Top

Our Population Growth Totalitarian Future

August 2, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

As the world explodes in violence, war, riots, and uprisings, it is challenging to step back and examine the bigger picture. With airliners being shot down over the Ukraine, missiles flying between Israel and Gaza, ongoing civil war in Syria, Iraq falling apart as ISIS gains ground, dictatorship crackdown in Egypt, Turkey on the verge of revolution, Iran gaining control of Iraq, Saudi Arabia fomenting violence, Africa dissolving into chaos, South America imploding and sending their children across our purposely porous southern border, Mexico under the control of drug lords, China experiencing a slow motion real estate collapse, Japan experiencing their third decade of Keynesian failure, facing a demographic nightmare scenario while being slowly poisoned by radiation, and Chinese-Japanese relations moving towards World War II levels, it is easy to get lost in the day to day minutia of history in the making.

Why is this happening at this point in history? Why is the average American economically worse off today than they were at the height of the economic crisis in 2009? Why is the Cold War returning with a vengeance? Why is the Federal Reserve still employing emergency monetary policies when we are supposedly five years into a recovery and the stock market has attained record highs? Why do the ECB and European politicians continue to paper over the insolvency of their banks and governments? Why did the U.S. support the ouster of a dictator we supported for decades in Egypt and then support the elevation of a new dictator after we didn’t like the policies of the democratically elected president? Why did the U.S. eliminate the leader of Libya and allow the country to descend into anarchy and civil war? Why did the U.S. fund and provoke a revolutionary overthrow of a democratically elected leader in the Ukraine? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Al Qaeda associated rebels in Syria who are now fighting our supposed allies in Iraq? Why has the U.S. been occupying Afghanistan for the last thirteen years with the result being a Taliban that is stronger than ever? Why are the BRIC countries forming a monetary union to challenge USD domination? Why is the U.S. attempting to provoke Russia into a conflict with NATO?

Why is the U.S. government collecting every electronic communication made by every American? Why is the U.S. government spying on world leader allies? Why is the U.S. government providing military equipment to local police forces? Why is the U.S. military conducting training exercises within U.S. cities? Why is the U.S. government attempting to restrict Second Amendment rights? Why is the U.S. government attempting to control and lockdown the internet? Why has the U.S. government chosen to treat the Fourth Amendment as if it is obsolete? Why is the national debt still rising by $750 billion per year ($2 billion per day) if the economy is back to normal? Why have 12 million working age Americans left the workforce since the economic recovery began? How could the unemployment rate be back at 2008 levels when there are 14 million more working age Americans and the same number employed as in 2008? Why are there 13 million more people on food stamps today than there were at the start of the economic recovery in 2009? Why have home prices risen by 25% since 2012 when mortgage applications have been at fourteen year lows? Why are Wall Street profits and bonuses at record highs while the real median household income stagnates at 1998 levels?

Why do 98% of incumbent politicians get re-elected when congressional approval levels are lower than whale shit? Why are oil prices four times higher than they were in 2003 if the U.S. is supposedly on the verge of energy independence? Why do the corporate controlled mainstream media choose to entertain and regurgitate government propaganda rather than inform, investigate and seek the truth? Why do corporations and shadowy billionaires control the politicians, media, judges, and financial system in their ravenous quest for more riches? Why has the public allowed a privately owned bank to control our currency and inflate away 96% of its value in 100 years? Why have American parents allowed their children to be programmed and dumbed down by government run public schools? Why have Americans allowed themselves to be lured into debt in an effort to appear wealthy and successful? Why have Americans permitted their brains to atrophy through massive doses of social media, reality TV, iGadget addiction, and a cultural environment of techno-narcissism? Why have Americans lost their desire to read, think critically, question authority, act responsibly, defer gratification, and care about future generations? Why have Americans sacrificed their freedoms, liberties and rights for the false expectation of safety and security? Why will we pay dearly for our delusional, materialistic, debt financed idiocy? – Because we never learn the lessons of history.

