Chris Roubis

Archive for the ‘wariscrime’ Category

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), two French scientists, proposed diametrally opposed explanations on illness. Pasteur suggested the germ theory – microbes produce illnesses. Béchamp offered the cellular theory – illnesses produce microbes. The first became famous, the second was forgotten. Who was right?

Béchamp (doctor, biologist, chemist, and physicist) discovered microbes before Pasteur. After years of observation, he was able to prove that human beings create their own microbes in order to re-establish order and balance inside tissues and organs. Béchamp also discovered microzymas, the smallest living particles. These changed their shape – pleomorphism – and became microbes when a person’s health deteriorated. Germs were actually allies. He published many scientific papers to prove his theory.

Pasteur (chemist) used and falcified Béchamp’s results, publishing them under his own name with opposite conclusions. Today, he is still considered one of humanity’s most cherished saviours – a good shepherd for the human flock (pasteur means “shepherd” in French). Numerous streets, organizations, and statues now bear his name. According to Pasteur, illnesses are due to aggressions from microscopic external pathogens. Each type of microbe has a specific shape and always cause the same disease. This theory is called monomorphism. To prevent illness, he proposed that we go to war against microbes. In fact, Pasteur was paid by the elite, who wanted to develop efficient eugenist methods.

Institut Pasteur and the entire field of vaccination were financed as early as 1887 by world banksters, the Rothschilds. They made sure that Pasteur’s theory became the norm across the planet. The illusive concept of the priority of the external world over the internal person sent its roots even deeper, keeping human beings the victims of invisible external enemies – microbes. Yet, Béchamp had proven the opposite. In fact, there is no external enemy. My body creates its own microorganisms in order to re-establish order and balance.

Several scientists later proved the existence of Béchamp’s microzymas: Royal Raymond Rife (polymorphic particles, 1920), Günther Enderlein (protits, 1925), Wilhelm Reich (bions, 1930), and Gaston Naessens (somatids, 1959). On his death bed, Pasteur admitted: “The terrain is everything, the germ is nothing.” Too late! Vaccination, the biggest crime against humanity, was alive and well. The elite had found their ultimate weapon.

Forbidden Treatments

Today, Pasteur’s germ theory replaces religion’s divine punishment. The mission of its new priests – scientists and doctors – consists of casting out microbes instead of demons. Yet, human beings remain the eternal victims of external enemies, an illusion that serves directly the interest of the elite in their attempt to control humanity. Any medical treatment that goes against their purpose is banished. Here a few examples of censured treatments. The first ten were compiled in North America by Daniel Haley. There are thousands more all over the world. Most of the researchers who developed them had to face accusations, legal proceedings, police arrests, threats to family members or themselves, and assassinations. This explains why 15 world-class microbiologists died in strange circumstances between September 11, 2001 and June 2, 2002.

Harry Hoxsey (USA/Mexico, 1901-1974) discovered the Hoxsey treatment, a natural tritherapy against cancer. After five prison sentences, he moved to Mexico. For the past 80 years, his treatment has enjoyed a success rate of 80%.

William Koch (US, 1885-1967) used glyoxylide to treat cancer, tuberculosis, polio, asthma, diabetes, leprosy, etc. He had to move to Brazil to continue treating patients.

Royal Raymond Rife (US, 1888-1971) built a live-cell microscope with a maximum magnification of 60,000 times and was able to prove Béchamp’s pleomorphism. He invented a ray tube that used specific vibrations to destroy each type of microbe. His laboratory and his research papers were destroyed.

Andrew Ivy (US, 1893-1978) developed a cancer-destroying serum called krebiozen, which he used successfully on thousands of patients. Prosecuted by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), he faced bankruptcy because of enormous legal expenses and stopped his research under threat of life imprisonment.

Robert Becker (US, 1923-2008) studied electromedicine and its use in cellular regeneration. His research funds were completely stopped when he publicly exposed the dangers of electropollution.

Stanley Jacob (US, 1924) popularized dimethyl sulphoxyde (DMSO), the chemical with widest range of therapeutic applications in the world. More than 3,000 studies on DMSO proved its efficiency for many types of illnesses. Its use is still blicked by the AMA and the FDA.

Herb Saunders (USA) injected microbes into pregnant cows and used their colustrum (first milk) to treat tuberculosis, cancer, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, etc. His instruments were confiscated and he had to face legal proceedings.

Gaston Naessens (France/Canada, 1924) invented the somatoscope in 1949, a live-cell microscope with a maximum magnification of 30,000 times. With this apparatus, he proved the pleomorphic capabilities of somatids – the fundamental and immortal particles of life. He invented a cancer remedy called 714X and was prosecuted in France for the illegal practice of medicine. He left for Corsica, then Quebec. The medical authorities made sure that his remedy remains unaccessible in Canada, except for terminally ill patients.

Hulda Clark (USA/Mexico, 1928-2009) established a link between illness and the presence of internal parasites, and invented an electric method for their destruction. She moved to Mexico after major legal proceedings.

Joseph Gold (USA) used hydrazine sulfate with 50% success rate for terminal cancer. The treatment is still banned in the US.

Stanislav Burzynski (Poland/US, 1943) discovered natural agents that eliminate cancer – antineoplastons. The FDA acquitted him after 25 years of persecution. As in Naessens’ case, his treatment is only available for terminally ill patients, under presctiption of a medical doctor.

Rick Simpson (Canada) popularized the use of hemp oil (cannabis), a remedy that has been in use for the past 5,000 years. A few decades ago, the elite had prohibited its use by declaring it an illegal drug. Simpson was prosecuted and the police vandalized his property.

This short North American list represents a tiny part of the treatments available across the planet that have been deliberately stopped by the elite in order to keep humanity living in fear, illness, and death. In fact, organizations such as the AMA and the FDA, and their equivalent in each country, have one single mission: stopping the propagation of efficient treatments.

That explains why we are actually witnessing the programmed disappearance of homeopathy, herbal medicine, gemmotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine, aromatherapy, vibrational remedies, oligotherapy, and more. For example, since April 1, 2001, the therapeutic use of practically all medicinal plants has become illegal in the European Union. The North American approach is slightly different, but its effect remains as devastating.

The European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products (THMPD) has espablished strict rules for the use of such products in order to make them unavailable on the market. Even if a plant has been in use for thousands of years, companies or individuals selling them must now make sure that it has undergone the same type of testing as pharmaceutical drugs. The cost of such an operation varies between 90,000 and 140,000 euros. Also, each plant inside a mixture must be tested separately. This is more than most small manufacturers can afford. The medical Mafia has reached its goal. Mission accomplished!

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/fM7ymtKB9w0/

Corruption is everywhere, but nowhere is it so blatant and so deep-seated as in the 5 following industries: Banking, Energy, Agriculture/Biotech, Media, and Healthcare.

Conspicuously missing from this list, of course, is politics.

The reason that politics was not included is because political corruption is very rarely confined to the political arena. It is almost entirely the result of financial lobby and backing, so I decided to focus on the industries behind the issue, rather than the politicians themselves.

Hopefully you will find this article eye-opening, as well as empowering in your effort to affect change today.

1) Banking

All money comes into circulation through an interest-based loan from either the Federal Reserve or another private bank.

As a result, there is more debt than money in our economy. This is not due to irresponsible lending, but is inherent to the mechanics of all fiat currency.

Every time a loan is repaid, interest (wealth) is transferred from the working class to the ownership class. Structural class-ism is therefore built directly into the system. Again, it is not simply a result of greedy people within the system- it is a reality upon which the entire concept of banking is predicated.

The Solution? Credit Unions,

at least in the short term. While still technically a fractional-reserve lending system, Credit Unions have one important difference from conventional banks: no shareholders. With conventional banks, a large amount of the revenue generated from the lending programs is paid to the super-ownership class of the bank-owners. They receive interest on money that they aren’t even necessarily lending themselves. They just take it because they can: “our bank, our rules- bitch.”

With credit unions, there are no shareholders. All revenue from loans is payed to members and employees. Again, not perfect, but far better. Personally, I would recommend only keeping as much money in a credit union as you need to meet your day-to-day expenses (a few thousand at most). The rest could be put to better use with more globally harmonious investments.

2) Energy

69.3% of US energy comes from burning fossil fuels [1]. This process releases lead and arsenic into the air and water, and is the number one source of Mercury contamination in the United States [2].

