13 May 2011

UPDATE: Due to this BS thing where I can do everything with this blog except publish a post, I have moved home to Wordpress: http://ncnblogger.wordpress.com/ (this will remain as an archive and be damn sure I will still read all your wonderful blogs as ever). Those who have linked me please update the link. Thanks all. Looking forward to continued blogging in the future.

2 May

Today's news is that Osama is dead. Well it's sort of 10 year old news, but there you go. Supposedly one of the very mind controlled special forces shot him in the head, although given the notorious nature of the invading forces' willingness to kill someone then play dress up afterwards, who knows it may have been a woman who they drew a beard on with marker pen. Photo looks 'shopped but what do I know. Then again corpses just like your TV dinner keep very well in the freezer...lol...


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.php

Anyway I'm off to get kidney dialysis using only sand and donkey piss while being hunted by all the satellites and spy planes that a trillion dollar military budget can buy, for ten years. Ciao


PS does this mean the war on terror is over now and 'we' can come home and dismantle the police state and not have RFID passports and iris scans and creepy wiretaps anymore? (Comptroller says no)

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Democracy is not Liberty

They say in America, "We're a Republic, not a Democracy". Or at least those within the freedom movement do.


(Image: Yes, democracy may be in distress, but if that's all you've got left then I'd be a lot more concerned about the loss of liberty.)

But in Britain, and more broadly throughout Europe, the word 'democracy' is actually used as a substitute for 'liberty'. This is done so casually that people don't understand that the two aren't the same, in fact they are totally incompatible with each other.

"That's highly undemocratic and un-British".
"The principles of democracy our nation is rooted in"
"In a free and democratic nation"

I'm not quoting anyone in particular there, but it's these kind of statements that really annoy me.

Democracy means Rule of the Majority. Fifty-one percent is king, and whatever it says, gets done. This is a Tyranny of the Majority, not much different to monarchial or dictatorial tyranny.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson


(Image: While I commend "Democracy Now", I'd rather have Liberty Now, thanks.)

So, what happens when this great value, Democracy, is practiced by a nation?

Let's take the issue of taxes. Now, say government this year has spent a little more than their budget allowed, and faces an angry electorate. In a state of democracy, however, they have an ace card up their sleeve. They can say that all their big expensive programs help the poor, and that people should want to pay for them. They can then scapegoat the rich (not that I particularly like the rich, by the way) and they can run on the platform that the rich will pay more tax, thus funding their wasteful schemes and corruption.

Often the result of this is a web of intricate corruption between tax-evading wealthy people, businesses and big government departments that supposedly 'regulate' and 'stabilise' the economy. (Orwellian bs alert! They destabilise things!) This is economic fascism, which is the system we live under today (some fools think this is capitalism, and therefore capitalism is the problem and we need more socialism. They'll never learn.)

The point is, democracy always tends towards tyranny because people are always going to vote for free money for themselves. The really rich always find ways around paying the high taxes (it's called corruption - the more government, the more regulation and taxation, the more you will see corruption and tax evasion). So who foots the bill? Why, it's the middle classes of course! The very people who are about to disappear from the Western World, which is a shame because they are the heartbeat of any productive economy. They run businesses etc.

So, if democracy isn't liberty, what is?



"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." - again from that genius Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

What does that mean? That each individual has inalienable rights that cannot be voted upon. I believe these are basically fourfold: Life, Civil Liberty, Property, and the Right to Violence purely in the name of defending the previous rights. These can be further subdivided, for example civil liberty breaks down into right to due process under law, right to move freely, right to free speech, right to work by choice, and so on.

In the case of taxation above, liberty would be either no mandatory taxes (maximum liberty), or flat taxes for all (reasonable liberty) which prevents scapegoating of one class nor another. Nobody should be subject to unfair, unproportional taxation, which severely violates their right to property and equality of opportunity.

And no, I'm not suggesting the rich are victims - but if there was no government and central bank controlled economic fascism, I suspect many of their businesses, eg Walmart or any high-street bank, wouldn't be successes like they have been. So the mega-rich wouldn't be so well off under capitalism after all, despite what the brainwashed socialist 'for the people' types say.

Really, all taxation is a violation of the right to property. But it is true that any and all government that has ever existed has violated individual sovereignty to an extent.

This is why the US Declaration of Independence states that only when a long chain of usurpations occurs, such that absolute tyranny is to be put upon the people, should rebellion occur, as human nature causes people to put up with certain small degrees of tyranny. (how's that for paraphrasing? lol)

Pure democracy leaves everything a possibility; if fifty-one percent says you have to jump, your only response can be, "how high?"

Escaping this delusion is paramount to Britain rediscovering liberty. And no, things other than democracy are not necessarily dictatorship. Like left-right, this is another false paradigm (democracy-dictatorship) that must be broken.

Democracy is a mirage of freedom, and the enemy of people who want to be free. I'm not saying we shouldn't elect leaders by vote, I'm saying that first and foremost there should be a set of lines in the sand across which government may not pass, then within these confines we can have democratic processes and a government by, for, and of the people (a Republic).

It's un-PC but it's the truth: Down with Democracy, Long live Liberty!

Saturday, 30 May 2009

Britain Needs Guns

Yes, it does.
http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/index.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2656875.stm

(Above: Finland's good sheeple promote gun control.)


In a nation where you go to prison for carrying a knife, it's time (if not too late of course!) to promote responsible weapon ownership, and get people to understand why armed citizens are so vital - to safeguard those precious few liberties which have been handed down over the years, because they were paid for in blood and if they are allowed to be stolen, they will have to be paid for all over again at some future date.

What was it that made England, and later the United Kingdom, be at the forefront of the fight for individual freedom during the Renaissance era? The main answer to that question is the prevalence of individual firearm/weapon ownership, following the English tradition of the Militia. Did I say English? That's right, the American concept of Militia was adapted from the old English way of running things.


From the Wikipedia entry Militia (English):

Up until the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Crown and Parliament were in strong disagreement. The English Civil War left a rather unusual military legacy. Both Whigs and Tories distrusted the creation of a large standing army not under civilian control. The former feared that it would be used as an instrument of royal tyranny. The latter had memories of the New Model Army and the anti-monarchical social and political revolution that it brought about. Consequently, both preferred a small standing army under civilian control for defensive deterrence and to prosecute foreign wars, a large navy as the first line of national defence, and a militia composed of their neighbours as additional defence and to preserve domestic order.

Consequently, the English Bill of Rights (1689) declared, amongst other things: "that the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law..." and "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This implies that they are fitted to serve in the militia, which was intended to serve as a counterweight to the standing army and preserve civil liberties against the use of the army by a tyrannical monarch or government.

Sound familiar to you? Sounds a lot like the Founding Fathers to me.

My, how we have strayed.

Tougher sentences for knife offenders. 'Offender' btw means you CARRIED this deadly weapon, nothing related to using it.

