Reflect Refract, War in Iraq

I now disagree with some of what I've written in the past--or at least feel like I have a better understanding of some of the big picture and have stopped focusing so much on specific conspiracies. Though I still do think it's important always to recognize that the conspiratorial view of history is factually accurate.

People in power do indeed conspire to keep that power, they always have and they always will. Their first tactic is to become invisible via their ownership of mass media. Banks and monied incorporations own the world's governments, religions, and also ALL of the public's supposedly independent mass media news sources. Governments are subsidiaries of international corporate conglomerates. Follow the money, you'll see that this is 100% true. Their product is complicity in the consumer culture and their consumer is the world population. Wars are nothing but hostile business transactions. Different companies (vis a vis their ownership rights to governments) sacrifice "consumers" (people) to each other for larger market share. Typically in wars, those sacrificed in greater numbers are those who are less active consumers.

Example: In the early 90s, an estimated 100,000 Iraqis were killed in Desert Storm. About 200 American troops were sacrificed in that same conflict.In 2001, 3,000 Americans die in a brutal and tragic attack on the twin towers (regardless of you think who or what was responsible, we will not argue that it was indeed brutal and tragic). Between 2003 and 2009, an additional 5,000+ US soldiers are sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 2003 and 2009, as few as 100,000 and as many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians are sacrificed in war.

After some simple math, we now know that since 1990, in the two major Middle East wars, we've got at least 200,000 dead Iraqis (probably closer to 500,000, so let's go with 300K dead Iraqis and Afghans for the sake of argument), and less than 10,000 American casualties, and probably another 5,000 Western European casualties (data sources available in previously linked articles). In my view, the loss of one life is no less tragic if the human who owned that life was born in Baghdad or Brooklyn... The sheer loss of life in these wars is simply mind-boggling. It feels kind of morbid to break it down with objective analysis... but... The percent loss breaks down like this:


Casualties since 2003, sources above

Now let's consider the global GDP distribution by country, considering the % share for the involved parties.


(source)



The analysis, while morbid, does paint a pretty clear picture. The companies that own the US military (and use the financial system to funnel money to themselves via the their co-ownership of governments with the other international mega-conglomerate companies) are winning in their offensive against the people of the world in their endeavor to control more of our money by sacrificing vastly larger amounts of life of those people who are accustomed to consuming less.

Seems fairly clear to me... Loss of life is HUGELY skewed towards nations with lower GDP. Weapons manufacturers and military contracting companies being mostly international entities, which nation loses life is not their concern. Their concern is which nations' government and bank can they extract money from easily and in high volume. Makes sense that those nations which can keep funneling hundreds of billions of dollars per year to these companies always win the wars, and that those in power of multinational mega-conglomerate corporations profit in either case.

War is a cut-and-dry example of corporations asserting their power over nations and using human life as a bargaining chip. People/entities in power use that power to remain in power. Corporations continue to live by eating and breathing money. Many trillions of dollars in the world today exists solely due to banks and governments having created that money out of debt. Money, power, war.

Welcome to the Thomas Jefferson's nightmare: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
(source)

The Financial Sector Has Five Lobbyists for Every Congressperson

Think about it...
(source)

Swine Flu Death Rate 0.08% of total Flu Death Rate in US over past 2 weeks

Death rate extrapolations for USA for Flu: 63,729 per year, 5,310 per month, 1,225 per week, 174 per day, 7 per hour, 0 per minute, 0 per second. Note: this extrapolation calculation uses the deaths statistic: 63,730 annual deaths for influenza and pneumonia (NVSR Sep 2001); estimated 20,000 deaths from flu (NIAID)
Source: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/stats.htm

Swine Flu, US, 2009: 2 deaths
Source: Mainstream TV News Caster, May 5, 2009

Math:
2 swine flu deaths / 2450 total flu deaths = 0.08%
(1225 total flu deaths per week * 2 weeks)

The Direction We're Not Moving In

I heard something on the mainstream news last nite that actually made sense. This recent crisis is more about fear than any sort of underlying economic problem... When prices are kept artificially high for years, people panic when they start to come down. that panic leads to "SELLSELLSELL!!" which leads to prices coming down even more, which leads to more "SELLSELLSELL!" If there were no bailout, eventually the panic would subside and things would stabilize at a sustainable level. The % of our GDP that is tied up in the financial sector would shrink, and the % of our GDP related to manufacturing, technology, etc would increase. The hundreds of billions in evaporated wealth due to the stock market crash would not magically reappear--it would be gone (not that it ever really had any right to exist in the first place), wages might come down a bit, values of savings would decrease, and that obviously would suck for a lot of people... But homes would be affordable. Energy would be affordable. Food would be affordable. And we could move forward in a slightly more sustainable fashion. Too bad, we're not moving in that direction... Not yet at least.

PLEASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON

Demand that Congress immediately redress and pass this bill. It's our only hope.

---------------
HR 2755 IH

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2755

To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLISHED.

(a) In General- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished.
(b) Repeal of Federal Reserve Act- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.
(c) Disposition of Affairs-
(1) MANAGEMENT DURING DISSOLUTION PERIOD- During the 1-year period referred to in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System--
(A) shall, for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks--
(i) manage the employees of the Board and each such bank and provide for the payment of compensation and benefits of any such employee which accrue before the position of such employee is abolished; and
(ii) manage the assets and liabilities of the Board and each such bank until such assets and liabilities are liquidated or assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection; and
(B) may take such other action as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wind up the affairs of the Board and the Federal reserve banks.
(2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury.
(B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY- After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury.
(3) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES- All outstanding liabilities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks at the time such entities are abolished, including any liability for retirement and other benefits for former officers and employees of the Board or any such bank in accordance with employee retirement and benefit programs of the Board and any such bank, shall become the liability of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid from amounts deposited in the general fund pursuant to paragraph (2) which are hereby appropriated for such purpose until all such liabilities are satisfied.
(d) Report- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report.

