Chalk up another victory for the post-racial president’s agenda. No, it’s not Barack Obama falsely claiming that white society denied black Hurricane Katrina victims monetary assistance.
Or having a bigoted reverend ask at his inauguration when “white” will do “right.”
Or having a DoJ that refuses to pursue voting-rights cases when the victims are white.
Or sitting in a black-power church, where our country was called the “US of KKK-A,” for 20 years.
This time it’s a black-supremacist Department of Homeland Security employee who, almost four months ago, was discovered to be running a website that advocated the mass murder of whites — and who is still in the employ of the DHS.
Ayo Kimathi’s job was to purchase guns and ammunition for the government, until he was placed on leave in August after the Southern Poverty Law Center exposed him as the purveyor of the website “War on the Horizon.” As to the site’s content, Alex Seitz-Wald at National Journal writes:
Kimathi, using the online nom de guerre “the Irritated Genie,” called for “ethnic cleansing” of “black-skinned Uncle Tom race traitors” on his website, which envisioned a massive race war on the horizon. “In order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites — more than our Christian hearts can possibly count,” he wrote.
In other postings, he warned that whites and their enablers like President Obama are trying to “homosexualize” black men in order to make them weaker, and suggested that a woman’s primary role in life should be to “keep a strong Black man happy.” He also seemed to hold anti-Semitic views, claiming in a Facebook post that his website was under attack from a conspiracy of “zionist smallhats, the Uncle Tom koons,” and, naturally, “the haters.”
By the way, Kimathi drew a salary of $115,731 in 2012 for his position, which, we can be sure, he attained solely due to merit.
While Kimathi obviously isn’t too fond of Obama, there’s no word on whether the president has said that the man “acted stupidly.” We also have to wonder — and, yes, I know this joke has been done to ObamaCare death: if Obama had a bitter, angry, rebellious son, would he look like Kimathi?
Of course, we have a DoJ that dropped a voter-intimidation case against Black Panthers caught on video wielding nightsticks and intimidating white voters; and an attorney general who, a DoJ whistleblower tells us, carried a card in his wallet that essentially states, “Blackness is more important than anything, and the black US attorney has common cause with the black criminal.” Given this, I’m not sure what’s more surprising, that Kimathi hasn’t been fired yet or that he hasn’t been promoted. Other surprises in this story are that the Southern Poverty Law Center actually exposed a black bigot and that this black bigot doesn’t even half-like The One.
Anyway, if Kimathi can’t be fired, DHS should just assign him the task of negotiating the ObamaCare website. That ought to redirect his Internet endeavors for at least four or five years.
It is natural for a society to search for explanations and motivations in the wake of a man-made tragedy. It is also somewhat natural for people to be driven by their personal biases when looking for someone or something to blame. In recent years, however, our country has been carefully conditioned to view almost every criminal event from an ideological perspective.
The mainstream media now places far more emphasis on the political affiliations and philosophies of “madmen” than it does on their personal disorders and psychosis. The media’s goal, or mission, if you will, is to associate every dark deed whether real or engineered to the political enemies of the establishment, and to make the actions of each individual the collective shame of an entire group of people.
I could sift through a long list of terror attacks and mass shootings in which the establishment media jumped to the conclusion that the perpetrators were inspired by the beliefs of Constitutional conservatives, “conspiracy theorists”, patriots, etc. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the system is going out of its way to demonize those who question the officially sanctioned story, or the officially sanctioned world view. The circus surrounding the latest shooting of multiple TSA agents at Los Angeles International Airport is a perfect example.
Paul Ciancia, the primary suspect in the shooting, was immediately tied to the Liberty Movement by media outlets and the Southern Poverty Law Center, by notes (which we still have yet to see proof of) that law enforcement claims to have found on his person. The notes allegedly use terms such as “New World Order” and “fiat money”, commonly covered by those of us in the alternative media. The assertion is, of course, that Paul Ciancia is just the beginning, and that most if not all of us involved in the exposure of the globalist agenda are powder kegs just waiting to “go off.” The label often used by the MSM to profile people like Ciancia and marginalize the organizational efforts of liberty based culture is “anti-government.”
The establishment desires to acclimate Americans to the idea that being anti-government is wrong; that it is a despicable philosophy embracing social deviance, aimless violence, isolation and zealotry. Looking beyond the mainstream position, my question is, is it really such a bad thing to be anti-government today?
The terms “anti-government” and “conspiracy theorist” are almost always used in the same paragraph when mainstream media pundits espouse their propaganda. They are nothing more than ad hominem labels designed to play on the presumptions of the general population, manipulating them into dismissing any and all alternative viewpoints before they are ever heard or explained. The establishment and the media are ill-equipped to debate us on fair terms, and understand that they will lose control if Americans are allowed to hear what we have to say in a balanced forum. Therefore, their only fallback is to bury the public in lies so thick they won’t want to listen to us at all.
The Liberty Movement now has the upper hand in the war for information. The exposure of multiple conspiracies in the past several years alone has given immense weight to our stance, and reaffirmed warnings we gave long ago.
When we spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, commissioned by George W. Bush on the dubious claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were an immediate threat to the security of our nation, we were called “liberals” and “traitors.” Today, Bush and Cheney have both openly admitted that no WMD’s were ever present in the region. When we attempted to educate the masses on the widespread surveillance of innocent people by the NSA, some of them laughed. Today, it is common knowledge that all electronic communications are monitored by the Federal government. When we refused to accept the official story behind the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious program, we were called “kooks”. Today, it is common knowledge that the Obama Administration purposely allowed U.S. arms to fall into the hands of Mexican cartels. When we roared over the obvious hand the White House played in the Benghazi attack, we were labeled “racists” and “right wing extremists.” Today, it is common knowledge that the White House ordered military response units to stand down and allow the attack to take place. I could go on and on…
Events that were called “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream yesterday are now historical fact today. Have we ever received an apology for this slander? No, of course not, and we don’t expect one will ever surface. We have already gained something far more important – legitimacy.
And what about Paul Ciancia’s apparent belief in the dangers of the “New World Order” and “fiat money”? Are these “conspiracy theories”, or conspiracy realism? The Liberty Movement didn’t coin the phrase “New World Order”, these political and corporate “luminaries” did:
Is economic collapse really just a fairytale perpetrated by “anti-government extremists” bent on fear mongering and dividing society? Perhaps we should ask Alan Greenspan, who now openly admits that he and the private Federal Reserve knew full well they had helped engineer the housing bubble which eventually imploded during the derivatives collapse of 2008.
Or, why not ask the the White House, which just last month proclaimed that “economic chaos” would result if Republicans did not agree to raise the debt ceiling.
Does this make Barack Obama and the Democratic elite “conspiracy theorists” as well?
It is undeniable that government conspiracies and corporate conspiracies exist, and have caused unquantifiable pain to the American people and the people of the world. Knowing this, is it not natural that many citizens would adopt anti-government views in response? Is it wrong to distrust a criminal individual or a criminal enterprise? Why would it be wrong to distrust a criminal government?
The Purpose Behind The Anti-Government Label
When the establishment mainstream applies the anti-government label, they are hoping to achieve several levels propaganda. Here are just a few:
False Association: By placing the alleged “anti-government” views of violent people in the spotlight, the establishment is asserting that it is the political philosophy, not the individual, that is the problem. They are also asserting that other people who hold similar beliefs are guilty by association. That is to say, the actions of one man now become the trespasses of all those who share his ideology. This tactic is only applied by the media to those on the conservative or constitutional end of the spectrum, as it was with Paul Ciancia. For example, when it was discovered that Arizona mass shooter Jared Loughner was actually a leftist, the MSM did not attempt to tie his actions to liberals in general. Why? Because the left is not a threat to the elitist oligarchy within our government. Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, are.
False Generalization: The term “anti-government” is so broad that, like the term “terrorist”, it can be applied to almost anyone for any reason. The establishment does not want you to distinguish between those who are anti-government for the wrong reasons, and those who are anti-government for the right reasons. Anyone who questions the status quo becomes the enemy regardless of their motives or logic. By demonizing the idea of being anti-government, the establishment manipulates the public into assuming that all government by extension is good, or at least necessary, when the facts actually suggest that most government is neither good or necessary.
False Assertion: The negative connotations surrounding the anti-government stance also suggest that anyone who defends themselves or their principles against government tyranny, whether rationally justified or not, is an evil person. Just look at how Washington D.C. has treated Edward Snowden. Numerous political elites have suggested trying the whistle-blower for treason, or assassinating him outright without due process, even though Snowden’s only crime was to expose the criminal mass surveillance of the American people by the government itself. Rather than apologizing for their corruption, the government would rather destroy anyone who exposes the truth.
False Shame: Does government criminality call for behavior like that allegedly taken by Paul Ciancia? His particular action was not morally honorable or even effective. It helped the establishment’s position instead of hurting it, and was apparently driven more by personal psychological turmoil rather than political affiliation. But, would it be wrong for morally sound and rational Americans facing imminent despotism within government to physically fight back? Would it be wrong to enter into combat with a totalitarian system? The Founding Fathers did, but only after they had exhausted all other avenues, and only after they had broken away from dependence on the system they had sought to fight. Being anti-government does not mean one is a violent and dangerous person. It does mean, though, that there will come a point at which we will not allow government to further erode our freedoms. We will not and should not feel shame in making that stand.
I do not agree with every element of the “anti-government” ethos that exists in our era, but I do see the vast majority of reasons behind it as legitimate. If the establishment really desired to quell the quickly growing anti-government methodology, then they would stop committing Constitutional atrocities and stop giving the public so many causes to hate them. If they continue with their vicious bid to erase civil liberties, dominate the citizenry through fear and intimidation and steal and murder in our name, then our response will inevitably be “anti-government”, and we will inevitably move to end the system as we know it.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
Illiteracy and racial dysfunction…
Current U.S. Census Bureau figures show 22.3 percent of American citizens live below the poverty line. That equates to 69,520,000 Americans. They cannot secure a livable-wage job in order to pay for food, home, medical care and basic living in this country.
Within 37 years, demographic experts project an additional 100 million legal immigrants flowing into the United States of America. They expect to arrive from Africa, Indonesia, India, China, the Middle East, Mexico, Central America, South America and many of the poverty-stricken countries of the world. Their impact on America: they will force the addition, in sheer numbers, of an additional population enough to duplicate our 20 top metropolitan cities in the U.S. in 2013.
(Source: Pew Research Center, U.S. Population Projections by Fogel/Martin and the U.S. Census Bureau document those demographic facts.)
But what most Americans fail to understand stems from the fact that world human population expires at 57 million annually. Humans not only replace 57 million people, but also add an additional 80 million, net gain, to the planet annually. Total: 7.1 billion people in 2013. That’s 137 million new babies that need to be watered, fed, housed, warmed, medicated and educated annually. Unfortunately, those countries with those fecundity rates cannot educate that many new children annually. They lack teachers, books, supplies and schools. Tragically, over 10 million children starve to death annually. (Source: United Nations Population figures.)
The tragedy of America’s 1965 immigration bill added 100 million immigrants within 40 years; then, the 1986 amnesty accelerated the speed of the onslaught and now the proposed S744 amnesty bill expects to add another 100 million immigrants within 35 years or less. Those desperate immigrants will pour into America at 200,000 every 30 days, along with their birth rates, diversity visas and chain-migration.
This five-minute video presents an example of illiteracy and what it costs you as this woman birthed 15 kids on welfare:
Why do you think those countries around the world suffer misery and starvation within their societies? What causes it? Why can’t they duplicate Western skills for filling grocery stores to the brim with food like you see all across America? Answer: illiteracy, lack of intellectual horsepower, cultural poverty, lack of water and arable land.
Unfortunately, we inject those factors into the USA at blinding speed. The new amnesty provides for two million, that’s 2,000,000 million third world immigrants annually. They average 900,000 births annually, which equals 9 million in 10 years. That’s a total of 2.9 million legal immigrants annually. (Source: Dr. Steven Camorata, www.cis.org) When you look at S744, you see 250,000 green cards annually and many more visas on all levels. We could see that 100 million accelerate our population even faster than the predicated 37 years to rush from 316 million to 438 million.
Along the way, we lack the funds, the teachers, the schools, the resources and the languages to teach the endless millions of kids inundating our failing school systems. Over 85 languages create linguistic chaos in my Denver, Colorado school system with minimum of 50 percent dropout rates and as high as 67 percent. Detroit, Michigan runs 76 percent dropout rates as reported by Brian Williams at NBC Nightly News.
We face colossal cultural and educational dysfunction. What one factor drives failed states around the world? Answer: illiteracy.
