and going up against the Rockefeller colossus, he has spoken of that which must not be uttered in public: the crimes of Globalism and free trade.

He has let the secret cat out of the bag. He has made people aware…

And for that, he must be punished.

What people are calling…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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 29^th 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 Kills The TPP – Is NAFTA Next?

Source: RTAmerica
January 23, 2017

With the stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump has unraveled the Trans-Pacific Partnership, withdrawing the US from the controversial free trade pact. Ed Schultz, host of “News With Ed,” joins Simone Del Rosario to discuss the move. Meanwhile, the future of NAFTA remains uncertain as talks of renegotiating the Clinton-era trade pact buzz around the White House. RT America’s Alex Mihailovich joins to discuss.

New Administration Seems Poised To Take Action Against Crippling Traded Deals TTP & NAFTA

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
January 22, 2017

Recently, on the White House website, the new administration has laid out the main issues it is planning to address soon.

One of these issues in particular, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] is front and center among the changes supposedly planned.

The TPP deal has been the recipient of heavy backlash, and with good reason.  Not only was the deal negotiated in secret, as some of you might know, but it would also have crippling effects on the US economy due to enormous job loss, as well as other reasons.

Also of note is the fact that North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] is going to be renegotiated, if possible, and for the very same reasons.

Because of this, and additional reasons, the new administration’s strategy is to start:

“…by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.

In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process. The President will direct the Commerce Secretary to identify all trade violations and to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal to end these abuses.”[Bold Emphasis Added]

Time will tell whether this plan to remove the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA will take place.

One thing to note though is that, to bring these issues to the fore and not follow through will be great loss of political capital.

Still, actions mean louder than words, and now we will see where the winds will take us.

If you wish to read more information on the matter of Globalism, please read Jon Rappoport’s following articles on his website NoMoreFakeNews.com & JonRappoport.wordpress.com:

TPP, TTIP: Obama’s Secret Trade Deals Vs. Trump & Bernie

Obama Tries To Sneak The TPP In Lame Duck Congress

Globalism: Revising The Monster In The Presidential Campaign

 

Trump: What Dangers Does He Face From Globalists?

Trilateral Commission, CFR, WEF/Davos, Bilderberg

Source:NomoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 3, 2016

As I keep emphasizing, Trump achieved two great things in his campaign for the presidency: he stopped Hillary Clinton from occupying the Oval Office, and he ran against big media, helping to further destroy its reputation.

From here on, we shall see.

How many compromises will the new president permit? How many will he seek?

To put it another way, how many covert victories will arch-Globalist David Rockefeller and his associates pile up? They are, of course, aware that Trump has promised to kick the can of Globalism down the road, stop the excesses of “free trade,” and bring stolen jobs back to America. What actions will they take against Trump?

Here’s a lesson from the past, about a president who put a brief dent in David Rockefeller’s master-plan. Let’s look at Richard Nixon and a different version of Watergate, the scandal that toppled him.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment for global corporate predators. No more tariffs.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, but the prime move was: get Free Trade back on track; get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon after the fact, as a grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was a very close friend of the Rockefeller family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil.

Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters, instead of veteran reporters who would become suspicious that they were being used. The cubs would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers.

Bradlee was confident in the whole op because he had the essentials of the Watergate scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two young reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the elite free-trade Trilateral Commission; a new puppet, Gerald Ford, was in the White House; and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on expunging a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________
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 29^th 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.

Trump’s trade: TPP cancelled, NAFTA to be renegotiated?

Source: RT
November 15, 2016

Donald Trump supporters will be looking to the president-elect to keep good on his campaign promise to create jobs in the US. Trump said from the get-go that he opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, deviating from the majority of the Republican Party, including Mike Pence, who has a long history of supporting free trade deals. To discuss the now-deceased trade deal and Trump’s pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, ‘News With Ed’ is joined by Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, and Kevin Kearns, president of the US Business and Industry Council.