More than 99% of the world’s cars run on an internal combustion engine, burning either petroleum, or (occasionally) an oil derived from genetically modified soy [3].

14% of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear fission [4]. We have no way to reintegrate the waste product from this process, ecologically, as it is one the most radiatively toxic substances ever designed. Our current model is to bury it under Yucca Mountain in Nevada and, well, hope that one one ever goes near that god-forsaken place…

Biofuels are made almost entirely from subsidized GMO crops, and still emit carcinogens during combustion.

The Solution? Renewable Electricity.

This is the only known ecologically harmonious option for energy. Options to create this include Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, and especially Geothermal energy. Using these techniques at our current technological capacity, we could power the entire planet many times over without one calorie coming from fossil fuels or nuclear reactors.

In addition, Nikola Tesla developed a method to generate literally infinite energy anywhere – directly from the electric field of the universe. His discoveries and all replications since have been systematically de-funded, and either confiscated by military intelligence or destroyed through arson. See the movie Thrive. It is top 5 on my all-time list.

As for practical applications today, simply do your best to cut your footprint (not of carbon emissions, but of the non-harmonious energy empire), and fund alternatives as you can personally afford to. Good options are walking, riding your bike, fitting up your house with solar panels (if you own a home), and buying into local, independent, sustainable energy co-ops (if you don’t). This is also one of the good investments I was referring to above.

3) Agriculture/Biotech

US subsidized crops range from 65 to 94% in their use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) [5]- in case there was any doubt that out government was in bed with Monsanto.

GMO’s are organisms whose genes have been spliced with genes from other species to better benefit the business model of the company selling them (most notably, Monsanto). One highly prevalent example is the “Terminator Gene,” which causes the organism to be sterile. This forces the grower to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year, rather than simply replanting the seeds of their harvest as nature intended. I wonder how eating 90% sterilized food might affect the reproductive health of humans. Don’t a lot people have issues with that these days? Oh well – it’s cheaper.

99% of US agriculture is grown with petroleum-based fertilizer [6]. Thought we only used that stuff for cars and plastics, huh? Think again. By buying “conventionally” grown food, you are, in fact, supporting the American War Machine.

99% of Agriculture in the US is grown with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or a cocktail of the three [9]. These are toxic chemicals designed to kill organisms outside the intended monoculture. The only reason the crop itself can survive these sprayings is because they have been genetically modified to withstand them. Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready Gene,” for example, allows crops to tolerate ordinarily toxic levels of the patented poison (and it is a poison). The problem with this process is that it delivers food which may appear healthy, yet is likely to be carrying significant levels of toxins within it.

The Solution? Follow this formula

Whenever possible, grow at your own home with organic (non GMO) seeds. When you can’t grow it yourself, buy local or regional organic. If you can’t buy local or regional organic, you probably don’t need (or want) to be eating it.

4) Media

Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything from movies and television, to all the major newspapers, and even music record labels [7].

When one company dominates an industry, it is called a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is called a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

When people say that the mainstream media is “biased toward special interest groups,” it means that the super-elite own all of it, and don’t allow exposure to people who expose their globalist agenda. Consider, for example, why filmmakers such as Peter Joseph and Dylan Avery have never been interviewed on mainstream TV. Their films (Zeitgeist and Loose Change, respectively) are the two most viewed documentaries in the history of the Internet. Their work is systematically blacklisted, however, due to its accurate exposure of the forces at work behind the the media empire, as well as every other industry outlined in this article.

The Solution? Independent Media.

Cancel your subscription to cable (aka the cabal). It’ll save you money and disconnect you from the Propaganda Machine. Get your news and world affairs from Independent sources who are not in the pocket of the financial super-elite. There are some big names in alternative media who are uncovering much more than what can be found among the so-called “mainstream,” as well as hundreds of others you can find on BlogTalkRadio and various blogs. What’s more, don’t get all your information from any one place – diversify and see what truly resonates with you.

For those who want to go the extra mile, start blogging yourself and sharing important information through social media. Do your part to help get the important headlines out there and visible. Your ability to do this is phenomenal. Even if all you do is post a video on your Facebook, you are likely to generate AT LEAST 20 views for an issue that otherwise would not have been there. As more people are waking up to the system and starting to do this every day, I believe very strongly that the Media Empire’s days are numbered.

5) Healthcare

Pharmaceutical companies provide corporate sponsorship (money) for scientific journals, medical school textbooks, and political lobbies. A pro-pharmaceutical bias has been scientifically documented and in the British Medical Journal [8].

Med students study drugs in almost every quarter of their degree, and take, on average, only one class on nutrition.

There is not a single pharmaceutical drug that actually makes people healthier (pause for cries of indignation). What pharmaceuticals do is mask symptoms (anesthetics), destroy cells indiscriminately (Chemo and other cancer treatment drugs), or introduce small amounts of disease (vaccinations). There is not a single one that actually harmonizes the human body. Say what you want about “having these options in your back pocket,” but recognize that none of them are good for you, and none of them cure disease. Only the human immune system can do that.

The Solution? Don’t expect an industry run by pharmaceutical conglomerates to keep you healthy.

Become an expert on your own health. Learn and implement harmonious nutrition, exercise, and hobbies. If you don’t get those 3 figured out for yourself, your health will deteriorate, and the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry, will not save you. It’s time empower ourselves with understanding.

For more complex health issues, explore alternative approaches that are harmonious with the functioning of the human system. Some awesome options are acupuncture, reiki, and chiropractics. For health consultations and checkups, you are better off with a naturopath or homeopath than a conventional MD. And, finally, if you have a chronic pain condition and feel that you just need some relief in the interim period while you heal, toss the semi-synthetic opiates out the window, and roll yourself a joint. That’s just my two cents.

Conclusion

My hope is that this information will empower you to realize that you can affect change today. Don’t let yourself become overwhelmed and paralyzed; recognize the change that you can make in your life, and begin with one small step. Transfer your money, buy a bike, invest in a solar co-op, cancel your cable, and eat some organic vegetables. Do not underestimate the power behind these actions.

To change the world and free ourselves from these systems, it is going to take a lot of change from everyone on the individual level. But that long road starts with one person taking responsibility for their actions, and just putting one foot in front of the other. Be that person. Change the world.

Thanks for reading.

1. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/science/earth/20brfs-MERCURYFOUND_BRF.html?_r=2em

3. http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2010-04/most-advanced-engines

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#cite_note-WNAMay-0

5. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/

6. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate

8. http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/February-2009/Vaccine-Studies–Under-the-Influence-of-Pharma.aspx

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/s6JZjiEeHzw/

“Centralization induces apoplexy at the center and anemia at the extremities.” ~ Hugues Felicité Robert de Lamennais (1782-1854).

The present political system is clearly insane. It suffers from schizophrenia. Around the world, almost no one trusts the politicians, yet almost everyone votes for incumbent politicians who promise to reform the government.

Voters now suspect (correctly) that all Western governments are headed for bankruptcy because of the pension programs and government-funded medicine, yet these two programs are politically untouchable. Voters demand them.

For four decades, soft-core critics of the pension/Medicare systems have come to voters with this announcement: “The two systems can be reformed, but we must act now. If we delay, they will bankrupt the government.” Yet the systems are never reformed.

Then, a decade later, the next group of optimistic reformers comes forward with this same promise: “The systems can be reformed if we just act now.” Nobody believes them. Nobody should. If the programs really can be reformed “if we act now,” then the previous warnings were mere scaremongering. There really was no hurry. So, Congress asks rhetorically: “Why should we believe that we need to hurry now?” Result: the systems never get reformed. Congress kicks the can.

The Great Default

The federal government really is headed for default. The numbers don’t lie. This fact produces pessimism in some circles. People who look at the numbers conclude, accurately, that the federal government will not muddle through this crisis. All over the world, national governments will not muddle through. They will no longer be able to kick the can.

I have good news and bad news. The bad news first. If you are dependent on the government for your old age security, you have only one hope: an early death. The good news: when Washington’s checks bounce, the bureaucrats will have to go into another line of work. Millions of them. All over the world.

I am now going to present a scenario that is not widely shared. The process that undergirds it is not widely recognized. Yet this process is relentless.

If I am correct about it, judgment day is coming. Not the final judgment. A liberating judgment.

There are self-proclaimed optimists who say Medicare will muddle through. Similarly, there are self-proclaimed optimists who say the present Keynesian system will muddle through. These people are in fact pessimists. They argue that moral evil and economic irrationality can be made to work. That is a pessimistic message. Fortunately, they are wrong.

