The only reason a country goes to war is for control of resources, it is not for noble reasons.
A few minutes to talk with you briefly about WAR! Many people think that war is the worst atrocities of the planet and we’ll get to whether or not at this minute I want to dispel the notion that wars are fought for noble reasons and this is what we are told that the government says it is our duty is our responsibility etc, etc, etc.
Nonsense! The only one reason why wars are ever fought, that is for control of resources and those resources might include Oil, Natural Gas, arable land, access to seaports and Slaves. Slaves are free sources for which many wars and history makes it very clear. When you study history closely you will see this is so
by: Deena Stryker, The South Africa Civil Society Information Service | News Analysis
An Italian radio program’s story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.
As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here’s why:
Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.
Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.
Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.
Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.
What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.
Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)
In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.
But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)
To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.
Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.
They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.
That’s why it is not in the news anymore.
SB 1867 allows military to detain and murder anti-government demonstrators in America
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) I don’t know if you’re all getting this through your heads yet, but Senate Bill 1867 — the National Defense Authorization Act — would openly “legalize” the U.S. government’s detainment and murder of OWS demonstrators and the assassination of talk show hosts, bloggers, journalists and anyone who holds a so-called “anti-government” point of view. This is the open and blatant declaration of war against any who do not going along with TSA thugs reaching down your pants, the Goldman Sachs economic takeover of nations, the secret arrest and torture of American citizens, and other acts of outright tyranny waged by an out-of-control government.
Those who have been burying their heads in the sand over the coming police state need to wake up and face the music. That U.S. Senators would knowingly and willfully attempt to pass a bill that legalizes the indefinite detainment, torture and killing of American citizens with no due process whatsoever — and on American soil! — is nothing less than a traitorous betrayal of the once-free American people. These are, our founding fathers would have said, acts of war against the People. They reveal the insidious plan to put in place a legal framework to end the Bill of Rights, murder protesters, and overrun America with total police state brutality.
And yet the sheeple are still asleeple
I grow weary of trying to warn the American people to wake up and see what is now right in front of their eyes, so for those who want to read these words themselves — right in the Senate bill — you can read it at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query…
And YES, it has now been confirmed that the indefinite detainment and murder provisions do apply to American citizens on the streets of American cities. As Sen. Lindsey Graham explained in plain language on the Senate floor: “…1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
That means America, for those of you who are still wondering what “homeland” means. It’s a phrase borrowed from Nazi Germany, of course, which is the source of much of this legislation as you might have noticed.
“The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s…).
Homefront: The U.S. government’s war against the People
If this bill passes and is signed into law, it would mean that America’s war machine could then be turned against the American people — liberal, conservative, libertarian… it doesn’t matter. If you question the government, you are suddenly an “enemy combatant” and they will cite this law as the legal justification for putting a bullet in your head, fire-bombing your little protest group, or literally running over you and your buddies with tanks. (And they won’t stop like China did in Tiananmen Square when that one brave citizen stood up against tyranny there in 1989.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inW…)
The premeditate murder of U.S. protesters (Occupy Wall Street, anyone?) is now being codified into law as the government’s “right.” Of course, your rights to Free Speech, due process, owning a firearm and other rights are being obliterated in the process. Only the government has “rights” now, didn’t you know? The slaves of the nation (i.e. the citizens) are being stripped of all rights, including the right to grow your own food, have a picnic or even buy fresh dairy products from a farmer.
Governments routinely murder far more people than terrorists
Right now, every history teacher in America should be absolutely outraged about all this, as they know what always comes next in the history of nations. Once any government “legalizes” the murder of its own citizens, it is inevitably followed by a mass-murder holocaust-style event.
Tyrants, you see, always like to “legalize” their mass murder before they pull the trigger. Just read the history of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and others. In every case, they worked diligently to put into place a legal framework for the mass murder that was about to be unleashes on their own citizens. That legal framework looks strikingly similar to Senate Bill 1867, which is about to be passed.
This also brings to mind the mathematical reality that, statistically speaking, governments are orders of magnitude more deadly than terrorists. While terrorists sometimes success in taking out a few thousand people at a time, governments routinely murder tens of MILLIONS of people.
It’s called GENOCIDE, and there’s a long and well-documented history of how governments have committed genocide year after year, one nation after another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoci…
See more statistics at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/di…
So if the People of America had any courage at all, they would be running the People’s road blocks and searching government vehicles for weapons! It is the government agents, after all, who are statistically at the highest risk of engaging in mass murder, and very soon the U.S. Senate looks likely to effectively legalize that mass murder.
At the airports, We the People should be searching the TSA employees and checking them for illegal drugs, child pornography and stolen electronics. At government buildings, We the People should be searching all the government employees who come and go to make sure they don’t stage the demolition of their own buildings as a way to blame whatever convenient enemy they want to discredit — patriots, conservatives, “conspiracy theorists” or what have you.