Money as Debt

I've said this before... but in light of our nation's most recent exhibit of obvious control of government by central banks, I'm going to say it again, and say it loud:

Everyone knows that money makes the world go round... So what makes the money go round?!?!

Very very few individuals know how money is created, much less how it came to be this way. There isn't one class taught in any of our public schools that explains it. Even in our institutions of higher learning in degree tracts such as economics, business and finance, etc., the simple and fundamental truths about how today's monetary system operates or how it originated is not explained. There's almost no way to get access to this information via the regular channels. One must seek the answer to this question themselves.

The video below is about as accurate, simple and concise as you can get. I highly recommend it.

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

The Bailout Bill DOES NOT Restrict Executive Pay!!

You've all heard one of the selling points of the bailout bill... that it would restrict the compensation of executives in companies who accepted the bailout. This is a half-truth. It does not restrict their compensation. It restricts the amount that is tax deductible to the company... Read the bill below...

"SEC. 302. SPECIAL RULES FOR TAX TREATMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYERS PARTICIPATING IN THE TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM.
(a) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION.—Subsection (m) of section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR APPLICATION TO EMPLOYERS PARTICIPATING IN THE TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an applicable employer, no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter—
(i) in the case of executive remuneration for any applicable taxable year which is attributable to services performed by a covered executive during such applicable taxable year, to the extent that the amount of such remuneration exceeds $500,000, or ‘‘(ii) in the case of deferred deduction executive remuneration for any taxable year for services performed during any applicable taxable year by a covered executive, to the extent that the amount of such remuneration exceeds $500,000 reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of—
‘‘(I) the executive remuneration for such applicable taxable year, plus ‘‘(II) the portion of the deferred deduction executive remuneration for such services which was taken into account under this clause in a preceding taxable year.

In The Meantime...

While we wait for this new version of the hyperinflation--I mean Bailout Bill to pass the House on Friday... Will you just look at that nice, sustained positive trend in the US dollar index! It's almost as if... the dollar gets stronger when we don't FLOOD THE WORLD WITH $700 BILLION OF THEM!! Imagine that...

Does Someone Who's Bleeding to Death Need a Transfusion or a Tourniquet?

I see a bailout as a blood transfusion for a patient that is bleeding to death. sure, it'll let the patient live longer, but why not stop the bleeding rather than just adding more blood?

The global economy is fucked not because we wouldn't pout 700 billion into the raging inferno to keep in burning, but because our politicians didn't have the balls in 1913, 1944, 1971, and don't have the balls now to stop the financial sector from adopting irresponsible and reckless practices as their common, everyday way of life. I don't see any bailout as a solution. I see it as more inflation... because the money is coming, essentially, from nowhere. No equal exchange of labor, just 700 billion from the central bank to continue to fuel the fire. as long as the fire continues burning, it's business as usual...

We have been operating on a completely unsustainable system since the dismantling of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971. Fiat currencies tend to do things like this (implode) when they are largely unregulated. But to actually fix it, what's needed is not more fiat money, but a serious amount of restraint, regulation, and hopefully an end to the commonplace irresponsible and reckless behavior of the financial sector.

Hopefully there will be a smaller bailout, because in that way the mainstream media is right--at this point we need it to survive in the short-term. But unless it's coupled with serious ass-kicking economic reform, it's just going to prolong the situation and make it even worse when the inevitable crash does come. A bailout without meaningful changes/reforms will set the stage for another bailout in a few years--this time by the IMF/World Bank.

But I don't think things are quite as bad as the Dow Jones reports would make them to be. People are still buying things (on credit even). Many companies are still profitable and still hiring. The financial sectors will feel a lot of hurt and they will pass it down through the rest of the economy and some innocent companies will likely go under... But companies that actually provide a useful service or produce a useful product will probably be OK. And the American people are quite resilient... We'll be OK too...

Bailout Failed! Or at least postponed...

The Bailout Bill was overturned by Congress. Given my economic/political biases... I think this is pretty good news. A bailout is a short-term fix to the long-term problem of gross fiscal irresponsibility practiced by our financial sector. The derivatives market has turned Wall Street into Las Vegas. And guess what--we, the American people, are the house. And the house always wins... Things may get worse before they get better. But if we want real and lasting economic stability, we can never let the government and the federal reserve print money out of thin air (or use our tax dollars) to bail out big business and finance.

Thomas Jefferson on Banking

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

--Thomas Jefferson

A tidbit from the Bailout Bill

Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.”

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

The fact that America is not a free market economy has been obvious to me for a while. I think now, it's not even debatable anymore... In a free market, when bubbles burst--PRICES FALL! It's natural, it's healthy, and it leads to a SUSTAINABLE economy. When, in order to keep prices of stocks, housing, and energy artificially high, the government pays TRILLIONS (and it well get well into the trillions) to bail out FAILED BANKS that wrote STUPID LOANS--that is called STATE CAPITALISM, and it leads to HYPERINFLATION. When I went to Russia in 1993, they were in the middle of a hyperinflationary period brought about by their State Capitalist economic practices (yes, they officially became a "democracy" in 1991, but c'mon...). When I got there, the exchange rate was 700 rubles to the dollar. When I left, 8 days later, the exchage rate was 800 rubles to the dollar. We are pointing ourselves down the same road.

Is this the USA? Or the U.S.S.A.?

This is proof that neither the democrats nor the republicans (save maybe one or two individuals) have any inkling of what the Constitution actually means. They are pawns of the corporate banking state and CLEARLY enemies of the people of the United States. Within the next several years, the IMF/World Bank as opposed to the US Government will be bailing out the American economy, our dollars will be worth next to nothing, and then we will be part of the 3rd world economy. Time to start thinking about what you're going to do with your first million dollar bill.

