Tuesday, June 30, 2015

"Marriage isn't the government's business. Did you know that marriage licenses were first issued in the late 1800s to keep inter racial marriages from occurring? Sounds like a good reason for the government to get involved in marriage, don't you think? Sounds like an even better reason for governments to get out of it."

The Confederate Flag, Gay Marriage, & the Death of Liberty
By Shane Kastler

Liberty in America isn't dead yet, but rest assured she's on life support. She has been for awhile, but now she's near the end. And if you think a little you can see how it's happening. There is a gargantuan link between the recent vitriolic witch hunt conducted across the South to find people possessing or selling Confederate flags; and the Supreme Court ruling which takes the debate out of the hands of the people and forces “gay marriage” on the nation carte blanche. What do gays and rednecks have in common you ask? They are opposite sides of a raging cultural war that will soon explode out of control. First the flag.

I've written repeatedly about the tragic events in Charleston earlier this month. Dylann Roof is a first rate devil who should pay severely for his senseless, thoughtless, brainless, spineless, and heartless crime. I might say he is an embarrassment to the white race, but it goes much deeper. He's an embarrassment to the human race. Of course the same is true of Barack Hussein Obama. A shameless political huckster has never slithered through the American electorate like this creature from the Hawaiian lagoon. He issues orders like he's Caesar himself, then gets ticked off when the country doesn't jump at his command. Obama, as politicians are want to do, attended the funeral service for Clementa Pinckney and promptly made himself the star of the show. So much for Rev. Pinckney. But of course, he probably would have wanted it that way, as he was a loyal supporter of the Egomaniac-in-Chief.

The Charleston tragedy quickly became a Confederate witch hunt for no good reason whatsoever. Roof owned a flag. Big whoop. I own one too. It is a piece of history. America did split up at one time and fight a war when the North unconstitutionally invaded the free and sovereign states of the South. What would you expect the Southerners to do? Run and hide or stand and fight? They fought valiantly against superior arms and outnumbered armies. They fought for four years when most thought it wouldn't last four weeks. They fought, NOT for slavery primarily; but for their own freedom. Roughly 95 percent of Southerners did not own slaves. Many were dirt poor farmers and sharecroppers. Eking out a living off the land in a place far less industrialized than the North. The late historian Shelby Foote once told the story of an arrogant Yankee soldier who mocked a poor Confederate by pointing out that he obviously wasn't rich enough to own slaves or even land; he asked him, “Why are you out here fighting this war anyway?” The Confederate replied, “I'm OUT here, because you are DOWN here.” His home had been invaded by a hostile army. What else was a brave man to do?

After all those years of brutal heartache and war, the North's numbers were eventually too much. The South fought bravely for a culture they loved and for the freedom that they didn't have from Washington D.C. As much as this irks most Americans, slavery wasn't really the major point. State's rights, Federal overreaching, an unfair tariff system against the South, and other economic measures led to secession. (I suggest reading Thomas DiLorenzo's"The Real Lincoln" for more on this). Today even the word “secession” is considered racist for reasons I am apparently still too blind to see. America exists because the colonies seceded from Britain. It wasn't a Civil War because they didn't try to seize an existing government. Likewise the War Between the States. The South seceded, they didn't try to take over Washington. Basic historical facts about the war. Almost no on in America today knows them. That's why most people think the Civil War (which wasn't really a Civil War) was about slavery. Ask the average "Joe" on the street, he'll tell you Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. But Lincoln would have told you otherwise. In his first inaugural address Lincoln said he had “no desire” to free the slaves and no constitutional right to do so. The second part of that might be debated; but it is refreshing to hear a President actually reference Constitutional restraint once in a while. Even though he routinely ignored the Constitution. Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.....TWO YEARS AFTER THE WAR STARTED! What took him so long, you ask? The answer is quite easy. He thought he could win the war without freeing slaves. And if he had, bondage would have remained. The “Great Emancipator” didn't give two hoots about freeing the blacks. But he was hell bent on winning the war. “Preserving the Union” was his mantra, which translated to lining the government's pockets with continued Southern tax revenues. History is never as squeaky clean as most American robots think it is.

So it turns out that evil, wicked, racist Confederate flag wasn't so evil, wicked and racist after all. Poor men fought to defend their homes. Most didn't own slaves. Many of them, in fact, opposed slavery. These were my ancestors and I'm proud of their bravery and service. But I'm banned from doing so. I'm the only ethnic group in America that would be charged with a hate crime, or sent to mandatory sensitivity training if I sought a “Heritage Month” for my people group. Even though every other group gets one. But that's OK, I don't want one. But I would like the chance to at least speak of my Confederate ancestors and go visit their graves and maybe place a flag they fought for on it; without it becoming a national news story.

The government hasn't “banned” the symbol.....yet. But they will. And even if they don't a bully White House and a blathering lap dog media have done the “banning” for them. Businesses, who cowardly fear bad press have pulled anything remotely Confederate from the shelves. Not just flags either. Chess sets. Civil War artifacts. Handkerchiefs. You name it. If it's Southern....its gone. Even NASCAR is checking with their legal team to see how far they can go in banning the flag at races. NASCAR president, Brian Whats-His-Name, sounded like he would gladly have public crucifixions if he could get away with it. And he might. That's how insane the witch hunt has gotten. What is happening to Southern culture would rival any third world attempt at “ethnic cleansing.” It's not enough to win the war. They want utter subjugation and the erasure of all proof that a certain group of people ever existed. Now THAT should fit the Feds definition of a “hate crime.” Except for, it's the only group you can legally hate. White men.

Like most things in the Totalitarian States of America, this isn't really about a flag. It's about control. Its about the right to re-write history and ignore any aspects we don't like. And ignore the aspects that we would like, but we're just too stubborn to admit were true. For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the hated Confederate slave-owner, KKK leader, and general eventually became a Christian after the war, and (are you ready for this....) He SPOKE OUT IN FAVOR of Black Civil Rights!!!! Right after he called for the KKK to disband! Those are historical facts that you can read about in my book “Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption.” Far from seeking to tear down statues of him, the civil rights community should be raising money to build more of them. What greater poster child could they have than a former slave-owning Klansman who renounced his views and defended the freed slaves publicly? But don't bother 21st century race baiters with 19th century facts. If the truth got out the financial contributions to the NAACP might plummet. And we wouldn't want to see that would we?

The South is imploding. Not because of itself but because of attacks that began in 1861 and never really stopped. It wasn't enough to win the war, the South had to be destroyed. William Sherman's army promised to “make Georgia howl” and THE YANKEES did more damage to South Carolina than anyone else could have ever conceived of. Raping and pillaging was commonplace. And the blacks meant nothing to the Northern Army. Sherman despised them. Many freed slaves chose to voluntarily stay in the South with their masters rather than suffer at the hands of the heartless Yankees. Again, history is a little more nuanced than the Yankee-written drivel textbooks will tell you.