Kill this gun culture! Having a gun culture is very much a good thing, it means having citizens who own guns and know how to use them to preserve liberty, however apparently the only gun culture that exists is bustin' caps and packin' nines, braap braap.

Defending yourself is a crime. Call the police instead. And wait three hours while the bad guys order a pizza, fill their van with your electrical goods (and you, if you're unlucky), and hey, maybe they'll leave your kids alone?

You don't have a natural right to defend yourself if you're attacked, but the state has a right (not just a privilege) to gun you down and then get away with it, because they're above the law. No, they ARE the law.

The funniest thing is, all the "oh eugh guns and knives take lives" zombies weren't all outraged at this use of guns by government. Why should government keep its arms if we cannot? Governments and government orders kill a lot more people than individuals do. Why should the police get to run around with MP5s getting all up in everyone's business, while I can go to prison for just carrying a weapon of any kind?

When citizens become civilians and give up their weapons and rebellious attitude (the two go together after all), it's a historical fact that only slavery can follow.

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Romans/slavery/slavery2.html
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

Thursday, 28 May 2009

We're all gonna be Millionaires

How, you ask? How can anyone speak of becoming so wealthy in such an economic climate as this? Well, let me tell you, you're not thinking outside of the box.

(Above: some real "Slumdog Millionaires".)

If we continue down the path to hyperinflation, then we will all be millionaires, no billionaires, in no time at all. I never said whether these millions or billions will buy you a yacht or just a loaf of bread, though, did I? ;)

I had to include these woeful clippings from the Wikipedia entry on the Zimbabwean Dollar (the currency shown above). Unlike the Federal Reserve, these guys didn't mess around for 90 years before destroying everything!

At independence in 1980, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe introduced notes in denominations of 2, 5, 10 and 20 dollars. A 50 dollar banknote was introduced in 1994, followed by 100 dollars in 1995, 500 dollars in 2001, and 1000 dollars in 2003.

In 2003, with mounting inflation, the reserve bank started issuing travelers cheques in denominations of 1000, 5000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 and 100,000 dollars. These were superseded later the same year by bearer cheques, initially in denominations of 5,000, 10,000 and 20,000 dollars, with cheques for 50,000 and 100,000 dollars following in 2006.
_________________

At a press conference on 16 January 2008, reserve bank Governor Gono stated that "With effect from Friday (January 18), the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is releasing the following bearer cheques into circulation: one million dollars (officially worth about US$33/22 euros but worth about 50c at the parallel rate), five million dollars and 10 million dollars." He continued,"...daily cash withdrawals have been increased from the current Z$50 million to Z$500 million per individual." Less than a month after announcing a similar move, Gono said the new notes would provide much needed relief to consumers who often have to go shopping with sacks of cash.
________________

Despite rampant inflation continuing into 2009 that has rendered the currency worthless and spurred increasing dollarization of the economy, the RBZ has announced yet another set of new notes, this time in denominations of $20 billion and $50 billion to be released 12 January. Stepping up another order of magnitude, the reserve bank announced the trillion denomination for the first time, unveiling banknotes valued at $10 trillion, $20 trillion, $50 trillion, and $100 trillion on 16 January. The new notes are supposed to help citizens still in formal employment to withdraw a full month's worth of salary by showing a corresponding payslip. On 2 February 2009 the central bank announced that it had revalued the currency again, this time removing 12 zeroes, causing Z$1 trillion to be reduced to Z$1.


What happens when people lose faith in fiat money? Over time, it reverts to its real market value. In other words, the value of the materials and work put into making it. Which in the case of creating fiat money from thin air, isn't very much...

But the upside is, thanks to central bank policy worldwide, the chances of you becoming a millionaire are ever increasing...if you don't mind being a millionaire who struggles to pay for food, like the people of Zimbabwe ;)

Police Thug Chokes Paramedic

Of all the police brutailty stories flooding the alternative media of late, this is one of the most needless and blatant. Following a near miss on the road, police pull over an ambulance and have a little 'fun' with the paramedics.

You don't like it, boy? What you gonna do? We're God Men!!!

Silence = Violence?

If government becomes tyrannical, and we fail to say anything or resist, are we responsible? At least partially? I would say yes. This has especially been true, in my opinion, when it comes to foreign policy (though more and more it is also an issue with actions of the state that occur closer to home).

Aimee Allen - Silence Is Violence. I love that song! "I'm losing it while you watch TV..."



Another song
to signify whats wrong
Another sunny day that tells me I must move on
Another cigarette, another cigarette will do
Enough to fill spaces between thoughts of you
I jump up and down for your attention
Rhyme after rhyme with you as my intention
I start fires wave flags that burn for you
But you don't notice do you?

Silence is violence
You don't notice do you ? I'm trying to break through your silence
Silence is violence
You don't notice do you ? I'm fighting but losing to your silence

Another time i reach but your hands not out
Holes in the walls that we don't talk about
Another is it me? Baby talk to me
I'm losing it while you watch TV
What's the matter? Can you feel me?
You bite your tongue What are you numb to me?
What's the matter? This is killing me
Do you notice do you still love me?
(With nothing,You just said everything )

Silence is violence
You don't notice do you? I'm fighting but losing to silence
Silence is violence
You don't notice do you? I'm fighting but losing to silence

The rain is the rhythm of my song for you
The puddles I splash in to cleanse myself of you
There are no rainbows you have no light
It's just me swimming in you, drowning in your black and white
oh it's winter, all my leaves have fallen off
There's no risk of fire but I'm burning
I'm burning, I'm burning
(with nothing, you just said everything)

Silence is violence
You don't notice do you I'm trying to break through your silence
Silence is violence
I don't know what to do I'm fighting but losing to silence

Freedom Grabbing in the news

A few stories of note:

Daily Mail: State recruits an army of snoopers with police-style powers

A growing army of private security guards and town hall snoopers with sweeping police-style powers is being quietly established, the Daily Mail can reveal.
Under a Home Office-run scheme, people such as park wardens, dog wardens, car park attendants and shopping centre guards receive the powers if they undergo training, and pay a small fee to their local police force.
Their powers include issuing £60 fines for truancy and dropping litter, and being able to demand a person's name and address on the street.
Under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, the number of civilians wearing a special badge, and a uniform approved by the local chief constable, has rocketed by almost 30 per cent in a year and there are now 1,406.

Telegraph: US Army perpared to stay in Iraq for a decade (what happened to Day One, Barack?)

The Pentagon is prepared to remain in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between Washington and Baghdad that would bring all American troops home by 2012, according to the US army chief of staff.
Gen George Casey said the world remained “dangerous and unpredictable”, and the Pentagon must plan for extended US combat and stability operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan that could deploy 50,000 US military personnel for a decade.
"Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Gen Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the army works."