Will Donald Trump keep his promises?

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 11, 2016

All right. Hillary and Bill are gone. They’re back in their coffins and their supplies of blood are running low. That’s a good thing. That is a major outcome of the election.

But will Donald Trump now keep his promises?

I’ve framed this piece as a letter David Rockefeller, arch-Globalist-in-charge, might write to President-elect Trump. The updated “payoff” is in the last paragraph.

If Rockefeller were being honest, this is what he would write:

Donald:

I won’t waste time congratulating you. We both know you and America are in for a rough ride. That plucky little demon, George Soros, is already funding and orchestrating thuggish riots in American cities. They do induce a bit of chaos, and I take a certain delight in chaos.

The machinery of Washington DC is ready to chew you up, Donald. There are spies everywhere, and at least a few of them will infiltrate your Presidency at influential levels—if you yourself don’t bring them in because you believe you need them.

I represent and lead an international order, as you know. Our basic plan is to eliminate sovereign nations and erase borders. We must do this, so we can usher in our own global system. We are winning. Surely, you see this.

On the issue of borders and immigration, we want none in the first case and no limit on immigrants in the second case. We want to overwhelm infra-structure and communities with the greatest possible number of people who refuse to assimilate and yet demand special treatment and consideration. We want people who utterly reject America and yet insist on taking whatever they can get from America. Do you really think you or anyone else can stop this wave?

I bring this up, because it represents just one, out of a whole host of strategies, by which we aim to undermine and reduce the country and bring it into our system, absent the precious freedom so many people talk about endlessly.

In other words, Donald, if you are more than a self-serving narcissist who has found a way to stir up the masses in your favor—if you really intend to “restore American values”—you are going to have to give something in order to take something. You’re going to have to make deals. You, of all people, should understand this.

So the question is: what are you willing to give? Where are you willing to back down? Think about it.

Consider a few items on your long laundry list:

Close the southern border. Cancel NAFTA. Get rid of Obamacare. Induce corporations to close their factories in Third World hell holes and come back home. Lay on tariffs. Outlaw special-interest lobbyists. Reform the tax system. Set term limits on Congress. Take people in inner cities off Welfare by giving them good jobs. Root out terrorists at home and abroad. Refrain from making foreign wars. Somehow fire all federal employees who are useless and just taking up space. End Common Core. Build a wall.

Naturally, all these changes you want to make…I want to stop. Why? Because continued corruption is good for my business, and my business is Control. I want to foster the worst in people, so I can enact the time-honored strategy of imposing A Better Order. I want to prove that humans are badly programmed and need correction.

I want one Planet, without liberty and justice for all.

On the outside chance you are more than just another self-seeking politician who has an instinct for the jugular, you will most certainly see you need to start making deals and compromises.

We knew, from the beginning, there was a chance you would win the election. Hillary Clinton, despite all the favorable press she received from our dupes and pawns, was basically a weak candidate. Aside from mouthing the same empty sentiments over and over, she offered little. We prepared for the possibility of your victory. For us and our agenda, your strongest asset was your innate ability to divide the country—or to be more precise, we could characterize you as a great divider. Doing this, for us, is child’s play. Using the idiot youth and the badly misinformed inner city populations, we could paint you as the worst possible threat to America. We like that tactic because, again, we intend to bring down America into a sewer. We want conflict. Racial conflict, for example, is very good for us. We can play that tattered card again and again. We can roll out some very obnoxious characters, when we need them to stir up trouble.

So here you are, about to move into the White House. We can push a plan to make life miserable for you, or we can do business. It’s up to you.

Would you like to see what a sudden economic collapse looks like? Would you like to see…well, I’ll let you imagine the possibilities.

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

—I’m just reminding you where I stand, Donald. And why don’t I also quote my intellectual lackey, Mr. Brzezinski, while I’m at it. He wrote this in 1969, and yet people still don’t seem to realize where we’re going: “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

You see, we speak and write out in the open, and the fools don’t get the message.