Reconstruction was nothing more than a fleecing and humiliation of the South. Yankees got rich. While Southerners struggled to make ends meet. Eventually some economic progress was made, but it took forever. Both blacks and whites suffered financially in the South; as many still do to this day. Is it because of racism? No, it really has more to do with the Federal government keeping them poor and in their place. According to Thomas Sowell, a systematic attack on the black family has done what slavery and Jim Crow laws never could. Welfare destroyed the black family; and many white ones as well. The Feds solution killed the family. But the Feds aren't done yet. They have another trick up their sleeve, which is to destroy marriage altogether.

Why would two gays want a government marriage anyway? For that matter why would two heterosexuals want one? I got married in a church with the blessing of a pastor. What does that have to do with the government? Or rather, what SHOULD it have to do with the government? Answer nothing. Marriage isn't the government's business. Did you know that marriage licenses were first issued in the late 1800s to keep inter racial marriages from occurring? Sounds like a good reason for the government to get involved in marriage, don't you think? Sounds like an even better reason for governments to get out of it.

The goal of the gays is not to be included in marriage, but rather to destroy it all together. In most cases, its not really an institution they seek. But all the sudden, they want to live “happily ever after” with government sanction. The Supreme Court has determined this to be a Constitutional right they have. Again, its a power play. The government wants to play God and define marriage. They want to tell you who can and cannot get married. They want to force you to accept a marriage that you consider a depraved joke. And eventually, they'll seek to punish you if you don't toe the line.

Most “Confederate flag” types are straight. And most gays hate their guts. Perhaps the feeling is often mutual. Southern Heritage went down in smoke this month. The witch hunt is almost complete. And homosexuals are giddy over a right that they shouldn't even really care about. But both groups, the anti-flag group and the pro-gay group want control. They want their enemies squelched. They want all dissension silenced and even outlawed. And the courts, the press, and the President are on their side. Dixie's burning once again, while rainbow clad sodomites are dancing in the streets. Whatever vestiges of honor that remained in America are soon to be no more. The rabid dogs of society are now calling the shots and they'll continue to chip away at every other issue they want. Health care, gun control, environmental extremism, you name it. They'll get it. And we'll suffer. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to sit in my easy chair and whistle Dixie while I read what the Bible says about homosexuality. Today I can still do that. Tomorrow it might be outlawed. “Oh I wish I were in the land of cotton......”


"...cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation."

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

(Douglas Main)

If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.

Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk ofimpaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.

Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”

You might think, then, that fluoridated water’s efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.

The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975.

The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either.

The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).

“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)

“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

“There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 studycovered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.

Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.

“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.

The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water.

“The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Tilland Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.

Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says.

It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.

Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.

Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children’s permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to 26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available.

The review also found fluoridation was associated with a 14 percent increase in the number of children without any cavities. But more than two-thirds percent of the studies showing this took place more than 40 years ago, and are not of high quality.

Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the cavity-reducing studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general (like how much sugar they consumed) or ethnicity.

When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn’t seem to be well-known.

“I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says.

The data suggest that toothpaste, besides other preventative measures like dental sealants, flossing and avoiding sugar, are the real drivers in the decline of tooth decay in the past few decades, Thiessen says. Indeed, cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.


"Global debt levels are at all-time highs, big banks all over the planet have been behaving more recklessly than ever, and financial markets are absolutely primed for a huge crash."

16 Facts About The Tremendous Financial Devastation That We Are Seeing All Over The World
By Michael Snyder

As we enter the second half of 2015, financial panic has gripped most of the globe. Stock prices are crashing in China, in Europe and in the United States. Greece is on the verge of a historic default, and now Puerto Rico and Ukraine are both threatening to default on their debts if they do not receive concessions from their creditors. Not since the financial crisis of 2008 has so much financial chaos been unleashed all at once. Could it be possible that the great financial crisis of 2015 has begun? The following are 16 facts about the tremendous financial devastation that is happening all over the world right now…

1. On Monday, the Dow fell by 350 points. That was the biggest one day decline that we have seen in two years.

2. In Europe, stocks got absolutely smashed. Germany’s DAX index dropped 3.6 percent, and France’s CAC 40 was down 3.7 percent.

3. After Greece, Italy is considered to be the most financially troubled nation in the eurozone, and on Monday Italian stocks were down more than 5 percent.

4. Greek stocks were down an astounding 18 percent on Monday.

5. As the week began, we witnessed the largest one day increase in European bond spreads that we have seen in seven years.

6. Chinese stocks have already met the official definition of being in a “bear market” – the Shanghai Composite is already down more than 20 percent from the high earlier this year.

7. Overall, this Chinese stock market crash is the worst that we have witnessed in 19 years.

8. On Monday, Standard & Poor’s slashed Greece’s credit rating once again and publicly stated that it believes that Greece now has a 50 percent chance of leaving the euro.

9. On Tuesday, Greece is scheduled to make a 1.6 billion euro loan repayment. One Greek official has already stated that this is not going to happen.

10. Greek banks have been totally shut down, and a daily cash withdrawal limit of 60 euros has been established. Nobody knows when this limit will be lifted.

11. Yields on 10 year Greek government bonds have shot past 15 percent.

12. U.S. investors are far more exposed to Greece than most people realize. The New York Times explains…

But the question of what happens when the markets do open is particularly acute for the hedge fund investors — including luminaries like David Einhorn and John Paulson — who have collectively poured more than 10 billion euros, or $11 billion, into Greek government bonds, bank stocks and a slew of other investments.

Through the weekend, Nicholas L. Papapolitis, a corporate lawyer here, was working round the clock comforting and cajoling his frantic hedge fund clients.

“People are freaking out,” said Mr. Papapolitis, 32, his eyes red and his voice hoarse. “They have made some really big bets on Greece.”

13. The Governor of Puerto Rico has announced that the debts that the small island has accumulated are “not payable“.

14. Overall, the government of Puerto Rico owes approximately 72 billion dollars to the rest of the world. Without debt restructuring, it is inevitable that Puerto Rico will default. In fact, CNN says that it could happen by the end of this summer.

15. Ukraine has just announced that it may “suspend debt payments” if their creditors do not agree to take a 40 percent “haircut”.

16. This week the Bank for International Settlements has just come out with a new report that says that central banks around the world are “defenseless” to stop the next major global financial crisis.

Without a doubt, we are overdue for another major financial crisis. All over the planet, stocks are massively overvalued, and financial markets have become completely disconnected from economic reality. And when the next crash happens, many believe that it will be even worse than what we experienced back in 2008. For example, just consider the words of Jim Rogers…

“In the United States, we have had economic slowdowns every four to seven years since the beginning of the Republic. It’s now been six or seven years since our last stock market problem. We’re overdue for another problem.”