There are so many questions and no truthful answers forthcoming from those who pass for leaders in this increasingly totalitarian world. Our willful ignorance, apathy, hubris and arrogance will have consequences. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. The cyclicality of history guarantees a further deepening of this Crisis. The world has evolved from totalitarian hegemony to republican liberty and regressed back to totalitarianism throughout the centuries. Anyone honestly assessing the current state of the world and our country would unequivocally conclude we have regressed back towards a totalitarian regime where a small cabal of powerful oligarchs believes they can control and manipulate the masses in their gluttonous desire for treasure. Aldous Huxley foretold all the indicators of a world descending into totalitarianism due to overpopulation, propaganda, brainwashing, consumerism, and dumbing down of a distracted populace in his 1958 reassessment of his 1931 novel Brave New World.

Is There a Limit?

“At the rate of increase prevailing between the birth of Christ and the death of Queen Elizabeth I, it took sixteen centuries for the population of the earth to double. At the present rate it will double in less than half a century. And this fantastically rapid doubling of our numbers will be taking place on a planet whose most desirable and pro­ductive areas are already densely populated, whose soils are being eroded by the frantic efforts of bad farmers to raise more food, and whose easily available mineral capital is being squandered with the reckless extravagance of a drunken sailor getting rid of his accumulated pay.” –Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958

Demographics are easy to extrapolate and arrive at an accurate prediction, as long as the existing conditions and trends remain relatively constant. Huxley was accurate in his doubling prediction. The world population was 2.9 billion in 1958. It only took 39 years to double again to 5.8 billion in 1997. It has grown by 24% in the last 17 years to the current level of 7.2 billion. According to United Nations projections, world population is projected to reach 9.6 billion in 2050. The fact that it would take approximately 70 years for the world’s population to double from the 1997 level reveals a slowing growth rate, as the death rate in many developed countries surpasses their birth rate. The population of the U.S. grew from 175 million in 1958 to 320 million today, an 83% increase in 56 years.

The rapid population growth over the last century from approximately 1.8 billion in 1914, despite two horrific world wars, is attributable to cheap, easy to access oil and advances in medical technology made possible by access to cheap oil. The projection of 9.6 billion in 2050 is based upon an assumption the world’s energy, food and water resources can sustain that many people, no world wars kill a few hundred million people, no incurable diseases spread across the globe and there is no catastrophic geologic, climate, or planetary events. I’ll take the under on the 9.6 billion.

Anyone viewing the increasingly violent world situation without bias can already see the strain that overpopulation has created. Today, six countries contain half the world’s population.

A cursory examination of population trends around the world provides a frightening glimpse into a totalitarian future marked by vicious resource wars, violent upheaval and starvation for millions. India, a country one third the size of the United States, has four times the population of the United States. A vast swath of the population lives in poverty and squalor. India contains the largest concentration (25%) of people living below the World Bank’s international poverty line of $1.25 per day. According to the U.N. India is expected to add 400 million people to its cities by 2050. Its capital city Delhi already ranks as the second largest in the world, with 25 million inhabitants. The city has more than doubled in size since 1990. The assumptions in these U.N. projections are flawed. Without rapidly expanding economic growth, capital formation and energy resources, the ability to employ, house, feed, clothe, transport, and sustain 400 million more people will be impossible. Disease, starvation, civil unrest, war and a totalitarian government would be the result. With its mortal enemy Pakistan, already the sixth most populated country in the world, jamming 182 million people into an area one quarter the size of India and one twelfth the size of the U.S. and growing faster than India, war over resources and space will be inevitable. And both countries have nuclear arms.

More than half the globe’s inhabitants now live in urban areas, with China, India and Nigeria forecast to see the most urban growth over the next 30 years. Twenty-four years ago, there were 10 megacities with populations pushing above the 10 million mark. Today, there are 28 megacities with areas of developing nations seeing faster growth: 16 in Asia, 4 in Latin America, 3 in Africa, 3 in Europe and 2 in North America. The world is expected to have 41 sprawling megacities over the next few decades with developing nations representing the majority of that growth. Today, Tokyo, with 38 million people, is the largest in the world, followed by New Delhi, Jakarta, Seoul, Shanghai, Beijing, Manila, and Karachi – all exceeding 20 million people.

