Additional Titles








Medically Caused Death in America












By Investigating Journalist Jon Rappoport
February 3, 2011

It's a grim party. People in the streets, riots, police, soldiers, and nobody seems exactly sure what it's for.

Take your choice: kick out the dictators; new democracy; Islamic theocracy; lower food prices; CIA op.

Those are just a few of the possibilities.

Spontaneous mobs of more than 15,000 people are rarely spontaneous. Somebody is backing it. A guy in a mosque, a guy in a suit, a guy in a Rolls with a chauffeur. Or all three.

The odds that Egypt will emerge with a brand new Constitutional republic or anything resembling it are a million to one against, in Vegas.

However, if you start thinking about the Suez Canal and big ships loaded with oil having a hard time getting through—and you reflect on what that will do to oil you may be on to something, because in order to make the dream of alternative energy come true in the way these things do come true (with lots of conditions attached), gas at the pump has to go up to around eight dollars a gallon. It's a rig-job. Nothing to do with the free market. Globalists are devoted, of course, to alternative energies like solar, wind, geothermal—not because they're affordable, but because they level the playing field for nations, and put US industry under the gun.

Real globalists don't want more energy, they want less.

The game isn't a tough one to play. Stop offshore drilling in the US, put oil and gas producing US lands into federal ownership, where they will sit there and produce nothing, raise hell in the Middle East, providing a pretext for higher oil prices, and you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. Poof—“affordable” alternative energy.

US presidents are globalists. Bush, Obama, Clinton, the other Bush—you don't get in the door unless you're on board with that agenda.

The trick, if you're a big-time globalist, is to manipulate the price of oil without letting it get completely out of hand. You want it to go up, come back down—but not quite as much—then send it up that over the long term, the trend is definitely a rising one.

In the same way, regime changes in the oil-producing nations are okay, as long as they don't result in somebody turning off the oil spigot. Globalists and Islamic fundamentalists are not, per se, mutual enemies, if the big economic players can control the scene. There is give and take, because everybody concerned wants to make money selling oil, and no one wants to kill off the market.

On another level, the crisis in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon is designed to expand the fear of Islamic terrorism.

Terrorism is a useful tool for globalists. It encourages grand intervention that limits individual freedom—all, of course, to “provide security.”

Look at several factors as one overall strategy: a president in the White House who is very sympathetic toward Islam; a sudden sea-change in the media attitude toward Israel and the Palestinians, despite the fact that Jewish men occupy significant positions of power and leadership in media; expanding notions of political correctness concerning what speech and words are permissible.

Note that this political correctness has been paving the way for “greater appreciation” of Islam and a hands-off approach toward its practices and laws.

Now we are faced with the possibility of a more unified Middle East under the banner of Islam.

And what would this mean, from the point of view of the globalists?

It would mean—if they can pull it off—a relationship with Islamists in which deals are cut from the top down. In other words, while oil continues to flow, the Rockefellers and Bilderbergers of this world would be able to use Islam more powerfully to scare the rest of the planet into a global management system (de facto world government).

Helping to make your enemies larger means gaining the ability to enact more pervasive and widespread solutions to the threat posed by those enemies.

A good example is World War 2. In its aftermath, along a 50-year path, globalists were able to construct a semblance of a United Europe, the European Union—which, of course, is a globalist organization run by globalists.


And now—a United Islamic Middle East? Suppose this political operation is, under the surface, a globalist move whose key strategy is controlling that Islamic Front from above?

Then, Islam, in a sense, becomes a globalist enforcement arm, and under that banner freedom is eroded.

Now you have the kind of perpetual war described by Orwell in 1984. An endless enemy, and continual war-time conditions, in which freedoms are carved up, “because it's necessary if we're going to defeat the enemy.”

From a globalist perspective, the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were seeds sown to increase Islam opposition to the West—a prelude to what is happening now in the Middle East.

The immediate triggers for these current riots? Rising food prices.

It's not hard to engineer such things.

You have to keep in mind that, on the planetary chessboard, grand strategies make use of lesser players' natural motives. You don't construct an operation that demands turning people against their own instincts. You use those instincts and weave them together to produce a desired outcome.

Jihad? Oil? Making money? Instilling fear? Political correctness? Empathy for Islam? Hope for an escape from cruel dictators? These and other desires are compiled and sorted and collated and integrated into a higher plan for control.

Globalists can envision making Islamic terrorism into one side of a perpetual war that will make freedom a distant memory.

Jihadists certainly favor that kind of slavery. They want complete submission. And so globalists toy with that motive and try to use it.

The trouble is, sometimes the honchos and chiefs behind the curtain unleash forces they can't control. They suffer from hubris and an exaggerated sense of their own power.

Extreme fundamentalists of any stripe long for destruction and the end of everything. They'll use any means to get there.

Globalists may look down their noses at them, but disdain doesn't do much good when an express train is heading down the track toward you.

Time and time again, when opportunities have arisen to become an energy-independent US, monkey wrenches have been thrown into the spikes of the wheel. For instance, the technology exists to utilize many sea inlets along the American coastline, for turbine-powered electricity. Each time it was proposed, it was canceled.

And massive globalist propaganda has been launched to label the notion of American self-sufficiency “isolationism.” Instead, we hear the countless pounding of “the global village” and “interdependence.”

And now we face real threats to the flow of oil from the Middle East.

And a squeeze play from the globalists. And a crusade from fundamentalists who want to eliminate the American nation for good.

Where did freedom go haywire? It's not hard to see. It lost key battles when American involvement in the affairs of other nations became exercises in meddling, help, war, profit-making. The new “shining city on the hill” faded as unscrupulous people rejected American self-sufficiency in favor of a brand of global entanglement—with predictable results. George Washington, of course, warned against this. Specifically, he saw the old European conflicts as the irremediable actions of lunatics, and stated that their fate would be ours if we stepped into that arena.

When America ignored his words, it got its first taste of globalism and all that it implies. And it's been getting worse ever since.

If America had taken the path of self-sufficiency (AKA isolation), it would have created an example for the rest of the world. By now, we would have seen a number of countries follow suit—and the overall result would have been much more humane by any measuring standard.

In fact, we would be ready for the next revolution waiting in the wings—the takeover of automation, in which millions, perhaps billions of jobs are done by machines—and those workers displaced would not suffer, but instead would be able to pursue more profound goals and desires of their own, since the cost of maintaining the essentials of survival would be incredibly low.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

War would be a thing of the past, too ridiculous to think about, with all of us living in a sea of prosperity and abundance.

It is this universal abundance that those bent on control fear. They can't deal with it.

Promises of abundance dealt from the top of governments down to the people are myths. The way it could have been accomplished was through each country building it from the bottom up.

� 2011 Jon Rappoport - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Jon Rappoport has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, Jon has published articles on medical fraud, politics, alternative health, and sports in LA Weekly, CBS Healthwatch, Spin, Stern, and other magazines and newspapers in the US and Europe.

He is the is author of several books, including The Secret Behind Secret Societies and The Magic Agent (a novel).

Jon is the author of a new course for home schoolers, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS.


Web site,

Web site,









If America had taken the path of self-sufficiency (AKA isolation), it would have created an example for the rest of the world. By now, we would have seen a number of countries follow suit—and the overall result would have been much more humane by any measuring standard.




Grants Pass