With over 42 million Americans who cannot read, write or perform simple math, we face enormous challenges that we will not be able to solve. Some 48.1 million Americans subsist on food stamps today. They cannot work, function, feed or house themselves. Do any of us possess any idea what the next 100 million immigrants will mean as to food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare and medical care? How will we cope with their languages?
(Source: Tyler Durden, www.zerohedge.com, “23 percent of Americans illiterate.”)
Racial and linguistic segregation across America
When people lack education, but see wealth on TV, they react. When they can’t attain it, they shoplift, steal cars, form gangs and dwell in underworld ethnic enclaves. You can see it in most failed countries in the world.
Today in Jackson, Mississippi, with a 90 percent African-American population, they elected a mayor who promotes changing five southern states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina into a separate Republic of New Black Afrika.
Journalist Andrea Ryan wrote, “Raising his fist in a black power salute during his swearing in, the newly elected mayor of Jackson, Mississippi was true to his character as a former leader of the black supremacy group, Republic of New Afrika. The group is dedicated to transforming five of the Southern states into an independent socialist black nation. Jackson Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, born in Detroit as Edwin Finley Taliaferro, is a radical activist, and co-founder of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. He’s, also, being praised by the Nation of Islam, who wrote in their publication, Final Call, that ‘the seeds of a black nation are already taking root in Mississippi.’
In Detroit, Michigan, now 93 percent Black and Middle Eastern population, Muslims expect to dominate that population as their numbers grow in the USA from their current seven million to well over 20 million by 2050. They possess the capacity to use the U.S. Constitution to install Sharia Law by voting power of the majority. At some point, another Mayor Chokwe Lumumba could rise out of the ashes of Detroit to lead it toward a separate state or country.
In the UK, France and Belgium, Sharia Law Muslims thugs prowl the streets to beat up on anyone uninformed enough to visit during the night. Last month, in London, England, ten Sharia “police”, caught on video, beat an American boy senseless and disfigured his face because he walked into the “no go zone” in the Muslim sector. France features over 70 “no go zones” dominated by Muslims.
Solid estimates in the USA show 22 Islamic “villages” guarded and walled off from public scrutiny in Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan and Oregon.
In Los Angeles, the legal and illegal Mexican-Latino population overwhelms schools, housing, hospitals and food stamp stores. California features four million illegal migrants and most of them work underground or with forged papers. They defraud food stamp and housing welfare rolls. Spanish fast becomes THE language of southern California. Unfortunately, they fled Mexico where the average child drops out of school by sixth grade. They repeat that cultural practice in California. At some point, a Spanish Chokwe Lumumba will rise out of the quagmire of Los Angeles to lead that arena into a satellite state of Mexico.
Short video on “EBT” (Electronic Benefits Transfer) food stamp cards paid for by your tax dollars to feed illiterate Americans who even ship the food to other countries. A rapper shows how to use them, steal them, trade them and defraud with them:
What does this all add up to in our country?
- A first world country cannot continue at that level of excellence in the face of illiteracy and intellectual dysfunction.
- A first world country cannot maintain its culture, language and educational levels of excellence by injecting itself with multiple languages, cultures and cultural illiteracy.
- One look at the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Belgium and Holland offers a depressing look at the final outcome of mass immigration from disparate cultures and failed-states worldwide.
- Multiculturalism, illiteracy and multi-lingualism do not, cannot and will not maintain America as a cohesive, viable, educated and first world civilization.
- Since it’s not working in 2013, how will it work with another 100 million added immigrants within 37 year? Answer: it will not!
This video brings this entire Western world nightmare into sharper focus:
“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a few words, “Mind boggling!” www.NumbersUSA.org
Our situation will not become any prettier as we discuss the exhaustion of oil, resources and arable land in the next part of this series.
In 2009, Jim Rickards, a lawyer, investment banker and adviser on capital markets to the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, participated in a secret war game sponsored by the Pentagon at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). The game’s objective was to simulate and explore the potential outcomes and effects of a global financial war. At the end of the war game, the Pentagon concluded that the U.S. dollar was at extreme risk of devaluation and collapse in the near term, triggered either by a default of the U.S. Treasury and the dumping of bonds by foreign investors or by hyperinflation by the private Federal Reserve.
These revelations, later exposed by Rickards, were interesting not because they were “new” or “shocking.” Rather, they were interesting because many of us in the field of alternative economics had ALREADY predicted the same outcome for the American financial system years before the APL decided to entertain the notion. At least, that is what the public record indicates.
The idea that our government has indeed run economic collapse scenarios, found the United States in mortal danger, and done absolutely nothing to fix the problem is bad enough. I have my doubts, however, that the Pentagon or partnered private think tanks like the RAND Corporation did not run scenarios on dollar collapse long before 2009. In fact, I believe there is much evidence to suggest that the military industrial complex has not only been aware of the fiscal weaknesses of the U.S. system for decades, but they have also been actively engaged in exploiting those weaknesses in order to manipulate the American public with fears of cultural catastrophe.
History teaches us that most economic crisis events are followed or preceded immediately by international or domestic conflict. War is the looming shadow behind nearly all fiscal disasters. I suspect that numerous corporate think tanks and the Department Of Defense are perfectly aware of this relationship and have war gamed such events as well. Internal strife and civil war are often natural side effects of economic despair within any population.
Has a second civil war been “gamed” by our government? And are Americans being swindled into fighting and killing each other while the banksters who created the mess observe at their leisure, waiting until the dust settles to return to the scene and collect their prize? Here are some examples of how both sides of the false left/right paradigm are being goaded into turning on each other.
Conservatives: Taunting The Resting Lion
Conservatives, especially Constitutional conservatives, are the warrior class of American society. The average conservative is far more likely to own a firearm, have extensive tactical training with that firearm, have military experience and have less psychological fear of conflict; and he is more apt to take independent physical action in the face of an immediate threat. Constitutional conservatives are also more likely to fight based on principal and heritage, rather than personal gain, and less likely to get wrapped up in the madness of mob activity.
What’s the greatest weakness of conservatives? It’s their tendency to entertain leadership by men who claim exceptional warrior status, even if those men are not necessarily honorable.
Constitutional conservatives are the most substantial existing threat to the establishment hierarchy because, unlike dissenting groups of the past, we know exactly who the guiding hand is behind economic and social calamity. In response, the overall conservative culture has come under relentless attack by the establishment using the Administration of Barack Obama as a middleman. The goal, I believe, is to misdirect conservative rage toward the Democratic left and away from the elites. The actions of the White House have become so absurd and so openly hostile as of late that I can only surmise that this is a deliberate strategy to lure conservatives into ill-conceived retaliation against a puppet government, rather than the men behind the curtain.
Department of Defense propaganda briefings with military personnel have been exposed. These briefings train current serving soldiers to view Tea Party conservatives and even Christian organizations as “dangerous extremists.” Reports from sources within Fort Hood andFort Shelby confirm this trend.
The DOD has denied some of the allegations or claimed that it has “corrected” the problem; however, Judicial Watch has obtained official training documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that affirm that extremist profiling is an integral part of these military briefings. The documents also cite none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a primary resource for the training classes. The SPLC is nothing more than an outsourced propaganda wing for the DHS that attacks Constitutional organizations and associates them with terrorist and racist groups on a regular basis. (Check pages 32-33.)
This indoctrination program has accelerated since January 2013, after Professor Arie Perliger, a member of a West Point think tank called Combating Terrorism Center (and according to the sparse biographical information available, a man with NO previous U.S. military experience), published and circulated a report called “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” at West Point. The report classified “far right extremists” as “domestic enemies” who commonly “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government , believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional right.” The profile goes on to list supporting belief in “civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government” as the dastardly traits of evil extremists.
Soldiers have been told that associating with “far right extremist groups” could be used as grounds for court-martial. A general purge of associated symbolism has ensued, including new orders handed down to Navy SEALs that demand that operators remove the “Don’t Tread On Me” Navy Jack patch from their uniforms.
The indoctrination of the military also follows on the heels of a massive media campaign to demonize Constitutional conservatives who fought against Obamacare in the latest debt ceiling debate as “domestic enemies” and “terrorists.” I documented this in my recent article “Are Constitutional Conservatives Really the Boogeyman?”
Obama and his ilk have been caught red-handed in numerous conspiracies, including Fast and Furious, which shipped American arms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And how about the exposure of the IRS using its bureaucracy as a weapon to harass Tea Party organizations and activists? And what about Benghazi, Libya, the terrorist attack that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to happen, if they didn’t directly order it to happen? And let’s not forget about the Edward Snowden revelations, which finally made Americans understand that mass surveillance of our population is a constant reality.
To add icing to the cake, a new book called Double Down, which chronicles the Obama campaign of 2012, quotes personal aides to the President who relate that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when discussing his use of drone strikes, bragged that he was “really good at killing people.”
Now, my question is, why would the Obama Administration make so many “mistakes,” attack conservatives with such a lack of subtlety, and attempt to openly propagandize rank-and-file soldiers, many of whom identify with conservative values? Is it all just insane hubris, or is he serving his handlers by trying to purposely create a volatile response?
Liberals: Taking Away The Cookie Jar
Many on the so-called “left” are socially oriented and find solace in the functions of the group, rather than individualism. They seek safety in administration, centralization and government welfare. Wealth is frowned upon, while “redistribution” of wealth is cheered. They see government as necessary to the daily survival of the nation, and they work to expand Federal influence into all facets of life. Some liberals do this out of a desire to elevate the poverty-stricken and ensure certain educational standards. However, they tend to ignore the homogenizing effect this strategy has on society, making everyone equally destitute and equally stupid. Their faith in government subsidies also makes them vulnerable to funding cuts and reductions in entitlements. The left normally fights only when their standard of living and comfort to which they have grown accustomed plummets below a certain threshold, and mob methods are usually their fallback form of retaliation.
Austerity cuts, which the mainstream media calls the “sequester,” are beginning to take effect. But, they are being applied in areas that are clearly meant to create the most public anger. Reductions in welfare programs are also being implemented in a way that will certainly agitate average left-leaning citizens. The debt debate itself revolved around those who want the government to spend within its means versus those who want the government to spend even more on welfare programs no matter the consequence. The loss of subsidies is at bottom the greatest fear of the left.
A sudden and inexplicable shutdown of electronic benefit transfer cards (EBT cards or food stamps) occurred in more than 17 States while the debt debate just happened to be climaxing. This month, cuts to existing food stamp funds have taken effect, and food pantries across the country are scrambling against a sharp spike in demand.
Remember, about 50 million Americans are currently dependent on EBT welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. The response to the relatively short EBT shutdown last month was outright fury. Imagine the response in the event of a long-term shutdown, or if extraneous cuts were to occur? And where would that anger be directed? Since the entire debt debacle has been blamed on the Tea Party, I suspect conservatives will be the main target of welfare mobs.
The left, once just as opposed to government stimulus and banker bailouts as the right, is now unwittingly throwing its support behind infinite stimulus in order to cement the continued existence of precious Federal handouts. The issue of Obamacare has utterly blinded liberals to fiscal responsibility. Universal healthcare, perhaps the ultimate Federal handout, is a prize too titillating for them to ignore. Democrats will now go to incredible lengths to defend the Obama White House regardless of past crimes.
They are willing to ignore his offenses against the 4th Amendment and personal privacy. They are willing to look past his offenses against the 1st Amendment, including the Constitutional right to trial by jury for all Americans, and Obama’s secret war against the free speech of whistle-blowers. They are willing to shrug off his endless warmongering in the Mideast, his attempts to foment new war in Syria and Iran, and his support for predator drone strikes in sovereign nations causing severe civilian collateral damage. They are willing to forget Snowden, mass surveillance and executive assassination lists — all for Obamacare.
And the saddest thing of all? It is likely that Obamacare was never meant to be successful in the first place.
Does anyone really believe that the White House, with billions of dollars at its disposal, could not get a website off the ground if it really wanted to? Does anyone really believe that Obama would launch the crowning jewel of his Presidency without making certain that it was fully operational, unless this was part of a greater scheme? And how about his promise that pre-existing health care plans would not be destroyed by Obamacare mandates? Over 900,000 people in the state of California alone are about to lose their health care insurance due to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Why would Obama go back on such a vital pledge unless he WANTED to piss off constituents?
Already, liberal websites and forums across the blogosphere are abuzz with talk of sabotage of the Obamacare website by “the radical right” and the diabolical Koch Brothers (liberals had no idea who they were a year ago, but now, they the go to scapegoat for everything). Once again, conservatives are presented as the culprits behind all the left’s troubles.