Infowars: Billionaire: Elite want two-thirds of the 'dumb people' wiped off the planet
(see the interview on YouTube here)

Billionaire entrepreneur Kevin Trudeau, who has been constantly harassed and sued by the FTC for promoting alternative health treatments, told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that elitists and Bilderberg members who he had personally conversed with spoke of their desire to see “two thirds of the dumb people” wiped off the planet.
Trudeau admitted that he was in Greece recently and implied that he attended the Bilderberg Group meeting, while also stating that he personally knew many Bilderberg members who he “conversed with on a regular basis”.
Overpopulation is a primary concern of the elite, and it was the
subject of a recent clandestine meeting of billionaire “philanthropists” in New York. Elitists veil their agenda with the humanitarian rhetoric of the need to naturally reduce world population by means of contraception and education, whereas in reality, as we have exhaustively documented, their program has its origins in the inhumane pseudo-science of eugenics which first flourished in Britain, and the ideology of racial and genetic superiority that was later adapted by the Nazis with the aid of Rockefeller funding.

Good news too - a new film, New World Order, is bringing truth (albeit slightly watered down, apparently, but at least it's not a hit job) to the masses. See here:



As the elite march forward, so does the resistance.

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Changing Minds: One @ a Time

To paraphrase Robert McNamara, "If we can’t persuade people with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better examine our reasoning."


Some people are of the brainwashed variety. They will do everything in their rational and irrational attempts to avoid facts or morality, and conform to their masters. These are sadly a lost cause.

Others have not been successfully brainwashed, and just need access to the right information or opinion to snap them out of their semi-trance state. This description fits, among many other people, myself last year.

So it is the job of any good Infowarrior to spread the message of freedom such that as many people as possible may be awakened to what I believe is a great calling to humanity, the resistance against despotism, the Global War On Tyranny-ism. Tyrants, now there's some people who REALLY "hate us for our freedom".

I feel good today because I lit a metaphorical fire of freedom in the mind of a stranger.

What follows is a series of exchanges between myself and "Mr X" (yes genius, that's not even his real online alias). I hope it may encourage you that there are many of people out there who are receptive to the message of freedom and are eager to wake up (even if they don't know it).

Original text describes Mr X's (American) political outlook.

Mr X: (red from now on)

First of all, an ideal government for me would be a unitary government with a strong, large, and powerful federal government with weak state government. I consider myself socially far left and economic mid- left. I identify with the Democratic Party. Here are my views about the issues of International, Domestic, Economic, and Social concerns.

International:
I support an isolationist view on foreign policy. This means that I do not believe that we should engage in wars that do not pertain to direct self defense of America on US soil. I also believe that the US should take measures ensure that jobs stay in America instead of going to foreign countries. Although I believe in free trade, the government needs to better regulate the international job market. The government must also lift all trade embargoes on countries in order to promote trade. I believe in giving aide to foreign countries in need of help. For the matters of international conflicts, I think the UN should resolve them. We must also completely eliminate from out society, but until then, we must use American petrol. I feel open borders in necessary to a stable economy and the fundamental values of America. Immigrants ate vital to keeping prices of products down. With background checks, anyone has the right to become a US citizen.

Domestic:
I support strong gun control laws. I think the only weapons that should be allowed to be bought are rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are all single-shot. There must be an assault weapons ban and thorough background checks on all who wish to purchase guns. The united stated must regulate the environment strictly by overseeing companies and introducing legislation that would protect the environment. We must have a strong domestic agenda with much government programs to help the needy. We also need to reform our healthcare in a way that motivates doctors to want to work for the government and is better for the patients. I think that is also important to restructure social security in a way that allows more money to be put away. We must also have a strong infrastructure and government research along with a better space program so we can become leaders in the modern era of technology.

Economic:
I think that we should reduce military spending and increase spending money on the national debt until we eventually have a surplus. We must raise taxes so we can fund government programs. We should use a fair tax system instead of our current one. The government must regulate the economy to a degree where it is stable. There also must be strict government regulation of large corporations. I also support the idea of a national bank.

Social:
I believe that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all. There also should be no restrictions on gay marriage at all. There must be liberty, even if this sacrifices national security. There must be a strong separation of church and state. I do not support Affirmative Action. It is unfair to the most extent of the word. The death penalty should be abolished. It is ridiculous and barbaric.

Me: (blue from now on)

rofl @ the gun control fanatic.

Maybe research Lexington Green and the American Revolution...

...and Nazi Germany. In one, the citizens are armed to the teeth. In the other gun bans are in place. Which is which? :D

Don't you agree that there is no use for assault weapons but than to kill people. I support handguns. They are good for self defense. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I feel that every family should have a gun for protection.

Assault weapons is a loaded term used by the gun grabbers, to make one 'type' of gun seem mysteriously deadly. All guns are designed to kill, that's true; as are the skeletal structure of the human fist. But we don't cut everyone's hands off, do we?

I agree with you about everyone owning guns for protection. Why not assault rifles? All that means, in the case of US gun laws, is a semi-auto weapon with over 10 rounds in the magazine. Hardly a WMD, eh?

Governments worldwide killed 200 million of their own people in the last century. I don't see any reason why they should be dictating to us what weapons we can carry. What about them? They actually use their weapons for mass murder, unlike most citizens, and they get away with it. Letting them push us around is a no-no, and in extreme cases that's where the guns come in.

America already has way TOO MANY firearms restrictions in place - registering all your guns, getting permits to concealed carry a handgun, no carry on campus (recipe for mass shootings, as we have seen).

The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with absolute clarity - that every citizen is part of the Militia (citizen soldiers, defenders of the Constitution), and that their *right* (not privilege, so no permit should be required) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Infringed upon, not removed, not reduced. These are the peoples' rights and woe betide anyone who steps upon these rights. That was the intention as enshrined in the 2A, and it's the #1 thing I admire about America.

Oh, and btw, I'm British, so I know a thing or two about what happens when these "reasonable gun regulations" are allowed to happen. It doesn't stop until all the guns are gone, believe me.

If assault weapons is a "term", then why was it was in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? When would you need to use an assault rife that you can't use a handgun? The only reason someone would need to use one is for military purposes. I agree with you about the ridiculous law about 10 rounds. Although the US government is not entirely responsible (Iraq for instance) they are a hell of allot more responsible than the average US redneck. The fathers purposely wrote the constitution loosely in order to allow a wide range of interpretation. While some interpret it literally (judicial restraint) others, like me, interpret it loosely (judicial activism). The constitution also promises maintenance of public order. This can be provided by gun laws.

What I mean is "assault weapons" is a loaded term used as propaganda, that's all.

When would you need an assault weapon? How about when FEMA comes up your street rounding everyone up to go to camps? (okay, this is the worst of the worst case scenario, but that's exactly why the citizens in my opinion should be as well-armed as is needed to resist their government.)


Hmm I think you overestimate the responsibility of government and underestimate the responsibility of citizens. But...

It's not about responsibility because gun ownership isn't a privilege. You don't earn gun ownership as you don't earn the right to speak your mind, to keep your property, or the right to peaceably assemble. The right to defend yourself proportionately is part of your natural rights, that don't come from government or law, but from nature. Government has no authority to breach these rights, but of course every government does to an extent.