In Rogers’ view, low interest rates caused stock prices to increase significantly. He believes many assets are priced beyond their fundamentals thanks to the ultra-easy monetary policies by the Federal Reserve. Fed supporters argue such measures are good for investors, but Rogers takes a different view.

“The Fed might tell us we don’t have to worry and that a correction or crash will never happen again. That’s balderdash! When this artificial sea of liquidity ends, we’re going to pay a terrible price. When the next economic problem occurs, it will be much worse because the debt is so much higher.”

Of course Rogers is far from alone. A recent article by Paul B. Farrell expressed similar sentiments…

America’s 95 million investors are at huge risk. Remember the $10 trillion losses in the crash and recession of 2007-2009? The $8 trillion lost after the dot-com technology crash and recession of 2000-2003? This is the third big recession of the century. Yes, America will lose trillions again.

Especially with dead-ahead predictions like Mark Cook’s 4,000-point Dow correction. And Jeremy Grantham’s warning of a 50% crash around election time, with negative stock returns through the first term of the next president, beyond 2020. Starting soon.

Why is America so vulnerable when the next recession hits? Simple: The Fed’s cheap-money giveaway is killing America. When the downturn, correction, crash hits, it will compare to the 2008 crash. The Economist warns: “the world will be in a rotten position to do much about it. Rarely have so many large economies been so ill-equipped to manage a recession,” whatever the trigger.

Things have been relatively quiet in the financial world for so long that many have been sucked into a false sense of security.

But the underlying imbalances were always there, and they have been getting worse over time.

I believe that we are heading into a global financial collapse that will make what happened in 2008 look like a Sunday picnic by the time it is all said and done.

Global debt levels are at all-time highs, big banks all over the planet have been behaving more recklessly than ever, and financial markets are absolutely primed for a huge crash.

Hopefully things will calm down a bit as the rest of this week unfolds, but I wouldn’t count on it.

We have entered uncharted territory, and what comes next is going to shock the world.


"The welfare-warfare state way of life destroys both freedom and prosperity. There is but one solution to this moral and economic morass in Greece, Puerto Rico, the United States, and the rest of the world: a dismantling, not a reform, of the welfare-warfare state way of life. Greece has posted a warning sign to Americans. Will Americans heed it before it’s too late or will they stubbornly continue traveling down the same road?"

The Bankruptcy of Greece’s Welfare State
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Make no mistake about it: The economic and financial crisis in Greece is rooted in the welfare state, a way of life in which a nation’s government is charged with the responsibility of taking money from people and giving it to other people. It is this way of life — the welfare-state way of life — that has taken Greece down.

It is Greece’s welfare-state way of life that led to out-of-control government spending and out-of-control government borrowing, ultimately leading the government and country into bankruptcy. It’s the welfare-state mindset that now has Greece hoping and praying that taxpayers from other countries will send their hard-earned money to Greece, thereby enabling the Greek government to service its debt and continue funding its welfare-state programs.

Sure, it’s theoretically possible to have a welfare state in which the total tax revenues exceed or equal the total amount being paid for the dole. But the big problem is, as Greeks have learned, that the number of people who like receiving a dole increases while the number of people paying the taxes that fund the dole decreases. Rather than cut the dole to match the tax revenues, which will make the dole recipients angry, the government proceeds to borrow the difference and continue increasing the amounts paid for the dole.

Take note, America. If you think that this sort of thing can’t happen here, you’re living in la la land. Economic and financial principles are immutable, just like the law of gravity. If a Greek jumps off a 40-story building, he is going to die. By the same token, the same thing will happen to an American citizen who does the same thing, no matter how exceptional he thinks he is.

For decades the U.S. government has been spending and borrowing to the hilt, doing much the same thing the Greek government has done. Like the Greek government, the U.S. government has been spending much more than it receives in the form of taxes. How does it do that? Like the Greek government, it borrows the difference.

That’s why the size of the federal government’s debt continues to soar. Every year, the federal government spends more than it brings in, and it borrows the difference. The “national” (read: government’s) debt continues soaring.

As we see with Greece, a government’s debt can become so large that the government simply cannot pay its expenses, continue doling out its welfare payments, and servicing the interest and principle on the debt. That’s when it’s busted. That’s why too much debt is a very dangerous thing, not only for families but also for governments.

In fact, the so-called debt ceiling is an acknowledgement of the dangers of too much government debt. The “debt ceiling” is a maximum amount of debt that Congress has permitted the federal government to incur. Once it reaches that ceiling, it cannot borrow any more money. At that point, it must operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, no different from a family that has maxed out its credit cards.

But notice something important here: Every time the debt ceiling is reached, the mainstream press scream like banshees about how the ceiling has to be raised or else the sky will fall. Every time the debt ceiling is reached, Congress bends to the pressure and agrees to raise the ceiling, permitting the spend-and-borrow orgy to continue, just as it did in Greece.

Notice something else important: After each time that the debt ceiling is reached, most everyone, especially the mainstream press, forgets about the problem, until the next time the debt ceiling is reached, and the screaming and fear-mongering get revved up again, at which point the ceiling is raised again.

It’s true that the United States has a much larger pool of wealth to tax than Greece has. But don’t forget that America also has a gigantic warfare state and military-intelligence empire that Greece doesn’t have. Greece has a giant welfare state while the United States has a giant welfare-warfare state.

Four years ago, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. government’s credit rating, owing to the large amount of ever-growing debt owed by the U.S. government. Two years later, in a classic retaliatory move the feds went after S&P during the mortgage crisis. Apparently U.S. officials believed that if they shot the messenger, that would solve their ever-growing debt problem.

But it won’t. America continues to go the way of Greece. Or, for that matter, Puerto Rico, whose government just announced this week that it is unable to pay its $72 billion in debt.

If the Greek government fails to secure its hoped-for bailout from European (or American) taxpayers, every American should watch unfolding events with much interest because they will show what lies in store for the American people down the road — i.e., bank runs, bank “holidays,” asset seizures (including retirement accounts), increased taxes, capital controls, and a constantly debased national currency (that will replace the Euro).

The welfare-warfare state way of life destroys both freedom and prosperity. There is but one solution to this moral and economic morass in Greece, Puerto Rico, the United States, and the rest of the world: a dismantling, not a reform, of the welfare-warfare state way of life. Greece has posted a warning sign to Americans. Will Americans heed it before it’s too late or will they stubbornly continue traveling down the same road?


Monday, June 29, 2015

"2+2 does equal 5"

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech
By John W. Whitehead

If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”

We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”

In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.

Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.

Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.

The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, N.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.

These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.

For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.
Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.

In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.

Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.

Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?

It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’sFahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.

And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to1984:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts....

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.


"Under a big lie, the truth is the great shocker."

The individual vs. collective mind control
Jon Rappoport

“Inside the mind, there is a landscape of reality. Its purpose? Maintaining personal stability. Society’s programmers feed that landscape, they provide it with more material to confirm that the overall portrait of reality is correct.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Under a big lie, the truth is the great shocker. I’ve been writing about one of these truths for years, and I always measure the reaction or lack of reaction.

I’m talking about the mass of mainstream evidence that, in the United States, every year, the medical system kills 225,000 people. This is a conservative assessment.

I point out that the death toll, when extrapolated to a decade, is 2.25 million Americans.

When I’ve presented these figures to mainstream reporters, doctors, scientists, some independent reporters, the response is:


Whether I’ve communicated through writing or in person, it’s as if I haven’t said anything at all.

There is a blank space, a hiatus, a fracture in time.

It’s as if I’ve been remarking on the weather…and who cares about the weather.

It’s quite stunning.

But of course, there is a split-second reaction: “No, that couldn’t be true.”

There are several supporting “reasons” for assuming the medically caused death-numbers couldn’t be true, and these reasons also flicker for a moment on the screen of the mind:

“If that were true, I would have heard about it.”

“If those figures were true, everything I’ve heard about doctors helping people, saving people, giving them the best care…I’d have to rethink all that.”

“No group could be killing that many people.”

I would call those and other similar “reasons” normal and average reactions.

Beyond them, there is something else going on. The person on the receiving end of the data is doing a scan, so to speak. A scan of…

His basic conception of reality.

This inner conception, structure, landscape encompasses many subjects and areas.

It offers great stability, on a subconscious level.

And this structure is suddenly threatened. All of it.

And that must never happen.

Therefore, on a conscious level, the person appears to notice nothing. There is no visible reaction.

Imagine something like this: a landscape composed of tall buildings, offices, government centers, corporate headquarters, media broadcasts beaming out into streets, mountains of conventional data about politics, economics, social conditions—all this and more sitting in the subconscious of a person. And then…

There is an intrusion. A single disruptive intrusion. A fact that shakes the whole structure in the mind, like an earthquake.

Alarms go off. “Reject that fact! Reject it! It’s false! It has to be false! Maintain stability!”

“Stability being restored. The structure is intact. Standards are being rebooted. Normality is being reasserted. Resume standard operations.”

The big truth is neutralized.

Hypnotherapist, Jack True, with whom I did much research in the late 1980s, once put it to me this way in an interview: “A person will do everything in his power to maintain his ‘inner landscape’, because it protects a core of passivity.”

One important power is the power to reject. Reject with no compromise. In the active person, this is a prelude to more discovery, more knowledge, more insight.

In Adjustment Team (1954), Philip K Dick wrote:

“You were supposed to have been in the Sector when the adjustment began. Because of an error you were not. You came into the Sector late — during the adjustment itself. You fled, and when you returned it was over. You saw, and you should not have seen. Instead of a witness you should have been part of the adjustment. Like the others, you should have undergone changes… something went wrong. An error occurred. And now a serious problem exists. You have seen these things. You know a great deal. And you are not coordinated with the new configuration.”

What I call the Reality Manufacturing Company wants everyone to have the same inner configuration.

That is the basis of collectivism at the deepest level.

“The people” or “the collective” is a convenient term for “every INDIVIDUAL.”

This has been lost in translation. It has been garbled, distorted, just as the proprietor of an old-fashioned carnival shell game distorts the audience’s perception with sleight of hand.

Are “the people” one group? Well, that’s the ultimate Globalist formulation.

However, from the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the monolithic corporate State’s.

From his point of view, what does the social landscape look like?


I’m not talking about organizations that are actually streamlined to produce something of value. I’m talking about organizations that PLAN MORE ORGANIZATION OF LIFE.

If you want to spend a disturbing afternoon, read through (and try to fathom) the bewildering blizzard of sub-organizations that make up the European Union. I did. And I emerged with a new definition of insanity. OTO. The Obsession to Organize.

OTO speaks of a bottomless fear that somewhere, someone might be living free.

People tend to think their own power is either a delusion or some sort of abstraction that’s never really EXPERIENCED. So when the subject is broached, it goes nowhere. It fizzles out. It garners shrugs and looks of confusion. Power? Are you talking about the ability to lift weights?

And therefore, the whole notion of freedom makes a very small impression, because without power, what’s the message of freedom? A person can choose vanilla or chocolate? He can watch Law&Order or CSI? He can buy a Buick or a Honda? He can take a trip to Yosemite or Disney World? He can pack a lunch or eat out at a restaurant? He can ask for a raise or apply for a better job with another company? That’s it? He can swim in his pool or work out at the gym?

He can take Prozac, or Paxil, or Zoloft?

Mostly, as the years roll by, he opts for more cynicism and tries to become a “smarter realist.” And that is how he closes the book on his life.

Every which way power can be discredited or misunderstood…people will discredit it and misunderstand it.

And then all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major shift, in order to accommodate to a reality, a space in which the individual has virtually no power at all.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include this one: “power=greed.” Mountains of propaganda are heaped on people to convince them that having individual power to make something happen is the same as committing crimes against humanity.

Globalism=collectivism=Glob-consciousness. We’re all one Glob. We exist in that great Cheese Melt.

Even the radical Left of the 1960s, who rioted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, because they believed the nominee, Hubert Humphrey, and his allies wouldn’t stop the war in Vietnam…even that radical force on the Left eventually gave in and morphed into romantic sentimentalists who came to love the State under Clinton and Obama.

Sooner or later, it comes down to the question: does the individual conceive of himself as an individual, or as part of The Group?

Shall the individual discover how much power and freedom and imagination he actually has, or shall he cut off that process of discovery at the knees, in order to join a group whose aims are diluted and foreshortened versions of consciousness and freedom?

The individual answers these questions overtly, with great consideration, or the questions answer and diminish him through wretched default.

Consider this,…

The Surveillance State is a robot camera. It captures everything, based on the premise that what isn’t Normal is dangerous.

The cartels of the world become the cartels of the mind.

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The US would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of US government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet. Not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units.”

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the State.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people. Groups.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals,provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility channeled into support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

Collective=robot minds welded into one mind.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story–”share and care”—took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In certain cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions and forgotten.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

This could happen to you. You would be exposed. You would suffer the consequences. Let others take the fall. Keep your mind blank. Do nothing unusual. Shorten your attention span. Disable your own mental machinery. Then you’ll never be tempted to stand out from the mass.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The Plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move, in order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman, and child.