A matter of perception

Perception is the basis of how human beings form their concept of reality. As our perceptions are sometimes incorrect, sometimes based on faulty information, sometimes formed without any real and direct experience at all, reality is not always reflective of truth... The difference between truth and reality is a matter of perception. I will, of course, use mass media and psychological warfare as an example...

Reality--Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hate your freedom and want to kill you and your family. Our government is policing and regulating large corporations for our protection. Democrats and Republicans represent the only two sides of every political argument, and when one of them wins, the other one loses. Reality TV? 'Nuff said.

Truth--Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are manufactured as a tool for political gains. Our government and large corporations are the same thing. They present a set of complicated and seemingly serious issues that pit the interests of one against the interests of others--but in truth they are symbiotic and one would die without the other. Democrats and Republicans are also the same thing. They are two arms of the politicorporate establishment that share one overarching agenda--the continuance and growth of the state-capitalist debt-slavery system. Reality TV is stupid.

It is much easier to perceive reality than truth. Reality is paraded in front of you all the time. Reality is force-fed. All your friends are doing it... Truth requires independent thought, research, and often results in ostracism... And so we live in reality--a place where truth is often lost--because it's easier.

Sad but okay in the long run...

It is sad that it requires major currency and natural resource manipulation to force the price of petroleum up enough to the point where large automobile companies can finally start to develop and deploy technology that could have and should have been developed in the 70s to bring electric cars to market. The chart above shows that as of 2005, transportation accounts for almost 67% of US petroleum usage. And the until very recently, the trend has been bigger cars, lower fuel economy. It is truly and deeply sad that the oil shock of the 70s didn't wake American up to the fact that we needed to start to move away from petroleum as a fuel source for our vehicles, and to convince the auto industry by sheer force of numbers that we wanted much better fuel economy, and alternatives to gasoline powered cars. Why such a thing required 30 more years of status-quo is beyond me, and truly sad.

But it does seem that the solution that should have been developed in the 70s and brought online in the 80s is being developed in the 00s and will be brought online in the 10s. And so yeah, it's sad that it took this long, but it's going to be OK in the long run. No, we're not going to change the global power structure. No, we're not going to topple the military industrial complex or the central banking cartel. But yes, we are going to have affordable zero-emissions vehicles that do not use petroleum. Here is the early news on offerings by several major auto manufacturers and some not so major ones: Chevy, Nissan, Th!nk, Tesla Motors, Volvo, Green Vehicles... It just makes so much sense... and it's coming. The cost of charging them will be WAY less than filling a gas tank. If you really give a shit, you can set up a solar or wind-powered recharging system for your electric car.

Within the next 5-10 years, you won't need to rely on oil, coal, etc to drive a car. Long long long overdue. But it's one big step in the right direction that this idea is being brought to market...

Just in case you weren't feeling thoroughly screwed

A graph of crude oil prices since 1946. Data gathered from the US DoE. If you think that changes in the price of oil are NOT created by political and economic tinkering and that they have ANYTHING to do with supply or demand... Think again. Yes, we use more than we discover. But no, the relationship between what we use vs what we produce does not change in proportion to the changes in price. Iran has recently started selling crude oil for Euros or Yen--truly bucking the Petrodollar for the first time--but the price of oil on NYMEX or IPE (where the vast majority of it is still sold) is closely proportional to the value of the dollar. And the dollar is TANKING. This is no accident. Ask your local friendly neighborhood globalist central banker all about it...

The Perfect Way to Spend Your Stimulus Check

Looking for the right way to spend your "stimulus" check? Gold has gone down by about 10% lately. Buy low, remember? What better way to use the money that the Federal Government is "returning" to you than to buy precious metals that they cannot tax and that are immune to inflation? Or you could pretend you're an important politician and write "pay to the order of high priced prostitute" on the back of your check. Personally, I'm going to go for the gold... and silver.

Illusion of truth in elections

It used to be that we had our choice of corporate-owned white men to vote for president. Now, we have our choice of corporate-owned white men, and they've even thrown in a corporate-owned white woman and a corporate-owned black man! What a great and truly free society we have, where we vote for the corporate-owned ethnicity and gender of our choice. What? They all spew nothing but rhetoric and talking points? FEH!!! You have a CHOICE!!! You want a GOOD choice? Why do you hate America so much?!?!

Well seriously... fuck that. I voted for Ron Paul in today's primaries because while he may be a rich white man, he's not corporate-owned and he doesn't spew rhetoric or talking points. He takes issues head-on, he values freedom and personal responsibility for that freedom, and he would uphold the Constitution, which protects those freedoms and enforces those reposibilities on us all.

Like voting makes a difference anyway... oh well, it was something to do on a Tuesday nite...

GM actually does something cool...

GM is going to resurrect the electric car that it killed several years ago when it recalled all of the Saturn EV1's that it had ever made. The EV-1, a first generation electric vehicle, got 60-70 miles per charge, which is 50% more than the 40 miles per charge GM is advertising for their new Volt... And considering the technology to build an affordable highway-speed electric car that can get 300 miles per charge absolutely positively exists, Chevy's boasting about 40 miles per charge? Well it's really not very impressive at all...

But the volt will also accept gasoline, E-85 Ethanol, or biodiesel as well. That's pretty cool for a couple of reasons. First, it gives you more choices. Second, it's truly practical (fuel it up anywhere, plug it in from a regular wall outlet). And third, it doesn't threaten the oil industry... If you wanted to you could pour 15 gallons of gasoline into it go about 600 miles.

Unreliable sources are saying Chevy wants to sell it for $20,000 (dollars are imaginary anyway, see below...), but actually getting it to be profitable at that price is a totally different story and they have not officially released price estimates. But if it's anywhere near that $20,000 price tag, I might just have to get one. My daily commute is 9 miles round-trip... so... it certainly makes sense for me...