I doubt the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution vaguely. It's pretty clear to me. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not even a little bit. No infringement or attempts to turn it into a privilege using 'regulations'. Only the modern usurpers of the Constitution claim it is ambiguous, such as the Bush regime suggesting torture could be Constitutional. There's nothing ambiguous about it if you ask me. Not in the name of maintaining public order or for any reason. I say again, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Never.

I've never looked at it from that perspective. I've always trusted my government and expected it to work for me, as John Locke said in his writing of the social contract theory. But do you really think the US govt would turn on us it hasn't happended in a first world country ever i dont think. correct me if im wrong.

First world country: Germany 1933. :)

Not in modern times, but really America today is not entirely unlike America of maybe 1772 or 1773. The final spark of the American Revolution was when British Empire troops marched on a group of Patriots at Lexington Green and demanded they lay down their weapons. They refused, then the British fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

All I'm saying is, there's a lot of pissed off gun owners out there. The media mocks them as being paranoid about coming gun bans, but all I know is that many talk of revolution. They're not going to give up their guns. So the ball is in governments' court. Do they send in the black uniforms to come for the guns en masse at a 21st Century Lexington Green?

your right i only looked at things one way before

hey no problem mate. respect to you sir.

I didn't know that people really "always trusted their government" and "expected it to work for me". Really? But that's the key delusion that has to be tackled, especially when dealing with the controlled left. (The key with the controlled right is IMO two pronged: Satanism to make the Christians sit up and take notice, also their chickenhawk militarist delusions need to be attended to.)

The kid had a photo of himself, he's probably about 16 or so, which explains his humility. You wouldn't expect that from most adults. I would hypothesise that is because adults have spent longer in the delusion and so it's harder for them to face everything they'd believed in was a deception. That may sound extreme, but I tell ye, there's nothing like the waking-up process. Nothing like it.

So I hope that kid will go away no longer worshipping the Democratic party and (presumably) Obama, and maybe just maybe educate himself and others and learn of the New World Order.

The revolution will not be televised.

Message to a Bush Kool-Aid Drinker

Note: mmm, Kool-Aid. Another of those Americanisms that I didn't know what it meant until recently, so for anyone, particularly non-Americans reading, it was drunk by the inhabitants of Jonestown and the cyanide it was mixed with killed them. So of course, it means someone who blindly follows something, like the followers of Jim Jones.


This is a copy of a comment I left on this post. Basically this awesome Anonymous tool had called 9/11 conspiracy theories 'drug induced' (despite the US government's 9/11 theories being the biggest conspiracy theories of all) and accused everyone on that blog of being 'left wing traitors'.

Needless to say, I wasn't going to miss a chance to have fun putting one of the few Bush supporters still in existence in their place. It's a sad testament to our dumbed down world that, at this point, I feel I must point out that me criticising Bush does not mean I like Obama. Change not the puppet, the President; but the puppeteer, the money masters.

Oh well, here goes anyway:

@ Anonymous: You are a koolaid drinking coward who is so heavily invested in the left-right paradigm that "your" leader W could literally eat a baby in front of you and you'd still re-elect him.

The author of this blog has his own opinions, personally I want nothing to do with "the left" as you say. Every 9/11 truther is a far left *traitor*? Interesting perspective coming from someone who clearly loves NAFTA, the NAU, and lying their way into wars.

You may think you support the troops, but the truth is that the troops no longer support you. More troops donated to Ron Paul than any other candidate in 2008. Why? Because he's the only real anti-war guy out there.

Believe me, I hate big government, gun grabbing, the tyranny of environmental "regulations", etc. In fact, I detest the bloated state so much that, unlike you, I actually advocate removing its source, which is the Federal Reserve.

Turn off the TV, and corporate talk radio for a minute. Read your Constitution, or if you can't stomach that 'Al-Qaeda human rights bullcrap', read a Bible or something. Within a few minutes I guarantee you will be smarter than Rush Limbaugh. Otherwise, I pity you more than anything else because you are the perfect citizen, a walking wind-up toy created and shaped by Rupert Murdoch (and the ones made by George Soros are no better, by the way).

If you read that, then at least you're literate. I doubt it though.

Maybe I could have been more civil? ;)

Monday, 25 May 2009

Should we trust scientists on cancer causes?

I mean, government-backed scientists have a track record of reliability, don't they? Don't they?

BBC - Britons 'wary over cancer advice'


(Image: Translates roughly as "Work gives you cancer", in case you're wondering.)

[quoting from above news article]
The UK public is deeply sceptical about scientific claims for what causes or prevents cancer, a poll suggests.

The YouGov survey of 2,400 people for the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) found more than half thought scientists were always changing their minds.

More than a quarter said health advice changed constantly and the best approach was to ignore it completely.

But the WCRF said its advice, including eating more fruit and vegetables, had stayed the same for more than a decade.

The WCRF says that most scientists agree about the steps people can take to reduce their risk of cancer - and that this advice has largely stayed the same for the last 10 years.

It is thought that about a third of the most common cancers could be prevented through eating a healthy, balanced diet, being physically active and maintaining a healthy weight.

Obesity, drinking, smoking etc...
No mention of Aspartame? High Fructose Corn Syrup? Chemtrails? Depleted Uranium? I could go on. No wonder all the scientific advice about which foods do or do not cause cancer is contradictory and essentially pointless, because real confirmed causes of the modern cancer/bad health epidemic are being ignored.

Russia Today reports on New World Order film

"The New World Order is a controversial new film that goes behind the scenes of the American anti-globalisation movement."

I should add at this point that, unlike what the disinfo Wikipedia articles say, anti-globalisation is not the same as anti-capitalism, nor is it anti-Semitic (what!!!). I am anti-world government, very much pro-capitalism, and don't want either freedom of trade, or national sovereignty, to continue to be destroyed by our corrupt slavemasters. That is all.

Obama's Hypocrisy and the Brave New World

Love this video. Obama speaks against materialism. It's like witches telling everyone not to use broomsticks.



Obama is the icon of people who have 'learnt' to love their own servitude and slavery. This "Brave New World" was forecasted by Aldous Huxley over half a century ago:



See 1:08 - 2:05 of the above video:
"I think, what is going to happen in the future, is the dictators will find, as the saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them. If you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled. And this they will do, partly by drugs, as I foresaw in Brave New World, partly by these new techinques of propaganda; but they will do it by bypassing the rational sides of man, and appealing to his subconsciousness, his deeper emotions, and his physiology; and making him actually love his slavery. I believe this is the danger, that actually people may be in some ways happy under the new regime, but they'll be happy in a situation where they ought not to be happy."

Sunday, 24 May 2009

The irony of the obsessive "Anti-Racists"

Racism is the result of a delusional collectivist worldview, if you ask me. Those who view the world through a prism of good and bad peoples are looking at the world in a fundamentally flawed way. So why is it that so-called "anti-racists" constantly deride the 'white run' society in which they live?


