How to bring down Obama: a primer

Note: This is an article I wanted to write for a while. Please don't misinterpret it as me sitting on my high horse telling everyone what to do...I'm sure you can do better than me! I know, I'm not even American, but I'm tired of seeing defenders of Obama met with the blunt object of weak rightwing talking points rather than the cold steel of trans-partisan truth.
________________________________________________________________

I can testify that the uncomfortable truth that convinced Bush supporters of the flaws of Bush was the fact that he oversaw a massive expansion in the size of the government. Why, among all the outrages committed under his administration, was this particular one so significant? Well, I'll suggest my opinion as to why.

As there are two distinct camps in American establishment politics, the Republicans/conservatives and the Democrats/liberals, there are two halves of the mainstream media that represent these camps, which contrary to popular opinion are not entirely opposed to each other, rather they compliment each other, they feed into one another.

The only difference is that one side (depending on whether the leader of the country is a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' supposedly) is defending the authoritarianism of "their" President while the other is NOT trying to bring down the administration; rather their job is to function as a controlled opposition, to tell their flock which issues are fair play to discuss and which are not.

During the Bush years, IF the 'liberal' media REALLY wanted to bring down Bush at any cost, they could have exposed Bush's attendance at Bohemian Grove, a venue known for homosexual orgies and weird Satanic/Pagan rituals. (see here) Now imagine what THAT would have done to his 'religious right' support!

But they didn't do that. Instead they filtered criticisms of Bush to only 'acceptable' issues like war, torture, and supposed 'free market' policies that contributed to the ruining of the economy. Not saying these (the first two at least) aren't heinous crimes, just that they aren't the ONLY crimes.

Now, take a right winger who supported Bush. They hear these arguments against "their" President coming from the left wing media organs, and they hear the right wing media organs defending Bush against these criticisms. (eg 'torture is illegal' -- 'it is needed to keep America safe' would be one such pair)

So, that right winger has been programmed by their media that anyone who says "Bush supports torture, that's wrong" is a left wing enemy and they don't really care about the torture, they just want rid of President Bush. So they kick into automatic high defensive gear. "You lefties. Why do you hate America?" The pre-prepared response prevents the right winger from even considering that torture is bad, they just want to defend their leader.

I watched this over and over again between 2005 and 2008, by which time I had figured out that this kind of media programming is almost impossible to breach. Why? Because attacking Bush from the left was a failure to all except those already convinced that Bush was bad. The way to expose Bush's flaws to Bush supporters was to show his lack of allegiance to THEIR core values, values trumpeted by THEIR media talking heads. To attack from the right.

1. Bush sold out US sovereignty via NAFTA
2. Bush oversaw a massive increase in the size of the government
3. He ran (2000) with promises of "No nation building" (thanks to Ron Paul for that point) then attempted to do nation building in two countries at once

These arguments were much more effective because they bypassed the Bush supporters' media-induced programming; their brains were no longer following pre-scripted arguments spoonfed to them by Fox News, they were thinking for themselves.

By 2008 Bush's approval ratings were under a third; the people were, to paraphrase The Obama Deception, 'on the brink of revolution - and then the elites threw up a black man.'

Lord Obama Cometh

So time passes, a new bankster puppet is (s)elected as (P)resident, and here we go again. Thankfully I didn't get sucked too far into the vortex that is Obama worship (he is supposed to be the world's President, after all!) before Ron Paul and Alex Jones' message caught up with me and I ditched the whole left-right game for good.

Obama worshippers are, of course, driven by different perspectives than Bush fanatics, even though the direction and actions of the government have remained quite consistent - in fact it may be said that if you liked George Bush, you should love Barack Obama - he's Bush on steroids!

Nevertheless, Obama supporters must be brought out from their slumber as much as possible. We have many options that may be used against Barack Obama to his fanbase, let's see how they measure up...

- Birther issue. I suspect there is substance to this. But how are Obama fans trained to react to this by the media? "Racist", basically.

- We could call him a socialist. Based on some of his actions, this might be true, though to a left winger this says "I supported Bush". Besides, Bush was almost as much a socialist as Obama is.

- You could attack his supposedly 'soft' stance on foreign relations. I certainly don't want to. This is a standard neocon, militarist talking point straight from Rupert Murdoch, and this screams "pro-war Bush supporter" to me, never mind to Obama supporters.

- You could attack his deficit spending and increasing the size of government. This is much better, as long as you are prepared for the standard response which is "Where were you when Bush did that?" You must respond in a way that doesn't make you seem like you're just against Obama - you're against all these puppet politicians and the banksters who own them.

Now for the real secret weapons: How to attack from the left


Obama said he wouldn't hire lobbyists. The left, overall, hates lobbyists, as do most people generally. Obama lied about not hiring lobbyists, call him on it.

Expose Obama's donors. The same big corporations and banks that backed McCain, also showered money on Obama (notably the Goldman Sachs mafia involved with the bailout theft). Nothing disgusts the real left more than big money corruption - and here the corruption is shown to be bi-partisan.

Obama said he would get the troops out from Iraq. Well, 50,000 'non-combat' troops are staying for years. The whole 'leaving' thing hasn't happened.

Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan and going into Pakistan. To be fair he did promise this; BUT right now the hardcore Obama supporters are using the same jingoisms about "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" just like pro-war Bush supporters used for years. Expose their hypocrisy - maybe they only want peace when "their" party is out of power?

Obama was complicit in the bailout. Nothing like the bailout exposes the "bipartisan" tyranny: Obama, McCain and Bush all working to support the banksters as they steal over twenty trillion dollars in a move that surely will mark the death of the dollar and the USA as we know it. Just remember, NOT the stimulus, the bailout. The latter was a much more heinous crime, focus on the things they associate with Bush. Bailout = Bush = Evil (but we can get Obama in there so they now realise Obama = Bailout = Bush = Evil)

Obama supports another term for Ben Bernanke, and therefore he is in support of the banksters of the Federal Reserve. You could use this to support the above 'bailout' connection. (Of course, if you can convince someone about monetary policy, then they will quickly shake off any support they have for any pro-Fed politician anyway)

It's Fascism. I firmly believe that left-wingers use the word fascism in the same places that right-wingers would use the word socialism...though techincally, the term fascism is more often correct, as it refers to 'the merger of corporate and state power'. In the left-wing psyche, 'socialism' doesn't have an effect, while 'fascism' has a very strong effect.