Donald, hundreds of thousands of influential press people and academics have sold out to us and our Globalist agenda. They did so long ago. I confess, I despise them. They’re weak cowards of the first order. But we use them, and they constitute, all together, a formidable army. They love the pittance they earn, and they love the small degree of status they’re given. Pathetic fools. But if you try to go up against them, it’s rather like swinging at clouds. What can you achieve? And then they descend on your head and make it rain. It’s amusing.

Have you been reading the editorial pages of the New York Times lately? A contingent of the paper’s little grotesque turtles has been characterizing your election as a disaster for the nation. They pick away at you, they imply the gates of hell await. They’re busy, in their own way, stirring up revolt. NBC News is also predicting doom and encouraging the perception that you are standing on a shore at which minorities can never arrive, and a revolt is necessary. And this is just the beginning, Donald.

In the coming days, I’ll be sending one of my representatives to talk to you. Pay attention to what he says. He’ll have specific “gives and takes” for you to ponder. All your life, you’ve done business. At times, you’ve dealt from what you thought was the bottom of the deck. You have no idea how far down that bottom actually goes. You’re in the major leagues now.

In case you’re wondering, we’ve contacted and worked with every President for decades. Many decades. Things operate best that way.

Meanwhile, watch your back..

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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 29^th 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.

Globalism: A Psychological GPS System For The Masses

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
August 15, 2016

Globalism presents a conception of space, in which billions of people fit into their “best slots.” That’s the theme.

That’s the construct.

Of course, its proponents and bosses sell it as if the world couldn’t exist in any other form.

All isms operate in this fashion. Once the definition is laid down, the fictional field is laid out, and people are urged to navigate to their places.

“If you don’t, dire things will happen.”

People aren’t generally aware of fictional spaces and their psychological impact. Therefore, they go along.

This is why a museum can be so instructive. A thousand paintings, each with its own area. I’m not talking about a place on a wall, I’m talking about interior space, which the artist invents and shapes on the canvas.

With Globalism, the space is all about establishing control and distribution points for goods and services. It’s about erasing borders and nations. It’s about co-opting the notion of a unified planet, in order to broadcast fake cheesy messages of universal “share and care.” It’s about every individual “having his place.”

When I began painting in 1962, one of the first things I noticed was the abundance of space—on each canvas. Waiting to be shaped. The psychological carry-over was enormous. The notion of “fitting into a position in life” disintegrated. It made no sense and had no impact.

Globalism is a hustle in a long, long line of planetary hustles. It erects a space and claims it is the future for all. It’s a minor, minor painting by a group of minor artists, hardly worthy of a spot on the wall of a second-rate museum.

If we were living in a reasonably aware society, many people would be asking themselves: “What space do I want to invent, and for what purpose?”

Which of course takes things back to the individual and his inner resources. And away from overarching ideologies with their perverse themes.

If you were a painter, what would you paint? That question is a lot like asking: if you could invent your future and all the space that comes with it, what would you do?

To come up with an answer, you don’t need any of the GPS reference points of Globalism. They would only be a hindrance.

They would be delusions, masking your power.

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

The man who wrote those words represents a family that has dominated banking, oil, modern medicine, behind-the-scenes politics, and powerhouses of Globalism (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations) for a century.

Globalism asserts that no nation can be independent from “the family” of other nations, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute. A nation claiming its sovereignty thus becomes a lunatic traitor to the natural order of things.

What really binds nations to one another is propaganda, and treaties which are based on the same propaganda, resulting in engorged super-profits for mega-corporations.

Globalism is a secular piece of messianic hype. A Disneyesque altruism is the prow of the ship. Spend 10 minutes educating any street hustler on Globalist principles, and he would recognize it as a standard con.

Obama’s warning to the Brits, that their withdrawing from the Globalist European Union would put them at the back of the line in negotiating a separate trade treaty with the United States, was sheer fiction.