(Images: Yeah, white people with cigars. Mostly old white people. Damn those Whiteys. That's not racist.)

Where is this white run society? I haven't been told about this. Apparently Western society is run by whites, for whites, with the aim of sticking the boot in to all 'minorities' - forever. You're telling me that society is run exclusively for my benefit and I haven't been taking advantage of it? I am white after all. Do I run things? Do I get special privileges? It'd be great if I do, please, any opressed 'minorities' who know how these white advantages work, I'd love to know about them, here I thought I was merely an ordinary citizen (or should that be subject in these times).

Okay, so society is in the hands of a few wealthy and powerful men. True. Also, most of them are indeed white, Saudi oligarchs excluded. The global elite are also incredibly racist, I'd definitely say that, just look at their "charitable policies" of abortion and vaccination eugenics in Africa.

That said, do you really think that white people are going to get some kind of special privileges under the NWO? Nope, the world population, should these nutjobs get what they want, will be under 500 million, probably under 300 million. Room for all white people in that number? No. What about the white people living in tents because the economy, built on a house of cards, is collapsing, and our paper currency will be reduced to toilet paper? Nothing for them either.

In fact, when addressing the typical obsessive 'anti-racist' mindset, it becomes necessary to tackle a whole web of interlocking ideas about who runs society. Apparently, the world is run by WASP capitalists, who cling to guns and religion. According to the typical self-described 'progressive', this is our enemy.

It's a dangerous delusion, not least because attempts to 'rectify' the 'problem' actually help the REAL elite.

Those white people giving themselves jobs. We need affirmitive action/"positive discrimination" policies.

Those religious people and their delusions about the value of life. We need to expand "a woman's right to choose" and "the right to die".

Those other religious people and their bigotry towards homosexuals. We need not only to legalise gay marriage, we need to let gay couples adopt and raise children, and encourage the normalisation of homosexuality in culture.

Those capitalists are so selfish and they're harming the environment. We need socialist wealth redistributive policies, and we need government to tax everything heavily that "harms the environment".

Those gun nuts are crazy, and their obsession with these deadly weapons, as well as the support from the evil capitalist big gun companies and lobbies, is putting the public in danger. Look at what the gun culture has done to 'minorities', we need to ban them all. Only the state, a subsidiary of the good anti-racist UN, can own guns.

Nationalism is a code word for racism (in America, States' Rights is also code, for the right to enslave minorities). Therefore we need to support good anti-racist, anti-nationalist, internationalist/federalist big centralisations of power, like the UN and the EU.

Of course, the irony is that many so-called 'progressives' ARE the racist eugenicists they supposedly hate. They support population control to 'deal with global warming'. They have a seething hatred for white people, Christianity and nationalism (a word so often misunderstood).

I could go into more detail refuting each point of the so-called 'progressive' agenda and how it ties in with the New World Order (yes, the small number of mostly white men who really run things) and their aims. But I think this is a sufficient introduction to understanding the (warped) left wing wannabe "anti-fascist", "anti-racist" mindset, which is actually heavily racist and fascist in nature. All in the name of oxymoronic "equality".

Saturday, 23 May 2009

The Communist Manifesto

Ten Conditions for Transition to Communism, as outlined by Marx/Engel's Communist Maifesto of 1848. Enjoy the links, comrades.


1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3: Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6: Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8: Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.

10: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Waterboarding isn't torture, it's fun

Mancow Muller, conservative talk show host, gets waterboarded, but remember it isn't torture, it's "enhanced interrogation".



Kind of like how twisting pro-lifers' arms isn't torture, it's "pain compliance".

I quote from the above PDF link, Page 6, "I noted [argued] that the La Mesa police had used pain compliance techniques severe enough that it caused some of the rescuers (rescuer = anti abortion protestor) to pass out."

If we're going to have a rational debate about torture, then all the people who think waterboarding is somehow not serious need to accept it for what it is. It IS torture. Now you can argue about whether torture yields success or can be morally justified in circumstances, though you won't find much agreement from me, but stop playing silly semantic games with terms like "enhanced interrogation". We know what you mean.

The National Security state is being turned against the people. It's not as if we weren't warned. Now, however, the terrorist is you. Another stupid piece of word manipulation, they don't need to take your rights directly anymore, they just need to reasonably suspect you of terrorism, for example if you have a terrorist Ron Paul sticker, there go your rights. Waterboard that man!

All you zombies who supported the torture, monitoring of communications, databases, etc. know this. You are the target of the schemes you supported. You are the terrrorist that the TV news made you afraid of. You are the next one to be waterboarded 180 times. Or, maybe me. Or someone else. But let me assure you, it isn't "just the brown people" any more.

Friday, 22 May 2009

The deadly Terrorists we are fighting

As usual, a bunch of "semi-retarded potheads" who were set up by the government. It's called false flag, people, and this is how it works. It's very simple. Government funds, radicalises, encourages, even causes, a bunch of broke nutjobs to do some crazy stuff (sometimes real, in this case just threatened) and then they blame the resulting crisis on their political enemies.


Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City, oh yeah and the FBI (ssshhhh it doesn't exist)
1993 WTC bombing, oh yeah and the FBI AGAIN (sssshhh now they really don't exist)
7/7 Prior Knowledge, oh yeah and the FBI YET AGAIN (no, be quiet, unpatriotic patriot!)

I love how it's always a handful of rogues. Always a coincidence. Well, if you're not going to scratch the surface of what is said, then these criminals will keep getting away with it!


It's so horrifically simple, and yet people still believe there are scores of "terrorists" hiding under some bush, or maybe in some cave, just waiting to attack you and your family because "they hate us for our freedom" (lol, you're not even free anyway!). Get over it please, the CIA created Al-Qaeda. Want to find people who hate freedom? Why not take a look-see at, for example, the Bilderberg Group, who met last week.

One little-known non-secret about Al-Qaeda is that they are now carrying out attacks in Iran at the behest of the US government. They were used in the Balkan wars of the 90s. They were originally a database of CIA assets in Afghanistan, who carried out attacks against the Russians in the 80s. Now they are still under US command it seems. Or were they just not under US command for ONE day? I leave that to you. Make of it what you will.

Oh, and any neocons reading, when I say "US Command", I'm not being "anti-American" or "blame America first". Your country has been hijacked by the New World Order scum, who ironically were based in Britain and other European countries. I do not blame America, but I damn sure do blame these elitist crooks. I only refrained from saying "CIA command" because I don't know if it's the CIA still commanding them, nor do I really care. The point is that Al-Qaeda is an asset of the US shadow government.

I know, I'm a crazy "conspiracy theorist", nothing of what I wrote is true, it's all unpatriotic lies cooked up by whatever wackjob I've been listening to on that crazy internet, only what gets onto TV is factual, TV is right about everything. You're right and patriotic, just like the Founding Fathers, who knew that whatever government says, goes.

I'll end the sarcasm if you end the denial :)

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money." - Pierre Henri Brunel, French intelligence insider

"The greatest purveyor of violence on Earth is my own government" - Martin Luther King

Fun with O.B.A.M.A.

