Thoughts on the club of liberals, transhumanism,
and depopulation, by Jon Rappoport
January 25, 2013: www.nomorefakenews.com
By liberals, I simply mean those people who accept big government as a given, regardless of their political affiliation.
And yes, at certain key levels, they are a club. They come from major media, large corporations, banks, the military, well-funded foundations, investment houses, do-good non-profits, legal and medical societies, academic factories, think tanks, and of course the huge pool of government employees.
For them, big, bigger, and biggest government is a rock-bottom assumption that requires no thought. The sun comes up every morning, and there is big government.
This assumption supersedes anything written in the US Constitution explicitly limiting the power of central authority.
Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas.
In fact, the Club is surprised and shocked that anyone would try to impede government based on fanciful notions about powers reserved for the individual states, or readings of the 2nd Amendment.
Long ago, the Club decided that every statement made in the Constitution was subject to revision or outright dismissal, based on the arrogant concept that changing times require new measures and new solutions.
In their eyes, they are working with reality, whereas Constitutionalists have a quirky and disturbing obsession that clings to absolute Principle. If Principle isn’t a sign of a mental disorder, it at least indicates an unhealthy nostalgia about a fairy tale of days gone by.
The Club blithely assumes it has won its battle.
The Club is focused on what big government, in concert with its corporate allies, can do to further expand. This is where a disjunction of attitude occurs.
For some Club members, the mission of government is to do good, to give to those in need, no matter how many are in need or how much that need grows.
For other Club members, at higher levels, the massive giveaway and fulfilling of need is just a pose, a tactic to gain more adherents who will trade a great deal of their freedom for a little security.
But there is no debate within the Club about this matter. No one wants to rock the boat. Those at higher levels view the do-gooders within their ranks as useful and amusing dupes.
The do-gooders, if they glimpse the faces and intentions of the higher-ups, shrug it off, assuming that somehow, in the long run, the vision of “a shared and just world” will triumph, because the universe wants to make it so.
The Club has one major enemy:
Abundance.
The idea that there is enough for everyone who wants to work for it, the idea that individuals can pursue their deepest dreams and desires, and win…that is anathema.
Why? Because if that perception operated widely in the society, it would rule out the grasping need for invasive central government.
Therefore, creating artificial scarcities is at the top of the Club’s to-do list. Of course, this agenda must be masked behind false cover. The scarcities must seem to be inevitable, or at least caused by forces beyond our control.
Scarcity of money, health, prosperity, freedom, property, sanity, natural resources…they must appear to be naturally occurring crises, for which the only answer is parental control over populations.
When Buckminster Fuller offered his brilliant analysis of abundance and how we could achieve it on planet Earth, he was missing only one piece: who would implement it? Who would revolutionize life for all?
The obvious answer is: the people in charge. But that doesn’t work, for the simple reason that those people are dedicated to producing false scarcities.
To reject abundance, the elite Club of Rome published its famous study, “The Limits to Growth,” in 1972. It essentially used computer modeling to predict failure for civilization, and ushered in a tsunami of propaganda aimed at floating the planet’s only hope for survival: a recognition of global interdependence and the distribution of the world’s resources from a point of Central Planning.
This concept, in turn, was translated to mean “addressing needs.”
The conclusion? Big government was the addresser, the single most important institution for saving us all.
Hand in hand, elite planners and propagandists invented a loop that guaranteed the primacy of a bill of needs over a bill of rights.
Individual freedom stood accused in the dock as the criminal. It had led to the wealthy few and the poor many. A world out of balance.
Members of the Club, sitting in their massive London drawing rooms and their Park Avenue apartments, applauded this “progression of awareness.” To say they were laughing up their sleeves would be a vast understatement.
From FDR to Truman, from Eisenhower to Kennedy, from LBJ to Nixon, from Ford to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., the Club watched their plans solidify. Regardless of what these presidents said or did, government expanded, and the official status of “fulfilling needs” was welded ever more securely to government’s mission.
Finally, in a considerable victory, to symbolically signify the emergence of the “lowest to the highest,” a man who represented former slaves on the American continent took up residence in the White House.
He, above previous presidents, would raise the sword to equalize all status in society. He would right past wrongs, square past debts, and fly the flag of humanity. Justice would be served.
No matter that the condition of “his own people” would worsen during his reign. No matter that the condition of all Americans would diminish. No matter that he was the agent of a operation designed to put the crown on government as the great provider.
From Buddha to Jesus to Karl Marx, the Club has borrowed sentiments of high hope and realization, in order to sell its program. The Club has cast its role as the messianic force. It has filled the pews of its church with followers, who have no clue as to the actual plan, but instead mouth the words and sing the songs and praise the gifts.
The marketing of these sentiments, their weave, fabric, tone, and flow are the substance of a trance induction.
And at the end of the line? America harmonized in its structure with other nations, and the subsuming of the USA under a regional and global arch of management.
As David Rockefeller, one of the designers of the plan, put it in his 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.”
There are millions of people who refuse to believe that a high humanitarian sentiment or ideal can be enrolled and deployed to defeat us. They automatically assume what stirs them is for the good.
They are crowded together in the middle of the trance. They clog the arteries of the body politic. They foment a disease of the public immune system attacking itself, and it is long past the time when they should wake up and cure their distorted perception.
But as far as the Club is concerned, they are useful. And useful they will stay, as long as 
they can be hypnotized into the future glory that lies just over the next hill.
And now we come to the technocrats…
Entire column on nomorefakenews.com.
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 www.nomorefakenews.com
[1] The meaning of liberal has changed from its origin, which at the time of the Renaissance meant basically ‘libertarian’ or humanist… and opposed to the ‘conservative’ antihuman power of church and state.
This post has been read 1429 times!