(Click here if you haven't seen The Obama Deception!)

The most technically correct term, encompassing both the establishment fake left and right wings, is Statism or Authoritarianism - useful words to describe any policy which is not libertarian in nature.
________________________________________________________________

I hope this serves as a useful guide to the mindset of people who support Obama, and maybe it will influence the way you interact with his minions whether it's real world or internets. Really, speaking 'left wing' and 'right wing' are close to being entirely different languages - breaching that communication gap is difficult. Men are from Mars and all that.

Oh, and if you're a fake Rupert Murdoch bootlicking right winger who is going to worship the next fake conservative (Rick Perry?) the establishment throws into the game and all of a sudden you'll start liking authoritarian government again because you think you're on the winning team, don't even bother trying to argue with hardcore Obama supporters. I suppose for you it must be like looking in the mirror, right? So enjoy looking in the mirror, then wait for your turn to pretend to be part of the establishment again.

On the other hand, if you're a decent human being, you will see what is happening and that really, Obama = Bush; if anything he's worse because a lot of people have fallen for his personality cult and they are convinced that if you don't think Obama can save the world, it's because you're secretly a racist.

Thanks for reading. Now expose the Long Legged Mack Daddy and the bankers behind him!

Here's hoping for something like Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich 2012, a real revolution, so all this madness can come to an end.

Nothing new about Ron Paul's message

The first video (1974) is from John Birch Society founder Robert Welch (please note I am not defending what happened under McCarthyism, but like it or not the JBS was among the first in the fight against globalisation). The other three demonstrate Ron Paul's consistency over the years, from top to bottom they are from 1983, 1988 and 2007-09.

Healthy eating bad, UN will tell you what to eat

Do you have 'Orthodoxia'?

Guardian - When healthy eating turns into a disease

Apparently it's a sign of illness to not want additives in your food. Doesn't sound like a disorder to me!

(Most of the truly harmful eating habits mentioned in the article would be covered under anorexia anyway, methinks)
____________________________________________________________

On a related note, the UN is taking over your food on December 31, 2009, thanks to the application of new regulations called Codex Alimentarius ('food code'), so perhaps some looking into that is worthwhile.


(German protestors against Codex. [Stop Codex! Free access to natural remedies] In Germany, restrictions on nutritional supplements mean that what is available there is much more expensive than what can be bought in Britain or America...for now.)

The main point of concern is that nutrients will be reclassified as 'medicines' (see 13th paragraph of that link) and will not be available for preventative or therapetic use, i.e. only by prescription from your doctor I guess; also upper limits of 'toxicity' for these nutrients will be set. (TOXIC nutrients?!?)

In other words, wave goodbye to natural medicine and health, hello big drug companies and their voodoo 'I'm-wearing-a-lab-coat-so-trust-what-I-say' pills. Free market? Forget it. Global governance is the new freedom.
____________________________________________________________

Some resources on the ineffectiveness/harmfulness of modern pharmaceuticals and 'Frankenfoods':

Psychotropic drugs INCREASE suicide risk (that includes antidepressants, i.e. we give depressed people 'medicine' that makes them more likely to commit suicide!)

Tamiflu - the most useless drug ever? (maybe, but it makes profits, all that matters)

High Fructose Corn Syrup - prevalent in foods as a swetener, but what about its mercury content?

Ritalin and aspartame kill kids for profit (when people catch on that ritalin destroys children, the state just orders parents to drug their kids anyway...medical fascism)

US annual deaths from illegal drugs.....................17000
US annual deaths from prescription drugs..........32000 (source)

Just the tip of the iceberg.

TV/Media effects on brain

I should play less videogames...

Even vaccine developers don't want H1N1 vaccine!

Wayne Madsen on Russia Today:

"I know from talking to people in the research community, even scientists who helped develop the vaccine for smallpox are saying they're not gonna take the vaccine and they're urging their friends and family not to take this vaccine either."



My posts on swine flu and the vaccine (chronological):
Times scrubs comments from flu vaccine article
Inoculation squads at your door!
Jane Burgermeister
H1N1 vaccine: 10 things you're not supposed to know
Give pregnant women a swine flu shot
Pushing forced flu vaccines around the world
FKN Newz: Swine flu vaccine is pish
Feel good screenshot of the day
The big vaccine question

Preparing students for a "New World Order"

Aww, look at this nice education initiative from Essex University. The students are learning to be global citizens, environmentalists and learning how to 'rebuild' the Internet in a more controlled way! Wonderful.
_____________________________________________________________

Business Weekly - University tackles a new world order

A new world political and social order, an environmentally sustainable planet, world peace and a new internet system to replace the one that’s creaking under the weight of mass multi-media; these are the core aims of the University of Essex’s new research strategy.

The university has selected four projects from a potential 12 which address issues of worldwide signif-icance in a move that will focus the institute’s research capacity on major global challenges.

The idea is to develop substantial multi-disciplinary projects with the potential for international colla-boration, which showcase Essex’s research strengths and have a strong focus on leveraging external grant funding.

The Global Challenges programme was introduced by vice-chancellor, Professor Colin Riordan, as part of the university’s vision for 2008-2013. Each of the selected projects will receive initial funding of £50,000 from the university in 2009-10 to get them established, with match-funding expected to be available to support them further as they begin to win external funding.

Commencing in August 2009, the four Global Challenges projects are: Constructing a new global socio-economic and political order; Finding answers to global threats; Transitions to peace and prosperity; and Reinventing the internet.

The team behind ‘Constructing a new global socio-economic and political order,’ believe events such as the catastrophic flooding in Burma, oil at $150 a barrel, the destruction of the world’s forests and a near doubling of the price of rice are just some of the crises that scientists and policy makers have failed to address in a coherent and integrated way. [integrated = integrating nations under an international authority]

The principal investigator is Professor Mark Harvey from the Department of Sociology who will also work with colleagues from the University of Manchester and the Bio-Science for Business Knowledge Transfer Network.

This team aims to establish a research programme into the political and social conditions that could help achieve sustainable economic growth at a local, national and global level by taking a more joined-up approach to major global issues such as climate change, the price of oil, food crises and the critical pressures on land use and water.