Inspired by the now well-known acronym for "One Big Ass Mistake America", as demonstrated by my ally in the blogosphere NobodyOfValue, I decided to see what I could get for myself, so without further or do, here goes.


Oppose
Bush
Agenda?
My
Arse
-
Others
Believe
A
Messiah
Arrived
-
Open
Borders
And
Mexican
Amnesty
-
Our
Battle's
Against
Marijuana,
Again
-
Only
Ban
All
Military
Arms
-
One
Bilderberger's
Aim:
Marxist
America

Hope (!) you likey. And add your own if you have any!

We're gonna spread happiness,
We're gonna spread freedom,
Obama's gonna change it,
Obama's gonna leeeeead 'em,

We're gonna change it,
And rearrange it,
We're gonna change the world.

- Song sung by wide-eyed, indoctrinated children in one of the infamous Obama Youth videos.

Thursday, 21 May 2009

haha...everything is OK in London

These two guys are funny, the tyranny...not so much.

Suckers' Boom is Over

Just like the 'bad news' deliberately put out in 2006-07 to ruin the property market, the Federal Reserve is now offering pessimistic forecasts designed to destroy the false confidence that they earlier created.


BBC: Markets fall as growth hopes fade

This was forecasted by Bilderberg tracker Daniel Estulin earlier this year, that the elite were going to stage a recovery in the markets to suck in the fools' investments, before ploughing into the real depression that HAS to happen at some point due to the ridiculous amount of debt we have allowed their money-changing system to pin on us.

There is a solution, the only solution, which is destruction of the central bank, cancelling the National Debt (the proportion of which is owed to banks at least), the removal of fractional reserve laws and the reinstatement of sound monetary systems in which our currency has some tangible value.

It's a sad day when people are trying to convert their currency from digital (bank accounts etc) into paper because that "has more value". (by God I wish I could remember where the British news story was that said this!)

Maybe soon people will start telling the bankers, "I WANNA KNOW WHERE THE GOLD IS."

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Join or die: Left and Right Unite!

What's the difference between a paleoconservative, classical liberal, and libertarian? Answer: very little.


However, the establishment has manipulated public opinion to support their own agenda for too long. Nowadays, you've got the hawkish neocons (fake conservatives) supporting the Warfare State, and the "liberals" (fake liberals, socialists hijacked that word!) supporting the Welfare State.

The agenda of the establishment always tends towards big government, because that's how tyrants operate - they need funds for their takeover, so they hike taxes; and they need a common enemy to sap the will of the people to resist domestic tyranny, so they start wars. Which also allow them to hike taxes for 'patriotic' reasons.

So on one side we have the agenda of tyranny - big government and war ('order out of chaos'), and on the other we have the agenda of liberty - limited government and peace. The latter is generally what the people want, unless they've been propagandised to believe that big government or pre-emptive warfare is a necessary evil.

The establishment can't push through their agenda openly because it's so unpopular. So, they take TWO or more political parties and insert parts of their agenda into each. This is manifest in America as the warfare state Republicans and the welfare state Democrats. In Britain, however, we have transcended that (as the US is doing too) and basically have three parties that openly support socialism, because enough people have been propagandised that capitalism is bad.

Really a better example of how left and right are played off against each other comes from America, since that is where the divide is strongest.

The controlled left talk about peace and civil liberties, while growing a huge welfare state and going after citizens' right to bear arms (no resisting our tyranny!)

The controlled right appeal to the traditional values (fiscal, social, etc) of conservatives, Christians, and gun owners, while starting wars and ranking up the National Debt more than their counterparts.

But even that is a false distinction, and can be demonstrated with a couple of examples:

A criticism of Clinton was his nation-building military policy, so Bush ran with the policy of "no nation-building"! Well that went well didn't it! Then when people were tired with Bush's wars, they turned to Obama to provide peace, and guess what? Nope.

Also, despite being a supposed conservative, Bush jr oversaw a tripling in the size of government.

The next phase (according to the logic of the Hegelian Dialectic), after the false left-right conflict is concluded, is that everyone who was brainwashed by this "paradigm" will support an agenda of Communitarianism - like, for example, that outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that I had fun tearing apart a while ago.

Britain has already made this "Common Purpose" transition. (Common Purpose is basically a 'training' organisation that brainwashes young leaders for the future, btw.) Now all the major parties in the UK support globalisation and surrendering sovereignty, high taxes, environmental action by government, profit being a dirty word, guns being for criminals and uniformed jackboots only, etc etc.


I write this so that perhaps my American readers, if they're not already, can be aware of the Hegelian logical process being forced on them by their two-party dictatorship, and if you want to know the end result of this process of conditioning, look no further than Communitarian Britain. We are a democracy, where fifty-one percent of the people can vote to remove the rights of the other forty-nine, to paraphrase Jefferson, and where the majority of people disapprove of liberty, whether they know it or not.

That isn't what I mean when I call for left and right to unite - I mean around the idea of freedom of course!

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Where's the NRA when you need them?

Soldiers being ordered to participate in illegal gun registration?

But no, nobody is coming for your guns, honest.

Hey! AlexJonesChannel censorship ends!!!

Aww, poor YouTube caved in because they couldn't keep the message of freedom down...a victory in the Infowar!

Discussion with a "Jew World Order" theorist

I really tried to come up with a better title, nevermind. The following is a series of comments from this post here, and I think it would be good to read the points raised by the commenter and myself for your own consideration. What do you think?

Anonymous:
It is obvious that Jones has crossed a line in exposing the truth. If his documentary Terror Storm wasn't enough, he now spends hours talking about the traces of explosive residue found in all of the 9-11 dust samples. However what is perhaps most damaging is that he allows comments on his website that show Mossad involvement in placing the explosives and the Talmudic doctrine that would justify it. Google, Truth About The Talmud.

AdamS:
Thanks for taking the time to point me in that direction.

I've looked into the various theories about whether or not Jones is covering up for Zionists, or as others say, Jesuits.

The Talmud is indeed a - shall we say extreme piece of literature in places. Mossad were involved in 9/11, but it was a co-operative effort between them and the American agencies.

I've seen 9/11 missing links...just don't forget that the people behind it are GENUINE neo-Nazis. (see their video called "Fundamentals of positive fascism")

COINTELPRO types like to say things like 'Jews did 9/11' in an attempt to switch people off to 9/11 truth altogether. They want the truth movement to degenerate into a personality war.

Jones doesn't 'cover up' anything, the elite of the planet aren't really Jews anyway, by all accounts they appear to be sun worshippers/satanists. Of course, they funded Hitler too, so they don't give a damn about ordinary Jews.

Read my post "An answer to Liberty Movement Infighting". United we stand.

AdamS:
Oops the URL for "Fundamentals of Positive Fascism" is:

http://prothink.tv/?p=238

It shows Hitler in a positive light. Sorry, I'm done with the "Jew World Order" crowd.