Monetary Policy

We all know that money makes the world go round, but what makes the money go round? That's the more important question, I think... And it's a question that you could take many different approaches to answer... For my approach here, I'll keep it very high-level and generalized, hence the Wikipedia links... If you'd like a more detailed analysis, I suggest you search for the same topics I've linked to here in the United States Legal Code.

How is money created?

All money is created from debt. It's very important to understand that seemingly contradictory statement... But it's really very simple, and absolutely true. The money that we use today is known as Fiat Currency. And our banks operate on the Fractional Reserve Banking system. In short, this means that our dollars, euros, pesos, yen, yuan, rubels, etc. are not backed in any way by precious metals. There is no guarantee that you can bring your paper currency to the bank that issued it and get gold or silver in return. And furthermore, a bank is not required to physically posess any more than 10% (our current reserve ratio) of the money that it issues.

So with those guidelines in mind, here is how money is created from debt in the USA... The Federal Reserve Bank and the United States Government work in perfect harmony to handle the finer points of the process. The Fed is what's known as a Central Bank. Despite the .gov web address on the Federal Reserve web link, it is not solely owned and controlled by the US Governent. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation with a US Government Oversight board that was founded in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. If you read the text of this act carefully, you will see that the State does not own the Bank, but rather they are separate entities. The Federal Reserve Act is their contract to a mutually exclusive relationship in the business of creating currency. Well--not exactly mutualy exclusive, thanks of course to the World Bank. But I digress...

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank is selected by the President and the Senate. However, if you read deeper into the United States Legal Code (Title 12, Chapter 3), you learn that the bank itself has a good deal of influence over the selection process. As a result, the pool of nominees that the President and Senate have to choose from are more-or-less selected together by the bank and the government to serve their mutual interests, which mainly involve the transumation of debt into money.

The actual debt-to-money conversion is very simple. The US Government issues bonds to the Federal Reserve Bank, and in turn, the value printed on those bond are deposited into the US Government's Treasury. This is more or less a loan from the Federal Reserve bank--which mind you is not required to retain any precious metals to back the currency which it offers--to the Government at low interest. The Government of course is free to do more or less what it pleases with this money. A large portion of this money is granted to a small number of private corporations otherwise known as the Military Industrial Complex, and the rest of it is dispersed to other corporations or used for the purposes of public welfare.

Where do our taxes come in to play?

The Government then levies a tax on the income of US Persons (meant in the contractual sense, not the individual sense, that's why it's Persons and not people) in order to repay the interest on its debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

What about the rest of the banks? How do they get money?

The Federal Reserve bank enjoys special status as the Central Bank in the US Fractional Reserve System. Like other banks, it only has to retain 10% of it's assests in any sort of physical form. Unlike other banks, the only assets it is required to hold are US Government Bonds. It esentially creates paper or digital money with nothing but the authority of our Legal Tender Laws to back it.

As a Fractional Reserve bank the Fed is free to loan 9 times the value of the bonds it holds out to other banks at low interest at its Discount Window. Private banks "buy" this money from the Central Bank and loan it out at slightly higer interest than the Fed charges them. The majority of the loans issued by private banks at this stage in the chain are issued to large corporations and to other private banks. The corporations use these loans to do things like meet their payroll, develop their businesses, etc. And the other private banks issue higher-interest loans, like mortgages, credit cards, etc.

What if the loans can't be repaid?

Not to worry, most of the loans written in this first stage of the game described above are insured by the Federal Government. This might seem odd since the Government itself cannot get any money to actually pay the loans back without taking more loans from the Fed itself... But regardless, they do indeed insure many large-scale loans. And there are many instances of large scale corporate bailouts by the government. You'd think that in a free-market economy, poorly managed corporations that could not repay their loans and poorly managed banks that wrote too many risky loans would be allowed to fail and corporations that were run better would absorb their business and succeed. Well, in a free-market economy, that's what happens. But, as is evidenced by the information above, we do not operate a free-market economy.

But I work for my money! It doesn't come from thin air!!

Of course! I work hard for my money too... On our level of the chain, we do have much more of a free market, and much more freedom to make our own breaks. The part of the economy that most of us participate in involves an equal exchange of labor for the money that we are paid by our employers--or if you're in business for yourself, from your customers or clients.

But, regardless of how hard you work or what your salary is, our money itself does not require the same equal exchange of labor to produce. It does not require x number of hours or labor to produce x number of dollars. It requires nothing but the issuance of US Government Bonds to the Central Bank. Invariably, the money that gets deposited into your bank account was created as a result of US Government debt. US Dollars cannot be created in any other fashion. Our money supply is not constrained by the laws of supply and demand. This is unfortunate, because a monetary policy that operates within the constraints of the laws of supply and demand does a pretty good job of keeping the majority of the money in the hands of the many and in keeping the value of the currency stable, while a monetary policy that does not operate within the constraints of the laws of supply and demand has led to the majority of the money being concentrated in the hands of the few. Not to mention the dollar is highly unstable...

What about preciuos metals?

Why are precious metals precious? Simple--because demand for them is high. Gold and silver have very high value in many different sectors of the economy, ranging from electronics manufacturing to jewlery making to demand by investors and beyond... By rule, precious metals require x number of hours to produce x amount. By "produce," I mean extract from the gound, divide into equal and accurately measured portions, and place some sort of seal on them to guarantee the accuracy of the measurements...

Precious metals are not exactly money in the modern world... Not anymore at least. There is no guarantee that you can go into a store and plunk down a silver coin and get whatever value that coin holds in the form of goods or services. Instead we have the aforementioned Legal Tender Laws to impose the US Dollar as issued by the Federal Reserve Bank as acceptable for all debts, public and private.

A hundred years ago or so, many shopkeepers wouldn't take paper money but would gladly accept a Government issued silver coin... While people could use precious metals to transact commerce in the days before Legal Tender Laws (1965 in the US) were passed, most people stopped using them when paper money was introduced en masse by the Federal Resreve system. Up until 1933 when private ownership of gold was made illegal, this paper money was backed by precious metals--meaning you could go to the bank and demand gold in exchange for your paper money.