It’s no longer a conspiracy theory, you see, that the government wants to have the legal right to openly murder U.S. citizens right on the streets of America. It’s written right into the Senate bill. It’s public record. So all those out there still clinging to their pathetic denialist “conspiracy theorists” rants can now clamp shut their pie holes and throw themselves off a cliff or something. It’s time to face the reality of the total police state tyranny that’s now written in black and white, plain as day.
All of you who are still obsessed with your narrow world view of fashion, dancing with the stars, microwaveable processed food and fake mainstream news are about to be rocked out of your easy chairs and dumped into the cesspool of tyranny at your doorstep. Just know that when they come for you, there will be nobody left to speak for you, because you remained silent as all this was rolled out. And I won’t be there for you, either, because I’ll be holed up in Texas, handing out emergency food supplies to the local churches and performing emergency medicine procedures on those protesters wounded by U.S. government military attacks — the ones that are still alive, anyway.
You think none of this is coming? Why would the U.S. Senate write this into law if they didn’t intend on using it to murder Americans? Maybe you need to clear the cobwebs out of your head and open your eyes to what’s really happening right now in the U.S. Senate.
Read between the lines, folks. It’s not that difficult to get the full picture here. The very idea that the U.S. Senate is even considering such a law to “legalize” the detainment and murder of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by U.S. troops is, all by itself, a complete and utter crime against the American people.
The U.S. Senate is about to declare WAR on the American people. And I don’t mean that metaphorically. They are trying to make this a military war where anyone who opposes the U.S. government — even if they have nothing at all to do with “terrorism” — is now a fair game target for precision bombings, assassinations and heavy military armor (i.e. tanks rolling down your driveway).
Some good news: Congressman Dennis Kucinich has publicly spoken out against the bill (even though he’s not in the Senate). So has Sen. Rand Paul. His father, Ron Paul, has also stated his opposition to the illegal detainment provision of the bill. There are hints that if the bill passes, President Obama may veto it. If he did, that would be one of the most profound freedom-protecting actions of his administration, but don’t hold your breath on that count. You never know what these politicians will do when they think they have the power to murder their own citizens — they’re drunk with power, after all, and they love to rule over the masses with a kind of devilish insanity. Remember: Obama already has a “kill list” of Americans to be murdered overseas, but this new Senate Bill 1867 would legalize that right on U.S. soil.
So one day you call in to talk radio and express your discontent with the President, let’s say, and the next day a U.S. marine scout sniper sets up his .338 sniper rifle a couple hundred yards from your house, waits for you to sit down to watch Anderson Cooper vomit out the evening’s news propaganda, and then he pulls the trigger and blows your neck off, causing your head to land smack dab in that bowl of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese you were just trying to shovel down your threat because someone told you it was “food.” This will all be LEGAL under the new Senate bill 1867 because they will claim you were a “terrorist collaborator” who questioned the wisdom of the executive leadership of America. Once due process is stripped away, anything can be justified by the government, including the open murder of its own citizens.
This is the whole point of a nation of LAW. The laws describe specific legal rights afforded to citizens, but most importantly they describe the LIMITS of power of government. It is those limits that the government is now trying to completely obliterate, turning America into a complete military dictatorship / fascist nation where laws are only applied to the People, not to the government itself. These are practically the exact words recently uttered by Newt Gingrich during a recent debate, in which he said due process and the Bill of Rights should only apply to people who engage in common criminal acts such as stealing or robbing people. But no such rights or due process privileges should exist when there is a “war” going on, Gingrich insisted! And the U.S. Senate is about to declare the entire USA “homeland” to be a battlefield of a never-ending war, get it?
Are you grokking all this yet? These tyrants are about to declare the entire USA a battlefield where NO ONE has any due process, no Bill of Rights, no protections under any law, nothing! And if Gingrich becomes President — oh my God please don’t let this happen — then we are looking at the runaway militarization of everything in America, including a huge ramping up of the so-called “war on drugs” which we’ve already exposed as a total failure and a complete hoax (http://www.naturalnews.com/034289_A…).
If this bill passes and is signed into law by the President, the USA is officially at war with its own People, and you can expect the government will immediately begin staging false flag bombings so they can justify a multi-year campaign of total genocide against all who refuse to cower down to the (now admitted) anti-freedom tyrants in Washington.
We are on the verge of losing America, my friends. I ask: What the hell are YOU going to do about it?
Here’s the list of traitors in the U.S. Senate who have supported this bill:
http://www.truthistreason.net/sb-18…
GUNS FOR GOODNESS SAKE
GUNS FOR GOODNESS SAKE
© 2001 by Robert E. Podolsky
Introduction
Should guns only be permitted in the hands of special people? Should every gun in the world be found and destroyed, so no one has guns? What would be the most ethical way for today’s decision makers, influential individuals, and power groups to align themselves? What can the law ethically do to make the world a better, safer, more habitable place in which to live? What other institutions than the law might properly be involved?
Rather than asserting answers to these questions on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, which would simply sort my readers into those who think, “I agree” and those who think, “I don’t agree”, I prefer to establish a basis for agreement at the outset by defining the ethical criteria to be imposed, and then using simple logic to derive the answers to the questions posed. In this way we may be able to achieve a better mutual understanding of the issues involved. Finally, when I reach the end of this process and some of us disagree again, we will have a structure in place that lets us examine exactly how we disagree; to determine which ethical definition or step in my logic is actually the point of disagreement.