People will muddle through. The Keynesian system won’t. Neither will the finances of the people who have bet the farm on the Keynesian system’s ability to muddle through.

The Law of Empires

Empires disintegrate. This is a social law. There are no exceptions.

The first well-known social theorist to articulate this law was the prophet Daniel. He announced it to King Nebuchadnezzar. You can read his analysis in Daniel 2. Verses 44 and 45 are the key to understanding the law of empires.

The Roman Empire is the model. But there is a serious problem here. There are at least 210 theories of why it fell. There are so many that even my 1976 Ron Paul office colleague Bruce Bartlett gets credit for one of them – on Wikipedia, no less. He has made the big time!

In any case, Rome did not collapse. It wasted away over several centuries, wasting the treasure of its citizens along with it.

I suppose there were highly educated people who came to the voters in the late Roman republic and said something like this: “Unless decisive action is taken now, Rome will go bankrupt.” If so, they were right. But it took a lot longer than they thought.

These days, it does not take nearly so long.

An empire grows at first almost unconsciously. No one goes to the powers that be and says, “Hey! Why don’t we create an empire?” It is more like the person who says this: “I’m not greedy. All I want is to control the land contiguous to mine.”

In military affairs, there are economies of scale. An army of warriors makes conquest cost-effective. There are also taxation advantages. An army of tax collectors makes tax collection cost-effective. “Hand over your money” is more effective. Pretty soon, you’ve got an empire.

But there is a law of bureaucracy that applies to empire. At some point, it costs more to administer the bureaucracy than the bureaucracy can generate through coercion. Then the empire begins to crack. It cannot enforce its claims.

So, the growth of empire has economics at its center: economies of scale. The fall of empire also has economics at its center: economies of scale.

I think this process is an application of the law of increasing returns. In the initial phase of the process, adding more of one factor increases total output. But, as more of it is added, another law takes over: the law of decreasing returns.

Example: water and land. Add some water to a desert, and you can grow more food. Add more water, and you can grow a lot more food. There is an accelerating rate of returns. The joint output is of greater value than the cost of adding water. But if you keep adding water, you will get a swamp. The law of decelerating returns takes over. Add more water, and the land is underwater. You might as well have a desert.

This law applies to power. Add power, and you generate more income. But if you keep adding power, expenses of the bureaucracy will begin to eat up revenues. Resistance will also increase: internal and external. The system either implodes or withers away.

With only one exception in history – the Soviet Union in 1991 – empires have not gone out of business without bloodshed.

In the case of the Soviet Union, the senior politicians privatized the whole system in December 1991. They handed over the assets to what immediately became the ultimate system of crony capitalism. They divvied up the Communist Party’s money and deposited it in individual Swiss bank accounts. The suicide of the USSR was “Vladimir Lenin meets David Copperfield.” Now you see it; now you don’t. In the history of Marxism, no event better illustrates Marx’s principle of the cash nexus. It seduced Lenin’s vanguard of the proletariat.

Notice the pattern of empire. It begins slowly, building over centuries: the Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire. Then the empire either erodes or else it is captured by revolutionaries, as was the case in France (1789-94) and Russia (1917). But this only delays the reversal. It does not overcome it.

The Modern Nation-State

Economies of scale shaped the development of the modern nation-state. In 1450, the governments of Western Europe were small. They controlled little territory. They were remnants of the medieval world, which had been far more decentralized.

By 1550, this had begun to change. The beginnings of the modern nation-state were visible.

Tax revenues flowed into the centralizing kingships. Trade was growing. Revenues were increasing. Weaponry was advancing. All of this had been going on for half a millennium. But, like an exponential curve, the line began to move upward visibly around 1500.

Maritime empires grew: Spain, Portugal, England. They challenged each other on the seas. Then came the Netherlands and France. The fusion of naval power and trade monopolies lured nations into competition for trade zones. The idea of free trade was centuries away, except in the academic enclave of the school of Salamanca.

The law of increasing returns was evident in this process. It paid rulers to tax more and extend the jurisdiction of the nation-state at the expense of local governments internally and foreign governments externally. The benefits accrued mostly to the political hierarchy and its system of connected families.

Economies of scale drove the process. The division of labor favored centralization. Local units of civil government could not compete.

Let me give an example from the field of historiography. The historian of colonial America can write about lots of topics: immigration, technology, family structure, town planting, economic development, intellectual trends, and so forth. He writes about the issues of life that affected people’s daily lives. He cannot write about national politics until after May of 1754: the “battle” of Jumonville Glen.

The Battle of Jumonville Glen is unknown to all historians except specialists in colonial America. This is a pity, because that battle was the most important military event in the history of the modern world. It literally launched the modern world. It led to (1) the French Indian War (Seven Years’ War), (2) the Stamp Act crisis, (3) the American Revolution, (4) the French Revolution, (5) Napoleon, (6) nationalism, (7) modern revolutionism, (8) Communism, (9) Fascism, and (10) the American Empire. It was started by Virginia militia Major George Washington, age 22.

Before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, it is both possible and wise to write about America without tying the narrative to politics. After 1788, every textbook writer is drawn like a moth to the flame: Presidential elections. He cannot narrate the text without hinging everything on the outcome in the four-year system of national covenant renewal-ratification.

We are fast approaching a day of judgment. It has to do with economies of scale. It has to do with the law of decreasing returns.

The best account of this process is a book by Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld: The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999). He traces the history of the Western nation-state from the late Renaissance until the late twentieth century. He argues that there will be a break-up of nation states and a return of decentralization. I have discussed this here.

Capitalist Production

Another manifestation of the economies of scale is the development of the factory system. In 1750, most production was home-based. Most people lived on farms. Most farms were close to self-sufficient.

Cities were few and far between. They were located on the coasts or along great waterways. They were based on trade. Perhaps 10% of the West’s population lived in cities.

This began to change around 1800 in Great Britain. It may have been in 1780. It may have been in 1820. But the economy began to change. No one has a plausible explanation for why it happened, but it changed the history of man’s lifestyle as nothing else ever has. The economy began to grow at 2% per annum, compounded.

This process soon spread to the United States. The world began to be overwhelmed by a wave of gadgets.

This process was driven by price competition. A few business owners got rich by serving the needs of the masses. The masses got richer. They got more productive.

The feature most hated by the older producers was capitalism’s relentless service of the poorer buying public. The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market, Adam Smith had correctly observed, and in order to use the newer, more specialized techniques of production, capitalists had to broaden their markets. The most efficient means of gaining access to new markets was price competition.

All of the British troops who marched off to India and the Far East in a quest for new markets in the day of England’s “glory” never matched the market-broadening effects of a 25% discount at home. The producer who could not match this discount steadily was forced out of the market, that is, was forced to give up control of scarce economic resources that could better be used to satisfy the demands of the public in the hands of more efficient producers.

How could poor, uneducated buyers compete against the entrenched wealth of the English landed aristocracy? How could their meager purchases compete against the wealthy man’s competition for the services of producers? How could some dust-covered miner hope to bid scarce economic resources away from the men of wealth? Simply because there were so many of them!

As capitalist techniques of production steadily increased the output of the laboring classes, the poor became slightly but steadily less poor. A few pennies here, a few yards of cloth there, multiplied a million times over: no aristocracy on earth was rich enough to withstand this relentless economic pressure of slightly less poor men, when so many of those men were being created by the labor markets of England.

As individuals they were poor, especially before 1840, but they were not so poor as they had been in 1780, and here was the new fact of life for producers using the older methods of production.

Men who could not afford fine wool suits could now afford a cheap cotton one, and very rapidly it became obvious to English entrepreneurs that it would pay more dividends to start producing hundreds of thousands of cotton garments than a few thousand high-priced wool or silk ones.

What served as the economic liberation of a whole class of people, anti-free market aristocrats saw as a form of bondage, the grinding servitude of the factory, with its time schedules, long hours, routinized production, and child labor. What they resolutely refused to see was what would have been the fate of these masses under the old system of production: famine and death. It was Ireland, not England and Scotland, that suffered the famine of 1848-50, and it was Ireland which had not seen the “plague” of factory production.

John Ruskin, the conservative literary critic of the mid-nineteenth century, summarized the case against capitalism. Ironically, his words were put on mass-produced cards and inserted into mass-produced picture frames for display on the walls of the highly popular Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlors (31 flavors): “There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man’s lawful prey.” I saw this in a store in 1973. I have not seen one lately, I never go into a Baskin-Robbins store. The chain is nearly invisible today.