As I have stated in the past, Obamacare is designed to fail. The government has no capacity to fund it, and never will. Its only conceivable purpose is to further divide the country and excite both sides of the false paradigm into attacking each other as the reason the system is failing, when both sides should be questioning whether the current system should exist at all.
As the situation stands today, at least 50 million welfare recipients and who knows how many others exist as a resource pool for the establishment to be used to wreak havoc on the rest of us. All they have to do is take away the cookie jar.
Who Would Win?
Who would prevail in a second American civil war? Tactically speaking, conservatives have the upper hand and are far better prepared. Food rioters wouldn’t last beyond three to six weeks as starvation takes its toll, and mindless mobs would not last long against seasoned riflemen. The military, though suffering purges by the White House, still contains numerous conservatives within its ranks. Outside influences, including NATO or the United Nations, are a possibility. There are numerous factors to consider. But I would point out that the most dangerous adversary Constitutional conservatives face is not the left, Obama, or a Federal government gone rogue. Rather, our greatest adversary is ourselves.
If lured into a left/right civil war, would most conservatives be able to see beyond the veil and recognize that the fight is not about Obama, or the Left, or tyrannical government alone? Could we be co-opted by devious influences disguised as friends and compatriots? Will we end up following neocon salesmen and military elites who materialize out of the woodwork at the last minute to “lead us to victory” while actually leading us towards globalization with a slightly different face?
If a civil conflict has been war gamed by the establishment, you can bet they have contingency plans regardless of which side attains the upper hand. In the end, if we do not make the fight about the bankers and globalists, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the Council On Foreign Relations, etc., then everyone loses. Who wins in a new American civil war? If we become blinded by the trespasses of a certain White House jester, only the globalists will win.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
Forty years after publishing his prophetic dystopia Jean Raspail is still with us, ever more resigned that our civilization is on the “road to disappearance.” As he explained in an interview published in Valeurs Actuelles on October 25 (transl. by ST), he has no desire to join the big circle of intellectuals who spend their time debating immigration because, in his view, such talk is useless:
The people already intuitively know that France, as our ancestors shaped her over the centuries, is on the road to disappearance. The audience is being kept amused by endless talk about immigration, but the final truth is never stated. Furthermore, that truth is unsayable, as my friend Jean Cau had noted, because whoever says it is immediately hounded, condemned, and then rejected. Richard Millet came close to that truth, and just look what happened to him!
(Prolific French author Richard Millet caused a scandal August 2012 by publishing a pamphlet, “In Literary Praise of Anders Breivik,” in which he argued that the mass killer was the product of an ideological-racial divide caused by immigration from outside Europe, and that Norway “deserved” him. To Millet, “what one calls literature” is no longer anything but “the hedonistic face of a nihilism of which anti-racism is the terrorist branch,” with most contemporary writers acting as its “henchmen” and “sycophants.” Millet had to step down as editor with France’s top publisher Gallimard following an outcry over his publication. It was branded “a fascist pamphlet that is a disgrace to literature” in an open letter to Le Monde signed by 120 writers.).
Raspail is particularly upset by the conspiracy of silence which is all-pervasive among the elite, starting with politicians. They pretend in public that all is well, but behind closed doors acknowledge the existence of the problem of immigration and identity:
On that subject I have several revealing letters from leading politicians on the Left, as well as those on the Right, to whom I sent the Camp of the Saints. “But you understand: it cannot be said…” Those people have a double language, a double conscience. I do not know how they do it! The trouble is, the people know that things are being hidden from them. Tens of millions of people today do not subscribe to the official discourse on immigration. They do not believe that it is “an opportunity for France.” Reality keeps imposing itself on them, on a daily basis.
Raspail is adamant that assimilation of immigrants is not possible, that the model of integration is unworkable. Even if a few more illegal immigrants are expelled and a few more foreigners are integrated, says he, the overall numbers will go on growing—and nothing will change in the fundamental problem: the progressive invasion of France and Europe by countless Third World multitudes.
I am not a prophet, but you see clearly the fragility of these countries, where unbearable poverty grows ceaselessly alongside indecent wealth. Those people do not turn to their governments to protest because they expect nothing of those governments. They turn to us and arrive in Europe in boats, in ever larger numbers, today in Lampedusa, tomorrow elsewhere. Nothing deters them. Thanks to the demographic curve, by the 2050s the number of young indigenous French will equal that of young foreigners in France. Many will be naturalized, which does not mean that they will have become French. I am not saying they are bad people, but “naturalizations on paper” are not naturalizations of the heart. I cannot consider them my compatriots. We need to drastically toughen the law, as a matter of urgency.
There are only two ways to deal with immigrants, Raspail says. “Either we accommodate them, and France—her culture, her civilization—will be eradicated without so much as a funeral. In my view, that is what is going to happen. Or we do not accommodate them at all, which means we stop sanctifying the Other and rediscover our neighbors.”
This would mean that we eventually cease paying heed to those “Christian ideas gone mad,” as Chesterton called them, or to those depraved human rights, and that we take the indispensable measures to protect ourselves collectively, without appeal, to avoid the dissolution of our country into a general race-blending mélange. I see no other solution. I travelled a lot in my youth. All peoples are fascinating, but when you mix them too much, animosity becomes far more prevalent than sympathy. Métissage is never peaceful. It is a dangerous utopia. Just look at South Africa!
Raspail accepts that “at the point where we are now,” those necessary measures would inevitably be “very coercive.” He does not believe this will happen, however, and doesn’t see anyone who has the courage and the “balance of the soul” to do what is needed. “The supporters of immigration are not more charitable than I,” Raspail insists. “There probably isn’t a single one who intends to welcome one of these unfortunates into his home,” but what we have is “an emotional pretense, an irresponsible maelstrom that will swallow us.”
In his view, there may be a temporary alternative to the choice between submission and coercion, and that is the establishment of compact indigenous communities. The flight of the French from majority immigrant areas, as well as the mass protests against homosexual marriage legislation, herald a new form of communitarianism and indicate that millions of French people will resist the “change of civilizations” promised by the Left. Rival communitarianisms will be reinforced by mutual animosity, which will end in extremely severe confrontations.
Raspail does not believe in a sudden and unexpected revival. “It would require an epic spirit, an appreciation of a sublime destiny… It would require people to still believe in their country. I don’t see many of them left.” The revival would require a thorough reform of state education and the media, to deny any platform to the teachers and journalists who are serving the enemy:
We have removed the sacred from the idea of the nation, the exercise of power, the past of the country. We have created cracks in the statue of France, we have disfigured it (especially the Left!) to the point where nothing inspires respect any more. The power of the false ideas disseminated by the state education system and the media is boundless. But as for me, I have lived in France for 1500 years, I am content with what is mine, and I have no desire for that to change…
This month, thousands of McDonald’s and other fast food workers in Chicago demonstrated for a minimum, livable wage of $15.00 an hour. It makes sense when you think about the enormous costs of poorly paid workers who live on food stamps, ADC, WIC, Section 8 housing and free breakfasts and lunches for their children.
In the meantime, CEOs of McDonald’s, Marriott Hotels, Holiday Inns, Tyson Chicken, Hormel Foods, Chipotles, Burger King, roofing firms, painting contractors and a slew of other corporations—enjoy $10 million annual salaries and $10 million annual bonuses for doing such a fine job for the stockholders. The rich grow richer while the poor work for pathetic wages as our 21st century slave labor force.
But there’s a hitch. Guess what? You and I pay $956 billion annually, nearly $1 trillion of our tax dollars, year in and year out, to subsidize minimum wage laws that employ all those uneducated, limited intellectual horsepower, high school dropouts and endless mothers with babies. You also pay $346 billion annually across 15 federal agencies for illegal alien workers who milk the system. (Source: Edwin Rubenstein, economist,www.thesocialcontract.com )
On a recent radio interview, one of the callers said, “You can’t pay more than minimum wage because those burger flipping jobs are stepping-stone jobs to higher paying jobs. It’s not economically feasible.”
The problem: millions of Americans cannot and do not graduate from high school for lack of intellectual horsepower, emotional duress of the ghetto and lack of parental guidance. They command few options. You can scream “they had a choice” all you want, but the fact remains: they face a life of financial lockdown. Fact: 42 million Americans cannot read, write or perform simple math. Another 50 million cannot read or write past the 4th grade level. That’s a lot of illiterate people who cannot command higher paying jobs.
“There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.” Source: www.prisonplanet.com
But they espouse the same dreams as you enjoy. They see the same ads about houses and cars you watch. They want the same things you desire.
Instead of paying for their food stamps, medical bills, children’s breakfasts and lunches, housing and other welfare bills—we need to change our minimum wage to a minimum livable wage: $15.00 an hour.
Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations must evolve. We live in the 21st century where conditions changed.
First, our economic engine transformed. Robber Barons of the 21st century cheat like thieves to milk the system. Our U.S. government cheats citizens. Our representatives cheat us in Washington DC. In 2013, Senators like John McCain, Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Mark Udall, Michael Bennet, Marco Rubio and the rest of them cheat American taxpayers as a matter of routine business. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t suffer $16.5 trillion in national debt. We wouldn’t watch helplessly at two 10-year wars that cost $12 billion a month. We wouldn’t watch our borders overrun if they enforced the laws. We wouldn’t see 400,000 pregnant illegal migrants force us to pay for their babies annually.
If Congress showed ethics, common sense and personal accountability—none of the corruption so rampant in Congress would continue. But it accelerates!
Try a new economic path for the good of all
What’s the difference in a low wage burger flipping job at $8.00 an hour, to a truck driver $14.00 to $15.00 per hour, janitor at $15.00 an hour, roofer at $15.00 an hour, and hotel maid at $ 8.00 an hour? It takes no education, special skills or talents to command any of those jobs. Why shouldn’t the fast food and maid worker enjoy $15.00 an hour?
They support kids, apartment, car and other expenses. A living wage would get them off food stamps, Section 8 housing, ADC, WIC, free lunches for their children and much more.
A livable wage commands economic respect, pays into our tax system rather than sucks off it. A decent wage offers our inner city minority dwellers self-respect and personal accountability.
Instead of $10 million annual bonuses for the CEOs of all those corporations, they could still live on their $10 million salaries—and allow a decent standard of living for America’s poor and uneducated.
Those poor would become tax-paying members of our society and be able to participate.
Yes, your hamburger may cost .25 cents more, French-fries .15 cents more and your hotel room a few dollars more. But you wouldn’t be paying $956 billion annually to support all those poverty-stricken burger flippers.
You wouldn’t be paying for all the crime, shoplifting, food stamps, welfare workers, drug addiction, lost lives, wasted lives and hopelessly growing poverty class.
One way or the other, you pay. By bringing a $15.00 minimum livable wage into the American way of life, all citizens may enjoy self-respect, a home or apartment, car, kids off to school and shot at living a positive life in America.
The government shutdown and a looming sunset on a temporary funding boost from the 2009 stimulus make November 1 an ominous date for Americans who rely on the federal food stamp program, some of whom would need to look elsewhere for help.
Food stamps are fully paid for through October, according to a shutdown plan released by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on October 1. The plan outlined what would happen to federal nutrition programs once the government closed absent a funding agreement from Congress.
A $2 billion contingency fund exists for states that need administrative assistance should the shutdown last beyond November 1.
The supplemental nutrition assistance program, known as SNAP, is available to low-income Americans who need help purchasing food. It is funded by the federal government though the USDA, although it is administered by individual states.
The federal government shutdown that began on October 1 has put a spotlight on the program and other federal nutrition initiatives that Americans increasingly rely on for support.
Recipients and providers are beginning to receive more direct notices of what awaits, should the shutdown not be resolved by next month.
In Utah, Fox News 13 in Salt Lake City reported that a local provider recently received a letter from the USDA sticking to the November 1 cut-off date.
“This is going to create a huge hardship for the people we serve here in our food pantry,” Bill Tibbits, Associate Director at Crossroads Urban Center, told Fox News 13.
“What this means [is] if there’s not a deal, if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to get federal government back up and running, in Utah about 100,000 families won’t get food stamp benefit,” added Tibbits.
The USDA letter says in part, “in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are directing states to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to state electronic benefit transfer vendors until further notice.”
Regardless of whether the shutdown is resolved by November, a temporary boost in SNAP funding associated with the 2009 federal stimulus program will sunset on October 31.
The stimulus, or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, added $45.2 billion to the SNAP budget, increasing benefits from $588 a month to $668 for an average household of four.
Upon the sunset, a family of four will see a five percent cut to benefits, according to AP.