Strapped by an amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

The deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Yet a struggle continues to live. It lives in the hidden places of every individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage.

Freedom and power again. The shattering of amnesia.

In this stolen world.

A new stage play:

The extinct individual returns.

Petty little hungers and obsessions become great hungers.

Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The stinking structure collapses, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes.

The vast sticky web called “the people” begins to disintegrate in roaring cities and in the mind.

A new instructive message appears on billboards and screens: “normal=crazy.”


Truth is treason in an empire of lies...

Truth is a Crime Against The State

Paul Craig Roberts

The entire Western edifice rests on lies. There is no other foundation. Just lies.

This makes truth an enemy. Enemies have to be suppressed, and thus truth has to be suppressed.

Truth comes from foreign news sources, such as RT, and from Internet sites, such as this one.

Thus, Washington and its vassals are busy at work closing down independent media.

Washington and its vassals have redefined propaganda. Truth is propaganda if it is told by countries, such as Russia and China, that have independent foreign policies.

Propaganda is truth if told by Washington and its puppets, such as the EU Observer.

The EU Observer, little doubt following Washington’s orders, has denounced RT and Sputnik News for “broadcasting fabrications and hate speech from their bureaus in European Union cities.”

Often I appear on both RT and Sputnik. In my opinion both are too restrained in their reporting, fearful, of course, of being shut down, than full truth requires. I have never heard a word of hate speech or propaganda on either. Washington’s propaganda, perhaps, but not the Russian government’s.

In other words, the way Washington has the news world rigged, not even independent news sites can speak completely clearly.

The Western presstitutes have succeeded in creating a false reality for insouciant Americans and also for much of the European Union population.

A sizable percentage of these insouciant peoples believe that Russia invaded Ukranine and that Russia is threatening to invade the Baltic States and Poland. This belief exists despite all intelligence of all Western governments reporting that there is no sign of any Russian forces that would be required for invasion.

The “Russian invasion,” like “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections,” like “Assad of Syria’s use of chemical weapons against his own people,” like “Iranian nukes,” never existed but nevertheless became the reality in the Western media. The insouciant Western peoples believe in non-existent occurrencies.

In other words, just to state the obvious noncontroversial fact, the Western “news” media is a propaganda ministry from which no truth emerges.

Thus, the Western World is ruled by propaganda. Truth is excluded. Fox “news,” CNN, the NY Times, Washington Post, and all the rest of the most accomplished liars in world history, repeat constantly the same lies. For Washington, of course, and the military/security complex.

War is the only possible outcome of propaganda in behalf of war. When the irresponsible Western media brings Armageddon to you, you can thank the New York Times and the rest of the presstitutes for the destruction of yourself and all your hopes for yourself and your children.

Stephen Lendman, who comprises a good chunk of the remaining moral conscience of the West, explains the situation:

EU Bashes “Russian Propaganda”

by Stephen Lendman

Western major media march to the same drummer – dutifully regurgitating managed news misinformation garbage, willfully burying hard truths on issues mattering most.

Alternative sources beholden to truth and full disclosure operate by different standards – engendering ire among Western nations wanting their high crimes suppressed – bashing sources revealing them.

The EU Observer (EUO) claims independent credentials while supporting policies responsible news sources denounce.

Independently reporting hard truths isn’t its long suit. Its editor, Lisbeth Kirk, is the wife of former Danish European Parliament member Jens-Peter Bonde. Human Rights Watch’s European and Central Asian advocacy director Veronika Szente Goldston calls its journalists “the most in-your-face in Brussels.”

EUO irresponsibly bashed Russia’s Sputnik News and RT International – two reputable sources for news, information and analysis – polar opposite Western media propaganda.

It shamelessly called their reporting valued by growing millions “broadcasting fabrications and hate speech from their bureaus in EU cities.”

It touted plans by EU officials to counter what they called “use and misuse of communications tools…play(ing) an important role in the dramatic political, economic and security-related developments (in) Eastern (European countries) over the past 18 months.”

It drafted a nine-page “action plan” intended to convey “positive” messages. It’ll increase funding to blast out Europe’s view of things more effectively.

It wants EU policies promoted in former Russian republics the old-fashioned way – by repeating Big Lies often enough until most people believe them.

A new EU foreign service cell called East StratComTeam operating by September will run things – functioning as a European ministry of propaganda.

It’ll “develop dedicated communication material on priority issues…put at the disposal of the EU’s political leadership, press services, EU delegations and EU member states.”

Material circulated in Russia and other EU countries aims to let news consumers “easily understand that political and economic reforms promoted by the EU can, over time, have a positive impact on their daily lives” – even though precisely the opposite is true.

It wants so-called benefits Europeans enjoy explained to people continent-wide. Will millions of unemployed, underemployed and impoverished people buy what’s plainly untrue from their own experience?

Sputnik News, RT, US independent sources like the Progressive Radio Network and numerous others steadily gain audience strength at the expense of scoundrel media people abandon for good reason.

Growing numbers want truth and full disclosure on things affecting their lives and welfare. Politicians in Western countries want ordinary people treated like mushrooms – well-watered and in the dark.

RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said “the European Union is diligently trying to stifle the alternative voice of RT, at a time when in Europe there are hundreds of newspapers, television channels and radio stations, which set out only one point of view on what is happening in the world.”

The BBC is Fox News with an English accent. US so-called public radio and broadcasting are no different – telling listeners and viewers everything except what they most need to know.

Simonyan explained “Britain (has) an entire army brigade of 1,500 men…whose tasks include the fight against Russia on social networks. NATO has a task force aimed at countering Russian influence throughout the world.”

“Only recently, Deutsche Welle launched a 24-hour television channel in English to counter RT. At the same time, nearly all the major Western media, including the BBC, DW and Euronews have long disseminated their information in the Russian language, while Radio Liberty, funded directly by the US government, broadcasts in Russian.”

“(I)f after all this, the EU still complains that they are losing the ‘information war’ against Russia, perhaps it’s time to realize that” growing numbers of people are fed up with being lied to.

People want reliable sources of news, information and analysis unavailable through mainstream Western sources using propagandists masquerading as journalists.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Mom upset after police pick up daughter from park...

And they said it couldn't happen here...

From freedom to fascism in a few easy steps
by Bob Livingston

Politicians know this ruse well: If they want to put something illegal or immoral upon the people, they simply create names that convey something good and/or operate in secret to cover their chicanery.

The president and Congress have used this old ruse once again as they move forward the so-called free trade treaties, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The treaties are so secretive that congressweasels had to sign nondisclosure statements to view them in secret rooms, and they cannot discuss specifics or take notes of the treaties. Most of the congressweasels did not even bother to read the treaties before voting for them, but they tell us they are for our own good.

