By Jon Rappoport
July 10, 2014
“I used to wonder why God used a prop like the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to inflict guilt on Adam&Eve, until I realized it could have been a steak or a plate of fries or a bagel. Anything. Making people feel guilty is a staple of religion and society in general. It works. And if you can transfer guilt from a real criminal to an innocent bystander, you’ve really got something going. It’s magic stage trick that can make a career.” (Jon Rappoport, The Underground)
Let’s cut to the chase, which is the moral argument. That’s where all the juice and outrage are.
We’re supposed to support unlimited immigration because we sinned, somewhere, somehow, at some time. Isn’t that the underlying idea? Come on. Isn’t that the subliminal moral imperative that’s being shoved down our throats, along with a heavy dose of political correctness?
This is the political version of the mythical Fall from Grace, right?
We did bad things to the people coming across the border, so we have to pay. America is evil, and it’s our fault. We need to be punished.
But hold on. Who is “we” and what exactly is “America”? And which evil are we talking about?
We’re talking about this: the American government, along with mega-corporations, went into foreign lands, waged covert wars, and gobbled up as much cheap labor and as many resources as possible—while doing their best to help corrupt dictators keep their populations in wretched conditions under tight control. So specific bad actors in the US government and corporations were criminals.
How does unlimited immigration punish these specific criminals for their crimes?
It punishes the American people. The strain on public services will be very heavy. The US economy is already in bad shape, and unlimited immigration will make things far worse.
Here is the crux, and it applies to immigration and other crises: the justice system is supposed to root out criminals and punish them. In this case, we’re talking about those high-level US government officials and mega-corporate executives who, for a very long time, have been plundering the underdeveloped world. There is the guilt. There is the target. There is the crime, for which unlimited immigration is supposed to be payback. But when justice doesn’t prevail, when the people who should be prosecuting crimes are allied with those committing the crimes, nothing happens. And then, voila, the generality appears. “All Americans are guilty of international plunder.”
And based on that pernicious generality, why not invite everyone on the planet to the US? Let’s turn the whole country, which is already on economic life support, into a combination processing center, hospital, and vote-registration paradise.
In fact, as one emailer facetiously suggested, let’s deport all Americans over the age of 65 to El Salvador, to make room for the newbies.
I personally like a twist on the old hostage idea. Send Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Boehner, Bush, the Obamas, Biden, etc. to an El Salvador village. For each of these luminaries, we let in 5000 “undocumented workers.” The US government will protect them, as long as the luminaries remain alive in Central America tilling a scrap of land. No golf. No lavish parties. No speeches. No limos.
Open borders is an op. It’s long past the time for understanding that. The idea is: promote conflict, envy, hatred, racial animosity; stir that pot, strain and collapse public services; sink the US economy.
Bush was in on it, as well as he could understand it. Obama is in on it. He understands it and supports it. He’s doing his covert job. His assigned task.
Again, “America” is a generality. Newsflash: not everyone in America is a criminal.
My neighbor isn’t. The guy down the street isn’t. Some guy across town who’s making money selling lettuce isn’t.
Now, the guy who breaks into a house and steals is a criminal. The guy who robs $100 million from investors in his hedge fund is a criminal. The guy who orders CIA agents into a foreign country to destabilize it and bring in a killer as president who’ll be more tuned to mega-corporate designs on his land and people…he’s a criminal.
But unlimited immigration isn’t punishing him.
Unlimited immigration is punishing the American people who aren’t guilty.
So the question is: do we, the American people, have to pay for the crimes of the unprosecuted high-level American criminals? Should that be our mission of martyrdom?
“Oh, we apologize for those government and corporate monsters among us who helped despoil your land, and we will let you into America, as many of you as want to come here. This is our burden, and we shoulder it gladly. We will feel guilty for what these criminals did. We’ll take on their guilt, just as Jesus took on our guilt…”
By the extension of that formula, we should just fold up our tents, declare America finished, close up the country and leave. And yes, I’m aware that a lot of Americans would react favorably to that idea—until they actually had to pack their bags and get out.
For years, I’ve been writing about the consequences of failing to prosecute and convict high-level government and corporate criminals. Well, this is one consequence: the rest of the population is targeted with an op called “guilt transference.”
It’s clever. It gives us a clue about why big corporations are supporting open borders. These companies aren’t merely thinking about employing more “foreign workers for jobs Americans won’t do.” At this point, we can safely say there are quite enough immigrants already inside the US and unemployed Americans who would take those jobs in a heartbeat.
No, the real psyop here is: those corporations deflect guilt for crimes they commit abroad on to the entire American population.
And of course, the other psyop is reducing the whole immigration issue to simple terms: if you oppose open borders, you’re a racist; if you oppose open borders, you’re a heartless anti-human.