The research team believes that a failure to address the links between these individual crises is potentially more serious than the impact of any of them individually.

The ‘Finding answers to global threats’ team will look at growing populations, changing consumption patterns, depleted natural resources and climate change, which together pose unprecedented challenges to humanity.

Experts from the interdisciplinary Centre for Environment and Society (iCES) will examine rural and urban communities around the world that, despite the emerging global threats, are finding ways to increase resilience and promote the sustainable use of resources.

A key objective of the research will be to analyse the factors that facilitate or hinder the transition to sustainable living. The project, for which a range of external UK and EU funding agencies will be targeted, will contribute to regeneration agendas and lead to a flagship programme of research. [transition to sustainable living = submission to draconian population and resource control regulations]

‘Transitions to peace and prosp-erity’ will address the challenge of helping countries in their transition from violent conflict and repression to peace and prosperity is at the heart of the multi-disciplinary project on transitional justice.

Building on Essex’s expertise in social sciences and the field of international human rights law in acute crisis, the transitional justice project is focusing initially on six research themes: data archiving and analysis, economic dimensions, peace-building, conceptual issues of transitional justice, and gender and children-focused approaches, and justice.

The team will build international collaborations in different continents with key global institutions as it seeks to establish Essex as a top research and teaching university on transitional justice.

Through the final project ‘Rein-venting the internet,’ the university plans to become a leading player in the global challenge to re-design the internet so it can cope with the demands of the 21st century.

Having secured funding from the EU, the university’s Future Internet Research Task Force will offer a unique, holistic approach to solving this international problem.

The internet has become a victim of its own success and usage today is stretching the original network to its limits. It is mainly the emergence and ever-growing use of new applications such as video over the internet which is taking the biggest toll. The internet was not designed to be used for such globally popular applications as Facebook, YouTube, BBC iPlayer and Wikipedia. [can't we just build more cables and have more satellites, rather than submit to "Internet 2", which will cripple the free internet as we know it?]

Key researchers with computer science and electronic engineering expertise and internationally-renowned experts from Essex’s sociology and business disciplines will work on the project.
_____________________________________________________________

I will let you decide whether you like the "New World Order" envisioned by our nation's academia, or not. They might as well have gone the whole nine yards and called for RFID chips for everyone from birth.

See the other side of the Internet argument: Save the Internet

The big vaccine question

You see, I wouldn't be so concerned with the H1N1 vaccine coming our way if I was told emphatically that people would be able to opt out. Unfortunately, the general response on behalf of the establishment has been more an avoidance of the question, than a clear answer.



If you want to get the vaccine, fine, that's your opinion and I don't want to force you not to get it. So don't turn around and try to force me to have a vaccine in the name of the voodoo 'science' known as herd immunity (funny how they consider us to be like cattle, eh?)

So if you want the vaccine, well I can't and don't want to force you not to get 'protection' as you see it, I believe in voluntarism and it's your choice, but I do hope you will look at the information given by people who are against vaccines.

Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Official Statistics (evidence that the fall in deadly disease rates during the last 100+ years was not due to vaccines but other factors)

Squalene - a good nutrient when eaten, but what about when injected directly into the blood? Dr Mercola answers. (Squalene is an immune adjuvant used in the new swine flu vaccine)

I quote from the above article:

When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination.

Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.

Age of Autism - good site exploring the link between soaring numbers of autistic children and vaccinations.

Similarities between autism and mercury poisoning - Is autism a unique form of mercury poisoning? (Thimerosal, a common vaccine preservative, contains mercury)

Fun fact: Did you know that the Amish, who don't take vaccines, don't suffer from autism?

Most importantly though, is that according to individualist principles and all that is right in the world, we as sovereign citizens can choose for ourselves whether to receive a medical treatment or not...government is not the master of our bodies. The End.

Lies about a British 'baby boom'.

I was unfortunate enough to watch the reliable totally fact-based TV news last night, and I was greeted by an alarmist report about Britain's massively expanding population. There are now over 61 million people in Britain - scary!
This supposed 'baby boom' is, of course, not supported by the numbers.

Immigrants in Britain have been the primary reason for our sustained population growth over recent years. But this year, birth/death ratios have been at an unusual high thanks to more births.

So, what is our collective fertility rate, remembering that a rate of 2 means a stable population in the long term?


1.96

(source: this Times article)

Even in this year of supposed 'baby boom', we haven't had enough kids to stabilise our population for the future. And it gets worse:

Immigrant fertility rate = 2.51

Take the immigrants out of the equation, and our fertility rate in this 'baby boom' year is only 1.84.

Do we want to end up like Russia, which has such apallingly low fertility rates that the state PAYS people to have children? Where there are more abortions than live births? Which has a population that has fallen by six million in 15 years?

And the establishment still tells us big families are bad for the planet and unacceptable? It's a lack of big families that is herding this country towards a demographic crisis! Who's going to support the ageing population, especially when the REAL baby-boomers of the 50s/60s start to retire?

So in short, the world's not overpopulated, in fact Western civilisation is threatened by its inability to reproduce effectively. For now, the world population is rising because the third world is following the same demographic trends we did during the Industrial Revolution and the early 20th Century. But just looking at Europe and North America, we need more kids, not less.

Save the Earth - Start a Family (the fact that this is an un-PC statement, is indicative of the anti-human times we live in!)

Billionaires want to curb 'overpopulation'

Malthus was Wrong

Daniel Hannan Reason.tv interview

Haven't made up my mind yet about Daniel Hannan. Is he for real? As a paleoconservative, yes, though it would be nice to see some talk about the monetary system from him and less sucking up to bankster-puppet-to-be, next UK PM, David Cameron. As of now he's no Ron Paul.



One tip I would give is to not cite Enoch Powell as a source of inspiration! I have no doubt Powell had some decent views, though politically correct history (and the fascist BNP) remember him for his "Rivers of Blood" speech which forecast terrible outcomes if immigration continued.

I feel anti-socialists have a hard enough time with being subtly labelled 'racist' by the establishment media, without adding fuel to the fire.

Sticks and Stones

If you oppose a war, you're a hippy pothead.

If you think more government is bad for you, you're an 'anarchist' kook.