So here we have Congress legislating away American sovereignty through stealth and deception, aided and abetted by the distractive clamor over a Confederate battle flag flying in South Carolina.

And over there we have new calls for gun control under the guise of “bipartisanship” from Sens. Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin following the shooting of nine Christians worshiping in a church. Never mind that the shooter, a deranged, bigoted, drug-addled psychopath broke no fewer than 10 laws in the process of committing his heinous crime. The elites tell us another gun law would have certainly stopped him in his tracks, and removing the flag aforetime would have certainly ended his bigoted notions.

Next we have, the Supreme Court assaulting religious liberty and the historical tradition of marriage with a power-usurping ruling legalizing so-called “gay marriage.”

Propaganda is distortion to promote illegitimate government designs or to promote usury commerce. Behind every propaganda message, there is the transfer of wealth and power to the corporate state. The propaganda covers the slide toward fascism. In fascism, as in America today, commerce and government overlap.

We have come from freedom to fascism in America in just over 200 years and done so without a shot being fired.

How has this been accomplished? It is simple. I first wrote the steps to take us from freedom to fascism for the Personal Liberty reader back in 2010. In light of current events, it’s time to repeat it… with some additions.

It’s accomplished over time — using gradualism — even if it’s accomplished long after those who set it in motion are dead and gone. Here’s how:

Change the monetary system to fiat, i.e., paper money.
Transfer wealth with fiat to the state via inflation and depreciation of the currency. Have a graduated income tax and a vast despotic bureaucracy to collect it.
Create wars.
Keep race stirred up with class warfare.
Destroy the family — put the wife to work.
Promote homosexuality. Glorify it.
Create government schools under the name of free public education. Dumb the people down so they can’t think. Teach them pseudo-history.
Unisex and/or transgender.
Promote “brotherly love” — altruism.
Denigrate women.
Feminize men and boys.
Glorify sex, promote perversion.
Hold on to and maintain all the historic freedom-sounding names like Constitution, privacy rights, private property, American flag, voting rights, democracy, elected representatives, free press, etc.
Use very elite and refined propaganda to sway the public on all issues.
Keep the public ignorant on gold (real money). Erase it from memory.
Gun control through gradualism. Cultivate the public to fear guns by promoting the idea that guns are dangerous. Inflate gun accidents and gun incidents on nationwide media. Sensationalize the negative.
Keep the trusted gang in power no matter who is president.
Manipulate government statistics.
Govern through crisis. Ram bills through under the guise of “emergency.”
Promote peace and manufacture arms for export. Be the world’s No. 1 arms manufacturer and dealer.
Harass people with “foreign bank accounts” while having the largest tax haven in the world with and through U.S. banks within the U.S.
Enslave the world with fiat euphemistically called a reserve currency. Don’t allow the gold standard anywhere in the world.
Call it private property but have perpetual and increasing property taxes.
Confuse the terms liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, fascist, democrat, republican.
Give the vote to noncitizens.
Keep the populace unhealthy. Push drugs as “cures” and deny natural alternatives.
Promise more free “stuff” to be paid for through theft of wealthy.

“But, Bob,” you say, “America is free. It is a democracy. We vote in our ‘leaders.’ There are no jackboots and no Gestapo.”

In America we have benevolent totalitarianism. This is a term that we created to describe the modern system of government that is fascism in all but name. It is all hidden under that loving word “democracy.” This is a political lock with an iron grip on the minds of the population.

Any political, economic, or military alchemy or chicanery is hidden behind the word “democracy.” This is a major, major key to understanding reality today.

Germany had the overt symbols of tyranny and the transfer of the democratic process to the police state. There was the jackboot authority shrouded with the occult swastika. It was despotism in full regalia. Institutional life took on militarism and the harsh discipline of a police state.

America still has all the symbols of liberty and all the trappings of human freedom. It is totalitarianism made palatable with a democratic aura.

So what is the difference between ugly and obvious Nazi fascism and modern fascism under the pretense of democracy? Modern fascism is hidden and twisted under an aura of benevolence.

After all, the modern propagandists have learned volumes since Nazi fascism. The modern police state does everything possible to make modern fascism palatable. It is being refined every minute of every day.


Just leave me the hell alone...

Self-Determination and Secession

By Ryan McMaken

The secessionist impulse doesn’t seem to be going away in Europe. This month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the latest drive for secession comes from Sardinia. The leaders of the movement propose that the island, only part of Italy since the 1860s, be joined to Switzerland instead.

The Sardinians have a tough row to hoe in convincing the Swiss to accept them as the newest Swiss canton (Sardinians do have a coastline to offer, however), but the whole episode illustrates yet again that the national borders drawn on the map over the past two centuries are beginning to outlive their usefulness.

What Is Self-Determination?

As with the Venetians, the Scots, and the Catalonians, the matter of Sardinian secession and/or annexation involves any number of referenda and discussions about “self-determination.” And in this case, as with most similar cases, one is left with the problem of determining how one can morally go about switching state affiliations without precipitating war or accusations of human rights abuses. The Europeans don’t phrase it this way, but when they discuss the need for plebiscites and “democracy,” this is what they mean.

Certainly, this problem was not at all alien to the laissez-faire liberals of the nineteenth century, including Ludwig von Mises, who wrote: “No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” Mises then went on to defend “the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong.”

Murray Rothbard explained Mises’s position further:

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.

On a purely technical level, it’s easy to imagine this sort of territorial plebiscitary process. The problem one is left with in these cases, however, is what to do with minorities that oppose the secession or annexation by other states. This is the claim made by nationalists who oppose secession by Catalonia, for example. The nationalists assert that even if a majority were to prefer independence, minorities within Catalonia itself would be disenfranchised by secession.

The nationalists’ solution in this scenario, therefore, is to disenfranchise the majority. But this “solution” is nothing more than an appeal to the central government to unilaterally “settle” the problem with force. In contrast, the proper solution lies not in centralization but in further breaking down the size of each territory into smaller pieces to account for demographic realities and minority populations (which are rarely evenly dispersed) within the regions themselves.

Doesn’t This Lead To Anarchism?

But if any community, no matter how small, can simply break off and join another state or remain independent, what’s to stop single households from doing this?

Rothbard asked this same question, and it brings us back to Mises’s comments on self-determination. Mises writes:

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations which make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.

In other words, anarchism is theoretically justifiable, although technically problematic. Mises no doubt has a point here since there are economies of scale in both military and civil defense. It is debatable whether or not the technical consideration — from the state’s perspective — cannot be overcome with technological innovation, however. Bureaucratic administration (whether governmental or private) may have required a certain minimum size of departments and territorial units in Mises’s day, but it’s unclear that such problems are insurmountable today given the decentralization and networking capabilities of modern administrative and communications technology.