Conservative social critics saw not only the hard conditions of the factory system – hard in comparison with the life of social criticism, but not in comparison with low productivity subsistence (or less than subsistence) farming – but they also saw the initial effects of mass-produced goods. They were cheap in price and cheap in quality – again, in comparison to the quality standards of the educated social critic.

Those who did appreciate the new clothes, better housing, and preferable working conditions seldom wrote tracts; they simply went to work and spent their money. Undoubtedly, there was a standardization of production. However, as the productivity of laborers increased, and as their wages increased, this standardization was left behind for those coming up – Irish immigrants, for example – and variety began to be an economic possibility.

This indicates the nature of capitalism’s powers of social transformation. At first, price competition expands the market. New groups gain access to goods not previously available to them, either because prices were too high before, or because the products did not even exist.

As participants in the production process, workers add to other people’s wealth. Producers are buyers; step by step, as output per unit of input increases, as a result of the specialization of production, the wealth of all the participants increases. The initial expansion of buying alternatives itself expands as productivity increases. Some producers may specialize in producing for this newly improved buying public; others may branch out and aim at the still excluded buyers – the next level down.

Henry Ford’s Model T – “available in any color, as long as you want black” – made the automobile available to the masses. But as everyone’s wealth increased as a result of capitalist methods of production-distribution (the two are basically the same process), large numbers of men wanted some other color.

Ford failed to recognize this phenomenon of modern capitalism, and his resistance to change – in this case an upgrading of quality and choice – led to the triumph of General Motors in the 1920s. GM offered more brands and more choices within these brands.

GM’s dominance did not last. The company went bankrupt in 2009. It took a government bailout to save it – and the defrauding of bond holders.

The factory is scaling down in the United States, even as it is getting gigantic in China. Smaller, computerized specialized steel factories have replaced the old steel factories. The old factories are empty. They cannot compete.

We live on the cusp of a new era of manufacturing: 3D production. We will have factories on our desks.

Mass production reduces costs. Production initially is centralized. The era of the factory replaces the era of homespun. The economies of scale take over. This is phase one: the law of increasing returns to centralization.

This does not last. The law of decelerating returns takes over at the factory. The era of the factory is replaced. The economies of scale favor local production. I write this on a $500 computer using a $50 word processing program.

When you think “economies of scale,” think “Post Office.”

Conclusion

I could apply this analysis to the history of urbanization: from villages to towns to huge cities to the suburbs. Urban historian Jack Lessinger has chronicled this in a series of books.

The economies of scale no longer favor centralization. They favor decentralization: in manufacturing, in education, in urban development, in finance, in politics, and even in military affairs. Non-state resistance movements hold the advantage today. So does the terrorist cell. If the urban West is ever threatened by weaponry, it is more likely to be from a home-brew biological weapon than from a nuclear device.

Small may not be beautiful, but it surely is efficient. You don’t see a virus. You can see a mushroom cloud.

For those of us who dread the centralization of anything, our boats have begun to come in.

No ship will come in. Its model is the Titanic.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/6rR8qvjulgI/

“Attempts to form a government in Greece collapsed on Tuesday, jolting financial markets at the prospect leftists opposed to the terms of an EU bailout could sweep to victory in a June election and nudge the euro zone crisis into a dangerous new phase.” ~ CNBC

Why should the Greek people be financially destroyed and rendered destitute by forced German Brussels EU austerity measures more loans designed only to pay the interest on the debt to the big banks? What if the banking and media establishment are dead wrong about nations withdrawing from the Euro like they have from the beginning of the crisis? I suggest a strong economic recovery is the likely result rather than depression as forecast by experts working for the banks that have enslaved Greece.

What Would You Do?

Let’s assume you were very unsophisticated regarding real estate and you lived off a $30,000 annual income. Then assume you purchased a home in the US during the Federal Reserve created housing bubble for $500,000 with 2% down. Your real estate agent and mortgage broker said “don’t worry we will take care of the details”. Later you discover your signature was forged and they showed your annual income as $300,000 annually.

Now you find out the real value is only $50,000 and there are numerous liens, defects and you don’t even have clear title to the asset. The bank and credit providers are threatening to take everything you have saved in your lifetime because you are behind on your loan payments.

What would you do? Given this situation most rational people would stop making payments, withdraw from the fraudulent contact and sue those who misrepresented the entire deal for fraud. This is a very simplistic version of what has happened to most nations inside the EU. The citizens never voted on or understand the contract giving away national sovereignty. The entire deal including the sovereign debt was fraudulent and sold so banks and politicians could benefit.

Recovery Is Only Possible Outside the Euro After Sovereign Debt Repudiation

Many EU member states should simply withdraw from and repudiate the failed monetary and political experiment that the European Union has become. In addition Greece should repudiate the excessive sovereign debts owed primarily to German banks and restore an independent Greek currency, the Drachma at a lower and more favorable exchange rate to stimulate tourism and foreign investment. Yes there will be a short-term drop in the Greek economy but this would quickly be over in contrast to the EU created death spiral Greece has been forced to endure over the last few years and in the future.

Despite all the warnings by the establishment I urge the Greek people as well as the suffering populations of Spain, Italy, Ireland and other nations to dump their politicians chained to the EU and march to a different tune on the right and left.

The world knows Greek politicians are corrupt and owned by major financial interests.

Like most politicians in the West, they will tend to choose the near-term course of action that provides them the most graft and payoffs. You can’t sue politicians but nations can stop paying fraudulent sovereign debts if the people press hard enough. History shows us that politicians can actually on occasion even become patriots if their political future is at risk and their financial gravy train is about to leave the station.

I believe EU siren call for Greek austerity and bailout is just a political disguise for more fleecing the populace through fears of government bankruptcy in order to steal more wealth and cut more benefits. While the real solution for most nations is to tax and steal less and reduce bloated programs and benefits. The way out for Greece and most other European nations is to withdraw from both the Euro and EU and do the above after repudiating the sovereign debt and becoming debt free nations.

Even Germany Will Leave the Euro

In the final analysis I agree with my friend John Browne’s forecast Friday on CNBC. He currently serves as Senior Market Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. and also as our Chairman of the Board for Biologix Hair Inc. in Toronto.

He warned that not only would Greece and other nations withdraw from the Euro but in the end Germany is also likely to pullout and restore the D-Mark before the EU crisis has run its course. The alternative is to risk a return to the 1930’s and the Germans have not forgotten that mistake.

The ultimate solution for all government debt is always payoff, repudiate or hyperinflation hence the impasse in EU Land. No nation has ever paid off their national debt, the citizens generally benefit from repudiation over hyperinflation but central banks always use inflation as the solution. Due to rather recent German history the German people will never allow any government to sanction high rates of inflation.

The EU was a vehicle designed to control all of Europe but the German people will not stand for the massive money creation and ultimate inflation necessary to preserve the failed European Union and inflate away the massive sovereign debts of nations in the EU.

Maybe History Will Repeat Itself In Reverse

Almost 100 years ago, the victorious allies and their banking elites used the Treaty of Versailles to plunder the wealth of Germany and it’s citizens who were no more guilty of this terrible war than were the allies. It has not been long enough for them to forget the drift towards extremism, anger at those who plundered their nation and finally the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. The Germany people will surely demand withdrawal from the Euro and a return to the currency credibility of a restored D-Mark (Deutsche Mark) backed in someway by gold. The alternative is to risk a return to the 1930’s and the Germans have not forgotten that mistake.

I would suggest that at the next federal election in Germany in the fall of 2013 that Chancellor Merkel will likely be repudiated at the polls because of the EU problems. She and her party alliance will be forced from power as her dream for a German led Europe through the European Union crumbles like so many grandiose plans of earlier empires. Remember, 70 years earlier in 1933 another Chancellor was swept into power because of government debts, hyperinflation and outside meddling. It did not end well for Germany.

Get Out of the EU Now While You Still Can Peacefully

I know many citizens across the European Union are wondering how did we get here? They think it can’t get any worse so maybe they should remain in the EU because the establishment experts warn of bankruptcy, currency crisis and the usual doom and gloom should Euro be dumped.

As an American, I know from our history that the determination of a power elite to maintain control over taxpayer territory at any cost in terms of lives, economic destruction and violence is always far stronger than the public realizes. We are now celebrating the 150^th anniversary of our Civil War that destroyed the Southern economy for a century and killed 600,000 Americans north and south.