Basic Ethics
All systems of ethics begin with an arbitrary definition of what is “good”; that which the ethic seeks to maximize. Before offering a definition I point out that the arbitrary nature of the definition that defines an ethic does not imply that all ethics are equally valid. In the Soviet Union, for example, the primary value of the prevailing ethic was the maximization of material well being for everyone. The result was the creation of universal poverty. The founders of the United States sought to maximize personal freedom. Since the framing of the Constitution we have enjoyed less personal freedom each year but two (see Book 2) than we had the year before. Many churches and religious organizations have preached for millennia that the highest value should be faith in the revealed word of God. Yet those who have adopted this ethic have perpetrated an unending series of wars, pogroms, witch-hunts, crusades, jihads, and inquisitions encompassing murder, rape, slavery, torture, exploitation, and genocide. While few would argue that material well being, freedom, and faith in one’s ethic are not necessary for humans to thrive, it is a telling fact that an ethic whose adoption creates the opposite effect from the desired outcome is not a very good ethic…. certainly not a valid ethic.
Over the many years that I have sought to find valid ethics, I have found only one whose adoption does not ultimately create its own opposite. This one has been tried in many settings and has consistently created the results that it seeks to maximize. So I offer it here for your approval:
Definition: A good act is one which increases access to objective truth and its logical equivalents for at least one person (including the one performing the act) and which neither limits nor reduces any person’s access to objective truth.
For clarification we should note that:
1. Only actions are subject to ethical evaluation, not people.
2. Objective truth is truth that is independently verifiable as scientific truth is.
3. The logical equivalents of objective truth are those other resources that are increased when objective truth is increased and decreased when objective truth is decreased. Logically equivalent resources to objective truth also have the property that if the availability of one of them is increased or decreased the availability of objective truth is correspondingly increased or decreased. Awareness, creativity, love, and evolution are but a few of the resources logically equivalent to objective truth.
4. A person is a being that has awareness of its awareness. Besides humans, this definition probably includes great apes, and cetaceans (whales and dolphins).
5. And finally, children and animals are not fully aware of their awareness, if at all; and are therefore exempt from moral or ethical judgment.
Before we go any further look back at the definition of an ethical act and see if there is anything there with which you disagree. To date the only part of the definition to which anyone we have met seems to disagree is the last part; the part that says an act that harms anyone cannot be ethical. Let’s go back to our discussion of the criteria by which we judge the validity of an ethic. Every ethic that we know of that omits this last clause produces results that are the opposite of what the ethic ostensibly seeks to create. This is in fact the reason that every government on our planet acts unethically much of the time. Without this stricture one comes to believe that ethical ends can be reached by unethical means. (See Appendix B of The BORG WARS Humanity… What Went Wrong to see three independent proofs that this supposition is false.) History shows us the fallacy of this belief. Every unethical act that is perpetrated in the belief that it somehow serves “the greater good” or “the benefit of the many” invariably produces much more harm than good. We therefore reject that false belief and include the restriction that the end does not justify the means. I hope you can see the validity of this choice.
Action vs. Inaction
Clearly we can see from the definition of an ethical act that in order to live ethically we must constantly strive to act in ways that maximize truth, love, awareness, evolution, creativity, and all other logical equivalents of objective truth. It follows logically that in dealing with persons who insist on behaving destructively it is unethical to remain passive and permit the unethical behavior to continue. As the old adage says, “For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.” This is not to say that in dealing with destructive behavior we should put ourselves at risk; but rather that to the extent that we can do so while avoiding unnecessary risk we are ethically obliged to intervene. Note that our definition prescribes an ethical continuum on which the midpoint (zero) is the behavior that is neutral, neither destructive nor creative. Destructive (unethical) behavior is in varying degrees characterized by negative creativity and ethical behavior is characterized by positive creativity.
Use of Force
When faced with someone who is behaving destructively, therefore, we are ethically obliged, to the extent that considerations of our personal safety allow, to take action that will limit, reduce, or terminate the destructive behavior in question. In this regard we must of course consider the seriousness of the destructive behavior in question in deciding how far to go in using force to intervene. We wouldn’t use lethal force to stop someone from ignoring their parking tickets. But we might lock up their vehicle as a means of persuading them to attend to their legal obligations.
To intervene ethically we must use the least harmful method that is available and effective. If a disapproving look will do the job, that is as much force as we should use. If a look is not effective we may have to resort to persuasion, reason, or stern words. If words are not effective we may be able to resort to the law, which of course implies the threat of coercion by force. If the law or the threat of the law is not effective, the use of physical coercion is appropriate. If we can simply restrain the individual without hurting them, then that is the best choice. If we cannot do that effectively it is ethical to inflict pain to distract them from their chosen course of action. While we hope to be able to do this without causing them injury, that may not be possible. If not, we may have to injure or maim them to stop them. If lesser physical injury won’t suffice, and if the individual’s destructive behavior may have lethal or near-lethal consequences to someone, it may be necessary to use a level of force that may be lethal to them. In any case, the point is to use just enough force to stop the destructive behavior from occurring or continuing.