In the years that followed the 1933 gold confiscation, the price of gold has become completely disconnected from the value of gold. And thus, banks and governments can issue as much currency as they want without the constraint of having to actually posess anything of real physical value. Over the years, things like the Bretton Woods Agreement, and then the Nixon Administration's dissolution of the Bretton Woods Agreement have removed any sort of influence of supply and demand from our money system.

By disconnecting our money supply from precious metals and therfore supply and demand, we have enabled vast amounts of industrial and technological growth, which in many cases is a really wonderful thing. Unfortunately, decoupling the money supply from the laws of supply and demand has also made it highly unstable and has led to concentration of that money in the hands of the few.

So whose money is it?

The currency we use today belongs to the Federal Reserve bank. It is not our money, it's theirs. We use it because our government is kind enough to tax us in order to repay the interest on the debt it incurrs to produce said currency and also to pass a Legal Tender Law to force us to use it even though it has no real physical value beyond the paper it was printed on. We use the money because we have little choice. And the power to create and regulate the creation of said money is concentrated in the hands of those who benefit the most from it--the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Government. So if you trust the government and banks and you don't think there's any corruption, well then great... But I don't share that trust, and I would think that anyone who's done any objective research into it wouldn't either.

the political manipulation of science

you are aware of The Climate Crisis. you are concerned. how did you learn of The Climate Crisis?
• did you study the data and come to the conclusion yourself?
• did you read scientific papers, Published by the researchers?
• did you read about it in a Science Journal?
• did you read about it in a Major Syndicated Science Newsweekly?
• did you read about it in a Major Syndicated Newspaper?
• did you hear about it on Network or Cable Television?
• did you hear it from a friend?

what do you know about The Climate Crisis? the information you have consumed says that:
• there is a Great Looming Climate Crisis
• our energy sources are dirty
• our coal power plants and cars emit Pollution into the atmosphere
• our factories and industries emit Pollution into our water, our air, our food
• the Carbon Dioxide that we humans are emitting is causing Global Warming

• in fact, it may already be too late to reverse the trend
• our natural resources have been misused
• we have been shortsighted in our pursuit for a better life for our Nation, and for The World
• unless--and perhaps even if--we undergo A Dramatic Shift in the Way We Live, our Climate will Change, causing Catastrophes and Civil Unrest

or

• Global Warming is a crazy Left Fringe
• They are hell-bent on Controlling Our Lives
• They hate Technology
• They want us to reverse the industrial revolution
• Their Science is bogus

what do you know about the source you received your information from? are you sure what you know is correct? are you sure because you trust the source you received the information from?

• Climate Change is fact
• climage change is fact
• Carbon Dioxide is Pollution
• carbon dioxide is not pollution
• Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming
• carbon dioxide does not cause global warming
and, most importantly...
• Global Warming has been politicized

who can you trust, when it comes to information that has been politicized? when politics and Money manipulate the interpretation of science... who do you trust? who have you given yourself the option of choosing amongst?

They say that We must implement a Global Carbon Tax to dissuade Our Corporations from emitting Pollution into our atmosphere and Causing Global Warming. without this Money, We may not be able to Stop Global Warming

but...
• there is no man-made global warming
• warming causes more carbon dioxide, more carbon dioxide does not cause warming
• fluctuating concentrations of carbon dioxide have been recorded all throughout history
• the earth's temperature has fluctuated all throughout history
• changes in carbon dioxide concentrations follow changes in temperature by several hundred years
• there is a correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and climate change
• changes in carbon dioxide concentration does not cause climate change
• climate change causes changes in carbon dioxide concentration
• carbon dioxide is amongst the least effective greenhouse gases, pound for pound
• carbon dioxide makes up about 0.03% of our atmosphere
• water retains heat much better than air
• the sun emits a slightly fluctuating amount of heat energy throughout the course of time
• the water in our oceans absorbs and retains that heat far better than our air does
• as water warms, it emits water vapor and water soluble gasses, such as carbon dioxide,
as water cools, it absorbs water vapor and water soluble gasses, such as carbon dioxide
• over the course of time--many hundreds of years--the ocean's average temperature, in reaction to the changes in the energy emitted by the sun, changes enough to effectively alter the amount of carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere
• water vapor is responsible for warming shifts in our atmosphere on a short-term scale (season to season)
• the sun is responsible for warming shits in our atmosphere on a long-term scale (century to century)

our energy sources are indeed dirty, but carbon dioxide itself is not pollution. the problem here is neither pollution nor carbon dioxide nor global warming. it is the politicization of science, and the corruption of our Global Corporate Government System, which is telling us to believe that Truth is truth

exposing the dishonesty inherent in society

i'm still here. maybe going to start writing again, too...

i'm not advocating revolution, or even rocking the boat if you don't want to. i only implore you to live your life with curiosity, integrity, and respect for the pursuit of unbiased truth. what you choose to believe is up to you.

On the DJI

The Dow Jones Industrial average is near its all-time high and the dollar is near its all-time low.





The gains in the Dow look a wee bit more modest when you consider the loss in value of the currency that we use to trade the stocks of the 30 companies that make up the Dow... Not to mention, using the performance of only 30 companies to measure the strength of the economy is nonsensical. From what I've heard, most financial professionals don't even look twice at the Dow... And neither should you. It paints a picture that is not an accurate representation of anything other than that the richest 30 companies continue to get richer while the rest of the country is stagnating at best.

Meaninglessness

I've gone about as far down this rabbit hole as I care to go. Basically what I found was meaninglessness and despair. When meaninglessness makes sense, it's time to unplug. Time to appreciate the small things in life. To take joy in friends, family, music, creativity, expression, love, coffee, going for walks, having food to eat, traveling, a good sleep, cooking, living next to the water, etc.