If you think normalising holding people without trial and torturing them, regardless of how heinous their alleged crime is, sets a dangerous legal precedent, you're 'with the terrorists'.

If you read history, find that leaders often stage attacks against their own people (Hitler's Reichstag Fire best modern example) to gather support for action against an enemy and then apply this historical norm to the modern threat posed by Al-CIAda, citing such evidence as Dr Steven Jones' peer-reviewed paper confirming nanothermite explosive was present in the dust of the WTC towers, you're a conspiracy theorist.

If you think political leaders should conform to citizenship laws as much as everyone else, and provide evidence of such, then you're a crazy birther.

If you think we are fine with our current population, and in fact the Earth can accommodate much more than our current population, and there are plenty of resources to sustain our population indefinitely, you are with Big Oil and you hate the Earth.
If you think vaccines actually harm, not help, the immunity of people (individually and collectively) then you're a paranoid anti-medicine nut.

If you question for a moment the legitimacy of the United Nations and why all nations should be subordinate to a world government run by the super-wealthy, then you're a fringe wacko.

If you think the government and government-corporate media put forward these stereotypes and associations as a form of thought control and brainwashing to control public opinion in terms of what is and is not 'politically correct', then you're just insane.





So I may be a hippy pothead anarchist kook conspiracy theorist crazy birther, a paranoid anti-medicine nut fringe wacko, just insane. Depends on who you ask I guess.

At least I don't want to be a slave and kneel before the masters of this world. Do you?


Global War on Terrorism with International Military Response
Global Flu Pandemic with WHO Emergency Response
Global Financial Crisis with World Regulatory Response
Global Warming Crisis with World Carbon Tax 'Solution'

That's at least four fake/artificial major crises Mr Rockefeller can choose from.

(libertystickers.com source for most of the images)

Judge risks neck to expose Fed's bailout records

Well the headline actually reads,

Judge Orders Fed to Disclose Who Received Bailout Trillions

...but history teaches us that if you mess with the Fed, you end up dead. Don't believe me? Here's just two examples I can think of off the top of my head:

Congressman Louis T. MacFadden

President John F. Kennedy

I don't want to read about the tragic two-shots-in-the-head 'suicide' of Loretta Preska in a few weeks time.

Feel good screenshot of the day

Taken from today's poll at this mainstream news site:


And you (puppetgov) want to try and enforce this? Ha! Good luck with that.

Related story: Half of British Doctors will refuse swine flu shot

Well maybe there are too many people...

Too many people who think there are too many people, anyway.

BBC piece predicts overpopulation crisis by 2030

Economist debate - Too many people?


Y'see, how it works, is the eugenicists convince you that there are too many people (by lying about the scarcity of resources, environmental impacts, projections of population etc) - then you embrace their evil as a solution.

Obama's science czar co-wrote a book called Ecoscience, which has some interesting propositions you might like to see for yourself. This is a high ranking government official with those opinions, just so it's clear.

Do I believe the world would be better off with fewer people? Maybe, maybe not. But there are two major fallacies to this:

1. Any solution to artificially reduce population is inherently evil, whether it's more abortions, sterilisations, birth licensing/one child policies etc. This far outweighs any perceived benefit.

2. We are just fine as we are and most of the arguments about 'too many people, too few resources' are flawed and based on globalist-created artificial scarcity frauds such as Peak Oil.

If you think there are too many people, then the answer is fairly simple: go and kill yourself! For Mother Earth...

Can we save the economy by printing money?

Do you trust the BBC or Gerald Celente?

BBC - Recession 'at an end'

Confidence among business professionals has seen the biggest rise for two years, suggesting the UK recession is at an end, a survey has said.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants' index of business confidence rose to 4.8 at the end of June, from -28.2 at the end of March.

However, chief executive Michael Izza warned against "underestimating" the challenges ahead for businesses.

The institute predicts the UK economy will grow by 0.5% in the third quarter.
Its forecast comes after the economy shrank by 0.8% in the second quarter of the year.

More than 1,000 chartered accountants were surveyed across England and Wales.

"This quarter's Business Confidence Monitor suggests that the UK recession is at an end," said Mr Izza. "While there is no doubt that the UK economy is on its way to recovery, we shouldn't underestimate the challenges ahead for businesses."

About 41% of senior professionals were more confident about their business prospects in the next year, but only 6% were much more confident, indicating that some caution remains.

IT was the most optimistic sector, followed by banking, finance and insurance. The institute said the banking sector in particular had shown "a remarkable upturn given the turmoil of the last two years".

Gerald Celente: Jobless recovery is like being half pregnant

"You cannot create phantom money out of thin air, based on nothing, and producing practically nothing, without destroying the economy and the dollar."

Under The Government of Banks

First of all, what are the defining characteristics of a government entity?



I would say, 'government' refers to a person or group arbitrarily given special power beyond their natural rights as a citizen by decree. This includes such entities as the military or police (given special powers to violate sovereignty of individuals deemed either hostile or criminal by the government), and other government roles such as the tax collector and financial regulators, whose special privileges are obvious.

(Note that I am not arguing over whether any or all of these special privileged roles are justifiable here, I'm merely providing a reasonable definition of what government is; from small tribes of cavemen to nations of untold millions, "the granting of special privilege above and beyond the sovereignty provided by natural law" is a universal, defining characteristic of government.)

Perhaps I'm being a little broad here. I mean, all sorts of people (not just government) declare themselves to have arbitrary special privileges; pimps, wife beaters, rapists, theives, gangsters, fraudsters...perhaps pondering this reality (the company government keeps) will provide you with the same epiphany it just provided me...

So, let us consider the 'wonders' of the modern banking system. While I may not be a PhD economist, I get the basics of how it works well enough to understand that the idea of 'complex financial systems you little people couldn't possibly understand' is part of the fraud, part of how the con works.


Anyone who's watched The Real Hustle before knows that the superficial aspect is the most important part of a successful con trick. Appearance is everything, and if someone's well dressed and is a smooth character then they can get away with anything. So the bankers and their paid shills strut around in suits and talk down to us about how "we're fixing things" "you couldn't possibly understand how important it is you give us all this money to bail out the derivatives market" and now "you couldn't possibly understand but the economy is being fixed by us". They don't have access to some great and wonderful knowledge, except the knowledge that they are scamming us for everything we have and then some more.