That cut comes out to average less than $1.40 per person per meal in fiscal year 2014, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
One in seven – or 47 million – Americans receive SNAP benefits. Around half of those are children and teenagers. Mississippi is the state with the highest number of recipients – 22 percent of its population is enrolled in the program.
Census figures reported in September showed that in 2012, around 15 percent of Americans lived at or under the poverty level, which is $23,550 yearly income for a family of four.
The US House voted in September to cut SNAP funding by $39 billion over the next decade. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that such a level of cuts would cause up to 3.8 million people to lose food stamp benefits in 2014.
The Senate had previously voted to cut $4 billion to the program in that time period.
Another major federal nutrition program, WIC (Women, Infants and Children), is also set to shut down around November 1, based on USDA projections, and will not receive further funding. However, the USDA told Education Week that some states are capable of prolonging current funding.
“USDA is working with WIC state agencies to use all available funding resources to provide benefits to participants. [Food and Nutrition Service] will be allocating both contingency and carryover funds to state agencies for use in operating their FY 2014 WIC program, in addition to other available funds. Should a lapse extend through late October, federal WIC funding may not be sufficient to cover benefits,” the USDA’s Bruce Alexander said.
They’re more powerful than standing armies. What they say goes. They decide policy. They rule the world. They do it by controlling money, credit and debt.
They manipulate markets for self-enrichment. Grand theft is official Wall Street policy. Government officials wink, nod, and permit the grandest of grand larceny to persist.
Financial giants recycle their executives in and out of Washington. They strip-mine economies for profit. They buy politicians like toothpaste. Whatever they want they get.
They do it at the expense of government of, by and for everyone equitably and just.
On October 2, 15 financial lords met with Obama. They did so at the White House. They gave him their marching orders.
They came to assert their demands. They’re uncompromising. They’re ruthless. They want business as usual continued. They want more than ever.
They want more bailouts. They want bail-ins. They want personal bank accounts, pensions and other assets looted.
They want more crushing neoliberal harshness. They want America thirdworldized. They want it looking like Greece.
Budget and debt ceiling debates conceal their ugly agenda. What’s ongoing is a longstanding orchestrated swindle. Bipartisan complicity supports it.
Social America is on the chopping block for elimination. Another grand bargain plans it. Expect it once current theatrics end.
The worst of what’s coming could begin in weeks. Harder than ever hard times will follow.
Obama expressed support for deeper Medicare and Social Security cuts. He’s on board for weakened social protections overall.
Partisan warfare is more subterfuge than real. Both parties fundamentally agree. They want New Deal/Great Society policies entirely ended.
Wall Street bosses demand it. They want to feed more aggressively at the public trough than already. They want money gotten used to make more of it.
They want it stolen from ordinary people to make doing so easier. Obama and congressional leaders are their hired hands.
They’re complicit. They’re on board to eliminate “unnecessary” social programs. He want them entirely eliminated. They’re dismantling them incrementally.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public pensions are prime targets. Planned death is by a thousand cuts. It’s the new normal. It’s by letting Wall Street profiteers control these programs.
So-called “creeping normalcy” is defined as a way to make major changes seem normal and ordinary.
Class war in America has been ongoing for decades. It’s worse now than ever. It benefits business and rich elites. It does so at the expense of most others.
Middle class America is targeted for elimination. Bipartisan complicity plans it. Obama capitulated to Republicans on preserving tax cuts and other benefits for rich elites.
He gave trillions of dollars to Wall Street crooks and other corporate favorites. Profiteers benefit hugely from ongoing imperial wars.
Main Street Depression conditions persist. Bipartisan complicity plans much worse ahead. Militarism, favoritism, waste, fraud and other rewards benefit Wall Street and other special interests.
They do so at the public’s expense. Let ‘em eat cakes defines official policy. Ordinary people are increasingly on their own sink or swim.
Wages no longer keep up with inflation. Benefits steadily erode. High-paying manufacturing and service jobs offshored to low wage countries. Automated production claimed more.
So-called free markets aren’t fair. They work best for those who control them. Growing numbers of others lose out entirely.
Technology driven productivity increasingly pressures workers to toil longer for less pay and fewer benefits.
Marx was right explaining capitalism’s contradictions. They reflect an anarchic, ungovernable system. Today’s monster is far worse than he imagined.
Powerful monopolies and oligopolies control production, commerce and finance. Wall Street and other corporate bosses demand increasing amounts of surplus from pressured workers.
They’re looting America. They’re wrecking it. They’re sucking it dry for profit. Predatory capitalism is too corrupted, malignant and broken to fix.
Institutionalized inequality reflects it. America is more hypocrisy than democracy. It’s a kleptocracy. Criminal gangs pose as political parties. They’re complicit with corporate crooks.
They’re war criminals. They’re serial liars. They’re scoundrels of the worst kind. America’s real crisis isn’t government shutdown, said Paul Craig Roberts.
It’s not the debt ceiling. It’s looting America. It’s wrecking the economy. It’s offshoring good paying jobs. It’s lowering the tax base in the process.
It did so by transferring America’s wealth and overall well-being to China and other low wage countries.
It did it by permanent imperial wars. They inflate annual spending. Larger deficits followed. They’re “too large to be closed,” says Roberts.
Money printing madness sustains things as long a possible. What can’t go on forever, won’t. Dollar debasing doesn’t work. Gold and silver prices reflect it.
Wall Street and Washington rig markets to keep them from going higher. Illegal naked short selling is done to do so.
It constrains prices even when physical demand is increasing. It bears repeating. What can’t go on forever, won’t.
Given irresponsible financial/economic policies, expect eventual gold and silver prices to explode.
Another crisis, says Roberts, “is the absence of intelligence among economists and policymakers.”
Don’t worry, they said. Offshoring jobs doesn’t matter, they claimed. A “New Economy” with better jobs is coming.
Monthly payroll data explain otherwise. High paying/good benefit jobs are disappearing. Low paying/poor or no benefit jobs replace them.
America is being hollowed out in the process. It’s being strip-mined of its material wealth and resources.
It’s being suffocated. It’s being thirdworldized. It’s headed toward dystopian backwater status.
Plans are to force feed greater austerity. It’s to replicate Greece harshness. It’s to make America a ruler – serf society.
It’s to crush trade unionism. It’s to crack down hard on nonbelievers. It’s to make America more than ever unfit to live in.
It’s to create more severe crisis conditions than now. It’s to do so for greater profits and control.
Ending what’s ongoing requires replacing duopoly power with responsible governance. It requires rebuilding the nation’s industrial base.
It’s ending imperial wars. It’s disbanding America’s empire of bases. It’s strengthening social protections too vital to lose.
It’s putting money power back in public hands where it belongs. It’s making the privately owned and controlled Fed really federal. It’s prohibiting banks too big to fail from existing.
It’s ending corporate personhood. It’s replacing kleptocracy with real democracy. It’s running free, fair and open elections. It’s getting money entirely out of politics.
It’s curbing corporate power once and for all. It’s empowering people over money. It’s making crime no longer pay. It’s prosecuting crooks in the suites. It’s protecting human and civil rights.
It’s mandating universal healthcare and public education. It’s reinvigorating organized labor.
It’s reinstating progressive taxes. It’s making everyone pay their fair share. It’s guaranteeing a minimum life sustaining income.
It’s abolishing poverty, unemployment, hunger, homelessness and inequality. It’s ending favoritism. It’s getting rogues, rascals and other miscreants out of government.
It’s substituting truth and full disclosure for managed news misinformation. It’s replacing media scoundrels with responsible ones to do so.
It’s consigning Wall Street and other corporate crooks to the dustbin of history.
It’s establishing government of, by and for everyone. It’s making America what it never was before.
It better happen soon or else. Roberts calls today’s situation dire and “discouraging.”
“At this time,” he says, “collapse seems the most likely forecast.”
Perhaps rebuilding from ruins will change things, he hopes. Perhaps intelligent life exists elsewhere. Perhaps it’s on other planets.
Perhaps it’ll replace what doesn’t exist on earth. Perhaps it’s the only hope for survival. There may be no other way.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
For the past several years, America finds itself fragmenting at the seams. We suffer a gridlocked Congress that watches problems grow and grow—but it fails to take action to solve anything. It continues endless wars abroad. It watches our educational systems disintegrate, but does nothing. Endless millions of minorities and the Middle Class cannot secure jobs, but Congress continues to import 100,000 green card holding immigrants every 30 days.
A mind-blowing 47 million Americans subsist on food stamps, but our U.S. Congress continues to offshore jobs, insource jobs and outsource jobs. Those 535 congressional critters do everything in their power to subvert the Middle Class of America.
Across America, illiteracy grows as 7,000 kids quit high school every day of the nine-month school cycle. CBS anchor Scott Pelley said, “Our educational results cannot sustain America.”
In other words, we cannot keep kicking illiterate kids into the job market and hope they can read, write and perform simple math—when they can’t.
We suffer Black-America revolting with marches over Latino-American Zimmerman killing African-American Martin with calls of racism, when, at the same time, 1,300 blacks killed 1,300 blacks from the Martin killing to the trial date. Black on black crime killed 1,299 black kids while blacks protested over one shooting of a Latino killing a black. It never occurs to them that black on black and black on white crime runs 1,000 to 1.
The Main Stream Media censors the phenomenon known as “Black Flash Mobs” where young blacks in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis—run wild in streets beating up white people and looting stores.
Why? Those kids don’t enjoy fathers to mentor them toward responsible adulthood as 68 percent of all black kids in America are raised by single mothers. About 99 percent of them live on welfare and in poverty. (Source: Denver Post, Dottie Lamm) Yet, the Congress sits and knits, picks its nose and yawns and scratches its rear-end, but won’t get off its collective butt to solve the problems.
Our nation faces $16.5 trillion debt, entrenched poverty class, growing illiteracy, accelerating killings, intractable crime, drugs and unemployment.
Yet, it imports 100,000 legal Third World immigrants every 30 days. In 2013, we feature over 40 million people not born in this country. As they continue to bring in their families and birth their babies, whole communities in cities like Chicago, Miami, Houston and LA do not resemble America or speak our language.
Every American sees the mess exploding, but most remain clueless as to its origins.
On a recent radio show where I interview weekly, www.KGAB.com with Dave Chaffin on the “Morning Zone,” a caller asked a poignant question: “Will we ever get back to the America that I knew growing up as a kid?”
First of all, the America of 50 years ago with Norman Rockwell paintings of paper boys throwing papers onto the steps of nicely painted houses with picket fences—will not be seen again. Instead, we see violent mega-cities exploding beyond the sky line with air pollution and gridlock.
Since 1965, we imported 100 million third world immigrants because of Teddy Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act. That bill continues today as it adds 1.2 million third world people annually.
We contorted America from three major ethnic tribal groups with the same Christian religion to over a dozen tribal groups with aggressive religions like Islam. If the current amnesty bill passes, it will import 1.5 million third world immigrants annually, or, about 125,000 new comers each month. Total: 100 million by 2050.
Where are they coming from? This two-minute video on Bangladesh will stun you, but this will be our end result: http://safeshare.tv/w/vwncRciSFb
That video probably shocked the daylights out of you, but that’s what all of China, India, Bangladesh, Indochina and many other parts of the world face with their population loads. I’ve witnessed it first hand on my world bicycle travels. Worse, they come to America for a better life, but they continue propagating beyond reason.
Back to the question: Can we return America back to the way it was before this mass immigration juggernaut?
If we don’t reduce all immigration to less than 100,000 annually, instead of 100,000 monthly—we will never, ever return to what it meant to be an unhyphenated American. We will never enjoy religious civility as the Muslims grow their numbers and aggressively push for Sharia Law within America. We will never again enjoy a flourishing Middle Class. We will never again enjoy clean air and plenty of water.
We will not enjoy a single language or culture. We will never again enjoy unlimited freedom as we compact ourselves into cities and begin to resemble China, India and even Bangladesh before this century expires.
What to do? How to take action?
1. Do everything in your power to stop S744 amnesty bill. Call, write, visit your Senators and House reps. Write letters to the editor, call your radio shows and push the issue to stop mass immigration.
2. Join every organization you see on my website: www.frostywooldridge.com in order to make collective impact to stop passage of S744.
3. Vote out any senator or congressman that thinks importing the entire third world or the projected 100 million new immigrants to this country within 37 years.
4. Call or email Charlie Rose CharlieRose@pbs.org and ask him to interview top environmental/population experts as to our future if we allow another 100 million people to be imported via mass immigration. Write Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, 60 Minutes, Dateline, Primetime, and ask them to interview top speakers as to our survival prospects of an America that grew from 316 million to 625 million people within this century.