To highlight the rapid population growth of the developing world, the New York metropolitan area containing 18 million people was ranked as the third largest urban area in the world in 1990. Today it is ranked ninth and is expected to be ranked fourteenth by 2030. The U.S. had the fewest births since 1998 last year at 3.95 million. We also had the highest recorded deaths in history at 2.54 million.  The fertility rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is now 83.1 births per 1,000 women, a record low. That combination created a gap in births over deaths that is the lowest it has been in 35 years.

This is the plight of the developed world (U.S., Europe, Japan) and even China (due to one child policy). According to the U.N. report, the population of developed regions will remain largely unchanged at around 1.3 billion from now until 2050. In contrast, the 49 least developed countries are projected to double in size from around 900 million people in 2013 to 1.8 billion in 2050. The rapid growth of desperately poor third world countries like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Niger, Congo, Ethiopia, and Uganda will create tremendous strain on their economic, political, social, and infrastructural systems. Nigeria’s population is projected to surpass the U.S. by 2050. Japan, Europe and Russia are in demographic death spirals. China is neutral, and the U.S. is expected to grow by another 89 million people. I wonder how many of them the BLS will classify as not in the labor force.

What are the implications to mankind of the world adding another billion people in the next twelve years, primarily in the poorest countries of Asia, Africa and South America? What does the world think of the U.S., which constitutes 4.4% of the world’s population, but consumes 20% of the world’s oil production and 24% of the world’s food? Will there be consequences to having the 85 richest people on earth accumulating as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, with 1.2 billion surviving on less than $1.25 per day? Can a planet with finite amount of easily accessible financially viable extractable resources support an ever increasing number of people? Is there a limit to growth? I believe these questions will be answered in the next fifteen years as the dire consequences play out in civil strife, resource wars, totalitarian regimes, and societal collapse. Fourth Turning Crisis cycles always sweep away the existing social order and replace it with something new. It could be better or far worse.

Impact of Over-Population

“The problem of rapidly increasing numbers in relation to natural resources, to social stability and to the well-being of individuals — this is now the central problem of mankind; and it will remain the central problem certainly for another century, and perhaps for several centuries thereafter. Unsolved, that problem will render insoluble all our other problems. Worse still, it will create conditions in which individual free­dom and the social decencies of the democratic way of life will become impossible, almost unthinkable. Not all dictatorships arise in the same way. There are many roads to Brave New World; but perhaps the straightest and the broadest of them is the road we are travel­ing today, the road that leads through gigantic num­bers and accelerating increases.” – Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958

The turmoil roiling the world today is a function of Huxley’s supposition that over-population pushes societies towards centralization and ultimately totalitarianism. The relentless growth in the world’s population, not matched by growth in energy resources, water, food, and living space, results in increasing tension, anger, economic decline, government dependency, war and ultimately totalitarianism. Huxley believed politicians and governments would increasingly resort to propaganda and misinformation to mislead citizens as the problems worsened and freedoms were revoked. Could this recent statement by our commander and chief of propaganda have made Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels any prouder?

“The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.”

I’m sure the people living in Gaza, the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Turkey, Africa and American urban ghettos would concur with Obama’s less violent than ever mantra. Disease (Cholera, Malaria, Hepatitis, Aids, Tuberculosis, Ebola, Plague, SARS) and malnutrition beset third world countries, while the U.S. obesity epidemic caused by consumption of corporate processed food peddled to the masses through diabolical marketing methods enriches the mega-corporate food companies, as well as the corporate sick care complex. Religious wars and culture wars rage across the world as intolerance for others beliefs reaches all-time highs. After three decades of government controlled public education they have succeeded in dumbing down the masses through social engineering, propaganda, and promoting equality over excellence. Obama should stop trying to think and stick to what he does best – golf and fundraising. After reading his drivel, I’m reminded of a far more pertinent quote from Huxley:

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

The chart below details the fact that 12% of the world’s population in countries producing 9% of the world’s oil are currently in a state of war. The violence, war, and civil unrest roiling the Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan are a direct result of U.S. meddling, instigation, and provocation. The U.S. government funds dictators (Hussein, Mubarak, Assad, Gaddafi) until they no longer serve their interests, engineer the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in countries (Iran, Egypt, Ukraine) that don’t toe the line, and dole out billions in military aid and arms to countries around the world in an effort to make them do our dirty work and enrich the military industrial complex. The true motivation behind most of the violence, intrigue and war is the U.S. need to maintain the U.S. petro-dollar hegemony and to control the flow of oil and natural gas throughout the world. The ruling oligarchy’s power, influence, and wealth are dependent upon dictating currency valuations and flow of oil and gas from foreign fiefdoms.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/07/20140725_war2.png