Being clear here, this scam is complex, but the root of the problem is, was and will be the creation of money from nothing by an unaccountable private banking cartel. Now, this cartel goes by many names, perhaps the Federal Reserve, or the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the Bank of International Settlements, but the change in names and locations is the only significant difference between these corporations.

Now, why is it that people say the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England are private companies, not part of the government? Basically, this boils down to them not being at all accountable to other parts of their respective governments. Many mainstream (and most likely paid off) economists proclaim the virtues of something called Central Bank Independence, in other words the policy of allowing unelected and unaccountable bankers and economists to control the creation of money and the setting of interest rates.

When these private bankers create credit, from where does it derive its value? The answer is, it steals a little of the value from all of the other units of currency in circulation. For example, if we have £1000 in circulation, and jolly Mr Bankster creates another £100 for himself (thanks to Central Bank Independence, however, there's nothing to stop him creating as much as he likes, of course) then the total in circulation just grew to £1100 without any increase in the value of what is produced in that economy. Therefore everyone's currency will decrease in value, in this case by 10%, as that was how much money we added.

This leads to a fundamental undertanding about the printing of money by unelected unaccountable banksters: Printing money is the ultimate 'stealth tax'. It hits the rich and the poor, everyone who is using that currency is taxed invisibly. In fact, you (especially if you're American, with reference to the Boston Tea Party) might call it Taxation Without Representation due to the fact that bankers do not represent you, i.e. they are not elected representatives.

So then, where were we? I was arguing that banks are the government, albeit a slightly less moral and accountable one compared to our regular government, and I know it's hard to beat the elected officials for unaccountability, criminality and opacity, but hey, the banks have done it.

One arbitrary power the banks hold is the creation of money. This is bad enough. But imagine if the currency they fraudulently created, each unit of which takes a little more of our prosperity, could be multiplied to the tune of ten or more times?

Well it does get multiplied. Thanks to a nice sounding process called Fractional Reserve, commercial banks can literally lend money that they don't have.

Suppose I have a brand new bank, and a customer deposits £100 in the first ever bank account in this bank. Then, someone else comes to me and asks for a loan of £100. What do I give them? You, I the author, and any sane and moral person would say "the money you were just given by the saver!" or perhaps if you were more conservative about it you might say "don't lend all that money you just received, because the saver might want it back".

So under the fractional reserve system, what can my bank do? Well, I have special privileges (hence why I say banks are of the government) to lend out 10 times as much money as I actually have. So not only can I create the £1oo for this loan out of thin air, I can go on to create a further £800 to loan out, to a total of £900 - all the while staying within the legal 10% reserve requirement mandated by the central bank.

Some may interject at this point and say "isn't it great we have central banks stopping those commercial bankers from having no reserve. Screw capitalism!" I would reply that yes, I suppose having a rule about 10% reserve is better than those banks creating money from nothing and lending as much as they want - BUT we already have laws covering people who print their own money, that practice is called countefeit when a 'civilian' does it (again showing the special governmental-style power afforded to the banks in our society today).

Now, here is where the banks get their profit from. You see, they lend out all this money as if it is hard to get, when actually the banker just pushed a button on a computer and 'created' it. But YOU, the corporate slave, have to pay interest on whatever you borrow, as you don't have the special power to print your own money - they do!

Debt is a weapon of slavery. The IMF knows this, which is why they like making 'generous' loans to third world countries (using money they fraudulently created from nothing, no doubt). Heavy debt, compounded annually, is very hard to pay off. Hence, debt is used to stop a people from developing and rising to compete with the banking oligarchs in the marketplace. Debt is the ultimate weapon to control societies. (I should point out that this isn't a critique of free trade; often the third world governments who accept these big IMF loans are paid off to take them, then run away leaving the huge debt on the heads of their people.)

We are all in debt, and so we are all subordinate to our real government, the banks. This debt has of course grown massively due to government spending. And where did government get its money from to spend? Why, the central bank, of course! The central bank created it from nothing, government spent it and didn't care, passing on the payment and subsequent interest payments to you the taxpayer.

We are truly under the government of banks. Maybe this dictatorial, unaccountable banking government, rather than the free market, is the problem?

__________________________________________________________________

Talking points based on this:

To a left winger - It wasn't capitalism that failed; the current debt-based system of economic slave-and-master is what is failing.

Our elected officials cannot be trusted to regulate the economy and keep big businesses in check when they are corrupted by the oligarchs that rule this system. There is already oversight of the banks - the overseers are either watching the theft, turning a blind eye, or are in on it!

To a right winger - yes, socialism is bad; though what we have right now isn't a free market, it's a command economy controlled by bankers and based on massive spending and debt.

Central Bank Independence is NOT a free market policy, it is having bankers control the economy for their own ends and it's about stifling economic freedom.

The Communist Manifesto calls for having a central bank, because the Communists knew that this helps collapse economies into a top-down controlled system.

To all - Teach the history of central banking in the US - the fight by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, among others, to keep the Land of the Free, free from bankster control.

"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws" - Meyer Amschel Rothschild (described by libertytree.ca as the 'godfather of the Rothschild banking cartel')

Are you mad about the Lockerbie bomber release?

First off, I have been to the memorial in Lockerbie while in Scotland a few years ago. It's quite eerie to see the hundreds of names of the dead, fairly recent dead, in amongst what is otherwise an apparently untouched country village.



(Images [above below] not mine)

Story of the day in MSM land, is that the man convicted for these deaths, is freed from prison because he's going to die from cancer. He was serving a minimum 27-year life sentence that absolutely forbade parole hearings etc until that time had been served - but due to his impending death, he didn't get very far with that sentence before today's release.

To be honest, I'm not particularly outraged; in a world of banking criminals stealing and printing trillions, where the elites' lifetime dedication is to advancing eugenics, the fate of a criminal who's going to be dead in a few months just seems like a distraction. But then again I'm not a relative of someone killed in the Lockerbie bombing.

For the record, no I don't think he should have been released - and the welcome home he got landing in Libya didn't make it any better.

Now, let's add a twist to the story, shall we? It seems that the oh so righteous Rothschild minion, real behind-the-scenes leader of the UK Lord Peter Mandelson spoke with Saif Gaddafi, the son of Colonel Gaddafi, the insane Libyan dictator. And this is just a week before the release of the bomber. Aww. I'll leave interpretation of that up to you.