Nevertheless, from a sociological and economic standpoint, Mises’s concern about there being a practical “floor” to the extent to which states can be broken up appears to be useful. After all, there is no denying that people like to join together in groups for a variety of purposes not limited to military and economic ends. The mega-states of the modern world are held together by coercion, but cities, towns, and communities are naturally occurring phenomena that pre-date states.

Moreover, just as I give up the freedom to talk loudly or adjust the volume when I watch a movie at a theater instead of my home, virtually everyone — even in a system of theoretically limitless secession — would give up at least some of his own personal prerogatives in the name of joining a municipality, league, or association that could provide legal and defense services. At the same time, individuals would be careful to keep the majority of power at the local level, since individuals can still exercise influence over localized governments. (This is not the case in a huge state like the United States where an individual who is not a billionaire has nearly zero influence over anything the national government does.)

But this raises a new question. If people “choose” to give up certain prerogatives to join with others in cities and towns, isn’t this true of all states? Haven’t people “voluntarily” chosen to be part of Russia, or part of the United States? The answer here is “no” because without a meaningful ability to make choices — or provide a new choice via secession — no truly voluntary choice has been made.

A Sliding Scale From One-World Government To Statelessness

As I’ve noted here, states erect legal and practical barriers to extend their monopoly powers over a large area, and over many facets of life in order to diminish choices and options. Likewise, states generally prohibit the creation of new states, so as to further strengthen their monopolies.

So, the extent to which one is voluntarily subject to a civil government moves along a sliding scale. At one end of the scale is a one-world mega-state where no choice is possible at all. At the other end of the scale is a totally stateless society. Most — if not all — of human history has been characterized by civil governments that fall somewhere in between. Some civil governments are very large and very coercive. That is, they are quintessential states. Some governments are very small and very decentralized and are much less state-like. These later governments must compete with numerous nearby options for citizens and capital.

Naturally, a world with fewer states and very centralized states offers few options, which in turn means fewer choices for persons, cities, towns, and communities.

In spite of this, we still sometimes encounter the bizarre argument that secession is bad because secession “creates a new state.” But, just as consumers of pizza benefit when a new Pizza Hut opens down the street to compete with Domino’s Pizza, consumers of defense services and legal systems benefit when a new competitor becomes available in their neighborhood of states. If Domino’s Pizza managed to use force to prevent any other Pizza chain from opening up in town, that would clearly be a bad thing. Likewise, when a state uses force to prevent the creation of a new state, or prevent the movement of a region from one state to another, we can see this is undesirable because it limits choice, freedom, innovation, and all the good things we associate with a lack of monopoly power.

So Can Sardinia Morally Secede?

In the unlikely event that Switzerland declared it would love to welcome Sardinia into the confederation, Italian unionists would still oppose secession on legal and sentimental grounds. They would also claim that Sardinia cannot secede because some Sardinians wish to remain part of Italy. If a majority of Sardinians actually wished to secede, though, then Italian unionists are making the arbitrary claim that most Sardinians should be forced to remain in Italy because some Sardinians say so. And of course, the power of the Italian state would be hung as a constant threat over the heads of secessionists as well.

The answer to this conundrum is not to simply accept the might-makes-right argument, of course. The answer is to therefore break Sardinia itself into smaller pieces. If the people of North Sardinia want to secede, and the people of South Sardinia, do not, then our problem has been solved. Even after this division is made, there are sure to still be disagreeable minorities, but with each reduction in the size of the territory in question, the amount of choice for those in the unfortunate minority increases. A move to South Sardinia from North Sardinia (to escape the secessionists) is far less disruptive to one’s life than a move from Sardinia to the Italian mainland for the same purposes.

There is no perfect and clean method of breaking down nation-states, but as the Americans, the Irish, the Chechens, and many others could tell us, state intervention to prevent secession is often the bloodiest and messiest option of all.


Meanwhile, why every one was getting into a tizzy over the Confederate flag...

The world is defenceless against the next financial crisis, warns BIS

Monetary policymakers have run out of room to fight the next crisis with interest rates unable to go lower, the BIS warns

By Peter Spence

The world will be unable to fight the next global financial crash as central banks have used up their ammunition trying to tackle the last crises, the Bank of International Settlements has warned.

The so-called central bank of central banks launched a scatching critique of global monetary policy in its annual report. The BIS claimed that central banks have backed themselves into a corner after repeatedly cutting interest rates to shore up their economies.

These low interest rates have in turn fuelled economic booms, encouraging excessive risk taking. Booms have then turned to busts, which policymakers have responded to with even lower rates.

Claudio Borio, head of the organisation’s monetary and economic department, said: “Persistent exceptionally low rates reflect the central banks’ and market participants’ response to the unusually weak post-crisis recovery as they fumble in the dark in search of new certainties.”

Read the rest here:

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Look who used a confederate flag in his campaign...

"The Lady is very confused..."

Lady Rothschild: Capitalism Should Be Socialism

Robert Wenzel

Lynn Forester de Rothschild (60) who is married to Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild (83) has a problem with concentrated wealth. It is apparently, though, just a "theoretical" problem, since she never mentions giving any significant portion of the wealth controlled by her and her husband.

The couple's estimated net worth is $20 billion.

She detailed her latest "concerns" during an interview on CNBC:.

Nothing is wrong with capitalism (but) it is meant to be a process that creates broadly-shared prosperity. So if capitalism was really working, then the term, the 'One Percent,' would not have gained the traction that it has, so how do we make it work for more people?

For starters, she is confusing capital with consumption goods. Just because many people don't own oodles of capital doesn't mean they don't benefit by the consumer goods created by the capital. That's what increases the standard of living, production of consumer goods. Secondly, the great barrier to new wealth is government regulations which make it extremely difficult to compete with established wealth. If Lady Rothschild really wanted to open the way for more capital accumulators, she should be decrying regulations that limit competition.

As for her claim that capital is meant as a process for "shared prosperity," she sounds as though she is implying that capitalism should be socialism.

The Lady is very confused.


Enjoy this song before it gets banned...

Go away for a few days and all hell breaks loose...

The Real Reason for the Anti-Confederate Flag Hysteria

By Thomas DiLorenzo

Every couple of years the totalitarian socialist Left in America (a.k.a., the Democratic Party and all of its appendages) pretends to be indignant about the existence of the Confederate flag somewhere. The lapdog cultural Marxist media fall in line, treating the siting of the flag in the same way they would treat the siting of an Ebola victim in a large crowd. Americans are reminded once again by the New York/New England/Ivy League-educated presstitute class that they should hate Southerners and all things Southern. As Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart recently whined in faux horror, Southerners “waged war against the United States” government! Waaaaaaaaah!