In Huxley’s 1931 Brave New World fable the world’s population is maintained at an optimum level (just under 2 billion) calculated by those in control. This is done through technology and biological manipulation. Procreation through sexual intercourse is prohibited. Creation of the desired number of people in each class is scientifically determined and the classes are conditioned from birth to fulfill their roles in society. When Huxley reassessed his novel in 1958’s Brave New World Revisited he didn’t argue for an optimum level of population. He simply hypothesized a close correlation between too many people, multiplying too rapidly, and the formulation of authoritarian philosophies and rise of totalitarian sys­tems of government.

The introduction of penicillin, DDT, and clean water into even the poorest countries on the planet had the effect of rapidly decreasing death rates around the globe. Meanwhile, birth rates continued to increase due to religious, social and cultural taboos surrounding birth control and the illiteracy and ignorance of those in the poorest regions of the world. The ultimate result has been an explosion in population growth in the developing world, least able to sustain that growth. Huxley just uses common sense in concluding that as an ever growing population presses more heavily upon accessible resources, the economic position of the society undergoing this ordeal becomes ever more precarious.

It essentially comes down to the laws of economics. Most of the developing world is economic basket cases. They cannot produce food, consumer goods, housing, schools, infrastructure, teachers, managers, scientists or educated workers at the same rate as their population growth. Therefore, it is impossible to improve the wretched conditions of the vast majority, as they wallow in squalor. Unless a country can produce more than it consumes, it cannot generate the surplus capital needed to invest in machinery, agricultural production, manufacturing facilities, and education. The rapidly growing population sinks further into poverty and despair. Huxley grasps the nefarious implications for freedom and liberty as over-population wreaks havoc around the globe:

“Whenever the economic life of a nation becomes pre­carious, the central government is forced to assume additional responsibilities for the general welfare. It must work out elaborate plans for dealing with a criti­cal situation; it must impose ever greater restrictions upon the activities of its subjects; and if, as is very likely, worsening economic conditions result in polit­ical unrest, or open rebellion, the central government must intervene to preserve public order and its own authority. More and more power is thus concentrated in the hands of the executives and their bureaucratic managers.”– Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958

Despots, dictators, and power hungry presidents arise in an atmosphere of fear, scarce resources, hopelessness, and misery. As the power of the central government grows the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people are diminished and ultimately relinquished.

Source: The Millennium Report

Government Schools Common Core Indoctrination

February 4, 2014 by · 1 Comment 

Over the last half century, the public school establishment in America has achieved enormous results, if the intention was to dumb down the population. The term public is archaic, since the current age promotes an internationalist interdependency culture, where the state defines institutional roles and sanctions accepted standards. The public plays virtually no effective role in this process. For this reason the proper term to use is government indoctrination centers. Bringing back the McGuffey Readers as the alternative to the state syllabus of common core is a step in the right direction.Our Dysfunctional Public Education Is No Accident essay lays out the correct standard.

“Education needs to be about teaching the tools, methods and process of “How To Think”. The mission of the instructor is one of developing the intuitive nature of inquiry that is natural in every person. Training the intrinsic urge of curiosity as the means of discriminating and rational thought is the prime goal for the educator. But to achieve this level of tutoring the teacher must be founded in their own understand in logic and analytical thinking. In today’s classroom, social engineering has replaced Aristotle, Locke and Kant with the latest celebrity of multiculturalism.”

The Common Core site attempts to outline the purpose and worthiness of their education standards. Sounds like a noble goal; however, what is the reality?