5. Join www.CapsWeb.org, www.NumbersUSA.org, www.FairUS.org, www.alipacus.com in order to join over 1.5 million Americans of all persuasions who collectively possess the power to stop mass immigration into America and work toward a viable and sustainable future for our civilization. It’s free and powerful because you can send in pre-written faxes to your reps to enlighten them as to the consequences of a mass amnesty and jumping legal immigration to two million annually. You will become part of an armada of parents, grandparents, citizens and more to change course toward a positive future.
6. Send me your thoughts on more ideas I can share with Americans in order to regain or at least not lose any more of America than we have already.
The Federal Reserve presently lends money at a lower rate than anytime in history. In fact, the rate at which the Fed lends money is more than a full percentage point below the current rate of inflation. That means the Fed is subsidizing borrowing. Naturally, zero rates create price distortions which are greatly amplified by the Fed’s asset purchase program called Quantitative Easing. During its three rounds of QE, the Fed has ballooned its balance sheet by more than $2.8 trillion inflating the prices of financial assets across-the-board while establishing itself as the world’s biggest buyer of US Treasuries, the benchmark asset class upon which every financial asset in the world is priced. Those prices are now grossly distorted due to the Fed’s presence in the market. (Note: Fed chairman Ben Bernanke set the Federal funds rate in the range of zero to 0.25% in December, 2008 and has kept it there ever since. The policy is called zero-interest-rate-policy or ZIRP.)
When rates are cut to zero, it means that the demand for credit is weak. If the economy was growing at a faster clip, then the demand for funds would increase and the Fed would raise rates so they were closer to their normal range. But the Crash of ’08 triggered deflationary pressures (particularly massive deleveraging by homeowners who saw their home equity go up in smoke during the downturn) unlike anything experienced since the Great Depression. For the Fed to adequately address the sharp drop in demand, it would have had to set its target Fed funds rate at minus 6 percent which is impossible since the Fed cannot set rates below zero. (This is called ZLB or zero lower bound problem.) Thus, the Fed has implemented other strategies which are supposed to achieve the same thing.
Bernanke’s asset purchase program, QE, is an attempt to push rates below zero by reducing the supply of risk-free assets. By loading up on US Treasuries (USTs) and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), the Fed tries to lure investors into stocks and bonds hoping to push prices higher. Higher prices create the so called “wealth effect” which paves the way for more consumption and investment. Hence, soaring stock prices create a virtuous circle which boosts demand and jump-starts the flagging economy. That’s the theory, at least. In practice, it doesn’t work so well. Five years after the policies were first implemented, the economy is still sluggish and underperforming (GDP is below 2 percent for the last 12 months), the output gap is still roughly $1 trillion per year, and unemployment is still sky-high. (Unemployment would be 14 percent if the people who have dropped off the unemployment rolls and who are no longer actively looking for work were counted.) For all practical purposes, ZIRP and QE have been a bust .
The traditional antidote for a “liquidity trap” (that is, when normal monetary policy doesn’t work because rates are already at zero) is fiscal stimulus. In other words, when monetary policy can’t gain traction because consumers and businesses refuse to borrow, then the government must use its balance sheet to keep the economy growing. That means widening the budget deficits and spending like crazy to increase demand until consumers and businesses are in a position to resume their spending. Bernanke’s monetary policy is the polar opposite of this time-tested remedy. The Fed’s policy provides zero-cost reserves to poorly run zombie banks who refuse to pass on the savings to their customers via credit cards or mortgage rates. If the Fed was serious about expanding credit and strengthening growth, it would require the banks to cut their credit card rates and mortgage rates so that consumers benefit equally from the Fed’s cheap money. (In other words, if the Feds funds rate dropped from 6% to 0% then credit card rates should be slashed from 18% to 12%. That would stimulate more consumer spending.) But the Fed has made no demands on the banks. Instead, all of the gains from the wider spreads have gone to the banks, which is why ZIRP and QE have had virtually no impact on lending at all.
The main beneficiary of the Fed’s policies has been the investor class. While low rates have helped households reduce their debtload more easily, low interest lending coupled with the ocean of liquidity provided via QE has triggered a long-term stock market rally that has increased equities funds inflows to new records, boosted margin debt to precrisis levels, quadrupled stock buybacks from their 2008 lows, buoyed covenant-lite loan sales to $188.7 billion (“far surpassing the record of 2007″), and sent all three major indices to new highs. Unable to find profitable outlets for investment in the real economy, investors have taken their lead from hedge fund manager Ben Bernanke, snatching up stocks and bonds in a ravenous, yield-crazed flurry of speculation. Indeed, they have done quite well too, raking in sizable profits even while the real economy is still flat on its back. The bottom line: All the gains from ZIRP and QE have gone to Wall Street with precious little trickling down to the workerbees.
After 5 years of monetary policy that has failed to produce a strong, sustainable recovery, reasonable people have begun to wonder if Bernanke’s real objectives are different than those in his official pronouncements. After all, the Dow Jones and S & P 500 have more than doubled in the last 4 years, corporate earnings just hit an all-time high of $2.1 trillion, the banks announced record profits of $42 billion in Q2, and–according to a new study by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley— the top 10% of earners in the US captured 50.4% of total income in 2012, a level higher than any other year since 1917.” (LA Times) Meanwhile, 47 million people are scraping by on food stamps, labor’s share of productivity gains have never been smaller, median household income has plummeted by 7.3 percent since the end of the recession, (Sentier Research), and 46.5 million Americans now live in poverty. (US Census Bureau). Inequality– which is already at levels not seen since the Gilded Age–continues to widen at an accelerating pace while the battered and rudderless economy drifts from one crisis to another.
To pretend that the objectives of ZIRP and QE are different than the results they’ve produced (ie–greater concentration of wealth and political power, and the crushing of the middle class) is laughable given the fact that they’ve been in place for more than 5 years without any significant change. This suggests that the Fed’s policies are doing what they were designed to do, shift more wealth upwards to the uber-rich while political leaders dismantle vital safteynet programs which protect ordinary working people from the ravages of unregulated capitalism. The Central Bank and the political establishment in Washington are working hand-in-hand to restructure the economy along the same lines as they would any third world banana republic. And that’s the real goal of the current policy.
Charity is wonderful, and I’ll be the first to say we have an obligation to share our gifts, be they material, intellectual or talent oriented. Yet whether our redistributionist endeavor is charity — and charity is voluntary redistribution — or the less noble, coercive, outsourcing of charity known as government programs, there first must be wealth to redistribute. But where does wealth come from?
If we go back to biblical times and beyond, a man might be considered wealthy if he had 70 goats. In point of fact, the standard for wealth was so different that the US’s average middle-class person today — with his car, TVs, computer, refrigerator and many other luxuries — would have been considered wealthy for most of history. And our average “poor” man, who also usually has an old car and various creature comforts, likewise has a material lifestyle that would have been the envy of our forebears. The reason for this is simple: there is far, far more wealth in the world now than in ages past.
The first lesson this teaches is that wealth can be created. This happens when people find more efficient ways of raising livestock (so 70 goats becomes small potatoes) and growing crops, and when they extract raw materials from the Earth and use them to create the manifold necessities and luxuries we enjoy. In a word, it happens when people produce, which is why economists and businessmen will measure productivity. And how will people be encouraged to produce?
They must have an incentive, and this is where the profit motive comes into play. Ah, the much maligned profit motive. Let’s talk about that.
There are two extremes with respect to the profit motive. One is typified by some libertarian Ayn Rand acolytes who seem to treat it as the highest motivation; the other is far more prevalent today and is represented by another brand of “libs,” people who behave as if profit is something dirty (at least other people’s profit, anyway). But the balanced view is a bit different.
There is another kind of incentive. In America’s early Christian communes, for instance, residents’ belief that they were doing God’s will — and perhaps winning His favor — served as a great incentive to be productive; thus did the communal Oneida Colony create renowned flatware. And, truth be known, there’d be no need for profit if we lived in a sinless world, for there would be neither covetousness nor laziness. If there was an unfulfilled need — paper products, for example — people would readily volunteer to create them simply to serve others, and no one would be wasteful or undermine the system by taking more of anything than he needed. But in a sinless world we wouldn’t need a military, police or prisons, either.
Sane people live in the real world, however, where different rules apply. One of them is that since the spiritual/moral motive is the highest reason to serve your fellow man, it is also the rarest. And because of this, it cannot be relied upon to motivate people at the level of population. Enter the profit motive. To paraphrase economist Walter Williams, profit encourages your fellow man to serve you even if he doesn’t give a darn about you. After all, Domino’s didn’t start making pizza to relieve hunger; Ivory doesn’t make soap because “Cleanliness is next to godliness.” To have your needs and wants satisfied, would you rather rely on the charity of your fellow man or his profit-driven self-interest? For the answer, just look at all the wonders of science and medicine, all the luxuries around you, and ponder what percentage of them were created based on charitable motives versus the profit motive. Again, charity is wonderful — but it’s also relatively rare.
Of course, we should all strive to make it less rare in ourselves. But the lesson here is this: to minimize the profit motive personally is virtuous; to minimize it in public policy is vice. The motivation to serve others for a higher reason must come from within; a bureaucrat can decide to eliminate the profit motive via regulation, but he cannot replace it in the hearts and minds of the people with a more ethereal purpose. And this should be very easy for the bureaucrat to understand. Would he — or anyone else who sneers at profit — do his job for free? Precious few of us would. In fact, research has shown that those who protest the profit motive most are most driven by it (the likely explanation? Projection).
In fact, unnecessarily reducing the profit motive in civilization is evil. This is because productivity in a nation — which means wealth creation — will generally (at least) be proportional to the degree of profit to be had. Thus, a person who institutes unjust profit-reducers such as excessive taxes and regulations is a policy poverty pimp who can literally rob his society of billions in prosperity. A thief in an alley is less to be feared.
The fact that wealth is created teaches other lessons as well. For example, class-warfare demagogues encourage the notion that the poor have less because the rich have more. But unless the wealth has been stolen (which does happen; e.g., Bernie Madoff), this is utter nonsense. Consider: would it have made even one poor person richer if Microsoft’s Bill Gates hadn’t pursued his dreams and made his billions? It would in fact have made people poorer, as we wouldn’t have the jobs and productivity-enhancing products he created.
So how can nations become as prosperous as the culture and character of their people allow? There must be a powerful profit motive so that people produce as much wealth as possible. And there is a prerequisite for this: great economic freedom (most still call this “capitalism,” a grave mistake because the term was originated by socialists).
How important is this factor? In “Self-Inflicted Poverty,” Dr. Walter Williams points out that there is an extremely strong correlation between a nation’s level of economic freedom and its level of prosperity. He asks “Why is it that Egyptians do well in the U.S. but not Egypt?” After pointing out that the same could be said of others from poor nations who immigrate to the US, he points out that Egyptians are smothered with regulations and corruption. Providing one damning example, he writes, “To get legal title to a vacant piece of land would take more than 10 years of dealing with red tape. To do business in Egypt, an aspiring poor entrepreneur would have to deal with 56 government agencies and repetitive government inspections.” The result is that Egypt’s mummies have more life than its economy.
Given how important economic freedom is, we should note how it’s lost: through lack of appreciation. After all, cease to value something, and you may not preserve it — demonize it enough, and you’ll surely destroy it.
When appearing on a radio show some years ago on the heels of the financial crisis, the first question the host asked me was why economic freedom (she said “capitalism”) had failed. Her attitude was a staggering tribute to a lack of perspective, a spirit of entitlement and the tendency to count curses and not blessings.
Just walk into any American supermarket with the thousands of products from the world over available at affordable prices, and tell me economic freedom has failed. In fact, our whole modern world is a tribute to economic freedom. And what of the financial crisis? Well, people will talk about how it destroyed so many trillion dollars of wealth and place the blame on economic freedom. But remember the time when 70 goats made you wealthy? We only had trillions of dollars of wealth that could be destroyed to begin with because of economic freedom! In fact, economic freedom has provided a climate for such tremendous wealth creation that the trillions lost still represented only a small percentage of all the wealth in existence. Our “failure” is history’s raging success.
The problem here is that people tend to take what they have for granted and view wealth in relative terms. But returning to what I said about the poor, historically, being so meant that you didn’t have shoes on your feet or food on the table (if you had a table). In America today it generally means you have an older car, a TV, refrigerator, air conditioning and a host of other luxuries. The reality? Our government’s “poverty line” is a political ploy. In an absolute sense, there is very, very little poverty in the US — because of economic freedom.