Lo and behold, the end result is that we have a major media distraction issue, which is also unfortunately a huge middle finger to the families of the Lockerbie dead, most of whom are American, so it becomes a foreign sh**storm too.

And another day passes with the press wasting print on a criminal who might well be dead by the time the paper gets recycled. How about reporting on the banks using the Bank of England to steal a trillion pounds? (aka the so called "bailout") How about answering the question everyone wants the answer to about the swine flu vaccine: will it be forced?

Well, the MSM might have to report on these things, if it weren't for all these convenient distractions that, daily, consume the public's limited attention span (MPs expenses, the drawn-out Gurkha immigration battle, swine fear, and now this).

And if you think I'm being cynical, then fine, but remember - this is the government that brought you this gem back in 2001:

"September 11th would be a good day to bury bad news"

In other words, they are ready and willing to manipulate the media for their own ends and don't care what or who (Lockerbie victims' families for example) gets hurt in the process.

They don't like the ObamaJoker image...

...for some reason. Maybe because it's effective and accurate?

Rupert Murdoch-run MySpace censors ObamaJoker image

Just incase the scary web censors are watching (looks around):


Is it socialism, fascism, new world order? I think all three fit the bill. The banksters are still running the show, which is why Obama as the Joker is fitting - because all the promises of change (good change at least) were a joke.

What'd I Miss?

Some good stuff from the last week or so in the news and/or blog world:

Obama 'concedes' on single payer healthcare reform (Good, but a common establishment tactic is to feign retreat while continuing their agenda under new names or bringing it back in parts, so watch this one.)

Perhaps related, the ObamaJoker poster campaign is going well - see this effort in San Francisco.

The uprisings in China are continuing. China is the model for how global governance will be when Lord Rothschild and the caring UN elite get their way, so pay attention to how the tyranny works over there. Dehumanisation as a way of life is a fate worse than death.

Afghan people get to vote! (voting is the sliver of freedom the benevolent UN will continue to give us under the New World Order, and we can see it in action here as 'civilians' [i.e. slaves under military jurisdiction] get to vote for Karzai - er, I mean, vote for who they want to lord over them - er, govern them. Democracy! Civil society! Global governance!)

And unfortunately, related to the above story, over 200 British soldiers have now died in the globalists' war on Afghanistan. Never forget it was the establishment pro-war 'support the troops' types who got us there, and are now saying we should 'finish the job' or their deaths will have been in vain. How dare they hold the deaths of our soldiers over our heads, when they were the ones extolling the virtues of asking our soldiers to risk their lives in faraway lands for causes both fraudulent (Al-CIAda) and unrelated to genuine 'national security' (opium and geopolitics).

As for the government flu, known to the public as swine flu, it seems a lot of British nurses don't want the swine flu vaccine. How dare they, they should be euthanised immediately! (Unfortunately, these nurses will probably still 'just follow orders' to inject others with the bioweapon vaccine...not me though!)

This is an interesting post at Feed Your ADHD discussing socialist indoctrination in schools. As a recent indoctrinee of the British state school system, I can vouch for this personally - YES there is socialist/communitarian indoctrination in schools, YES it is a real threat and YES you should homeschool your kids if you can; do anything other than let the rabid killers of the state get hold of their young minds. Perhaps I should blog about this sometime, though if I did I fear I might be writing for days covering all the untruths/propaganda I was taught in school.

Son3's blog The Ideations of a Jayhawker laments why people are content only with bread and circuses in California and in general. I might be able to answer this if I had time, but American Idol is starting. Ha!

Skeptical Eye covers the hypocrisy of fake 'conservatives' who are truly sock puppets of the government, at this time filling the role of controlled opposition, as the left wing of the corporate media plays cheerleader.

A rare thing in Britain, real Conservative Daniel Hannan caused a stir in the British media when he called the National Health Service a 'relic' on American TV news. Of course, making such blasphemic statements over here isn't tolerated, crimestop kicked into high gear, and Bilderberg puppet David Cameron got all embarassed over a member of his party making such ungoodspeak to the proles. (Whispers so the thought police can't hear: perhaps we'd be better off without socialised medicine...why not reform healthcare the Ron Paul way?)

Oh, and the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to kill Alex Jones and anyone else who they deem crazy. Is it fair I say that based on one comment on their site? Perhaps not, but then I'm only following THEIR rules about smear operations...

And, just for the crazy factor, here's a CNN story I happened upon, saying that global warming actually began thousands of years ago when evil man started burning trees. Good luck making the numbers fit that conclusion, hockey stickers; people don't want a global carbon tax. Finito.

Tea Partying the media doesn't want you to see

Turns out REPUBLICAN politiwhores get rightly booed to hell just like (D)s. Wouldn't have thought that if you just watched the MSM coverage though. I thought it was all neocon lobbyist racists? No?

Controversy on my blog!

A while ago I posted a small tribute to Jane Burgermeister, the journalist responsible for filing bioterrorism charges relating to the upcoming 'swine flu' vaccines.

What others have written there in the last couple of days might be worth a read.

Casual debunking: US Army 'urban' uniforms?

OK so anyone who has taken the time to read the comments section of any Infowars article knows it's overrun by (presumably paid) morons writing a load of disinformation or just something irrelevant.

So now it falls to moi to provide a public service (unlike govt run ones, this is actually free) and explain why the following is totally bogus:

Taken from this comment at this article

The comments on these post are censored, I don’t know why. I still believe in Alex, just not sure why some posts get pulled. I have a good friend in the garment industry and she tells me all the new orders for BDU’s coming in are for the urban camo not desert camo. I don’t think the military has ever placed orders for urban camo, but I could be wrong. Maybe Alex knows about this and is just not ready to break the story yet.

This is written in the style of an innocent, honest citizen enquiring about a concern that they have heard. Sob. Somebody help them out. OK, I will.

You see, the US Army certainly did use their '3 color' desert camo during the invasion of Iraq:


The problem is, since 2005 (being lenient it may have taken until 2006+ to phase in for all), most or all US Army units have worn a new pattern called ACU, which might be called 'urban' due to its high content of grey:


So to summise, the rumour is unfounded bs. The US Army already has 'urban' uniforms (they don't call them urban, but you get what I'm saying here), so yes any new camo clothing for them has been of that variety for, oh I don't know, FOUR YEARS now.