“As a natural outgrowth of meeting the charge to define college and career readiness, the Standards also lay out a vision of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century. Indeed, the skills and understandings students are expected to demonstrate have wide applicability outside the classroom or workplace. Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex works of literature. They habitually perform the critical reading necessary to pick carefully through the staggering amount of information available today in print and digitally. They actively seek the wide, deep, and thoughtful engagement with high-quality literary and informational texts that builds knowledge, enlarges experience, and broadens worldviews. They reflexively demonstrate the cogent reasoning and use of evidence that is essential to both private deliberation and responsible citizenship in a democratic republic. In short, students who meet the Standards develop the skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening that are the foundation for any creative and purposeful expression in language.”

Dr. Susan Berry presents a wealth of information and resource links in her article, Common Core Rooted In Math Class Social Justice Indoctrination “While proponents of the Common Core claim that the new standards are focused on “college and career readiness,” more evidence is surfacing that a central purpose of the initiative is social justice and income redistribution indoctrination.” This one example sums up the dilemma.

commoncore.jpg

“Radical Math boasts over 700 lesson plans, articles, charts, books, and websites that cover a wide range of socio-political issues including redistribution of wealth, discrimination against the poor by whites, corporations, banks, etc., and the message that widespread racism against blacks continues in the United States today.”

Now compare this critical appraisal to the lofty mission of math back in the Common Core mission statement. How can this statement below square with the above practice?

“For over a decade, research studies of mathematics education in high-performing countries have pointed to the conclusion that the mathematics curriculum in the United States must become substantially more focused and coherent in order to improve mathematics achievement in this country. To deliver on the promise of common standards, the standards must address the problem of a curriculum that is “a mile wide and an inch deep.” These Standards are a substantial answer to that challenge.”

Integration into a 21th century business and social model is the ultimate intent of the common core objective. Nowhere is there a debate of what kind of future mankind wants or the kind of reality that all human beings are intrinsically part of. Those questions require the study in humanity education and liberal arts training that are quite different from the instruction in algorithm programming.

The world view of this common core inculcation presupposes that society accepts their premises as a fait accompli. Their technocrat approach to instruction demands that authentic education must be marginalized if not outright eliminated. The traditional Christian cosmology has no place in this brave new world. In the article, Common Core’s Negative Impact on Education and Biblical Literacy, explains the destructive nature of this dehumanizing standardization.

“The central organizing theme of the Common Core ELA standards is that study of creative literature must be diminished in favor of nonfiction “informational texts.” The idea is that students should be drilled in the types of documents they are more likely to encounter in their entry-level jobs (and make no mistake, Common Core is a workforce-development model, not an education model).

The fundamental problem with the Common Core approach is that, to achieve its job-training goals, it recognizes no difference between one “complex” text and another “complex” text. A great work of literature has value far beyond the complexity of the words used – it allows students to understand the eternal human condition; it allows them to confront human challenges that recur throughout the ages; it teaches empathy, prudence, forgiveness; it transports the readers to places and times not their own. The Common Core ELA standards are, quite simply, indifferent to this type of education. Training, not educating, is their goal. They are not interested in helping students become the people God created them to be; they are interested in creating workers.”

You can just hear the profane condemnation from the American Federation of Teacher and the National Education Association opposing the mere mention of God in their secular temples of perdition. Irony excluded how biblical revelation dare be debated in a non-judgmental culture of relativism. At the heart of the government school establishment is an unending choir of fallen angels that preach their vision of paradise, while demanding ever higher budgets and far greater control over the indoctrination of their impressionable guinea pigs.

commoncore2.jpg

America is now a country stuck on stupid, greatly because of this unholy and apocalyptic system that dooms our society. Gee, moving to a common core curriculum has the intent to eliminate the last remnants of independent school boards. Home Schooling is also threatened as the article, What Homeschool Parents Need to Know about the Common Core argues.

“One factor is the century-long effort to nationalize and standardize American education. The standardization efforts have their roots in Dewey, Cubberley, and the schools of education at Stanford and Columbia. They picked up steam in the 1960s and 1970s as the national teachers’ unions gained more power. They strengthened more when President Jimmy Carter fulfilled a promise to the NEA by creating a separate, cabinet-level Department of Education.

The educrats dream of a day when every student in America will receive exactly the same education, using the same textbooks and lesson plans. Those textbooks and lesson plans will, of course, be developed by the best and the brightest, who will pass them down on tablets of stone. The worker bees and drones will be programmed to follow them exactly. This is a nightmare scenario, one which anyone who believes in individual rights, local control, and federalism should oppose at every opportunity. The Common Core Standards become dangerous when they form a stepping stone which helps to move the educrats’ vision forward.”