No, it wasn’t really a civil war and the media establishment never mentions the death toll of the war. Also the major causes of the war that had more to do with the establishment of a central bank, railroad profits and government revenue have been hidden from view.

But, the winners always write the history and unless the individual European nations get out of the European Union modeled on the American Union quickly, your nations may never leave without a war you are likely to lose. So get out of the Euro and EU now while you still can.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/WGsFRIREg-U/

After more than 20 years, I’ve finally decided to tell the world what I witnessed in 1991, which I believe was one of the biggest turning point in popular music, and ultimately American society.

I have struggled for a long time weighing the pros and cons of making this story public as I was reluctant to implicate the individuals who were present that day. So I’ve simply decided to leave out names and all the details that may risk my personal well being and that of those who were, like me, dragged into something they weren’t ready for.

Between the late 80′s and early 90’s, I was what you may call a “decision maker” with one of the more established company in the music industry. I came from Europe in the early 80’s and quickly established myself in the business.

The industry was different back then. Since technology and media weren’t accessible to people like they are today, the industry had more control over the public and had the means to influence them anyway it wanted. This may explain why, in early 1991, I was invited to attend a closed door meeting with a small group of music business insiders to discuss rap music’s new direction. Little did I know that we would be asked to participate in one of the most unethical and destructive business practice I’ve ever seen.

The meeting was held at a private residence on the outskirts of Los Angeles. I remember about 25 to 30 people being there, most of them familiar faces. Speaking to those I knew, we joked about the theme of the meeting as many of us did not care for rap music and failed to see the purpose of being invited to a private gathering to discuss its future.

Among the attendees was a small group of unfamiliar faces who stayed to themselves and made no attempt to socialize beyond their circle. Based on their behavior and formal appearances, they didn’t seem to be in our industry.

Our casual chatter was interrupted when we were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement preventing us from publicly discussing the information presented during the meeting. Needless to say, this intrigued and in some cases disturbed many of us.

The agreement was only a page long but very clear on the matter and consequences which stated that violating the terms would result in job termination. We asked several people what this meeting was about and the reason for such secrecy but couldn’t find anyone who had answers for us. A few people refused to sign and walked out. No one stopped them. I was tempted to follow but curiosity got the best of me. A man who was part of the “unfamiliar” group collected the agreements from us.

Quickly after the meeting began, one of my industry colleagues (who shall remain nameless like everyone else) thanked us for attending. He then gave the floor to a man who only introduced himself by first name and gave no further details about his personal background. I think he was the owner of the residence but it was never confirmed.

He briefly praised all of us for the success we had achieved in our industry and congratulated us for being selected as part of this small group of “decision makers”. At this point I begin to feel slightly uncomfortable at the strangeness of this gathering.

The subject quickly changed as the speaker went on to tell us that the respective companies we represented had invested in a very profitable industry which could become even more rewarding with our active involvement. He explained that the companies we work for had invested millions into the building of privately owned prisons and that our positions of influence in the music industry would actually impact the profitability of these investments.

I remember many of us in the group immediately looking at each other in confusion. At the time, I didn’t know what a private prison was but I wasn’t the only one. Sure enough, someone asked what these prisons were and what any of this had to do with us. We were told that these prisons were built by privately owned companies who received funding from the government based on the number of inmates. The more inmates, the more money the government would pay these prisons.

It was also made clear to us that since these prisons are privately owned, as they become publicly traded, we’d be able to buy shares. Most of us were taken back by this. Again, a couple of people asked what this had to do with us. At this point, my industry colleague who had first opened the meeting took the floor again and answered our questions.

He told us that since our employers had become silent investors in this prison business, it was now in their interest to make sure that these prisons remained filled. Our job would be to help make this happen by marketing music which promotes criminal behavior, rap being the music of choice.

He assured us that this would be a great situation for us because rap music was becoming an increasingly profitable market for our companies, and as employee, we’d also be able to buy personal stocks in these prisons.

Immediately, silence came over the room. You could have heard a pin drop. I remember looking around to make sure I wasn’t dreaming and saw half of the people with dropped jaws. My daze was interrupted when someone shouted, “Is this a f****** joke?” At this point things became chaotic.

Two of the men who were part of the “unfamiliar” group grabbed the man who shouted out and attempted to remove him from the house. A few of us, myself included, tried to intervene. One of them pulled out a gun and we all backed off. They separated us from the crowd and all four of us were escorted outside.

My industry colleague who had opened the meeting earlier hurried out to meet us and reminded us that we had signed agreement and would suffer the consequences of speaking about this publicly or even with those who attended the meeting. I asked him why he was involved with something this corrupt and he replied that it was bigger than the music business and nothing we’d want to challenge without risking consequences.

We all protested and as he walked back into the house I remember word for word the last thing he said, “It’s out of my hands now. Remember you signed an agreement.” He then closed the door behind him. The men rushed us to our cars and actually watched until we drove off.

A million things were going through my mind as I drove away and I eventually decided to pull over and park on a side street in order to collect my thoughts. I replayed everything in my mind repeatedly and it all seemed very surreal to me.

I was angry with myself for not having taken a more active role in questioning what had been presented to us. I’d like to believe the shock of it all is what suspended my better nature. After what seemed like an eternity, I was able to calm myself enough to make it home. I didn’t talk or call anyone that night.

The next day back at the office, I was visibly out of it but blamed it on being under the weather. No one else in my department had been invited to the meeting and I felt a sense of guilt for not being able to share what I had witnessed. I thought about contacting the three others who wear kicked out of the house but I didn’t remember their names and thought that tracking them down would probably bring unwanted attention.

I considered speaking out publicly at the risk of losing my job but I realized I’d probably be jeopardizing more than my job and I wasn’t willing to risk anything happening to my family. I thought about those men with guns and wondered who they were.

I had been told that this was bigger than the music business and all I could do was let my imagination run free. There were no answers and no one to talk to. I tried to do a little bit of research on private prisons but didn’t uncover anything about the music business’ involvement. However, the information I did find confirmed how dangerous this prison business really was.

Days turned into weeks and weeks into months. Eventually, it was as if the meeting had never taken place. It all seemed surreal. I became more reclusive and stopped going to any industry events unless professionally obligated to do so. On two occasions, I found myself attending the same function as my former colleague. Both times, our eyes met but nothing more was exchanged.

As the months passed, rap music had definitely changed direction. I was never a fan of it but even I could tell the difference. Rap acts that talked about politics or harmless fun were quickly fading away as gangster rap started dominating the airwaves.

Only a few months had passed since the meeting but I suspect that the ideas presented that day had been successfully implemented. It was as if the order has been given to all major label executives. The music was climbing the charts and most companies were more than happy to capitalize on it. Each one was churning out their very own gangster rap acts on an assembly line.

Everyone bought into it, consumers included. Violence and drug use became a central theme in most rap music. I spoke to a few of my peers in the industry to get their opinions on the new trend but was told repeatedly that it was all about supply and demand. Sadly many of them even expressed that the music reinforced their prejudice of minorities.

I officially quit the music business in 1993, but my heart had already left months before. I broke ties with the majority of my peers and removed myself from this thing I had once loved. I took some time off, returned to Europe for a few years, settled out of state, and lived a “quiet” life away from the world of entertainment.

As the years passed, I managed to keep my secret, fearful of sharing it with the wrong person but also a little ashamed of not having had the balls to blow the whistle. But as rap got worse, my guilt grew. Fortunately, in the late 90’s, having the internet as a resource which wasn’t at my disposal in the early days made it easier for me to investigate what is now labeled the prison industrial complex.

Now that I have a greater understanding of how private prisons operate, things make much more sense than they ever have. I see how the criminalization of rap music played a big part in promoting racial stereotypes and misguided so many impressionable young minds into adopting these glorified criminal behaviors which often lead to incarceration.

Twenty years of guilt is a heavy load to carry but the least I can do now is to share my story, hoping that fans of rap music realize how they’ve been used for the past two decades. Although I plan on remaining anonymous for obvious reasons, my goal now is to get this information out to as many people as possible.

Please help me spread the word. Hopefully, others who attended the meeting back in 1991 will be inspired by this and tell their own stories. Most importantly, if only one life has been touched by my story, I pray it makes the weight of my guilt a little more tolerable.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/BSGcCAB36cE/

Probably the last thing anyone expects to see at the airport is a fat, naked middle-aged man. But that’s just what passengers saw a couple of weeks ago at the airport in Portland, Oregon as they waited to go through security screening for the hour-and-a-half flight to San Jose, California.