Therefore, any argument about immigration, such as this one, which contains at least two sentences strung together, and an attempt at analysis, is beside the point and irrelevant.
Accusing a whole country of being evil as a justification for open borders, or anything else, is ridiculous.
Evil? How about this? Every single country on the face of the earth, at one time or another, was settled through vicious conquest.
Therefore, as punishment, why not try to flood, say, Mexico, with immigrants from all over the world, because the descendants of evil Spanish Conquistadors run Mexico now?
Finally, there is the argument that goes this way: In decades past, America opened its borders to a flood of immigrants from Europe. If now, the influx of immigrants from Mexico and Central America is squeezed off, that’s obvious discrimination.
Compare the available government services to immigrants then and now. Add it up. Add up the cost now, in what is already an official Welfare State, overburdened—and soon to be exploded by immigration. That’s the plan. To foment hatred on the issue of who gets what piece of the government pie.
And then think about this: there is a vast difference in the police presence, then and now. Now, police forces are militarized to the teeth. The high-level op—which has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns—involves using modern cops to exacerbate the pot-stirring animosities that are developing between races, ethnicities, cultures in America.
In other words, immigration and open borders is a planned program to make violence worse. Followed by: order (tighter and tighter top-down control) out of chaos.
Recently, somebody told me, “We had slavery in America…so now [as payment] we have to open the borders…”
An interesting piece of logic. I suggested that, five or ten years up the line, he should actually talk to black men and women and see how they feel about immigrants taking their jobs. He should also talk to white and tan and yellow and red and brown Americans on the same subject, instead of making broad calculations about guilt and redemption.
225 years ago, for perhaps two or three hours after the ink dried on the US Constitution, before the die was cast, Americans had a chance to think about what George Washington would later call “entangling foreign alliances.”
With enough imagination and foresight, they could have supported a total political, economic, financial, corporate shutdown on any foreign relationships, including trade and commerce—because such commerce inevitably leads to corruption, conquest, and murder.
They could have freed the slaves and farmed their own cotton or moved into other crops. They could have peacefully negotiated land deals with Indian tribes.
They could have envisioned and developed a United States based on national self-sustained self-sufficiency in all things.
On this continent, they could have forged, for the only time in history, an example of a Republic, prosperous and free.
They could have said to every other nation on the face of the Earth, “We did this. It’s real. If you want to, we’ll explain how it works. The rest is up to you.”
And in the process, they would have saved more lives, avoided more pain and suffering than all so-called humanitarian campaigns have caused between then and now.
“This is how you make prosperity and freedom and self-sufficiency work across a whole nation. You want to do that in your country? We’ll show you.”
But that wasn’t in the cards. Instead, esteemed leaders in America entangled themselves with anybody anywhere who could add a buck to their bottom line. And the bodies and suffering piled up.
It’s called US government corporate foreign policy.
As an aside, one of the present leaders of that policy is readying a run for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton.
It illustrates how far certain US government/corporate controllers are still willing to go, in order to secure and extend an American Empire that will destroy America, just as it destroyed ancient Rome.
When Rome was teetering on the edge of collapse, the “city fathers” devised a plan. They would create a new kind of Empire, one of the mind:
The Roman Church. Via war by other means, ignoring national boundaries, and laid across an indefinite span of time, they would invent a cosmology of original sin, despair, guilt, the diminishment of human beings, and then, redemption and paradise—which could only be obtained through the offices of certified priests.
A great religious MKULTRA.
Today, we have a version of that in the ubiquitous Surveillance State, which strives to ensure all people everywhere think and do “only good and refrain from sin.” We have the State’s global reach, its expansion through time, its intent to implement control over everything and everyone it watches.
This State is a partner in the great Church of Globalism, which deploys the trillions of pieces of surveillance data to form a higher stratum of Central Planning, which will determine: where populations are permitted to go and settle; how and to whom the resources of the planet will be allocated; who will be rich and who will be poor; who will live and who will die.
Which is why the decentralization of power along every conceivable front is the necessary and urgent response.
On the issue of immigration and open borders, the Church of Globalism has learned its lessons well from its Vatican predecessor: “We Globalists, for our own reasons, to which you are not privy, decide where populations are permitted to emigrate, according to our design and blueprint for the future makeup of the planet. Our priests make sure that anyone who opposes this immigration blueprint feels the heavy weight of censure and guilt. Redemption may come to you, but only if you get down on your knees and beg for pardon and swear never to oppose us, your Church Fathers, again. God (the Surveillance State) will monitor your future behavior…”
From the highest levels of planning, open borders in the US have absolutely nothing to do with humanitarianism.
The only guilt the planners are interested in is the guilt they can instill in the American people.
Guilt, shame, remorse—very old tricks in the con man’s playbook.
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 29th 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.