Top down control always is intended to eradicate the voice of the individual. Under a national coordinated imposition of federal funding, local school districts have become dependent upon the conditional requirements of conformity to keep the money flowing.

So what is the solution? From the Dysfunctional Public Education Is No Accident article.

“Reform is no long possible. A Federal Department of Education hastens central controls for social compliance. At this point, an education free from public schools, has more value than going through the disinformation that is currently being taught. The errors that are learned in childhood are more difficult to overturn, then if they were never acquired in the first place. So what exactly is the advantage in an education under government approved instructors? If you want to reverse the decay in moral aptitude, you must find alternatives for the education of your children.”

Common Core pronouncements sound so nice. In spite of this, the key question is whether their program of study teaches the principles of developing good citizens. Lest we forget, a good citizen is an independent thinking and rationally responsible trained advocate of liberty and moral values. Maintaining and expanding a structure of mindless and obedient state compliance is ridiculous.

Our founding fathers were distinguished, well spoken and skilled in the understanding of human nature. Today’s specimens, hatched from government schools, are chicken-livered dimwits that aspire to the lowest paradigm that a common core can establish. The miserable failure of the taxpayer collective education system is undeniable by any judicious measure. RIP before the entire nation dies.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Economics of Non-Governmental Organizations

November 13, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

What is the first thing that comes to mind when the term NGO appears? Well, many will respond, the United Nations. Directly from a UN site is their definition for Non-governmental organizations. How uplifting and benign the altruistic effort, the deep-seated purpose and intention of such associations, frequently projects that noble endeavors need to enhance the governance process. The term governance essentially is a loaded political concept that benefits a model of economic activity that requires a managed society as opposed to a free, independent and individualistic economy.

“A non-governmental organization (NGO, also often referred to as “civil society organization” or CSO) is a not-for-profit group, principally independent from government, which is organized on a local, national or international level to address issues in support of the public good. Task-oriented and made up of people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of services and humanitarian functions, bring public concerns to governments, monitor policy and programme implementation, and encourage participation of civil society stakeholders at the community level.

Some conduct research and analysis in the legal and other fields (e.g. sociology, economics) relevant to the rule of law. In many cases, they produce reports with policy recommendations, for use in their advocacy.”

Of course, not all NGO’s fall into an identical pattern. Some can and do provide valuable services. However, exponents of coordinated liaison with civil authority that develops legal eminence for a social vision that defies the basic human nature of inherent autonomy, is dangerous. NGO’s seldom practice real charity, although they excel in social engineering.

Looking at the money trail provides evidence of actual intents. Investopedia explains How do NGOs get funding?

“The annual budget of an NGO can be in the hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, fundraising efforts are important for the NGO’s existence and success. Funding sources include membership dues, the sale of goods and services, private sector for-profit companies, philanthropic foundations, grants from local, state and federal agencies, and private donations.”

That sounds all well and good. Nevertheless, when you get into the weeds on how funding actually works, the touchy feely aspects of raising money have a very different look. One example is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), funding programs.

“Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are critical change agents in promoting economic growth, human rights and social progress. USAID partners with NGOs to deliver assistance across all regions and sectors in which we work and to promote inclusive economic growth, strengthen health and education at the community level, support civil society in democratic reforms and assist countries recovering from disasters.”

Among the types of NGOs that the Agency partners with are:

1. Cooperative Organizations

2. Foundations

3. Local and Regional Organizations

4. Private Voluntary Organizations

5. U.S. and International Organizations

Government grants presumably for promoting or enacting democratic reforms, discloses an ulterior motive behind the funding. That is natural and understandable in an era of competing political and economic systems. However, with the emergence of a unified New World Order agenda, the practice of doling out government money that undercuts the very existence of national sovereignty has taken a nefarious turn.

The always perceptive, Pat Buchanan weighs in and provides the evidence. US Funding NGOs to Advance New World Order?