Anonymous:
Adam, old boy, if I didn't know about the required Baba Kamma 113a, I would almost believe that you don't want your 2800 slaves promised in the World to come.

(Author's note: Referring to a passage from the Talmud about Jews lying to convict Christians and that being OK, also, the 2800 slaves are promised in the Talmud to Jews after the return of the Messiah.)

AdamS:
Look, I'm not in any way defending some of the disgusting things in the Talmud. I am simply saying that it's not the be-all and end-all of the New World Order.

I'm sure you are aware of how divide-and-conquer works, so know this. I am for freedom and against anyone who is supporting and engaging in the acts done in the name of the global and eugenics agenda. That's it.

It is true that the people behind Missing Links, regardless of the content of the film (which contains good information to consider), support fascism as a political philosophy. Thus I do not support them, because they are against freedom.

Not that I'm a fan of religious texts in general, but to quote the Bible "whoever is not against us is for us."

That's the stance I take on all individuals within what could be called the alternative media, for example I wonder whether David Icke is a bit crazy with all his New Ageishness, but he is for freedom and that's all that matters.

It is obvious that some of these attempts to subvert the freedom movement by dividing people over what frankly are trivial issues like the Talmud, Jesuits, Reptillians or Masonry, are being worked by COINTELPRO.

In my view, however, it's just the flailing of a dying beast, as we expose the evil of the so-called New World Order criminals. Wanna be on the winning team? The one that doesn't hate Jews, but loves freedom and hates only those who seek to subvert it (including those subverting freedom who are Jewish of course)?

(end of comments)

So, do we face a Jew World Order? I would love to hear what you think.

Monday, 18 May 2009

Operation ASU: Waging InfoWarfare

Mass distribution of Alex Jones' film The Obama Deception, ahead of a visit to their town by a certain Kenyan-born Arab-American.



2009 Bilderberg attendees list leaked

This is routine nowadays, but it's always good to know who was there. Bear in mind that there are more than likely people in attendance who are not listed; but nonetheless it makes for interesting reading:
http://www.wacholland.org/en/news/bilderberg-2009-attendee-list


There are those who mock the Bilderberg group and people who are concerned about it, they say that it's not to be taken seriously and that everyone who investigates it is a crazy conspiracy theorist. They say we should ignore it just like the MSM try to.

But that's not fair or responsible. I do not know what goes on inside whichever luxury hotel they choose each year for their meetings; I do not know what they talk about and I don't know the names of everyone who attended and what they decided upon, or how much they decide upon at these annual conferences.

All I know is this: there is a group of 100+ of the most influential people in politics, finance and media, trying to keep secret their meetings, and cowering away from the public spotlight.

I know that they don't need to go to this trouble to get some peace and quiet, they could just stay home in their country houses and mansions. I therefore know that there is a businesslike purpose for their meetings. I know that these people earn their living in politics, finance and media, and that these industries are central to controlling economies, people and nations.

I also know that there have been predictions made based on leaks from previous Bilderberg meetings that have come true. In particular, the shock fall of oil prices in 2008 was heralded, maybe even caused by Bilderberg attendees.

Also, I don't want to get too caught up on the name 'Bilderberg Group'. All that is, is one name of one round-table meeting. The same people operate throughout other groups and societies too, under many different names, but the agenda is always similar or the same - a tyrannical world government followed by massive population reduction and eugenics. Scary, but I also believe inherently flawed, because it's so twisted and evil that when people (especially influential people who are good) realise this is true, it should collapse with enough popular awareness and support.

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." - John F Kennedy.

I think Bilderberg was one of the societies to which JFK was referring.


Bilderbergers are getting afraid that their control over the world's power structures is weakening. And remember, all you have to do to make cockroaches scatter is to switch on the light. (no Illuminist reference intended - I just mean that we need to expose them, that's all!)

Disturbing Video: Obama Youth Recruitment

"I am change." Well, you certainly are that. I get the feeling however that Ghandi, MLK, JFK, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela would all be against this uniformed Corps, not for it!

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Understand Money, and ye shall be free

"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford (this applies to the whole world in the post-WW2 era onwards, imho)



The central pillar of human civilisation is trade. Without the ability to exchange goods, we would not be able to produce so many other things, instead we'd all be living Stone Age style, in a state of anarcho-primitivism.

What allows us to work in a service industry job, for example, while remaining confident that others will have produced food, and will want to trade that food with us at the appropriate time? The answer is, that there are trusted means of exchange. This may be feathers, stones, iron, gold or anything else you may suggest.

The key to any good means of exchange is two things:
1. It has perceived value in the marketplace.
2. It is sufficiently scarce, enough so that people will be confident that the market's perception of the currency's value will not change greatly in the future (as that might leave you holding worthless currency later on).

Today, almost every nation on earth has currency represented by paper. It's worth a moment to ponder how paper currency came into being...

Good article on the history of money

Michael Badnarik (teaching his Constitution Class) explains currency

The story goes that, back in 'the day' (whenever that was), wealthy peoples' gold (and other commodity) assets were extremely vulnerable when being transported, as highway bandits filled their pockets with the loot. A solution was required.

So, instead of transporting gold, they traded in notes instead. These were promises from a bank (safe place where gold was stored), which effectively represented the real gold and could be exchanged at any time for the hard assets. This meant that is was much easier to transport even large amounts of money safely.

But it came at a price. Bankers figured out that, if everyone kept their gold in their vaults and rarely (if ever) withdrew it, then the banks could sneakily issue a few more notes than they could actually pay out on. For example, if I had 100 ounces of gold in my bank's vault, I could write notes totalling 120 ounces or maybe 140 ounces, hoping that my customers would never demand more than 100 ounces in withdrawals at one time. These extra notes could then be used by me to buy real assets, maybe gold from other banks, or buy up businesses, land, or anything else.

What I just described is clearly fraud. And that's how it was back then; people who did that fully deserve to be prosecuted for the crime of fraud. But then something changed: fraud was made legal.

Yep, that's right, through a process called fractional reserve banking, banks were given the special privilege to create more notes than they could back with real assets. At first, this was at the modest ratio of 2:1. So my bank can now create 200 ounces' gold worth in notes despite only having 100 ounces of gold "in reserve" (keep that term in mind, it's Newspeak; I don't have the hard assets "in reserve", I just "have" them, there's nothing else of value for these assets to be "in reserve" for).

More detail on fractional reserve and why it's a problem

Does that sound like capitalism or free trade to you? Does it sound fair, just or right? If you have an ounce of sanity and moral fibre, you'll say no. So why has the process of fractional reserve continued to this day, in increasing ratios? Nowadays, the reserve rates are 10 or 12 to 1. In what business other than banking can you commit fraud and have protection under the law?

But it gets better. The establishment of central banks "to act as the banker to the government", as the rose-tinted glasses provided by Newspeak tell us, essentially marked the end of capitalism and prophecised a return to Medieval style bondage. How can I claim that, and why are central banks so important? I shall explain.