Self-Defense
If the destructive behavior of another person is directed at one’s self there are sometimes other options available. Compliance with the other’s wishes may suffice, but not always. Running away from the aggressor may be a viable option; or sometimes just walking away. The ethical obligation to defend one’s self is no less applicable than the need to defend others.
The Ethics of Lethal Force
At this point many would balk and say, “Wait a minute. How can the use of lethal force be ethical if it results in someone’s death? Hasn’t the dead attacker’s creativity been reduced to zero? Doesn’t that violate the definition of an ethical act?”
No, it hasn’t and it doesn’t. Remember, the creativity “scale” includes both positive and negative values. Destructive behavior is on the negative end of the scale. If we have to use lethal force to prevent lethal damage from being done to someone, we have not reduced the perpetrator’s creativity to zero; we have raised it to zero. Therefore we have both preserved the positive creativity of the person whom we protected and improved the creativity level of someone who was bent on highly destructive behavior. Nothing could be more ethical under the circumstances. To act otherwise under the circumstances would be unethical.
Who Should Have Guns?
Now we are ready to address the issue of who should have guns and whether they should be banned. To do this let’s go back to the question of what resources increase people’s creativity, access to truth, etc. Certainly freedom is one of the resources that enhance creativity. And as a society, if we are to act ethically, we want to deny people access to resources that will be used destructively. So if we are to act ethically as a society we must find ways to keep guns out of the hands of felons without abrogating the freedom of those who are law abiding citizens. If, in the name of law and order, we deny the freedom to use guns to people who are not acting destructively and whom we have no reason to believe will use them in destructive acts, then we are violating the basic definition of an ethical act.
Remember, it is only ethical to infringe on people’s freedoms when we are at least reasonably sure that those same people will use their freedom destructively. To abrogate someone’s freedom when they are not acting or about to act destructively is to diminish their creativity, truth, love, etc. To claim otherwise is to insist that ethical ends can be reached by unethical means; which we know from the above discussion is contrary to the basic logic of ethics.
It is our observation that we can intuit the same conclusion by noting that banning anything (drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc.) has never been successful in curbing the harm done by people who abuse or misuse their access to the item that has been banned. Remember the Mafia was just a bunch of street gangs until we banned liquor. By doing so we created a great evil. We have so similarly today by prohibiting drugs.
The usual argument raised to contradict this conclusion is to point out that in some societies where guns have been banned there are very few shootings. In England, for instance, where guns are only available legally to the police (and yes they do use guns although not all police carry guns) the incidence of gun violence is very low. The truth of this statement, however, does not mean that because guns are banned in England that therefore gun violence is less prevalent than here. England has always been a very civilized society. For centuries British criminals saw no reason to carry guns; so the police could function adequately without them. The British culture is very different from ours. In fact there is no evidence that we know of that indicates a cause and effect relationship between the British gun ban and the lower incidence of homicides involving guns. In fact the low incidence of violent crime in England existed for centuries before the gun ban went into effect. The same reasoning appears to us to apply to the other countries where guns have been banned and shooting crimes are infrequent.
Still another factor to consider concerning the banning of guns is the tendency of government to try to bring about social change by methods that don’t work. The “war on drugs” is a case in point; whereby the harmful effects of drug addiction were to be ameliorated by banning drugs. The effect of this intervention was that the drug trade became more profitable and drugs became more available; hence more addiction. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if banning drugs increases the problem, perhaps relaxing the prohibition would lessen the problem. It worked for alcohol; why not drugs. But instead of attempting a new experiment based on this realization, the government has simply escalated the war on drugs making them an even more valuable commodity, and the drug problem has predictably gotten still worse.
From a psychological perspective, we know from prison interviews that violent criminals such as muggers and hold-up artists always seek targets of opportunity that are as defenseless as possible. Old people, disabled folks in wheel chairs, and young innocents who don’t pay attention to their surroundings: these are the favored targets of the violent criminal. If you were a violent criminal with a preference for helpless victims, wouldn’t you rather do business in L.A. or DC where the law abiding citizen is always unarmed than in Eugene, Oregon where muggers occasionally get shot by their intended victim? Criminals are a pretty stupid lot; but not too stupid to know that banning guns makes their job easier. They can always get guns. If banning guns makes their lot easier aren’t we stupid to disarm the law-abiding citizen?[1]
Finally, no one would deny that it would really be a blessing if we lived in a society where there was no gun violence; or for that matter no violence of any kind. If there were no violence in people’s hearts it would certainly be a better world. But to think we can somehow bring about that better world by banning guns is to misunderstand the most fundamental cause and effect relationships that make the world what it is today. Banning guns can only make the world a more dangerous place for the law-abiding citizen to live. If banning guns prevents a hundred people with poor impulse control from killing some relative or neighbor whom they hate, it will allow a thousand felons to have their way with the victims whom the gun ban makes defenseless. So, few evils are greater than the universal banning of guns from the hands of the public.