It is at this juncture that I draw the line between taking responsibility for those things that I can change and accepting those things that I cannot change, and also where I exercise the wisdom to recognize the difference between the two and not let those things that I cannot change draw me and those around me into a sense of meaninglessness and despair.

9-11 Truth: is it really Truth or is it "truth"?

It is more important now than it ever has been to be able to recognize the difference between Truth and "truth." There is more disinformation spewed forth by the mass-media/CIA propaganda machine on 9-11 than conceivable. And the Internet (except my blog, of course) is the main pathway for this disinformation. The vast majority of what's out there has been planted and even honest and good researchers can't always tell the difference.

Case in point: Who Killed John O'Neill. A great movie in my opinion. Very well researched. Gripping. But unfortunately, it contains some major disinformation re: Mohammed Atta. Amanda Keller claimed that she was a stripper and she was dating him and he was a coke-head and a major partier. WKJO ran with this info. Then a couple of years later, Amanda Keller says she made the whole thing up, she was dating some "other Mohammed," and then she gets married, changes her name, and disappears forever... If you watch the original interview between her and Daniel Hopsicker--it should have been obvious all along that is it faked. Staged. Phony. She didn't make it up--she was reading a godamned script.

SO MUCH of 9-11 "truth" information falls under this category... Yes, we are reaching a tipping point where the floodgates will open and 9-11 "truth" will enter the mainstream--but we still must fight to be sure that it tips in the direction of TRUTH, instead of "truth."

As the Orwellian police-state continues to develop, our best chance at resistance is to study the art of psyops and disinformation and thusly disarm their only weapon... In order to get you started, I highly recommend this podcast on the topic of 9-11 truth disinfo. The Art of 9-11 Disinfo: This is Fintan Dunne of BreakForNews.com on the Jim Fetzer show.

My last entry on climate change for a while...

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations.

Warwick Hughes is an independent earth scientist. I don't know him. I've never met him. I've seen at least one accusation by a man-made global warming advocate that he is a liar. However, you can find some links calling me a liar too, I'm sure, so really what's the difference... My purpose in linking to his blog is because he links to a lot of scientific data, and I hope to get through as much of it as I can on my own, and I hope that many of you will take the time to read it as well. My understanding thus far is that the science of global warming does not support the politics and propeganda of global warming.

I'm not saying that I endorse any of the information he presents or the conclusions he comes to specifically, but I figured it would be nice for people to know where to find a lot of information that reports the things you won't find in the mainstream press regarding climate change.

If the IPCC is going to propose a Global Carbon Tax, doesn't it seem prudent at least to make sure the science behind it is sound?

We hear a lot about this great consensus... But the consensus does not exist. And from what I've seen the science does not add up. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere follow temperature changes by some 500 to 1000 years. The temperature increases. Then after that--the CO2 levels increase... And the governments of the world want to propose a tax on carbon emissions to curtail climate change?? But... Carbon dioxide does not drive climate change. It never has... There's something else going on here... And I don't like it...

Martin Durkin responds to the critics re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?'

SOURCE

Last Updated: 11:20pm GMT 17/03/2007

'The Great Global Warming Swindle', broadcast by Channel 4, put the case for scepticism about man-made climate change. The programme sparked a heated debate and charges of scientific inaccuracy. Here, its director, Martin Durkin, responds to the critics.

On March 8, Channel 4 broadcast my programme. Since then, supporters of the theory of man-made global warming have published frothing criticism. I am attacked for using an "old" graph depicting temperature over the past 1,000 years. They say I should have used a "new" graph - one used by Al Gore, known as the "hockey stick", because it looks like one.

But the hockey stick has been utterly discredited. The computer programme used to generate it was found to produce hockey-stick shapes even when fed random data (I refer readers to the work of McIntyre & McKitrick and to the Wegman Report, all available on the internet). Other than the discredited hockey stick, the graph used by us (and published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the standard, accepted record of temperature in this period.

A critic claims that one of the graphs cited by us, illustrating the extraordinarily close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, has since been "corrected". It most certainly has not. The graph was produced by Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen, the head of the Danish National Space Centre, who says it still stands. But if the global-warmers don't like that graph, there are plenty of others that say the same thing.

No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history. I urge readers to look up on the net: Veizer, Geoscience Canada, 2005; and Soon, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005.

In the film, we used three graphs depicting temperature change in the 20th century. On one there was an error in the dates on the bottom. This was corrected for the second transmission of the programme, on More4, last Monday. It made no difference. Global-warmers can pick whichever graph they like. The problem for them remains the same. The temperature rise at the beginning of the century (prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively insignificant) was as great, most graphs show greater, than the temperature rise at the end of the century.

So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not.

The remarkable thing is not that I was attacked. But that the attacks have been so feeble. The ice-core data was the jewel in the global-warming crown, cited again and again as evidence that carbon dioxide 'drives' the earth's climate. In fact, as its advocates have been forced to admit, the ice-core data says the opposite. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot.

During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?

Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

No documentary is without its own bias... But this one is also filled with verifiable science... Definitely worth watching--even if only for a different perspective and to put a reality check on Al Gore's misinformation-fest... Many have targeted Durkin's work as being merely sensationalist and many will point to factual inaccuracies... But really it's a big game of "he-said-she-said." And what is more sensationalist--someone telling you that our Carbon Dioxide emissions--only 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere (and CO2 makes up only 0.05% of the atmosphere (and it is the least effective greenhouse gas))--are going to ruin life as we know it? Or someone stating that many scientists disagree.