Hardly a dark secret about to be revealed by information crusaders and become a top story in the alternative media, no?

For imagination, creativity and again (probably) succeeding in de facto slandering Patriot movement websites in the minds of undecided readers, I think the troll should be given a raise, or at least some bovine growth hormone milk or aspartame Cola. Or some fluoride. Mmm, fluoride.

What are working conditions like when the state pays you to verbally defecate on enemies of criminal regimes? Perhaps you need a union?

How about the SOVIET Boot Lickers' Organisation for Change?
People On Line, Pretty Obvious Trolls?
Internet Disinformation Industry Agents' Movement Intervention Nexus?
Association for Discreditors Of Liberty and Freedom?
...or maybe you Mean Awful Ogres don't need one.

Tamiflu is a costly placebo, a Big Pharma fraud

BBC - Flu drugs 'unhelpful' in children

But it isn't just in children, is it?

See this awesome article for all the info on Tamiflu and the delicious, nutritious swine flu vaccines coming to save you even if you didn't ask to be saved (how benevolent) in a couple of months.

From that link I quote:

Why is the UK Department of Health (DoH) handing out Tamiflu like sweeties to the electorate? Because the stocks held by the DoH are rapidly reaching their sell by date, with our political apparatchiks desperate to unload this drug on to the consumer as the evidence shows. Who gives a stuff about side effects and what this useless drug can do to people when profits are to be made?

Profit, ladies and gentlemen, is king. You come second. Trust your government? Good luck with that.

Complaints over Iran trial seem hypocritical

Oh, absolutely, arresting and trying protestors en masse is wrong indeed. But it's interesting that, if this was the West, we'd already have them faux-drowning to get a 'confession'. This outrage over a mass trial was seemingly absent (as was the trial!) when it comes to 'terrorist' Guantanamo prisoners...

(I say 'terrorist', but how do we know if evidence of such isn't presented? The answer is, we don't. Hence we shouldn't be claiming the moral high ground and telling other countries how to deliver justice when our house is in disorder to a worse degree. It just makes us look a fool.)

British government complicit in 'extraordinary rendition'

Now imagine if Iran flew its western prisoners to Jordan to be tortured and confessions obtained that they were all going to blow something up. You wouldn't believe the confessions, you say? Then why do you when it's the other way around?

Violence at US townhall over healthcare

And who are the ons being violent? It would be those 'astroturfer' 'right wing' 'extremist' 'lobbyist' 'racist' 'white' 'run out of names to throw' anti-socialisation people, right?

Wrong.

Infowars - Union Thugs Beat Patriot at Obamacare Town Hall in St. Louis

It's the 'peace loving', 'freedom of speech', 'nonviolent' ones who speak of 'democracy', but don't even hold to that empty principle.

What's more, the unfortunate fellow who was set upon by three burly union men, was a black* man handing out 'don't tread on me' flags...and allegedly racial slurs were used before fists and boots. Can you imagine the outrage if a bunch of anti-socialisation protestors had assaulted a black supporter of 'universal healthcare [control]', and uttered racist remarks before doing so? Why, it would give the left wing racist witch hunt some validation, wouldn't it...

*well of course, I know him being black doesn't make the slightest difference, but you know as well as I do that thanks to political correctness everything is made into a racial issue today, so I have no hesitations to return the favour to the people who love injecting race into every political discussion, the majority of whom are no doubt backing socialised medicine because whitey is currently denying care to poor black people, etc.

I think this is a major story as it may lead to escalation. How much, who knows.

"The conservative hijacking of libertarianism"

Go go go

I agree with the basic points of the article. Unless you are anti-war, for the legalisation of all drugs, gambling etc ('consentual' being the buzzword there), against having a huge prison population and a powerful/out of control police, and in opposition to the current economic setup (keyword 'central bank'), then don't call yourself a libertarian.

That said, you might call yourself paleoconservative, or even paleolibertarian, which I respect. True paleos are good people in my opinion.

If the thought of legalising drugs and prostitution seems bad (and you'd rather keep these industries underground where the state and criminals get the profits and all sorts of coercive things happen), then perhaps libertarianism isn't for you.

As for the 'left wing libertarians' or 'left wing anarchists', I believe they exist only to give libertarians and market anarchists a bad name - I don't see how the coercive nature of socialism can be compatible with a philosophy that ultimately rejects the initiation of force in all or as many circumstances as possible. It just doesn't seem libertarian to me.

How to defeat the Occult Nutjobs

I was looking up some information about occult symbolism yesterday, about how the occultists like to put their signs and marks everywhere, from architecture to the mass media to logos (you should really look into it, between Satanists and Masons they have their symbols everywhere). And which symbols are which and what they mean in occult circles.

(Image: Baphomet, a depiction of Satan.)

One symbol that has information regarding it that seems contradictory is the five-pointed star or pentagram. So I read from many different websites to get their version of the history of this symbol, and there are at least three contradicting views on the use of the 5-point star/pentagram...

1. Used the regular way, it is a symbol of moral order and righteousness; while, used upside down, it is a symbol of moral disorder or inverted morality (the concept of inverted morality is central to Satanism; as such, the upside down 5-point star appears on the logo of the Church of Satan).

2. Both uses of it, in pentagram form, are essentially occultic in nature.

3. Both uses of it are good and represent moral order (though this does come from a Freemasonry site)

So I am back where I started, aren't I? Is the regular five pointed star or pentagram symbolic of morality or not? And then I understood how to defeat the occult...

The symbols are meaningless.

They really are. The whole idea of concerning ourselves with symbols, that is what the occult is. If we allow ourselves to become distracted with pointless questions like 'does this symbol represent good or evil', then we might as well be New Ageist Occult Nutjobs ourselves.

So here's how to defeat the occult: ignore their stupid symbology and mysticism.

I could go around carrying the logo of the Church of Satan, I could have a portrait of Baphomet hanging from my living room, but as long as I'm doing good that's all that matters. I could have a cross or a 5-point star (if you believe that represents morality) or whatever else, but if I'm doing evil then that's all that matters.