Transportation Security Administration agents called John Brennan, 50, aside for “extra security measures.” That was the last straw. He complied by stripping naked.

He reportedly asked, “Do I have anything illegal? Am I good to go through now?”

He wasn’t good to go through, though.

Authorities arrested him for indecent exposure, restricted, then later restored his right to fly in and out of the state, and offered to drop the indecent exposure charge in exchange for an undisclosed amount of time in community service.

Brennan said no and is going to court.

The TSA responded by announcing an investigation into his “disruption” of the security check line. Brennan says he is being harassed.

A lot of Internet buzz has been focused on seeing a “disgusting, fat middle-aged man naked in the airport.” But is that really the issue?

Brennan says it’s not – 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure are. I’d agree.

I was once called out for TSA “special screening” before boarding a similar flight. It was both infuriating and dumb as hell.

Some years back I was going through security at SEATAC airport for a flight from Seattle to Sacramento and I got called out for special screening for wearing a Japanese “jimbei” – a kind of casual, light summer jacket.

I’ve seen Americans in jackets like that, especially in Seattle. I didn’t think it was any big deal.

It wasn’t any big deal to the woman doing the X-raying. She could see there was nothing in my pockets and told me I didn’t have to take the “jimbei” off – just go on through.

That set the TSA jackboot on full alert.

He screamed at me.

He ordered me to take it off, ordered me not to move, then stood himself directly in front of me – his nose perhaps two inches in front of mine.

He stared into my eyes with the fury and intense scrutiny you might expect if someone had concealed weapons or knives. I never imagined my slightly funny jacket would set off such alarm.

He turned to look at my US drivers license, carefully examined both sides and commented that I had a funny name. “Yep,” I said.

He found nothing to justify detaining me further. He then simply said, firmly, “You have a nice trip,” and that was the end of it.

I felt abused.

I was in a hurry and the episode could have easily made me miss my flight, so I cooperated in the abuse. Most Americans do.

But as time goes by, more and more people like naked Mr. Brennan are getting fed up and venting. It’s easy to understand the anger.

Some have stripped naked as if to say, “Is this what you want?”

Others have gotten furious, shouted, and ultimately gotten arrested for speaking out a little too loudly. A little more than a week ago, a mother and her 4-year old daughter were detained in a ridiculous spectacle of an out-of-control government.

What is going on?

People my age remember being taught to hate the Soviet Union by showing how Americans were free to travel without being stopped at “internal checkpoints” while those sad Russians — under the boot of communist dictatorship — were scrutinized at every turn.

Our Saturday afternoons were spent watching World War II movies about Nazi Germany where people lived in fear of the words, “Papers please!”

How lucky we were to be American. How times have changed.

One wonders how big the threat of terrorism really is to justify all this heavy-handed domestic security.

Maybe a look at the numbers will show how real the risks are.

According to the Global Terrorism Database, 30 Americans died in terror incidents within US borders during the period between 2002 and 2011.

OK, that’s not many. What about abroad?

Since 2005, 158 Americans have been killed in terror attacks abroad — roughly 16 per year. Those were mostly in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

That makes an American’s chances of being killed in a terror attack worldwide about one in twenty million, on average, in any given year.

The risk is far less domestically.

Chances are you are far more likely to die in a car accident, die in a bathtub drowning, or even get struck by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack.

Authorities will say that shows how effective anti-terrorism efforts have been. But does that justify the estimated $1 trillion spent on anti-terrorism in the US since 9/11 (which doesn’t count spending in Iraq and Afghanistan)?

One analyst calculated that all the foiled terror plots in the US over the past ten years would have resulted in a maximum 2,300 potential deaths or about 230 per year. If true, that means the US government has spent $400,000,000 for every potential person saved.

Raise your hand if you believe any government would spend that much to “keep you safe.”

Consider these other recent efforts to keep you safe:

• The Department of Homeland Security just ordered 450 million rounds of special “hollow point” .40 caliber ammunition
• Protestors can now be held indefinitely without trial and without legal representation
• Unpaid taxes can prevent the issuance of a passport
• The TSA can now make random car stops
• Anyone taken to jail can now be strip-searched, even for unpaid traffic tickets

Sound like a bit of overkill to keep citizens safe against a 1 in 20,000,000 risk? Kind of leaves me wondering what the government has in mind.

It also leaves me wondering if we might not see a lot more reports of naked air passengers, 4-year olds under arrest and other authoritarian-inspired mayhem in coming days.

Papers, please.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/ba7zyRz7A5o/

It has been said that every great nation has its rise and fall; that its rise occurs as a result of the population (in general) becoming determined to work hard to create a better life, and that its fall occurs when the population becomes spoiled, then complacent and then finally, apathetic.

Much of the First World has reached this latter stage, all (to varying degrees) at the same time. Unfortunately, from a historical standpoint, the period of apathy is almost invariably followed by a period of bondage — a marked social and economic decline in which the people of the nation become little more than serfs of the state that rules them.

While most readers would agree that this describes the First World in its present state, they would likely argue that this time around, bondage will not be the end result. While reason might tell them that this is exactly the predictable (and historical) outcome, the idea of bondage is too frightful to consider as being a possibility. While a few seem to be railing against this eventuality, the great majority simply open a beer and turn on the TV. A very comfortable form of apathy, but apathy just the same.

Feudalism, Past and Present

So, are there any differences this time around? I would say that there is one major difference, and that is that the packaging is more sophisticated.

In days of yore, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his men rode into your village and demanded what few silver pennies you may have earned recently. This was clearly a dictatorial government — one which was ruled by force, so that the people were clearly serfs and had no real say. Punishment was simple: If you did not pay, your hut was burned, your possessions confiscated, and you were thrown in prison to remain until the debt had been paid. (Nobles fared a bit better: In the 15th century an ancestor of mine, Lord James of Dartmouth, spent several months in the Tower of London until he could pay King Henry IV a sum of 2000 pounds, literally a “King’s ransom” — in spite of the fact that Lord James was said to have been a favourite of the King.)

Now, of course, things are entirely different. Today, the Sheriff does not ride into your village demanding your money. You are required to send it in yourself. If you fail to pay, your house is not burned. It is confiscated, along with your other possessions, and you face prison. Increasingly, people are ruled by force just as in the 15th century. But in spite of this, citizens of many First World countries still claim to have free elections — the last bastion of the democratic system.

The Democratic Process

The idea of the democratic process is that the people may elect their leaders and thus control their destiny. However, running for office is quite expensive, and this means finding donors. Understandably, anyone who provides a donation does not regard it as a gift. He seeks something in return. In national elections, this means very large donations, translating into very large compensations. Those who contribute the most (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks, the Military Industry, etc.) can demand quite a bit in return.

In any “democracy” that has been in existence for a long enough time, the relationship between donors and candidates has become circular; that is, after the candidate is elected, he repays the donor, by providing either tax dollars or rights to operate that others do not enjoy. Once the circular relationship is fully cemented for a period of time, the returns to the donor grow to far exceed the donations. As a result, voters are, unwittingly, actually paying the donors and the government to dominate their lives.

Not surprisingly, donors come to regard these tax dollar infusions as a regular source of revenue and seek to have them grow regularly. (If voters could understand this circular relationship, they would be less surprised when their legislators — whether they be conservative or liberal — consistently fail to diminish the government need for tax.)

So we are left with the remaining advantage of democracy: the ability to vote for those who will protect our freedoms, as we see them.

The Two Party System

In the majority of First World countries, there are a host of political parties (America is a notable exception), each claiming to represent a specific point of view. Most of the parties are fringe parties, and voting generally comes down to the two main parties: liberal and conservative. Liberals claim to champion the social freedoms (gay rights, abortion, etc.) whilst trying to limit economic freedom. Conservatives claim to champion the precise opposite.

Most voters seem to see the system as alternating between the two parties. For example, first the liberals win and increase the social freedoms of the country. Then after awhile they are voted out and the conservatives have their turn, increasing the economic freedoms. Described in this way, it would seem that the “two-party system” provides an ideal balance, moving ever-forward with increased freedoms for all.

However, if this attractive image were the case, liberal voters would not be filled with disappointment at the end of a liberal term in which their social freedoms somehow had not increased. (Their party somehow “needed to compromise” with the evil conservatives.) However, if the liberal party was successful in diminishing economic freedoms, this distraction would serve to keep these voters loyal to the party.