All modern civilisations have issued their own money. This provides a standardised means of exchange, and simplifies the taxation process. So it's a win-win for governments and the people.

In societies without a central bank, government creates and issues its currency as a form of credit. That is to say, there is no outstanding debt related to the currency. What debt? Who can be put into debt during the process of issuing money? Well, let's go over how central banks issue currency, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

In a society with a central bank (pretty much every country on the globe today), when government needs money, it has to do a deal with the central bank. The bank, which despite all the disinformation out there, is always a privately owned institution, creates new money (usually digital only, not in paper form), and lends this magically created money to the government. This means that government can get funding for all its pet projects, without having to request it from the people (via taxes) first.

The problem is, that lending from the central bank was not free. Nope, now the more government spends, the more it owes to the private bank, with the cherry of compound interest on top. But it's not politicians that are saddled with this debt, of course. It's YOU. It's called the National Debt, and it's rising constantly.

More detail: The Money Myth Exploded

Of course, not all of the National Debt is owed to the central bank, but evidence shows that governments can pay off the debt when they rid themselves of the central bank parasite; for example the work of US President Andrew Jackson. Under his leadership, the second central bank of the United States was destroyed, and the national debt was for the first time in America's history, paid off in full. Only, he wasn't around when the bankers took over America again with the "Federal" Reserve, in 1913.

As proof that central banks are always private institutions run by a parasitic elite, consider this. When government borrows money from the central bank, they pay interest on what they have borrowed. To whom does the interest go? Somebody is charging for the loan. If government owned the central bank, why would they charge themselves for borrowing from themselves? Think about it, people.

Now, you may think this doesn't affect you. So what if government borrows money from a private institution? The truth is that, the interest on this debt can only be paid by government doing one of three things: borrowing more, printing more, or taxing more. Guess which two of those affects you? Yup, taxes always perpetually rise in countries dominated by a central bank, and increasing the money supply causes inflation, which devalues the currency in your pocket.



The thing is though, even as you pay more and more to this private banking cartel via your taxes, it will never be enough, as every year of government spending brings more National Debt woth compound interest to service, leading to a downward spiral of higher taxes and money devaluation (as every unit of currency lent out by the central bank is totally new and therefore an addition to the money supply).

This expansion of the money supply is also problematic because it is impossible to maintain a commodity standard at any fixed rate, with a money supply that is perpetually expanding. What I mean by that is, representative money (money representing real assets such as gold, as I used in my fictional bank earlier) cannot coexist for long with a central bank system, as more and more of the paper currency is created without any real commodity to base the new money's value on. So we move towards fiat currency.

A timeline of these events (from an American perspective) can be found here. Though most countries went through a similar process at similar times in the last 100 years, ditching the backing for our paper currency.

So, where are we now? The money you hold has no real market value save for the paper it's printed on, while many of the real assets are in the hands of the fraudulent bankers who printed this smokescreen of illusory wealth to begin with. Their attempt to reinstate medieval serfdom but this time on a global scale under a singly authoritarian regime, also known as the New World Order, is nearing its completion. How can this be told? Well, our fiat debt-based global economy is collapsing, and they in part made it happen.

(If you can't read the numbers in the image, click here for a larger version.)

The big difference between fiat and commodity currency, is that one can be used as a weapon to destroy countries economically, while the other can not (so easily at least). Fiat money, once you've got everyone using it, can be exploited by wealthy elites first by taking control of real assets - buying them up with the fraudulently created currency - then by collapsing that country's economy when their debt to the bankers becomes unsustainable and hyperinflation ensues.

Thus, all the real assets are in the hands of the banking elite, while the population are literally serfs again, generally, because they had their wealth invested in a currency that ultimately proved to be worthless due to expansion in its supply.

If you're looking for expansion of the money supply, look no further than the derivatives market, where supposedly there are $1.4 quadrillion of derivatives, despite the total of all real world assets not even coming close to that. What happens when there is more money than assets? The value of money decreases, manifest in price inflation. We may be about to be hit by hyperinflation, as all the new credit from the bailouts enters circulation.

I don't want to be all gloom-and-doom about this. I, of course, am hoping we can somehow avoid the impact of the coming depression, perhaps with some other economic bubble to prop things up (although in the long term that would just make the final economic reckoning worse). There are apparent solutions from a layman's perspective, however, in that all nations could shut down their central bank and cancel the portion of the National Debt attributed to it (the more nations that do this, the better).

I'm not saying all the world's central banks are owned by the same people (though they do operate under IMF oversight, which is the prorotype world currency issuer), what I am saying is that the scam operates the same way in any country. That is, get people into massive amounts of debt that can never be paid back (the main purpose of a central bank is this), then collapse the economy in that country, then move in and buy up all of that country's real assets. It's sometimes called "Disaster Capitalism", although it's really a war against capitalism and individual/national sovereignty.


(Reliable currency: US Silver Dollar above, British Gold Sovereign below.)

The IMF has done this time and time again to Third World nations; now, however, they're turning this economic weapon against the First World. It's not our fault the Third World is so impoverished and downtrodden. This injustice is a cause of anti-Western sentiment, when the average person isn't really to blame, it's the internationalist bankers based out of NY, London, Switzerland and whatever else, that are doing this to us.

We must reclaim our currency based on national sovereignty, and sound monetary systems. I'm more than a little apprehensive about the idea of gold as legal tender, because look who has the gold right now (Rothschild!), but face it the bankers own us one way or another, at least we'll have removed their system of control to an extent.

Besides, it's not as if we have much of a choice - the market, not political/economic theorists, is choosing precious metals, because people want to store their wealth in a currency that has reliable, material market value.

Older Posts

Undebunkable Chemtrails Video That The "Debunkers" Ignore...

...and yes, Chemtrails interfere with weather

(but why they are used, no-one fully knows...)

And You Tell Me There's No Suppressed Technology?

It's another of those 'conspiracy theories' that good citizens don't notice. Imagine the standard of living if all the secret technology was released to the public...we'd be "free and independent" as JFK said! No more poverty anywhere! Can you imagine being sick enough to withhold such technology from society just to maintain your position of control? (Bearing in mind that we don't know just how much technological capability is being withheld, because, duh, it's secret.) What did Nikola Tesla really develop?

Individual Liberty? But that's "selfish"!

No, we need to look after each other voluntarily without having a government do all that at gunpoint. Sounds absurd at first but soon you realise that the reason it sounds so is because of the very unfree nature of our current existence. Envision greater possibilities! Ok, some kind of massive wake-up would be needed before this kind of free, responsible, uncontrollable society could emerge. And that's what we are seeing day by day in the world - a massive waking up of the previously enslaved masses (including myself I must add!)

I'm Already Against The Next War

I'm Already Against The Next War
Stop the propaganda before it's here. If some kind of terror attack happens in the West, Iran probably didn't do it. They have no history of imperialism and would be suicidal to attack the West. Think who benefits. No bombing of Iran.