The oil industry doesn't care about debunking global warming. All of those companies are heavily invested in alternative energy generation and they will make their billions regardless of what our world's energy future is. Not to mention--the oil industry vis-a-vis the Bush administration has conceded the fight on man-made global warming. Why are so many scientists opposed to their names being included on the recent IPCC report on climate change? And why has the IPCC sought to present the report as being a "consensus" of thousands of scientists when indeed many of the people listed as being co-authors had nothing to do with it because as soon as they saw where it was going they wanted nothing to do with it? Could it be possible that the UN has a larger political agenda here? Perhaps they are tricking the mainstream-left into connecting pollution and waste with climate change, galvanizing their efforts behind "stopping global warming" rather than stopping globalization and the evisceration of civil liberties--obviously the larger threat to humanity...

But to me, this is not about politics or business, it's about science. And I'm no scientist. So I'll leave it to them to tell you in their own words (although the Oceanographer from MIT feels he was misrepresented, so as always, do your own research and take this with a grain of salt):

Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle


"According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault ... and there's nothing you can do about it.

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

Poorly Composed Thoughts on Global Warming Lies

picture me, if you will. then picture a crow. now picture me eating that crow. that's right. i've learned some important truths that have changed my mind as to the realities of our changing climate here on earth...

most of what you have heard from "the world's leading climate scientists" is propaganda for the globalists that run the world (these guys). man-made global warming is being used as a method to increase taxation ("there are these very expensive measures we need to implement to fix this problem, so... fork over the cash that our banks poofed into existance by sheer will alone and big daddy government will keep you safe and warm. well, not too warm...") and impose population control measures. the reality of it is that it's pseudo-science.

Global Warming: The cause is oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. This link will explain it far better than I can, but I'll continue with my poorly composed thoughts anyway.

fact: our oceans are warming.

try filling your bathtub with cold water, then crank the heat up in your house. see how long it takes the water in your tub to warm up. conversely, fill your tub with hot water and see how long it takes your bathroom to warm up and fill with water vapor... not too long. here's another test. put an icecube on your kitchen table. put another one right next to it in a glass of room temperature water. which one melts first? 3rd test (and this one you can't really do), fill your tub with cold water and then heat the tub itself. the water will warm up much much faster than it did when you increased the air temperature in the room. why do you think we heat water by placing it in metal and heating the metal rather than blowing hot air on the water? because it'd take about 46 hours to make a cup of tea!!

what we've illustrated here is a basic rule of physics. the denser the substance, the more effect it has on changing the temperature of the matter around it. so what do you think is having more effect on the temperature changes we're experiencing in our world today--the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? or the increase in magma temperature affecting an increase in water temperature affecting an increase in air temperature? before you answer this--think about the fact that ocean temperatures are rising--this is causing the icecaps to melt. how much would you have to heat the air in your bathroom to get the water temperature to change signifigantly? is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere heating the water? obviously--no.

every 100,000 years or so, the earth enters an ice age. if things continue on that cycle, we are at the cusp of the next one. our great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren might be pretty chilly. but before the ice age begins, there is an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere, caused by rising ocean temperatures. when water warms, it begins to release any gasses that are water-soluble. carbon dioxide being water soluble, we're seeing more of it in our atmosphere. the oceans are not heated by the air. they are heated by a rise the temperature of the magma in the earth itself. the heating water in our oceans is releasing carbon dioxide and warming the temperature of the air. this is a natural process, and it's no reason for us to bow down to the will of an already hugely bloated government...

He didn't say what they say he said...

Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?

The subtle difference between what the Ahmadinejad actually said and what the propaganda machine says he said mean everything... Quoted from the article linked above:

"Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it."

What Television is Doing to You

Several years ago an article was published by Scientific American titled "Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor. It basically states that TV viewing is addictive, and people who watch excessive amounts of TV (as most American's currently do--our national average is 4+ hours per day) exhibit the same behaviors as those addicted to physical substances, gambling, sex, etc. Indeed the shift from left- to right-brain dominance that television viewers undergo releases endorphins into the nervous system. More interesting to me in that article was the mention of a 1986 study done by Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues that looks into the brain-wave patterns of people before, during, and after television viewing. I also found talk about a study done by Herbert Krugman, a psychologist and manager of public-opinion research at GE (owner of NBC) which monitored human brain waves to discover what the effects were when watching television.

Here's another a quote from another interesting article entitled "The Nature of Television," which speaks of the effect of the endorphins released into the nervous system by TV viewing.
"These opiates are structurally identical to heroin and opium and just like the drugs themselves, endorphins are habit forming and addictive. Krugman observed that whilst watching television, right brain activity is at least twice as potent as left brain activity. As with many other scientists, psychophisiologist, Dr. Thomas Mulholland, arrived at the same conclusions, notably that alpha waves appear just after thirty seconds of television viewing and that whilst watching television the viewer's brain falls into a virtual trance."

Seems that television viewing moves the brain from a beta-wave state, where it is active in cognitive processing, deep into the alpha-wave state where it is passive, free-associating, no cognitive activity to speak of. Basically, what this tells us is that during television viewing, your cognitive mind is more-or-less turned off and you have no process of rational judgment or filters between what you are seeing and hearing on the TV and what enters your subconscious mind.

Here's another quote from "The Nature of Television": "all relevant research points to the fact that whilst watching television the brain is in a similar state as when under hypnosis."

So our adults and kids are sitting in front of the TV for 4 hours a day, brains in an alpha-state, susceptible to subconsciously absorbing anything they see and hear. Images are flashing in front of the brain, scenes are changing every 5 seconds, celebrity worship is implanted, programmed news is implanted, desire for intrinsically useless products is implanted, political opinions are implanted, gender, ethnic, religious, and racial stereotypes are implanted, etc., etc.

It's not just a waste of your time, it's putting you in a trance and programming your subconscious mind. The television is called the idiot box for a reason. Read the above research again... The General Electric Corporation, owner of a major media network, NBC, and a large cog in the military-industrial complex, funded a study in the 60s that shows that the television is a hypnotic device.