[1] prior to this writing Australia banned guns in the hands of private citizens; and a major effort was made to confiscate all such guns then in the public’s possession. Today the results are clear. Crime in all “personal violence” categories has increased sharply. Personal violence crimes involving the use of guns by felons have increased! If the banning of guns were viewed as an experiment in crime reduction the obvious conclusion should be that it is time to try arming the public instead of disarming it.
Rush Hemispheres
Hemispheres is about the civil war that is going on inside everyone of us humans and society as well. Isn’t it amazing is how well balanced the mind actually is? Have you ever thought about how one side doesn’t dominate the other side completely? The society we have in the early 21st century is a construct that is designed, to patronize the god of reason, Apollo. Apollo is also the god of war. The other side that is more intuitive, loving, non-linear is systematically limited, avoided or destroyed.
Originally when this song was created it was the whole side of an Album. A “Rock Opera” is a themed Song with Many Parts in this case 5 parts on this album/cd “Hemispheres” and one part on the previous album “Farewell to Kings”. Before the invention of the CD the vinyl album was the premiere music delivery device. As 18 minute songs that inspire critical thinking don’t get much play, I have not ever heard it ever on the radio, yet this is the most complete song I have ever heard. If there is something that you like better please comment.
Words by Neil Peart, music by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
I. Prelude
When our weary world was young
The struggle of the ancients first began
The gods of love and reason
Sought alone to rule the fate of man
They battled through the ages
But still neither force would yield
The people were divided
Every soul a battlefield …
II. Apollo: bringer of wisdom
‘I bring truth and understanding
I bring wit, and wisdom fair
Precious gifts beyond compare
We can build a world of wonder
I can make you all aware’
‘i will find you food and shelter
Show you fire to keep you warm
Through the endless winter storm
You can live in grace and comfort
In the world that you transform’
The people were delighted
Coming forth to claim their prize
They ran to build their cities
And converse among the wise
But one day the streets fell silent
Yet they knew not what was wrong
The urge to build these fine things
Seemed not to be so strong
The wise men were consulted
And the bridge of death was crossed
In quest of Dionysus
To find out what they had lost …
III. Dionysus: bringer of love
‘I bring love to give you solace
In the darkness of the night
In the heart’s eternal light
You need only trust your feelings
Only love can steer you right’
‘I bring laughter, I bring music
I bring joy and I bring tears
I will soothe your primal fears
Throw off those chains of reason
And your prison disappears’
The cities were abandoned
And the forests echoed song
They danced and lived as brothers
They knew love could not be wrong
Food and wine they had aplenty
And they slept beneath the stars
The people were contented
And the gods watched from afar
But the winter fell upon them
And it caught them unprepared
Bringing wolves and cold starvation
And the hearts of men despaired …
IV. Armageddon: the battle of heart and mind
The universe divided
As the heart and mind collided
With the people left unguided
For so many troubled years
In a cloud of doubts and fears
Their world was torn asunder
Into hollow hemispheres
Some fought themselves, some fought each other
Most just followed one another
Lost and aimless like their brothers
For their hearts were so unclear
And the truth could not appear
Their spirits were divided
Into blinded hemispheres
Some who did not fight
Brought tales of old to light
My ‘Rocinante’ sailed by night
On her final flight
To the heart of Cygnus’ fearsome force
We set our course
Spiraled through that timeless space
To this immortal place
V. Cygnus: bringer of balance
I have memory and awareness
But I have no shape or form
As a disembodied spirit
I am dead and yet unborn
I have passed into Olympus
As was told in tales of old
To the city of immortals
Marble white and purest gold
I see the gods in battle rage on high
Thunderbolts across the sky
I cannot move, I cannot hide
I feel a silent scream begin inside
Then all at once the chaos ceased
A stillness fell, a sudden peace
The warriors felt my silent cry
And stayed their struggle, mystified
Apollo was astonished
Dionysus thought me mad
But they heard my story further
And they wondered, and were sad
Looking down from Olympus
On a world of doubt and fear
Its surface splintered
Into sorry hemispheres
They sat a while in silence
Then they turned at last to me
‘we will call you Cygnus,
The God of balance you shall be’
The sphere: a kind of dream
We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim
Let the truth of love be lighted
Let the love of truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the heart and mind united
In a single perfect sphere
Rush Hemispheres Lyrics from
Live version Rush Hemispheres 1978
Open Letter to UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi
Linda P.B. Katehi,
I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor
in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical
Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record
of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the
Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in
supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus
and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty
member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to
the University of California at Davis.
You are not.
I write to you and to my colleagues for three reasons:
1) to express my outrage at the police brutality which occurred
against students engaged in peaceful protest on the UC Davis campus
today
2) to hold you accountable for this police brutality
3) to demand your immediate resignation
Today you ordered police onto our campus to clear student protesters
from the quad. These were protesters who participated in a rally
speaking out against tuition increases and police brutality on UC
campuses on Tuesday—a rally that I organized, and which was endorsed by
the Davis Faculty Association. These students attended that rally in
response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons,
hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest
tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked
arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside
Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty,
and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC
Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted
with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their
tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and
linked arms to protect them.
Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these
students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students.
Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.
What happened next?
Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they
could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing
their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate,
they pepper-sprayed directly in the face,holding these students as they did so.
When students covered their eyes with their clothing,
police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed
down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others
are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being
pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.
This is what happened. You are responsible for it.
You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC
Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful
protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get
hurt. One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who
care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful
assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC
Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked
together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested.
Associate Professor Geoffrey O’Brien was injured by baton blows.
Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States,
National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a
baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and
they too were beaten and arrested by the police. In writing this letter,
I stand together with those faculty and with the students they
supported.
One week after this happened at UC Berkeley, you ordered police to
clear tents from the quad at UC Davis. When students responded in the
same way—linking arms and holding their ground—police also responded in
the same way: with violent force. The fact is: the administration of UC
campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and
faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress
free speech and peaceful assembly. Many people know this. Many more
people are learning it very quickly.
You are responsible for the police violence directed against students
on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to
hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these
grounds.
On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus
community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at
UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern
about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly
disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when
the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for
all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times,
as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming
environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC
Davis.”
I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to
decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all
our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1)
Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students
brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to
disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while
those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is
this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and
inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express
commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”
I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be
space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political
dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our
campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to
decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil
disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity
with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest
and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is
police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully
disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You
may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor
of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.
Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions
express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce
from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the
safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our
students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to
anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our “Principles of
Community” and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your
actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC
Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well
trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while
implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly.
You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to
power. That is what I am doing.
I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You
are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you
are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis. As such, I
call upon you to resign immediately.
Sincerely,
Nathan Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Program in Critical Theory
University of California at Davis
Hour Long Train wreck AKA CBS Presidential Debate
The Hour Long Train Wreck otherwise known as the CBS Presidential Debate.
By Thomas Mario Costanzo and Bob Podolsky
In the United States of America every four years there is a pageant that occurs in American politics known as the “Presidential Election” used by B.O.R.G. agents to CON-vince the “Plundered Class of Slaves” they are somehow “Free” and using a process called “voting” which converts this supposed “Freedom” into a measurement for which new ruler who is going to represent your interests and in some way improve the standard of living for the greatest number of slaves.
The Mind Expanding CON
To attain this incredibly high level of brainwashing, B.O.R.G. agents of the (G for) Government work in league with the supposedly “unbiased” and non-connected agency known as the “The News” with the (B for Business) “CBS”, to perform this incredibly mind expanding CON. Being aware of this programming effort, I have been avoiding watching any of these supposed “debates” and prefer watching the highlights instead. However on Saturday, 11/12/ 2011, a group of my friends got
together to watch this spectacle so I thought it was worth my while to hang out and watch what I now call “The Hour Long Train Wreck” which was broadcast as the “CBS Presidential debate”. First of all, we have to be aware that this spectacle resembles in no way a debate between the parties that are vying for the office of president. A debate is an event where opposing viewpoints are actually discussed. This is nothing more than a conversation between two parties on the same side. There is the Media, which is controlled by Big Government forces and the Forces of more Big Government! This charade is like a psychopath arguing with himself about which college girl he wants to rape and dismember! All the parties save one on the stage were in favor of more government, more wars, and more taxes and by default less Freedom. I don’t even need to mention the only candidate on the stage who was for more Freedom was Ron Paul, whom the BORG agents conveniently allowed to received a paltry 89 seconds of “air time” whereas thirty six HUNDRED other seconds was consumed primarily by the self anointed (B for Business) “Moderators” and the (G for Government) “Ruler” hopefuls. I didn’t waste my time to actually run a timer to see how much time the “Media” gave themselves however we could approximate: 8 candidates, with 2 receiving virtually no questions, so 6 candidates plus the moderators who appointed themselves to speak between each question works out to 3,600 divided by 6 equals 600 seconds, that would give each candidate 10 – 60 second questions each, but that doesn’t take into consideration “Media talk time”. The “Media” granted themselves more than 50% of the appearances plus interruptions, as every other person who spoke was the Republican media apologist Frank Luntz or his co-host. Wouldn’t it be simpler to “elect” the media as our supposed “representative” and save all the time, expense and bother to consider any real solutions?