At the end of a conservative term, it is the reverse. While their stated objectives for regained economic freedoms somehow failed to come to pass (again, “compromise” was somehow necessary), the leaders still managed to limit social freedoms in some way. (The Patriot Act in America is perhaps the most extraordinary example in recent years.)

What voters seem to miss is that, along the way, far from increasing one type of freedom under one party, then increasing the alternate type of freedom under the other, the net effect is the exact opposite. Under a liberal government, economic freedom is diminished, and under a conservative government, social freedom is diminished. Freedom, in general, therefore, ratchets downward with each term.

It does seem that voters throughout the First World are beginning to recognize that they are getting short shrift no matter which party is in power, and that their country is headed inexorably downward (while the leaders seem to be doing rather well.)

Will the voters ultimately rebel?

Will the minor demonstrations of discontent evident now in the First World escalate into something more organized and more violent?

What do the politicians think is likely to happen? Whilst they are not commenting on the subject, we should be able to guess their predictions based upon their actions. If they plan to increase freedoms in the future, they would be providing a calming effect to the present frustrations. However, if their true goal is a return to a kind of modern serfdom, they would be preparing for it by increasing their controls, both economic and social. In much of the First World, the latter seems to be the intended direction. Nowhere is this more evident than in America, first with the renewal of the Patriot Act in May of last year, and more recently with the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Modern Day Feudalism

As stated above, the main difference between the feudal system of five hundred years ago and the feudal system that is developing in the First World today is that the packaging is more sophisticated. Instead of having identifiable kings whom we may all hate, we have the distraction of two political teams that we may “choose” between. While we praise the good guys (our preferred political party) and hope that they will vanquish the bad guys (the opposing political party), they are in fact one and the same, and they both work for the kings.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/lxK3dBgbl9s/

We have become a plague upon [ourselves and upon] the Earth … Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. – David M. Graber, Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1989.

Contemporary history has been plagued by attempts to cure humanity of its schisms. The Third Reich, the Soviet Union and the Cultural Revolution in China were all ideological projects devoted to abolishing contradiction from the human subject and thus reconstituting him as the harmonious posthuman. Whether or not these projects were faithful to Nietzsche’s original vision remains a matter of debate, but clearly they drew upon his tropes of human disease and posthuman salvation. – Hadas Elber, “Visions of Humanity between the Posthuman and the Non-Human.”

The conspiracy theory/theorist soubriquet is reflexively feared by professional journalists and academics alike who believe (with some justification) their reputations will be undermined by such thought crimes against the state. Thus, like an instrument that would easily be at home in the most extreme totalitarian regimes, intellectual workers self-discipline themselves as the “conspiracy theory” mechanism determines the trajectory and parameters of public discourse, dissent, and recollection.

Intellectual cowardice is reinforced by a set of circumstances whereby even if alternative accounts questioning the official line are exhaustively researched and documented with credible information and sources, mobilization of the “conspiracy theory” label by state censors and their journalistic accomplices will render the counter-arguments suspect. And, in an on-the-go culture where citizens are heavily reliant for information on headlines and sound-bites versus deliberate analysis, such lines of reasoning are destined for the memory hole. – Prof. James F. Tracy, “State Propaganda, Historical Revisionism, and Perpetuation of the 9/11 Myth.”

Freedom, truth, human reason, democracy, free market capitalism, the rule of law, national sovereignty, and the world’s diverse civilizations are all under attack. But the real target is mankind. Mankind is under attack.

Oligarchical globalist eugenicists and fascists, who are in league with the totalitarian leaders of radical Environmentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Zionism, are hell-bent on annihilating the majoirty of the human race through wars, disease, economic collapse, and other means. They are also creating an authoritarian global government based on a new religion, in which man is valueless and the Earth is regarded as sacred and holy.

The sick proponents of human depopulation and global genocide are surprisingly very vocal and upfront about their views and goals. Robert J. Smith, adjunct environmental scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, explained their perverse mindset and radical worldview in a speech he gave in 2005 at the Ninth Annual National Conference on Private Property Rights called, “The Pleistocene Park Project—Removing Civilization from North America.” He said:

Then, almost all of these radical environmental groups support zero population growth and actually even negative population growth. Most of them believe that humans are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet. First we must stabilize and then reduce human population growth. It is six billion now. Probably, you would find the leaders of most of the environmental groups agreeing that the human population of the planet should be reduced to about two billion or even one billion, and some of the hard-core think that we shouldn’t have more than about a few hundred million humans on the planet if the planet is going to operate as it should ecologically or whatever. Many very prominent ones are talking about the necessity of having the government eventually come up with licenses to breed, and have written about it in journals that normal people never look at. They talk about two or one child maximum families in the United States.

If you believe that a one child policy will not be politically implemented in America because the regime in Washington is not that radical and extreme, then you must have not heard about the political re-education camps that the military-industrial complex is preparing to build and man across the United States. These prison camps are part of a larger program of political transformation and social reorganization.

In his article, “Eco-Fascists Call For Prison Cities,” Paul Joseph Watson shed light on the political and ecological vision of radical environmentalists and their fascist oligarchical bosses, writing:

People who resist the state controlling every aspect of their existence will be forced to live in squalid ghettos while the rest of the population will be tightly controlled in high-tech prison cities – that’s the future envisaged by eco-fascists who are exploiting the contrived global warming fraud to openly flaunt their plan for the total enslavement of mankind.

If you go against their radical, totalitarian, eco-fascist agenda, they’ll just shoot you and dump your body in a mass grave site. It is as simple as that. The label “domestic terrorist” will be given to the victims, and the deified State will come up with a thousand reasons to justify its acts of destruction and tyranny.

As I wrote in an earlier article, “the holocaust of truth by government gangsters always leads to the holocaust of human beings.” It is a matter of a technicality. Once a society accepts the big lies like the official 9/11 story and global warming, then it’s all downhill from there.

Another big lie is that the Shah of Iran was a Western puppet and a ruthless tyrant who was ousted by the popular will of Iran. The historical record shows that the duplicitous leaders of America and England cooperated to remove the Shah by staining his reputation in the Western press, intimidating the Iranian military behind the scenes, and bringing Ayatollah Khomeini to power. As this article says, “Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was no one’s stooge.” For more documentation and analysis, check out, ““An Epic Deception: America’s Overthrow of The Shah And The Secret Quest For A One World Government“.

If we put all these big lies together in one big puzzle of big lies, and spread them out on the table of truth, we can see a picture developing that is extremely disturbing and diabolical. Both the West and the East are being deceived into world war three.

Quite a number of radical political movements and schools of thought in the West and the East want to see America and Israel attack Iran and initiate a global apocalyptic war in which borders and rules do not limit the behaviour of the competing sides.

What are these totalitarian political movements and radical ideologies that crave war, terrorism, and destruction? Eco-fascism, Islamic fundamentalism, Zionism, Neoconservatism, and Internationalism/Globalism. The realists and “conspiracy theorists” have been shoved aside in this bizarre cosmic drama.

All of the totalitarian political movements that love war get along with each other because they see eye to eye on many issues. Western fascist environmentalists and Muslim fundamentalists both share a hatred of industrial civilization, democracy, dialogue, economic progress, the free press, and core Western values such as individualism and materialism.

It is not a coincidence that both of these transnational political cult movements are working together to destroy Western civilization since it was the oligarchical globalists and geopolitical masterminds of the Club of Rome and secretive Bilderberg Group who sponsored Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and throughout the Middle East in the 1970s, leading to the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The radical leaders of the Islamic fundamentalist movement and Western environmentalist movement are demonic, fanatical, delusional, deceptive, pathological, and are willing to sacrifice millions of people for their cause. They worship mass death. The leaders of the Neoconservative movement and Zionist movement are the same way. They are all anti-rationalism, anti-debate, anti-truth, anti-peace, anti-dissent, anti-freedom, anti-human rights, and anti-democracy.

All four ideological movements are the spiritual cousins of 20th century totalitarian political systems, sharing many things in common, including a contempt of the masses, a reliance on state terror and mythological propaganda to remain in power, a messianic drive, and a single-minded devotion to war and destruction.

The totalitarian leaders of these similar political movements in the West, Israel, Iran, and the Middle East probably view themselves as the psycho-spiritual doctors of the human race. How else can you justify wiping out four billion people, as top radical environmentalists say should happen? They believe that man is a plague on nature, and they are offering the cure, which is death.