For fuck's sake, turn the fucking thing off.


addendum:
"The fact that TV is a source not actively or critically attended to was made dramatically evident in the late 1960s by an experiment that rocked the world of political and product advertising and forever changed the ways in which the television medium would be used. The results of the experiment still reverberate through the industry long after its somewhat primitive methods have been perfected.

"In November 1969, a researcher named Herbert Krugman, who later became manager of public-opinion research at General Electric headquarters in Connecticut, decided to try to discover what goes on physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He elicited the co-operation of a twenty-two-year-old secretary and taped a single electrode to the back of her head. The wire from this electrode connected to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer.

"Flicking on the TV, Krugman began monitoring the brain-waves of the subject What he found through repeated trials was that within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness. When Krugman's subject turned to reading through a magazine, beta waves reappeared, indicating that conscious and alert attentiveness had replaced the daydreaming state.

"What surprised Krugman, who had set out to test some McLuhanesque hypotheses about the nature of TV-viewing, was how rapidly the alpha-state emerged. Further research revealed that the brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while the person is watching TV. This tuning-out allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and noncritically, to function unimpeded. 'It appears,' wrote Krugman in a report of his findings, 'that the mode of response to television is more or less constant and very different from the response to print. That is, the basic electrical response of the brain is clearly to the medium and not to content difference.... [Television is] a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure.'

"Soon, dozens of agencies were engaged in their own research into the television-brain phenomenon and its implications. The findings led to a complete overhaul in the theories, techniques, and practices that had structured the advertising industry and, to an extent, the entire television industry. The key phrase in Krugman's findings was that TV transmits 'information not thought about at the time of exposure.'" [p.p. 69-70]

"As Herbert Krugman noted in the research that transformed the industry, we do not consciously or rationally attend to the material resonating with our unconscious depths at the time of transmission. Later, however, when we encounter a store display, or a real-life situation like one in an ad, or a name on a ballot that conjures up our television experience of the candidate, a wealth of associations is triggered. Schwartz explains: 'The function of a display in the store is to recall the consumer's experience of the product in the commercial.... You don't ask for a product: The product asks for you! That is, a person's recall of a commercial is evoked by the product itself, visible on a shelf or island display, interacting with the stored data in his brain.' Just as in Julian Jaynes's ancient cultures, where the internally heard speech of the gods was prompted by props like the corpse of a chieftain or a statue, so, too, our internalized media echoes are triggered by products, props, or situations in the environment.

"As real-life experience is increasingly replaced by the mediated 'experience' of television-viewing, it becomes easy for politicians and market-researchers of all sorts to rely on a base of mediated mass experience that can be evoked by appropriate triggers. The TV 'world' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mass mind takes shape, its participants acting according to media-derived impulses and believing them to be their own personal volition arising out of their own desires and needs. In such a situation, whoever controls the screen controls the future, the past, and the present." [p. 82, Joyce Nelson, THE PERFECT MACHINE; ., 1992, 800-253-3605; ISBN 0-86571-235-2 ]

Operation Singularity

You may have been told this is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or some bullshit like that... But I think "Operation Beginning of the End of National Sovereignty and Freedom" would be more accurate for this phase of it. And the whole shebang? What all of this is leading up to (and has been for thousands of years)? "Operation Endgame." Yes, the actual co-conspiring families that run the world will eventually consolidate and conquer each other. Their eventual goal being that one bloodline controls the past, present, and future of all of humanity. Singularity. The opposite of diversity in all ways, shapes and forms.

The links that follow all should help to substantiate what I'm saying here. But understand that by linking, I am not necessarily endorsing the views of the authors.

As for "Operation Beginning of the End of National Sovereignty and Freedom" we are most certainly not losing this war, but it's about a lot more than oil. We have established 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and we are building an embassy the size of the Vatican. We have killed 650,000 Iraqis by some estimates, and over 50,000 by conservative estimates. We have effectively conquered Iraq and we are beginning a permanent occupation. The Iraqi army may take over the bases we build at some point, but that will happen if and only if we control their currency first.

The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA), which oversees and regulates the banking system, is the only Middle Eastern central bank that has been invited to be a member and shareholder of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. This means that all of the other central banks in the Middle East are not members and shareholders in the Bank for International Settlements. This means they are outside of its sphere of influence. Out of its control... Competition. What does business seek to do? Eliminate competition and dominate the market share. In this case the business is international banking. And legally, today's "governments" are merely corporate entities, so who controls the money controls the governments.

The ultimate goal of the occupation of Iraq is the subversion of the independent Middle Eastern central banking system. Notice Paul Wolfowitz, hot-shot Neo-con and the former US Secretary of Defense, is now the president of the World Bank... The same small cartel of bankers that own the Bank for International Settlements and the World Bank want to have the oil-rich Middle East under their thumbs like they have the rest of the world (it is definitely about oil at least a little bit). Their goal is to implement one world currency. Understand that debt and currency rule nations, not people, so with one unified currency (most likely paperless) under their complete control (see Fractional Reserve Banking and Fiat Currency) and all of the world's governments nothing more than international corporations with contractual obligations to the central bank, the corporations that now act as our governments will be consolidated (see European Union, North American Union, African Union, The South American Community of Nations, Asia Cooperation Dialogue, etc). As will happen with all great industries in our society, there will eventually be one owner of the world's governments.

That is the endgame. That is the point of all of this. Banks competing to own all of the world's money and in effect control all of the world's governments vis a vis their currency. The war on terror is a PR campaign to this end. Islamic fundamentalism is a PR campaign to this end. Religion is a PR campaign to this end. Public education is a PR campaign to this end. Mass media is a PR campaign to this end. The name of the game is Operation Singularity.

"There can be only one..."

The New Bush

I believe this excerpt below from the Washington Post should be enough to reveal to you that both American political parties have the same agenda, and "elections" are nothing but a game and a distraction...

----------
The New Bush

Said New Bush: "I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe."

Q. "Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today?"

Bush: "What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won."