B-Business and G-Government Agents
The entire broadcast “debate” was 3,600 seconds. Being “Conservative” the media talk time was less than half the total at 1,800 seconds. Generally their B-Business agents “questions” were not as long as the G-Government agents “answers”. Even were the “Media talk time” at approximately 30 percent and 1,000 seconds, they still had more than half the appearances and had total control over who would get what question when. They also granted themselves unlimited interruptions. Out of 3 questions to Ron Paul he was interrupted on 2 of them! Even were the time distributed equally among the rest of the G-Government agents, they were unable to even do that correctly, as evidenced by Ron Paul receiving a measly 89 seconds working out to 2.5% of the total time! Taking the 3,600 seconds minus the media time of 1,000 seconds, leaves 2,600 seconds left and distributed evenly amongst the other 6 would only give each candidate 433 seconds each. What kind of reasonable person would even consider this a “Debate”? This is no different than regular television programming where the show “content” is simply there to fill time between commercials. This led me to think of several options that would actually lead to more discussion about the actual issues and coming up with solutions to the problems the government creates in the first place. The simplest of course would be to ask every candidate the same question. Other more elaborate ones might include having each candidate rotate being the moderator and have that person perform the question asking. The candidate asking the questions could use the time however he saw fit, firing questions at one candidate or all of them. The media’s sole job in this scenario would be to make sure each candidate would have equal time as the question asker. A final possibility would be to run the debate like a reality show: have the Main Stream media moderator declare a general subject and have the candidate talk about what he would do in this area. Then at the end of the round there would be a vote on line and or with a text and there would be a tabulation of the scores with nearly instantaneous results viewable as the show is progressing.
corrupt politicians
The B.O.R.G. is the Parasite
All the above mentioned possibilities which would foster the creation of actual solutions and prevent the (B for Business) “Main Stream Media” from hijacking the debates as they have CONSISTENTLY done for years. New York City “Boss” William M. Tweed, who by the way was one of THE most corrupt politicians in our nation’s history had a maxim of politics that states, “I do not care who does the electing, as long as I get to get to do the nominating”. It is evident by their actions, the media is on the same team of the B.O.R.G. as the Government, and is used to create the illusion to the hypnotized public, that only more government will solve any problem. The fact remains; it is the B.O.R.G. that creates the problems in the first place – so they are not the ones we should run to for the solutions.
Pageants of Yore
This “Pageant” is similar to the medieval days when the “King” would put on a similar spectacle for the serfs who labored in his fields from dawn to dusk for their paltry existence. The King would throw a party for the peons who labored to sustain his luxury. They would have games, entertainment, and free food all to CON-vince them that the King was there to help out his serfs. Just as in the current political “pageant”, nothing could be further from the truth!
If his experiment with splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will be to test for quantum “retrocausality.”
That’s science talk for saying he hopes to find evidence of a photon going backward in time.
“It doesn’t seem like it should work, but on the other hand, I can’t see what would prevent it from working,” Cramer said. “If it does work, you could receive the signal 50 microseconds before you send it.”
Uh, huh … what? Wait a minute. What is that supposed to mean?
Roughly put, Cramer is talking about the subatomic equivalent of arriving at the train station before you’ve left home, of winning the lottery before you’ve bought the ticket, of graduating from high school before you’ve been born — or something like that.
“It probably won’t work,” he said again carefully, peering through his large glasses as if to determine his audience’s mental capacity for digesting the information. Cramer, an accomplished experimental physicist who also writes science fiction, knows this sounds more like a made-for-TV script on the Sci Fi Channel than serious scientific research.
“But even if it doesn’t work, we should be able to learn something new about quantum mechanics by trying it,” he said. What he and UW colleague Warren Nagourney plan to try soon is an experiment aimed at resolving some niggling contradictions in one of the most fundamental branches of physics known as quantum mechanics, or quantum theory.
“To be honest, I only have a faint understanding of what John’s talking about,” Nagourney said, smiling. Though claiming to be “just a technician” on this project, Cramer’s technician partner previously assisted with the research of Hans Dehmelt, the UW scientist who won the 1989 Nobel Prize in physics.
Quantum theory describes the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels, a level of reality where most of the more familiar Newtonian laws of physics (why planets spin, airplanes fly and baseballs curve) no longer apply.
The problem with quantum theory, put simply, is that it’s really weird. Findings at the quantum level don’t fit well with either Newton’s or Einstein’s view of reality at the macro level, and attempts to explain quantum behavior often appear inherently contradictory.
“There’s a whole zoo of quantum paradoxes out there,” Cramer said. “That’s part of the reason Einstein hated quantum mechanics.”
One of the paradoxes of interest to Cramer is known as “entanglement.” It’s also known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, named for the three scientists who described its apparent absurdity as an argument against quantum theory.
Basically, the idea is that interacting, or entangled, subatomic particles such as two photons — the fundamental units of light — can affect each other no matter how far apart in time or space.
“If you do a measurement on one, it has an immediate effect on the other even if they are separated by light years across the universe,” Cramer said. If one of the entangled photon’s trajectory tilts up, the other one, no matter how distant, will tilt down to compensate.
Einstein ridiculed the idea as “spooky action at a distance.” Quantum mechanics must be wrong, the father of relativity contended, because that behavior requires some kind of “signal” passing between the two particles at a speed faster than light.
This is where going backward in time comes in. If the entanglement happens (and the experimental evidence, at this point, says it does), Cramer contends it implies retrocausality. Instead of cause and effect, the effect comes before the cause. The simplest, least paradoxical explanation for that, he says, is that some kind of signal or communication occurs between the two photons in reverse time.