I believe it is this concern with symbolism, amplified no doubt a hundred times, that leads hardcore Occultists to justify all sorts of horrible things like ritual sacrifices, because symbolic things like rituals matter more than real morals.

Don't be afraid of a few symbols and voodoo tricks, occultists are losers - in this life, if you're an atheist, and forever, if you're a theist...

It should be noted that I believe the primary concern of even the most hardcore religious fanatic (which I certainly am not) ought to be the actions and not beliefs of the occult cult. Likewise, atheists, this isn't about religious arguments. If ritual human sacrifices don't make everyone sick - and angry - I don't know what will.

Report your fellow citizens, for money

Sound like a free society to you?

Sieg Hope!

But you're just doing your duty as a "good German" - er, I mean good citizen.

Is it cliche these days to use Nazi analogies? I think it appropriate, at least for this story.

PS take note of how the advert includes 'weapons' on the list of things to be reported. Bad civilian for carrying weapons! (See, you're a 'civilian' now, as in an unarmed slave under military jurisdiction; a citizen you are no more.)

FKN Newz: Swine Flu Vaccine is Pish

Gotta love the FKN Newz.

Pushing forced flu vaccines around the world

How many countries have had news articles either declaring or at least implying mandatory H1N1 vaccine programs are in the works?

(And remember, even if you think the H1N1 vaccine is wonderful and is going to save millions of people with its squalene, the most important thing is that the sovereign individual has the inalienable right to opt out of any medical treatment.)

Those that don't openly say 'mandatory' or 'forced' but imply such by saying that everyone will be immunised, and not mentioning anything about opting out:

UK
Canada (and for extra bonus points, read some of the creepy pro-forced vaccine people here)
Mexico (interesting that they apparently already have a vaccine...how is that?)
USA
Greece
Australia
Norway

Suggested or declared vaccination programs that are to be mandatory:

Saudi Arabia (suggested, Hajj pilgrims)
France (declared, all over 3 months)
UAE (declared, all school students)

Other vaccination schemes:
Italy (15% population in specific demographic groups, no mention of opting out)
Germany (25% population 'eligible', option to refuse vaccine)

No declared mass vaccination scheme (for now at least):
Sweden

This is, of course, a work in progress.

"Juba" the infamous Baghdad Sniper

Can't believe I haven't heard of this until today. Turns out, there was a spate of snipings in Baghdad in 2005-06 (and continuing since), which became such a plague on US troops there that a legend circulated about "Juba", as the Americans called him, the elusive Baghdad Sniper.

Whether it's one man or several, is unknown. The Americans claimed to have captured him on two seperate occasions, but these may have been staged to boost morale, or may indeed have been real captures, and there really were multiple snipers.

"Juba" is an obvious source of propaganda for the Iraqi resistance; as such, numerous "Juba" videos of his 'work' have been put out onto the web. Here's a link to one I could find (I warn you, it's disturbing viewing).

It goes to show how, in spite of all the hi-tech gear and training, a far superior occupying force can be made to feel vulnerable by a lone (skilled) marksman.

Deficit spending IS 'trickle down' economics

Of course it is! It just dawned on me. Most of the people who say the bailouts, deficit spending etc. are required to 'save the economy from the failures of capitalism', are the same people who claimed that free market capitalism was a delusion about wealth trickling down from the rich to the poor.


(Image: Ronald Reagan is the figure most commonly associated with 'trickle down'/supply side economics. Considered a hero in some circles, a villain in others, kind of like Thatcher. But the point is, 'supply side' and 'capitalism' aren't the same thing.)

They claim that tax cuts for the rich constitute giving them money, and that the ostensible purpose of the excercise was that the wealth would flow down to everyone else, but it was actually a huge scam because the rich kept their 'ill-gotten gains'. (Just providing insight to an alternative perspective)

What's wrong with that?

The reason I find that to be an absurd framer on how an economy should be, is firstly because it contains some big presumptions, which I will get to, but secondly because it isn't based on individual rights and sovereignty.

Each person is born free and equal. They ought to be able to do as they wish (yes it's called "freedom"), save in cases of actions which violate the sovereignty of others.

This philosophy doesn't mysteriously stop working when we look at trade. Each individual is sovereign, and nobody has special right to pre-emptive control over the actions of others, government or otherwise. Why should they? What is so grave that we must suspend freedom in the name of safety?

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson

Myths about capitalism and 'trickle down'

Frankly I don't see why it is that some anti-capitalists link the two terms, but let's deal with this distortion.

"Trickle down" is a name given by detractors to the theory of supply-side economics. And they are right, in my opinion, to be detractors of that theory, which indeed has been a justification for a lot of theiving; though it isn't a core reason for our economic problems, which are more fundamentally caused by having fiat money systems, central banks, and the fraud of generating artificial growth by inflating the money supply.

I guess it goes back to the phase of deregulation and tax cutting during the 80s, which might cause capitalism to be associated with supply side economics and 'trickle down'. Hence, capitalism is theft, right? Of course, I just demonstrated some supremely wise logic and totally overlooked the fact that capitalism is based on voluntary trade and not fraud, coercion or theft. In fact, capitalism is the complete opposite of theft. (Socialism, however, is based on theft.)

Deficit spending/stimulus IS 'trickle down'

Ironically, the people who believe capitalism failed and so we need to rescue our economy with huge deficit spending, bailouts, etc. are cheering for a 'trickle down' philosophy, the very thing they say is capitalism. I can't believe I didn't point this out before! Think about it. We're giving huge amounts of capital to banks, in the hope that it will trickle down and get to smaller businesses, thus in theory stimulating the economy. What a joke!


(Image: The Onion tells us what the US bailout money is going towards. The thing is, their guess is as good as ours, with all the secrecy)

Of course 'trickle down' economics is merely a nice way of saying 'give everything to us and we might give some of it back', but whatever it is, it certainly isn't, wasn't, and never will be capitalist in any way.

We shouldn't be 'trickling' wealth anywhere, that's not a proper function of government; morally it is a gross violation of individual sovereignty and property rights, and pragmatically it is always abused to allow a wealthy, influential few to steal more.

And remember ladies and gentlemen, capitalism is when we look after the rich, and socialism is when we look after the masses. Ahem.