Our great discoveries, inventions and innovations were not made by bureaucrats, nor generally at their direction. And while I encourage and support the charitable endeavors of my Catholic Church (the world’s largest private provider of aid to the poor), even its efforts to end poverty pale in comparison to economic freedom’s triumphs. This is no slight. Economic freedom unleashes the creative capacities of the common man, from border to border, transforming the populace into an army of wealth creators. And nothing can compete with that.
Without creation, there can be no distribution.
Here we go again. We have another mass shooting at yet another “gun-free” zone. Not only was the location a “gun-free” zone, it was located inside the nation’s capital, which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the entire country.
I thought gun-control laws and “gun-free” zones were supposed to protect people from gun violence. If one listens to the vast majority of talking heads on network and cable news shows, including Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough, that is exactly what we are led to believe. But in reality, just the opposite is true. “Gun-Free” zones are actually “Free Killing” zones. And in truth, guns don’t kill people; gun-control laws kill people.
This is the second time in recent memory when some wacko shoots up a military installation. The first killer was a Muslim; this one was a Buddhist. He also happened to be a black man and an Obama supporter. This combination must drive the politically-correct mainstream media and the left-wing extremist hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), batty. According to these folks, the only people who commit gun violence are angry Christian white guys. But as most of us know, no race or religion or political affiliation has a monopoly on criminal conduct. Unless it’s those miscreants in Washington, D.C., of course.
True to form, the idiotic Washington press corps initially reported that the killer used an AR-15 rifle. To their chagrin, it turned out he used a shotgun. This hasn’t stopped gun-hater Senator Dianne Feinstein from immediately calling for more gun control. And the White House is saying Barack Obama is going to issue some kind of anti-gun executive orders. Leave it to a lame duck Marxist President to try to bypass Congress and ignore the overwhelming majority of the American people (including Democrats) who have made it clear they are in no mood to accept any additional gun control.
It was only a few days ago when two liberal anti-gun legislators who spearheaded the drive for egregious gun-control laws in the State of Colorado were recalled from office. And they won’t be the only ones. Come next year, there will be a host of anti-gun legislators all over the country who are going to be given their walking papers by their respective electorates. The only states where it is safe for politicians to promote gun control are socialist states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California. By and large, the American people have had all of the gun control laws they can stomach. They have drawn their line in the sand. They are not only voting at the ballot box, they are voting with their pocketbooks. Gun manufacturers and retail stores cannot keep up with the demand for guns and ammo. Even .22 rimfire ammunition is as scarce as hen’s teeth.
Mind you, this DC killer had passed at least two background checks by the US military; he had what is called a “secret” clearance; he was given an honorable discharge from the United States Navy; he had been awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal. Born and raised in one of the most anti-gun cities in America, New York City, the man was given a rifle permit by the New York Police Department. So, pray tell, please explain how any existing gun-control laws–or any future gun-control laws–would have been able to prevent this guy from doing what he did?
In fact, the gun-control laws that Obama, Feinstein, et al, are clamoring for are the very laws that contributed to the deaths of those 12 innocent victims. Had these victims been allowed and encouraged to carry their own arms for self-defense, the death toll would doubtless have been much less. But this is the same story in every single one of these mass shootings. The perpetrator knows he is entering a “gun-free” zone and none of his targets will be able to shoot back. I repeat: guns don’t kill people; gun-control laws kill people.
Our Constitution recognizes the organic right of free people to serve as self-defenders. The Militia of the several states is comprised of every able-bodied man and woman (excepting conscientious objectors) within the State. And each man and woman is recognized as having the responsibility to: 1) be personally and adequately armed, 2) be adequately trained and skilled in the use of arms, and 3) be expected to defend themselves and others from attack when necessary.
It has never been the government’s responsibility to protect us; it has always been the people’s responsibility to protect themselves. It is the government’s responsibility to protect the right of the people to protect themselves. As seen in every single mass shooting, the government is completely incapable of protecting the citizenry from these kinds of attacks. If the people do not protect themselves, there is no protection. All these gun-control laws do is prohibit the people from protecting themselves. This is why we desperately need State leaders to declare any and all federal gun-control laws to be null and void and boldly declare to the people of their states that they will honor and protect the people’s right and duty to defend themselves.
Furthermore, if Mr. Obama attempts to circumvent Congress and enact gun-control measures via executive order, it is the duty of the US House of Representative to immediately issue articles of impeachment against him. It is past time for these so-called conservatives in the GOP to grow some man stuff and start taking their oaths to the Constitution seriously. It is when the legislators in Washington, D.C., and in the respective states refuse to protect the liberties of the American people that the people themselves must protect their liberties.
I think I speak for millions of Americans when I say I have had it with Obama, Feinstein, Scarborough, Morgan, and the rest of these would-be tyrants who want to strip us of our Natural right of self-defense–and that includes the right to defend ourselves from our own government.
At this juncture, let me inform readers that a brand new documentary film is about to be released to the public. The film is called “MOLON LABE: How The Second Amendment Guarantees America’s Freedom” produced by James Jaeger. This is the same man who produced the outstanding film released a few years ago called “The Spoiler.” MOLON LABE features such outstanding freedomists as Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Alex Jones, Stewart Rhodes, G. Edward Griffin, and Edwin Vieira, Jr. And, yes, I am in the film also. The film is scheduled to be rolled out next month. Whatever you do, be sure to watch this film and encourage everyone you know to watch it. Never has a film been more timely or more necessary.
By the way, MOLON LABE means “Come and take them.” This is what Spartan King Leonidas said to Persian King Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae when he was told to lay down his weapons.
To learn more about the film, go to:
Plus, it is not too late to become a sponsor of the film. Your donation could help awaken hundreds of thousands of Americans to the importance of the Second Amendment and its relevance to us today. Watch the trailer then consider becoming a sponsor.
Once again, the government’s denial of the people’s right of self-defense has led to the untimely deaths of a dozen innocent Americans. So, I say again: guns don’t kill people; gun-control laws kill people.
I could barely make out Barack Obama’s Syria speech to the nation on my old car radio as I negotiated the narrow curves of Route 79 on the western banks of the Mississippi River in central Missouri last Tuesday night. What I could hear sounded very much like more of Obama’s by now standard if stunning arch-mendacity.
“To Take This Debate to Congress”
Looking at the speech transcript and video online recently, my suspicions were richly confirmed. Speaking from the end of the same long red carpet where George W. Bush delivered his demented announcement of the invasion of Iraq, Obama claimed that he has turned to Congress for authorization to use force against Syria because “I’m…the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy” and “believe[s]…it [is] right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.”
That is certainly a lie. He did no such thing in the case of Libya, subjected to a five-week U.S. bombing campaign (though it posed no “direct or imminent threat to [Americans’] security”) because he didn’t have to, politically. This time it’s different, as the liberalMiddle East historian Juan Cole has explained: “Obama did not need Congress in the case of Libya. He had the Arab League, the UN Security Council, and NATO…But [he has] became more and more isolated [on Syria]. The Arab League declined to call for intervention… Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and other Arab countries forthrightly denounced the idea of foreign military intervention in Syria, a very different stance than many of them took in 2011 with regard to Libya…Then NATO declined to get involved, with Poland, Belgium, and others expressing reluctance…Then the British Parliament followed suit.” Failure to garner any meaningful fig leaf of formal international support is why Obama ran to Congress this time.
“I Possess the Authority”
Obama claimed he has gone to Congress “even though I possess the authority to order military strikes.” The former “liberal” constitutional law professor with a degree from Harvard Law certainly knows that the U.S. Constitution grants war-making authority in Congress alone. He should know further that it is thoroughly criminal under international law for him to attack any sovereign nation in the absence of any direct or imminent threat to the U.S.
Claims of Humanitarian Concern
Obama’s claim to be moved to act by civilian deaths in Syria, citing the horrors of “children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor.” This claim is contradicted by the grim determination with which he has regularly murdered innocent civilians (including large numbers of women and children) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere – “collateral damage” in the dirty global war on/of terror he inherited from Cheney-Bush and then expanded. One horrific example – neither the first nor the last among many – occurred in the May of 2009. That’s when U.S. air-strikes killed 140 civilians in Bola Boluk, a village in western Afghanistan’s Farah Province. Ninety-three of the dead villagers torn apart by U.S. explosives were children. Just 22 were males 18 years or older. Villagers brought tractor trailers full of the pieces of human bodies to the provincial governor’s office to prove that the casualties had occurred. “Everyone at the governor’s office was crying, watching that shocking scene,” one observer reported.”
The initial response of the Obama administration and Pentagon to this appalling incident (one of many mass civilian-butchering U.S. aerial killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the Muslim world under Obama) was to absurdly blame the civilian deaths on “Taliban grenades.” Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “regret” about the loss of innocent life, but the administration refused to issue an apology or acknowledge U.S. responsibility for the blasting apart of civilian bodies in Farah Province.
The matter was quickly dropped and forgotten, sent down George Orwell’s memory hole, with deep media complicity, as the Pentagon wrote checks to the Afghan government to give families a couple thousand dollars per corpse. The U.S. subsequently conducted a dubious “investigation” that reduced the civilian body count drastically and blamed the Taliban for putting civilians in the way of U.S. bombs.
There have been many crimes like Bola Boluk under Obama. People who command glass houses of a sociopathic, mass-murderous empire should not expect to be taken seriously when throw “humanitarian” stones at other butchers.
If Obama is so dismayed by the spectacle of a government “killing its own people,” why is he not calling for missile strikes against the military dictatorship in Egypt, which recently slaughtered hundreds if not thousands of civilians to stop popular protests against the regime? Is it okay to kill your own civilians as long as you are a U.S.-allied regime and/or do the killing with “conventional” weapons?
But why does Obama think we should believe that he can advance humanitarian goals by lobbying cruise missiles at anyone? Two days after Obama’s speech, the New York Times published an Opinion-Editorial from Russian president Vladimir Putin. “The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders,” Putin reasonably observed. “A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”
Selective History and Terrible Weapons
In his discussion of the past horrors of chemical weapons (by European powers during World War I and by the Nazi holocaust) last Tuesday night, Obama deleted the United States’ vicious deployment of dioxin during the Vietnam War. That example of chemical warfare caused an explosion of birth defects among other terrible results in Southeast Asia. The president also failed to mention that Washington helped Saddam Hussein use nerve gas against Iranian soldiers and the U.S. Marines used white phosphorous in their massive assaults on the civilian population of Fallujah, Iraq in November of 2004.
Will Obama threaten Tel Aviv with cruise missiles for using white phosphorous against Palestinian civilians in Gaza? Of course not: the Palestinians are officially unworthy victims, like the East Timorese and countless others who have been killed and tortured by governments that are allied with the inherently good United States and therefore officially incapable (like the U.S.) of crimes against humanity.
Obama painted out Syria as a rogue state because it has not signed a treaty against chemical weapons like “189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.” He did not mention that Syria’s neighbors Syria and Egypt (both U.S. allies) have also not signed the treaty.
Obama had nothing to say, of course, about the even greater dreadfulness of nuclear and radioactive ordnance. The U.S. stands alone in having incinerated and poisoned civilians with atomic weapons – quite unnecessarily in August of 1945. And thanks to America’s deployment of depleted uranium in Iraq, the toxic legacy of the U.S. attacks on Fallujah was worse was that of the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An epidemic of cancer, leukemia, and birth defects quickly followed in Fallujah.[5A]
“We Know the Assad Regime was Responsible”
“We know,” Obama said, “the Assad regime was responsible” for the Syrian chemical weapons attack of August 21, 2013. Not so. The proof offered by the president, a former lawyer, was hardly impressive. It contained nothing remotely like a smoking gun. Obama made no attempt to disprove other theories of what might have happened, including some German journalists’ finding that the attack was conducted by a rogue Syrian officer acting without Assad’s approval. Nor did he address what left commentator Glen Ford rightly calls “credible reports (everybody’s reports are more credible than the Americans) that rebels under U.S. allied control were told to prepare to go on the offensive following an American retaliation to chemical attack that would be blamed on Assad’s forces.”
“No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria,” Putin wrote in his Times editorial: “But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with [Islamic] fundamentalists.” That is a reasonable judgment.
Nobody should doubt the monstrosity of the Assad regime, but Obama’s proof of Assad’s culpability for the attack in questions amounts pretty much to this: “because I say so.”
“These Things Happened:” The Memory Hole
“When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory,” Obama said. “But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.”
An interesting thing to hear from an American president! “From the end of World War Two through the present, the U.S. Empire has caused “the extinction and suffering of countless human beings. The United States,” William Blum Pilger noted eight years ago, “attempted to overthrow fifty governments, many of them democracies, and to crush thirty popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, twenty-five countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.”