It’s all incredibly counterintuitive, Cramer acknowledged.
more about going for a blast into the real past.
Rob Newman’s “History of Oil”
Get to grips with the wars and politics of the last hundred years – but rather than adhering to the history we were fed at BORG funded mandatory youth indoctrination camps [school], the places oil center stage as the cause of all commotion. This innovative history program is based around Robert Newman’s stand-up act and supported by resourceful archive sequences and stills with satirical impersonations of historical figures from Mayan priests to Archduke Ferdinand. Quirky details such as a bicycle powered street lamp on the stage brings home the pertinent question of just how we are going to survive when the world’s oil supplies are finally exhausted. Robert’s stand-up act examines the history of the last 100 years or so but putting oil center-stage. Brilliant!
Some of the themes in a “History of Oil”:
2:30 “Marching to the drums” (UK and resource wars)
5:36 “Bringing a better democracy” (Iran)
10:40 “World War I: an Invasion of Iraq”
16:40 “Thou shalt steal oil”
22:22 “The Euro theory for the war in Iraq”
35:30 “Peak Oil”
John T. Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost everyone else chose to ignore. In the fight against authoritarian regimes abroad, he noted, the United States had adopted those forms of government at home, complete with price controls, rationing, censorship, executive dictatorship, and even concentration camps for whole groups considered to be unreliable in their loyalties to the state.
After reviewing this long history, John T. Flynn proceeds to sum up with a list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state.
As I present them, I will also offer comments on the modern American central state.
Point 1. The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers.
This is a very telling mark. It suggests that the US political system can be described as totalitarian. This is a shocking remark that most people would reject. But they can reject this characterization only so long as they happen not to be directly ensnared in the state’s web. If they become so, they will quickly discover that there are indeed no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown, or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey or be caged like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo.
As recently as the 1990s, I can recall that there were moments when Clinton seemed to suggest that there were some things that his administration could not do. Today I’m not so sure that I can recall any government official pleading the constraints of law or the constraints of reality to what can and cannot be done. No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing, household products, and even private relationships.
Mussolini himself put his principle this way: “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” He also said: “The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.”
I submit to you that this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has been kidnapped by the fascist state.
Point 2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.
I wouldn’t say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances. What the kids learn in civics class has nothing to do with reality.
The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the policy of the executive.
Further, this executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge. The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer some legitimacy on the institution. In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any “democratic mandate.” Here we find the power to regulate all aspects of life and the wicked power to create the money necessary to fund this executive rule.
As for the leadership principle, there is no greater lie in American public life than the propaganda we hear every four years about how the new president/messiah is going to usher in the great dispensation of peace, equality, liberty, and global human happiness. The idea here is that the whole of society is really shaped and controlled by a single will — a point that requires a leap of faith so vast that you have to disregard everything you know about reality to believe it.
And yet people do. The hope for a messiah reached a fevered pitch with Obama’s election. The civic religion was in full-scale worship mode — of the greatest human who ever lived or ever shall live. It was a despicable display.
Another lie that the American people believe is that presidential elections bring about regime change. This is sheer nonsense. The Obama state is the Bush state; the Bush state was the Clinton state; the Clinton state was the Bush state; the Bush state was the Reagan state. We can trace this back and back in time and see overlapping appointments, bureaucrats, technicians, diplomats, Fed officials, financial elites, and so on. Rotation in office occurs not because of elections but because of mortality.
Point 3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.
The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy — whether in Mussolini’s time or ours — requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity with a billion tiny cuts.
This doesn’t necessarily mean economic contraction, at least not right away. But it definitely means killing off growth that would have otherwise occurred in a free market.
So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded? It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth. The voracious and insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise the police power to prevent us from living free lives.
It is as Bastiat said: the real cost of the state is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that don’t exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The state has looted us just as surely as a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.
Point 4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.
In the case of the United States, in the last three years, we’ve seen giant banks, pharmaceutical firms, insurers, car companies, Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, and quasi-private mortgage companies enjoying vast privileges at our expense. They have all joined with the state in living a parasitical existence at our expense.
This is also an expression of the syndicalist idea, and it has cost the US economy untold trillions and sustained an economic depression by preventing the postboom adjustment that markets would otherwise dictate. The government has tightened its syndicalist grip in the name of stimulus.
Regards,
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.,
for The Daily Reckoning
Joel’s Note: Stay tuned for Part II of Mr. Rockwell’s take on the “Eight Marks of Fascist Policy” in Monday’s edition of The Daily Reckoning.
In the meantime…
If, as Mr. Rockwell asserts, the US is much further down that road to fascism than most people think (or indeed, already there), it probably helps to at least have an idea of what’s going on. Earlier today, Agora Financial executive publisher, Addison Wiggin, released a presentation that most people won’t want to view. It contains certain truths they simply don’t want to hear. But ignoring these facts won’t make them go away…and it won’t help people properly prepare for their consequences. Take a look at what Addison has to say here.