How can we counter these maniacs and monsters when they completely control the mass media, banks, corporations, political parties, academic institutions, medical establishments, intelligence agencies, the most powerful militaries, and the world of entertainment?

Mankind is under spiritual siege.

The mass murderers in power are seeking to destroy man by first suffocating him through thought-control. But the oxygen of truth is still reaching many brains around the world. The global 9/11 truth and justice movement grows larger every day. There is always reason to hope. Maybe the global political awakening will defeat the evil global conspiracy to bring man down to the status of insects and annihilate him.

We were not made to be powerless and submit to evil, but to resist and expose evil.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/rU08e7wJq_4/

During Nicolas Sarkozy’s five-year tenure, France has lost the prestige she enjoyed in Africa and the Middle East. That is why all those who love that country are wondering whether the change heralded by François Hollande will also apply to foreign policy? In the editorial reproduced below, the Syrian daily Al-Watan takes a positive view. The socialist leader judges the states in the region just as harshly as his predecessor but, true to his principles, he should put an end to the unholy Alliance between the “country of human rights” and the religious dictatorships of the Gulf.

The first round of the French presidential election is over and the second takes place today. The French people must choose their president for the next five years. They will not do so on the basis of our concerns, but of their own. They have paid little attention to international issues, even though the outgoing president has staked their future abroad. While the domestic crises they are facing are the result of foreign policy options, these have been absent from the public debate.

However, in the first round, the French have basically punished Nicolas Sarkozy. He received the lowest score ever recorded by an outgoing president. This historical shock resulted in two phenomena:

• The return to center stage of a militant left around Jean-Luc Melenchon.
• The highest score ever obtained by the National Front of Le Pen, a nationalist party rooted in the extreme right.

French citizens went to the polls en masse although they found the campaign dull, devoid of stimulating discussions both intellectually and politically. Nevertheless, this campaign bears many lessons and serious consequences.

The French people have rebelled against Nicolas Sarkozy’s style of government, a far cry from democracy. Three quarters of the voters do not identify with his domestic or foreign policies. Many are outraged by the neo-colonialist stance he displayed in Syria, Libya and the Ivory Coast. They lament the interference in other nations’ affairs, which, regardless of the humanitarian justifications, are a return to the colonialism of old, which mostly serves the U.S. empire. Such policies have brought even more submission and social crises to France. In addition, it places her at odds with the emerging forces in the world instead of cooperating with them.

As for the other candidates, although they failed to condemn French interference, they all criticized Nicolas Sarkozy’s unnatural alliance with the extremist religious factions led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They all voiced concern about the rise of this fundamentalism from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. Such an alliance was concluded primarily to serve the neoconservatives and their strategy to dominate the Arab world by bringing to power new dictatorships driven by backward ideologies. It was also aimed at promoting Sarkozy’s personal financial interests and economically thank the friends who had helped him get elected, five years ago. In this regard, investments made by the Princes of the petro-monarchies in France do not go to strategic sectors that could benefit the French people. The only ones to benefit are businessmen who are linked to Nicolas Sarkozy and enjoy his favoritism. However, all these figures are equally related to the U.S. and on international markets defend the interests of Washington, not those of France.

The favorite candidate, Socialist Francois Hollande, has kept a soft focus on his policy towards Syria, but the ideological and strategic school from which he originates forbids him from pursuing the policy of the Sarkozy-Juppé tandem, that of subservience within the New World Order. Holland sees Russia and China as necessary partners, not as adversaries. Although he held the same discourse as Juppé-Sarkozy on the promotion of human rights and democracy in the world, particularly in the French zone of influence, he considers that untimely military interventions far from improving matters often make them worse. In this sense, he draws the lessons from the U.S. adventures after September 11.

Holland believes that it is not possible to establish democracies in the Arab world as long as the Saudi and Qatari regimes exercise an influence over it. He stated that priority should be given to reforming the political structure of the Gulf monarchies. Therefore, there is no doubt that French policy in this area will change. Despite the Socialist Party’s opportunistic links with certain Gulf donors, Francois Hollande would be in a position to lay the groundwork for new rules in international relations.

However, this shift will not be enough for France to regain its influence in the Arab world as the damage wreaked by the Sarkozy era is considerable. It is therefore essential that the new French president take dramatic initiatives in order to turn the page.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/UOslqGE98P4/

George is in Macon, Georgia this weekend for the National Association of Newspaper Columnists and a couple of interesting trends caught his eye – things that any person leading a “Strategic Life” would find interesting. We thought it would be enlightening to share his notes.

(Macon, GA) Reading is in trouble, or at least it’s in the process of radical change. Not that it has come up as a topic in and of itself at this year’s gathering of opinionated word-slingers, but it has been a consistent underlying theme.

As it turns out, the revolution in desktop publishing – which includes platforms like the WordPress blogging software – has dramatically increased the amount of written material available. Professional writers worry about such things, because while most make a basic living writing for newspapers, about half augment their income by writing books; and it’s here that the world is changing.

For one thing, the amount of time people spending reading has become much more “chopped up” over the past decade or so. Incoming emails, pings, IMs, and all those computer-driven distractions have caused one publishing house to command its workers to turn off email and online accounts at work.

For many, that’s hard to do since studies suggest that people’s brains crank out a small endorphin hit each time an email or IM comes in. Or course, what that does is gets people off-task, and most people take several minutes (once interrupted) to get back on task.

The way this is changing people’s habits becomes clear when publishers analyze what sells. And what sells these days is short material. So much so, that Amazon has started a whole section called “Shorts” designed to give authors an outlet for what the public seems more interested in buying lately, especially with the advent of the Kindle Fire and other portable reading devices, though Amazon’s variant of the Android operating system is thought to be almost 2/3 of the market; at least that’s the word going around the conference.

There’s another trend worth mentioning too: According to some of the columnist/writers present, there’s a growing trend in older Americans not to buy the long-form novels because of their weight. Seems that as one gets old enough, handling a book of 350-pages or more, while reading in bed, is just a bit much.

As a result, the reading market is changing. There seems to be increased demand for short, highly concentrated articles which get right to the heart of something without a bunch of fluff. And this is carrying over into shorter novels.

The popularity of handheld reading devices is being partly driven by adjustable font-sizes which become more important to older eyes.

But more than any one factor, the transition of reading off the printed page and onto computer and personal devices is doing to the professional writers what it has done to so many other professions: It’s lowering the effective wage.

While a few superstars have managed to capture lots of dollars by publishing serial books, the majority of columnists here seem worried about how their specialty will fare going forward. As one put it: “They took away our print dollars and now they’re giving us back digital dimes.”

As a reader, what comes into focus going forward is a wider and wider variety of materials at lower and lower price points. Which means instead of feeling like you just have to finish that book you spent $25 on, it will be easier to blow off a $2 eBook if the first chapter doesn’t grab you. And in this “interruption-driven world” that’s the new front line in publishing.

Being ever-mindful of economic matters, it’s an odd rhyme of history most people will miss, but I’d venture that the down-pricing of eBooks will generate some modern analog to the Penny Dreadful stories that were the stock-in-trade of writers like Charles Dickens in the early 1830s. That genre emerged during a global economic downturn which featured (among other things) the Panic of 1837.

If certain social trends reassert themselves at roughly the same place on economic timelines, we might want to be on the lookout for Penny Dreadful II.

Summing It All Up

Personally, we both feel that the rising trend toward abbreviated books in a digital format will reach a crescendo, since at some point society will recognize that being digitally connected 24/7 is not sustainable. Not sustainable, at least, if we are to keep our sanity intact. That does not mean that we do not have an eBook or two in the pipeline, but rather that the tactile pleasure of turning the pages of real books will be around for awhile.

Introducing Strategic-Living: a practical and useful online magazine providing inspiration and guidance as we make our way through the maze of changes that are coming our way. In collaboration with my friend and colleague, George Ure, Strategic-Living will offer a synthesis of Urban Survival and Backdoor Survival with much more detailed tips, tools and strategies for creating a vibrant and sustainable lifestyle wherever your path may take you. Think of Urban Survival and Backdoor Survival as your roadmap and Strategic-Living as your detailed guidebook. Here you will find articles and photos, diagrams and how-to’s, and a healthy dose get-out-there and do it with kick-in-the-ass inspiration.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarIsCrime/~3/aGgEhzKcqUo/