The leading American imperial crimes include a massive U.S. assault on the peasant nation of Vietnam – an epic attack that killed 3 million Indochinese – and the illegal invasion of oil-rich Mesopotamia, whose terrible human consequences (including at least 2 million Iraqis dying prematurely) remain essentially unmentionable in “mainstream” (dominant) U.S. media. Chemical weapons were deployed in both of these grand imperial transgressions.
Over these decades, the U.S. has been what Noam Chomsky calls “ a rogue state, the leading rogue state, radically violating international law, refusing to accept international convention” and even maintaining “self-authorization to commit genocide.”
Is it any wonder that, as Putin noted in the Times, “Millions around the world …see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us’” (emphasis added).
“The Anchor of Global Security”
There should be little surprise that knowledgeable observers the world over cringe and/or roll their eyes when U.S. presidents say things like this, from Obama’s Tuesday night address:”My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security…The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them” (emphasis added).
That is a blatant lie, as Obama surely knows. Tell it to the survivors of the millions who have been snuffed out by rogue state America, consistently identified by the global populace for many years as the leading threat to peace and security in the world. Tell it to the people of Chile. Two days ago they commemorated the 40th anniversary of their 9/11 – the September 11, 1973 coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of socialist president Salvador Allende. The coup was assisted and supported by Washington, determined to install a vicious military dictatorship that executed thousands of leftists and others and became a leading center of international terror. The U.S. would not permit the continued existence of democratic socialist government in “our hemisphere.”
What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., say about Obama’s claim that the U.S. has been “the anchor of global security” since World War II? In 1967, well within the timeframe of Obama’s sweeping historical claim, King identified the U.S. as “the leading purveyor of violence in the world today.” The Vietnamese, King said, “must see Americans as strange liberators” as they “languish under our bombs….as we he herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps. They know they must move or be destroyed by bombs. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops [with chemical weapons]. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one ‘Vietcong’-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them – mostly children…” 
Looking at the historical literature on the Cuban Missile Crisis and subsequent moment of supreme nuclear danger, a living King (who would be 84 today had he not been assassinated or perhaps executed inside “the anchor of global security” exactly one year to the day after publicly declaring his opposition to the Vietnam War at the Riverside Church in New York City) today might also like to mention (among other things) the remarkable degree to which the Ahabs of Washington have been willing to risk global thermonuclear war (very barely averted in October 1962) in their quest for unchallenged global supremacy.
“It Never Happened”
But in the U.S, and indeed across much of the West, the record of ongoing, mass-murderous American criminality is airbrushed out of the official history and mass culture. It is tossed down Orwell’s memory hole, consistent with Big Brother’s dictum in Nineteen Eighty Four: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” As Harold Pinter noted in his biting acceptance of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature, the reigning Western cultural authorities behave as if U.S. crimes simply did not occur. When it comes to America’s transgression against civilized norms and international law, “nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening,” Pinter added, “it never happened. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.” Dominant U.S.-led Western cultural codes mandate that the only victims meriting acknowledgement and compassion are those assaulted by officially designated enemies. The larger number victimized by the U.S. and its clients and allies (e.g., the Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation and apartheid) do not qualify for sympathy or even existence. They don’t exist. The crimes against them didn’t take place.
Detour and Lost Cool
Eleven minutes into his war speech, Obama had to strangely shift gears and acknowledge the need to delay his hoped-for war vote in light of Russia and Syria’s last-minute proposal to demolish Syria’s chemical weapons under international supervision and control. He tried to save militaristic face by attributing the Russian and Syrian move to his threatened use of force. He seemed to expect his listeners to preposterously believe that a peaceful, diplomatic, and international solution is his idea. Obama wants us to think that the United Nations route was his preferred path all along.
That’s nonsense. Obama is an aggressive commander of a rogue military state that prefers force and unilateral action in the names of unimpeded hegemony and “American exceptionalism.” He and many of his fellow fake-humanitarian cruise missile liberal imperialists have been itching for a bigger war in the Middle East, one that will let him attack the great regional enemy Iran and wrap the remainder of his lame-duck presidency in the splendor of war-fed patriotism.
Like the British Parliament’s vote against attacking Syria, Putin and Assad’s peace gambit is a great humiliation for Obama. It knocked more stuffing out of his failing fake-humanitarian effort to rally a reluctant, war-weary citizenry plagued by massive domestic problems (including remarkably durable “homeland” poverty and unemployment alongside stunning, New Gilded Age levels of inequality that have only increased under Obama’s supposedly progressive presidency) behind another expensive imperial campaign.
Expect the defeated president to do his best to get the nation back on a unilateral war footing. For now, he has been defeated not simply by other politicians but also by public opinion – by the citizenry in whose name he claims to speak. Imagine that. Along the way, Barack “The Empire’s New Clothes” Obama may well have lost his public cool, the swagger in his step, once and for all. Syria may prove his undoing –the moment when the outwardly nice and smooth-talking “leader” is most clearly revealed for what he really is: a cold-blooded sociopath and pathological liar. That’s long overdue, but its better late than never.
Paul Street (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the author of many books, including The Empire’s New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power (2010), Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics (2008), Crashing the Tea Party (2011), and They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm Publishers, forthcoming in January 2014).
2. Carlotta Gall and Taimoor Shah, “Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War,” New York Times, May 6, 2009.
3. Gall and Shah, “Civilian Deaths;”
4. Paul Street, “Niebuhr Lives, Civilians Die in the Age of Obama,” ZNet (June 15, 2009), read athttp://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21701. By contrast around the same time in 2009, there was a brief media frenzy over a very different occurrence, enough to elicit a full apology and to fire a White House official. The problem was that the White House had scared New Yorkers with an ill-advised Air Force One photo-soot flyover of Manhattan that reminded people below of 9/11. SeeChristina Boyle, “President Obama Calls Air Force One Flyover ‘Mistake’ After Low-Flying Plane Terrifies New York,” New York Daily News, April 28, 2009; Michel Muskai, “Presidential Plane’s Photo-Op Over New York Coast as Much as $357,000,” Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2009; Peter Nicholas, “Louis Caldera Resigns Over Air Force One Flyover Fiasco,” Los Angeles Time, May 9, 2009.
5. Vladimir Putin, A Plea for Caution From Russia,” New York Times, September 12, 2013.
5A. Patrick Cockburn, “Toxic Legacy of U.S. Assault on Fallujah ‘Worse Than Hiroshima,” The Independent, July 24, 2010,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html; “Fallujah More Radioactive Than Hiroshima,” RT, uploaded on July 29, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWIy9-cfMIo. A useful history of U.S. use and encouragement of chemical and biological weapons at home and abroad can be found in William Blum,Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (Monroe. ME: Common Courage, 2005), 136-160.
6. Glen Ford, “Obama’s Humiliating Defeat,” Black Agenda Report (September 11, 2013),http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obama%E2%80%99s-humiliating-defeat
7. Blum, Rogue State, 1-2. Honduras and Libya must (at the very least) be added to the list of countries where the U.S. has acted to overthrow governments since Blum wrote. Libya and Somalia must (at the least) added to the list of countries bombed by the U.S.
8 Noam Chomsky, “Instead of Illegal Threat to Syria, U.S. Should Back Chemical Weapons Ban in All Nations,” Democracy Now! (September 11, 2013), http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/11/chomsky_instead_of_illegal_threat_to
9. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Beyond Vietnam – a Time to Break the Silence” (Riverside Church, New York City, April 4, 1967), audio recording at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k29PAUSyrlA
10. Noam Chomsky, Address to Left Forum, New York City, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yvHMtgac0Q
11.Quoted in John Pilger, Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire (New York: Nation Books, 2007), 4.
Via Z Net
Every so often the wonks of wishful thinking give us an article about how blacks are becoming Republicans, how Hispanics are supposedly a natural GOP constituency, or, as is the subject here today, how the millennial generation is turning “conservative.” Perhaps pundits asserting the last thing recall Winston Churchill’s observation, “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.” And perhaps they overlook that it’s possible to raise a brainless generation.
Don’t think, as one might, that this will be a typical analysis sneering at the proverbial “next generation” using the perceived gold standard of one’s own. After all, I realize that my generation is the tree the millennial nut fell from. Placing matters in further perspective, it’s true that older and younger generations ever slam each other; it’s also true that they both are always partially right. Lastly, I’ll say that I don’t at all consider the WWII FDR voters the “greatest generation,” though it makes for a nice narrative. The greatest generation was the one that founded our nation and wondered if we could “keep” its republic, and there has been a consistent, but accelerating, degeneration ever since.
In discussing our latest movement toward idiocracy, my starting point will be a Sept. 4 American Thinker article written by one Chriss Street. In making his case for millennial hope, Mr. Street points out that while 61 percent of millennials voted for Barack Obama in 2012, his approval among them has now sunk to 46 percent. But this is a deceptive statistic. For an approval rating amounts to the judging of a candidate relative to people’s ideal personal standard for the presidency, whereas in an election he is judged relative to another specific candidate for the presidency. And if Obama were again running against Mitt Romney — with all the usual media propaganda — does anyone really think he’d lose millennials to the governor? No doubt more would stay home, but I suspect the president would enjoy something close to his 2012 support among those who casted votes.
Moreover, millennials may have soured on Obama somewhat, but this reflects cynicism more than conservatism. Of course, that they’d be cynical is no surprise; they’ve been raised in an unraveling West in which feckless, morally confused adults in their homes, schools, government, houses of worship and elsewhere have let them down. Nonetheless, cynicism is not traditionalism; in fact, it is a form of naiveté. Believing all people act out of selfish motives, the cynic instinctively paints everyone with the same brush. And such a person can hardly distinguish well among candidates.
Mr. Street also tells us that, “in 2008, 37.4% of incoming freshman women and 30.5% men identified themselves as liberals or leftists, the most in 35 years.” The reality, though, is even worse than this indicates. First consider that self-reporting is more about perception than reality. For starters, it always underestimates leftist numbers, as likely a majority of “moderates” are liberals who — usually because of self-delusion (a leftist bailiwick) and a desire to sound “reasonable” — don’t brand themselves what they really are; bear in mind when pondering this that liberals are generally solipsistic and fancy that they define the center, and also realize that the label “liberal” has been discredited enough so that many won’t don it. Yet even more significant here is that it isn’t just people’s perceptions that shift — the definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” do, too.
Consider that while a conservative in 1952 America was staunchly anti-communist, a conservative in the Soviet Union at the time was a communist. And “conservatives” in Western Europe are often our liberals’ ideological soul mates. This isn’t for lack of truth in political advertising. Rather, it’s because the only consistent definition of “conservative” is “a desire to maintain the status quo” while “liberal’s” only consistent definition involves a desire to change it. This means “conservatism” is always changing: tomorrow’s version will reflect today’s liberalism’s success in altering the status quo. Conservatism is the caboose to liberalism’s locomotive (I treat this in-depth here).
This explains a few things. First, it’s often pointed out that a healthy plurality in America describes itself as conservative. Is this surprising? All it really means is that many, many people align themselves with the status quo — and if this weren’t the case, the status quo wouldn’t be the status quo. Second, some insist that millennials will move toward conservatism, and this is true in that most people become somewhat more traditional with age. Yet it’s also true that conservatism will move toward them.
That is to say, as “conservatism” drifts “left,” it follows that millennials will “become more conservative” even if they stay in the same place, in that they will be situated more on the post-shift political spectrum’s right side; this is just as how a person can become poorer in a definitional sense if the poverty line standard is altered.
That so few recognize this reflects the relativism of our time, where we label ourselves with provisional terms and measure ourselves against other people (it’s people who define the political spectrum). If we want to see matters clearly, however, we must define them differently: in absolute terms.
In other words, what do millennials actually believe? Well, never before has an American generation been so tolerant of intolerable sexual practices, so supportive of faux marriage and skeptical of actual marriage, so relativistic and disconnected from Christianity (church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting habits). Never before has an American generation been to their degree socially “liberal.”
This brings us to the claim that millennials are, at least, fiscally conservative. Now, not only is convincing evidence of this elusive, but considering it a saving grace is essentially saying that it profits a man to gain the world but lose his soul. Regardless, however, while the social liberalism/fiscal conservatism marriage may exist in particular cases, I suspect that in principle it is an impossibility.
For instance, speaking of principle versus particular, if you ask people, “Do you believe government should balance its budget and be frugal,” of course they’ll say yes. But if you ask them if they’re willing to relinquish their particular piece of the pie (government college aid?), their tune changes. Espousing fiscal responsibility requires only a voice; achieving it requires virtue.