The anti-Confederate flag hysteria is only one small part of the Left’s general strategy, however. It is part of their overriding strategy of diverting the public’s attention away from all the grotesque failures of leftist interventionism, from the welfare state to the government takeover of education to the war on drugs and beyond. The neocons who run the Republican Party are usually complicit in all of this.

The welfare state has decimated the black family and is hard at work destroying the white family as well by eliminating the stigma against a man’s abandoning his wife and children with welfare checks (See Charles Murray, Losing Ground). What does the Confederate flag have to do with this? The welfare state has destroyed the work ethic of millions of Americans. What does the Confederate flag have to do with this? The Fed caused the biggest depression since the Great Depression with its latest boom-and-bust-cycle act. What does the Confederate flag have to do with this?

The rotten inner city government schools have enriched uneducated “teachers” and school bureaucrats but have ruined the lives of untold numbers of black children with fraudulent “education.” What does the Confederate flag have to do with this?

The war on drugs has had a horrific racial effect in that it has caused the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of mostly young black men from the inner cities while creating the reasons for drug-gang violence and all the death that is associated with it. What does the Confederate flag have to do with this?

The minimum wage law has always had a disproportionately harmful effect on black teenage unemployment. What has the Confederate flag have to do with this? High taxes, onerous regulations, and uncontrollable government spending by all levels of government have sucked resources out of the job-creating private sector only to fatten the government bureaucracy, depriving all Americans of job opportunities. What has the Confederate flag have to do with ANY of this? ALL of this was done under the auspices of the U.S. flag.

The ideological lynchpin of the cultural Marxists who dominate so much of American politics, the media and the universities is the argument that there is one and only one reason why there still exists a “black underclass” (mostly) in American cities, namely, “white privilege” and “the legacy of slavery.” To cultural Marxists, nothing else matters, or should even be allowed to be discussed. The welfare/warfare state, the war on drugs, the public schools, etc. cannot possibly have had anything but good effects, they say, because they were all undertaken with the best of intentions. It’s all the fault of “white privilege,” say privileged white politicians, privileged white university administrators, and privileged white media talking heads.

The Confederate flag, they claim, is the banner of white privilege, the sole cause of all the problems of the “underclass”; hence, all the extreme torches-and-pitchforks-type behavior over the flag in recent days. The cultural Marxist Left views it all as an assault on “white privilege,” the source of all evil in the world.

Another defining characteristic of the cultural Marxist Left is its hatred of free speech – by those who disagree with it. Free speech should only be enjoyed by the victims of white (heterosexual male) oppression, they say. Allowing white male oppressors to have free speech simply leads to even more “oppression” of the oppressed (which now includes everyone who is not a white heterosexual male). This is why so many university administrators proudly crack down on academic freedom with campus speech codes, tolerance of riotous disruptions of conservative or libertarian campus lecturers, and even the libeling and slandering of such speakers when they are allowed to speak. It makes them popular among the cultural Marxist faculty in the humanities and social sciences, and therefore makes their jobs and lives more pleasant. It also helps to cement into place the cultural Marxist mantra that “white privilege” is the one and only source of all the world’s problems.

I offer as a personal example of this phenomenon the malicious libeling of Professor Walter Block several years ago by one Brian Linnane, the president of Loyola University Maryland, an ugly event that many readers of will recall. At my invitation, Professor Block presented a lecture to the undergraduate Adam Smith Club on the evening of their annual dinner. His topic was the economics of discrimination, a very mainstream topic that is addressed in all principles of economics textbooks (I recommend Walter Williams’ new book on the subject, Race and Economics: How Much Does Discrimination Explain?). Professor Block is known as an iconoclast, but in this instance he presented a very mainstream talk consistent with the ideas of his old graduate school dissertation chairman, the late Gary Becker, author of The Economics of Discrimination, which I believe was Becker’s own dissertation at the University of Chicago way back when.

Professor Block did his usual fabulous job of explaining how racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace is penalized in a free, competitive market by creating profit opportunities for competitors. For example, if an employer pays a white male employee $50,000/year, and an equally-qualified black or female employee $25,000 for the same job for which each employee is capable of producing say, $60,000 in revenue for the employer, the black or female employee is bound to be scooped up by a competitor. The competing business person can offer them say, $35,000 and make $25,000 on the deal ($60,000 in revenue minus $35,000 in salary). Then another competitor may offer $40,000, or $50,000, etc., depending on the intensity of competition. If there is enough competition, the “pay gap” will disappear altogether. This is how free-market competition penalizes racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace and causes it to diminish or disappear. The lecture was met with applause by the students.

But the whole thing was a set-up by the campus cultural Marxists, led by the university president, Brian Linnane. They sent a single black student to the lecture who supposedly complained (not to me, the sponsor of the lecture, but to the gang of cultural Marxist faculty and administrators on campus known to some students as the “social justice crowd”) that Professor Block’s remarks were “insensitive.” That was seven years ago. To this day, no one associated with the Loyola University Maryland administration has ever revealed just what Professor Block said that was “insensitive,” or why their students should be treated like imbecilic little infants whose ears must be protected from ”insensitive” speech such as Gary Becker/University of Chicago-style economics. They even refused to answer the question when a Baltimore Sun reporter asked them about it.

The libeling occurred when Brian Linnane sent an email to all of the university’s students, faculty, and alumni apologizing for the “insensitivity” of Professor Block’s speech, which he did not personally hear, along with a sanctimonious proclamation of how devoted he was to the cause of anti-discrimination. He clearly wanted his readers to think, incorrectly, that Professor Block must have uttered some kind of racist epithet.

The real reason for the malicious libeling of Walter Block by the Loyola University administration was revealed (to me, at least) by a statement that one of the undergraduate students in the room made at the end of Professor Block’s lecture. “But we want to talk about the legacy of slavery,” he sheepishly complained, in good politically-correct fashion. Outside of the economics students in the room, who knew better, the other students like this one were thoroughly brainwashed in the cultural Marxist “white privilege” mantra along with the notion that all other discussions of the possible causes of black/white wage differences, unemployment, or anything else, should be censored by any means possible. They are incapable of even engaging in a question-and-answer session with someone like Professor Block, since that would require the use of logical thought. All they had been taught, for the most part, was how to mouth left-wing political platitudes and slogans.

Thus, the purpose of Brian Linnane’s malicious libeling of Walter Block was to send the rest of the campus the message that such non-cultural Marxist talk would no longer be tolerated on “his” campus, and that anyone who attempted it would be smeared as a racist – or worse. Something like this scenario has been played out at numerous other American universities. It is all part and parcel, along with the Confederate flag hysteria, of the cultural Marxist crusade against “white privilege” in their campaign of denial of the grotesque failures of “liberalism.”