Britain, or any nation, that has goods to sell and a desire to buy will find trade partners. An agreement could be scratched out on a napkin over dinner.

Impending trade deals like the TPP and TTIP are thousands of pages and take so long to negotiate, because the heavy hitters at the table are looking for new ingenious ways to cut and paste the world into larger profits for themselves.

Globalism, hiding behind thousands of academic analyses, picks up jobs from one nation, where wages are reasonable and working conditions are tolerable, and dumps them in hell holes where wages are nearly invisible and conditions are poisonous. It’s that simple, and any moron could see how the job-exporting nations would suffer…if by nations we meant people.

Instead of criminal corporations and criminal investors.

But all this is layered over with “share and care” sop.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

________________________________________________________________
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 29^th 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.

 

Why The Mainstream Media Refuses To Talk About The Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP]

Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Claire Bernish
August 2, 2016

United States — After two years with nary a mention from the mainstream press, the corporate windfall otherwise known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) finally earned some, albeit still inadequate, attention.

Considering a New York Times poll from June 2015, which found an alarming 78 percent of respondents had no substantial knowledge of the looming agreement — 30 percent said they hadn’t heard or read much about it, while 48 percent had zero knowledge of it whatsoever — the dearth in coverage by mainstream media allowed the TPP to go virtually unnoticed by the public it directly affects.

From August 1, 2013 through January 31, 2015, Media Matters for America tracked how often the TPP earned a mention from the Big Three major cable news outlets: CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. During that lengthy period, CNN andFox acknowledged the TPP just one time each — and while MSNBC appeared more on the ball, with 73 mentions, the now-canceled The Ed Show was responsible for 71 of those.

While it might seem remiss, if not wholly irresponsible, for such an expansive international trade agreement to escape the mainstream media’s attention, the omission wasn’t unintentional.

As Zaid Jilani explained in the Intercept:

“MSNBC’s owner, Comcast, has lobbied for the TPP. Last year, it fired host Ed Schultz, an outspoken opponent of the agreement.

“Time Warner, the parent company of CNN owner Turner Broadcasting, also lobbied for the TPP. 21st Century Fox — the legal successor to News Corporation, which operates Fox News — lobbied for passage as well.

“But using the television transcription service TV Eyes, The Intercept found that during the month of July 2016 alone, the TPP was mentioned 455 times by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — about six times as often as during the entire 18-month period studied by Media Matters.”

Those mentions, most assuredly, demonstrate progress in bringing light to the shady deal; but, with the exceptions of The Ed Show and Bernie Sanders and his supporters, the content has been generalized, rather than substantive, as a component of the presidential election. Donald Trump frequently decries the TPP as unacceptable and undesirable, though — in typical form — his tirades lack a depth of explanation.

As revealed in documents obtained by Wikileaks and reported by independent media, the TPP is nothing short of a grand corporate coup — some have even termed the measure ‘NAFTA on steroids,’ for its resemblance, exponentially, to the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA notoriously facilitated the ability for manufacturers to seek lower-wage workers outside the United States with little restriction — leaving at least one million skilled workers without employment, while lining the pockets of countless big businesses.

Now, the TPP promises to do more of the same — with countless nefarious additional provisions that go far beyond the manufacturing sector to directly impact the lives of every person in the U.S. And that, in itself, summarizes precisely why the pending trade agreement has been negotiated covertly, with secrecy normally provided only to matters of utmost national security.

But perhaps even the shallow attention brought to the TPP by the presidential election has sparked curiosity sufficient enough for the public to begin to question its efficacy.

As David Dayen wrote in Salon:

“Here’s one of the best indicators that Congress won’t approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership: business groups are running a public campaign in support of it. I know that sounds like a paradox, but if the image of the TPP weren’t so tattered, there would be no need for such an overt PR campaign.”

---

This article (Why the Mainstream Media Refuses to Talk About the TPP) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com.