Second, consider the side-effects of social liberalism in modern times. And this should be prefaced by saying that since this explanation warrants a book, my treatment here will necessarily be lacking. But just as an example, social liberalism means loose sexual mores. Loose sexual mores mean a high rate of single motherhood (today it’s 42 percent…and rising). And what does this mean? Since the modern West won’t let these women twist in the wind, the government will step into the breach and play daddy with handouts and/or mommy with tax-funded daycare. It is unavoidable.
And in point of fact, this cultural decay brings us to the real reason for political drift. It was something about which the Founding Fathers — as well as great thinkers throughout Christendom’s history — spoke much. Ben Franklin warned, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” British philosopher Edmund Burke observed, “It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” And John Adams wrote in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Question: does “moral and religious” describe us today?
Of course, some will now say, “But why do you think millennials supported Ron Paul? They want liberty!” Sure they do.
So does a tiger in a zoo.
So does a toddler.
Neither, however, can be allowed to roam free in civilization without hurting himself or others. And the less people are civilized growing up, the closer they will be to that infantile or animalistic state — and the more they have need of cages and masters.
The truth? Government can be no better than the public’s virtue, though it can be worse. And this morality-government relationship is evident in voting patterns. Is it a coincidence that every group orthodox Christians label immoral — those involved in “alternative” sexual deathstyles, criminally inclined inner-city dwellers, effete college professors, grunge-type youths scarred with multiple tattoos and body piercings — vote left? “What fellowship hath light with darkness?” The darkness hates the light. When people have sins they yearn to rationalize away, the last thing they’ll do is support leaders who would uphold, even just through word, a moral standard condemning their passions.
Providing specificity as to how this affects government is another book-worthy topic, so I’ll offer just two examples. We’ve heard about those ruggedly individualistic Americans who’d rather live in poverty in Appalachia than accept government handouts and those spirit-of-entitlement types who protest violently when they don’t receive them. And society will always contain both kinds, but the ratio can vary greatly. In a nation characterized by self-sufficiency, honor and virtue, a redistributionist will find barren ground. But if a spirit of greed, covetousness and thievery prevails, people will be susceptible to the demagogic appeal, “You’ve been cheated, but give me power and I’ll get you your piece of the pie, comrade!” Or consider lust. If people resolved to be chaste outside of marriage, do you think the abortion movement or taxpayer funded contraception appeal could gain traction?
So how do you make a civilization susceptible to dark demagogues?
Make it love the darkness.
I wouldn’t first and foremost spend time on intellectual appeals. As the Soviets once did (as explained by ex-KJB defector Yuri Bezmenov) I’d seek to undermine the morality of the target nation. I’d spread the idea that morality is really “values” and values are relative — all just a matter of perspective, you see. Once this was accepted and people no longer believed in the rules of morality, it would be as if they ceased believing in the rules of human nutrition: not thinking any food could actually be “bad,” they’d be governed only by taste and would try, and could develop an affinity for, anything — even perhaps poison. Vice corresponds to this on the moral menu.
I’d then get them hooked on their bad moral diet through inundation. Stoke their lust’s fires via highly sexualized entertainment, and portray violence as just as casual and cool, so lashing out at others seems the norm. I’d engorge their egos with media messages about how they could determine their own morality so that, as the serpent said, “you will be like God.” I’d provide co-ed dorms and a general party atmosphere at universities, creating “occasions of sin” that will ensure the kids have as much as possible they need to justify. And after robbing them of moral judgment and creating a visceral craving for vice, I’d fill their heads full of anti-Western, anti-Christian — in fact, anti-goodness — ideas in college classrooms. When I was done with them, they’d not only possess the discernment of a man in the midst of a drug-fueled orgy, their egos would be so bloated they’d consider their ignorance wisdom.
Speaking of wisdom, when conservatives indulge wishful thinking and suppose that millennials will “wake up,” they ignore that we actually need a shake up, something that changes the cultural trajectory on which we’ve long been (so if an asteroid strikes the Earth, millennials may turn into conservatives — of course, they instead may turn into cavemen, too). Until then, whatever the keepers of the flame plan had better require the participation of only a zealous minority. For the masses will not wake up when beset by a cultural narcolepsy in which nightmares are fancied nice dreams.
The philosophical condemnation of the supremacy in individual liberty verses the reigning doctrine of collective dominance, is a primary cause for the destruction of Western Civilization principles. Rene Descartes preferred to do his radical doubt thinking in solitude. In today’s society, thinking is about as foreign as rational behavior. In order to understand the timeless values and precepts that fostered the underpinnings of our Western thought and heritage, the significance of Descartes needs a close examination.
Jorn K. Bramann, PhD in The Educating Rita Workbook is the source reference for the Descartes: The Solitary Self essay. This excellent treatise deserves your full attention.
“There are two cultural legacies of lasting importance that Descartes’ radical separation of the mind from the physical world has left—two philosophical conceptions of reality that found expression in how Europeans related to their environment, and how they perceived their over-all existence in the world.
The one legacy fastens on the absolute sovereignty of the mind vis-à-vis everything that is not mind. While the external world, including the thinker’s body, is subject to the laws of physics and other external contingencies, the mind is not. I, being pure mind, enjoy a supreme degree of independence from my body and everything physical.
The radical separation of mind and body–and of the mental and the physical in general–is known as “Cartesian Dualism.” And by attributing to the mind something like sovereignty over the external physical world, it has prepared the way for a distinctly modern conception and experience of reality, a conception which replaced older ways of seeing the world in drastic ways.
The other important legacy that originates with Descartes’ radical separation of the mind from everything physical is the inherently solipsistic individualism that time and again emerged in the course of modern European philosophy. Solipsism is the extremist philosophical theory that I am the only being that exists. This theory is invariably perceived as either comical or crazy by anyone who discusses it, and most philosophers have assumed that there are convincing reasons for dismissing it without much ado. The way Descartes sets up and explains his procedure of radical doubt, however, makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the doubting self may indeed be the only being that exists. In spite of all efforts to refute it, Cartesianism remains haunted by the ghost of Solipsism . . . The decisive point of Cartesian doubt is the contention that I cannot go outside of myself, as it were, to check whether what I see is real or not. I am always and irremediably inside my mind, and that always keeps alive the theoretical possibility of the truth of Solipsism.”
The “ME” culture seems to be the social reflection of adopting a solipsist personal mindset. The unreality in which so many zombies live their existence, seems to be the extreme of the only perception of knowing within yourself. When Tocqueville stated his famous comment that ”Americans are Cartesians without having read Descartes“, we get an insight into the significance that Descartes had on the Enlightenment and the emerging scientific age.
In another segment from The Educating Rita Workbook, Doctor Bramann cites the reasons why Americans function within the social framework that came out of a philosophical departure from the Old Europe.
The social condition that makes Americans natural Cartesians are described by de Tocqueville as follows:
“In the midst of the continual movement which agitates a democratic community, the tie which unites one generation to another is relaxed or broken; every man readily loses the trace of the ideas of his forefathers or takes no care about them.
Nor can men living in this state of society derive their belief from the opinions of the class to which they belong; for, so to speak, there are no longer any classes, or those which still exist are composed of such mobile elements, that their body can never exercise a real control over its members.
As to the influence which the intelligence of one man has on that of another, it must necessarily be very limited in a country where the citizens, placed on a footing of a general similitude, are all closely seen by each other; and where, as no signs of incontestable greatness or superiority are perceived in any one of them, they are constantly brought back to their own reason as the most obvious and proximate source of truth.”
Relying on and coming back to your own reason seems to be relegated to past generations. Is the Descartes doctrine relevant in the technocratic and transnational, globalist interdependent and digital connected world of today and still the compelling intellectual system? Well, this begs the question of an analysis about current worldly conditions and the true criteria and standards that any successful society must adopt.
In The Underlying Soul, by Stephen Iacoboni, MD writes at Science vs Religion: Rene Descartes and the Cause of Spiritual Decline.
“Before Descartes, mind, body and soul were one — as described so eloquently by the greatest of the scholastics, Aquinas himself. The Cartesian legacy, which had driven Europe to its greatest heights of world exploration, colonization, and conquest, paradoxically has left the West in decline. Europe now is more a museum rather than anything resembling a world power.
Why? Because Descartes’ famous statement says that thought precedes self-awareness, i.e., soul. But, modern science now tells us that thought is simply a bodily function of the cerebral cortex. As such, there is no room in the medical model for Descartes’ separated soul to play any real role in our lives. Thus, the legacy of Descartes, after four centuries of material success, is spiritual collapse. For the first time in the history of Western civilization, many now believe we are soulless.”
That is the very point that needs to be deconstructed. The operative benchmark is not the fashionable belief that perception is everything. The trends and flows of popular culture are not superior to constraints of nature and the laws of the universe. A soulless society cannot respect the dignity of the individual or protect the natural rights of persons. Yet, the vast achievements of raising people out of poverty, social despair and private isolation are a central part of the legacy of Western Civilization.
When the Bramann assessment begins with the viewpoint:
“Individualism is one of the hallmarks of Western philosophy and civilization. No other intellectual tradition has been as intensively (some would say: excessively) preoccupied with singling out and defining the individual self than Western philosophy, and no other polity has made the presumed rights and prerogatives of the individual as central a concern as Western societies. Individualism is as defining a characteristic of our present civilization as capitalism, materialism, technology, and global expansion.”
He is really validating and concluding that Descartes helped set into motion a new wave of thinking that broke from the past and liberated the mind and practical accomplishment capacities of what is pejoratively called progress.
Is the triumph of the will a feat of institutional communal conscience? On the other hand, are the vast majority of initiative steps forward a product of individual inspiration and creative insights?
Rene Descartes did not originate the argument that the individuals are their own sole and ultimate arbitrator of perceiving reality, but he did contribute a singular vision that penetrated into the social fabric of Europe and America. Western political thought has always been a depository of philosophical building blocks that rest upon the pillars of the Greek notion of democratic rights, privileges and responsibilities.
The adoption of Roman edicts and precepts evolved into the admiralty law of equity relativism that passes today for jurisprudence. To the extent, that Descartes separated the soul from any real role in our lives, would not negate the factual truth that our soul is the essential being of our personhood and existence.
Civilization is not possible without a firm acceptance that individuals possess, by their very nature, Inalienable Rights as understood by Thomas Jefferson. John Locke influenced Jefferson and his prospective can be traced back to Descartes’ assertion that all individuals have the “natural light of reason.” Descartes’ belief that the world is essentially rational and comprehensible is certainly being tested by current world events. However, the awful actions that disrespect citizens have a direct correlation to the way that governments, corporatists and institutions mistreat human life.
The refuge of one’s own mind may well be the last assertion of your own self worth and intrinsic value. With all the mental assaults and psyops targeting your intellect, the day of an independent and individualistic human species may well come to an end. At that point, the collective soul of humanity dies as well.
Those rugged individuals that Tocqueville observed in 19th century America would be in shock and horror to see the lack of critical thinking in this anti-intellectual society. For his part, do not blame Descartes, he knew who he was.
In no particular order:
One: Give the appearance of unifying the country behind the President, who “did his job the right way,” by going to Congress for approval. This elevates Obama’s ratings and, by inference, suggests that his other programs should be accorded more merit. A wartime president always gains more support.
Two: Give the people an adrenaline rush. The effect should never be underestimated. Cleanses the pores, cleans the slate, and relieves frustration by proxy, temporarily…if you have very little access to your cerebral functions.
Three: In this case, winning Congressional approval reinstates the illusion, for a few moments, that we are a Constitutional Republic, with a government dedicated to justice.
Four: Help fulfill the long-planned US-Israeli agenda of destabilizing Syria and causing it to partition into warring and chaotic ethnic factions.
Five: Stop the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Syria, which would boost Iran’s economy by sending Iranian gas to Europe. Iran’s economy must be torpedoed.
Six: Send a message throughout the Middle East that the US is all-powerful and the dollar must remain the reserve currency in all oil transactions.
Seven: Feed the US military-industrial complex, which demands wars.
Eight: Aid the long-term goal of Globalism/Free Trade, which involves putting the entire Middle East into unresolvable debt and suffering…and then coming in with outside elite bankster financing, to rebuild the entire region and own it, lock, stock, and barrel.
Nine: Distract Americans from a number of scandals, including: Benghazi, Fast&Furious, IRS non-profit division crimes, NSA spying, the continuing failed war in Afghanistan, and a tanking domestic economy with more and more people living below the poverty line.
None of these reasons has anything to do with “punishing Assad for using chemical weapons.” In any case, that whole scenario has been thrown into extreme doubt.
Your government at work.