“Cairo contends that $65 million in “pro-democracy” funding that IRI, NDI, and Freedom House received for use in Egypt constitutes “illegal foreign funding” to influence their elections. Yet this is not the first time U.S. “pro-democracy” groups have been charged with subverting regimes that fail to toe the Washington line.”

The motive to change political, social and economic relationships goes beyond countries influencing foreign policy objectives. When the likes of Ted Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffet and Bill & Melinda Gates use their foundation funds to back NGO’s that carry out the globalist agenda, private sector multi billionaires become an existential threat to humanity.

Add to this band of bandit brothers, who all have transformational goals, fostered with the wealth they accumulated by practicing crony corporatism, that diminishes our domestic standard of living, with their internationalization sentiments – Jeffrey Walker, Vice Chairman, United Nation’s Secretary General’s Envoy for Health Finance and Malaria, who proposes Building Generosity Networks.

“It’s time for us to turn our attention to building and growing Generosity Networks that link the philanthropic passions of major donors with others who share those passions and are willing to work, collaboratively, to address the major causes of our day.”

Oh, that United Nations record of peaceful philanthropy for universal serfdom has worked so well. The pandemic resolutions for eugenic terminations are often the real intent behind many NGO front organizations.

The economics of world population dictate that market based businesses have no place in a world dominated by transnational monopolies and corporatist cartels. Non-governmental organizations are liberated to advance the “philanthropic passions” of the donors that would normally be suspect if implemented by mega corporations.

Those “so called” generosity networks are used as subsiding endowments for the integration of third world communities into the NWO feudal system of minimal expectations.

That old Peace Corp attitude that was based upon helping others to help themselves is now a mission for global vassal induction. So much for the myth of self-determination, in the land of the rationed and expendable economy, where only the conglomerate matters.

As affluence disparity widens from the mega rich, the former middle class recedes into subsistence level, on a path resembling those that international NGO’s are supposed to help. A true merchant based economy, with broad based business ownership, is the only solution to the controlled slave state.

Actual non-governmental organizations, that provide useful functions, must shed their tax-exempt preferences and government subsidies. Helping individuals with volunteer charity under a viable free enterprise economic model is preferable and necessary.

Breaking up monopoly trusts, eliminates the need for generosity networks, because individuals would be able to earn a livable way of life, independent of government and globalist welfare. Most NGO’s schemes are fronts for NWO causes.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Do You Even Want Freedom?

October 27, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

The most precious gift given to humanity besides its very existence and innate connectivity to universal Source is the gift of free will. We can choose. We ultimately have the power to make decisions for ourselves. Unfortunately this concept is buried under the rubble of ignorance and social engineering and of course becomes a very complex matter as life’s input and experiences complicate our entire decision-making process.

And freedom and free will? They’re generally relegated to philosophical treatises and ideological tugs of war in the political arena. Nicely sectored off to where they can’t touch our consciousness and every day living.

Many argue that in today’s circumstance we are not free to make our own decisions, that in effect we often don’t even have free will as evidenced by history. This strikes at the root of the problem. Disempowerment via thinking we need permission versus knowledge of our inborn nature of pure freedom. It may appear that it’s been deprived at times. Free will seems to be often negated or seriously limited under certain circumstances, either by choice, coercion or collusion.

But is it really, no matter how draconian? After all, much of humanity seems to not even know that it is inherently free, never mind does it appear to even want to fully exercise such a sense of inborn freedom.

The Majesty of Choice

We are crowned with the ultimate gift: a completely autonomous conscious will. We can choose what we say, what we do, what we respond to, what we give our attention and energy to. Again, it may not appear so with the way society is structured and judging by the very bound condition and behavior of mankind. While the idea of freedom still distantly rings in the hearts of men, it has taken on many severely compromised meanings. On purpose.

In addition, for some reason it appears we’ve given up our freedom to varying degrees in exchange for something. But in exchange for what? Security? Acceptance? Ease?

It sure appears that way. But how did this come about? And who said we had to trade anything? Was it a deliberately designed trade off to keep humanity in servitude with an illusion of choice? Looking at the contrived and extremely controlling political and economic structure of our planet’s various societies and the miserable state of most of its inhabitants, it’s clear something is seriously wrong. Especially with a clearly ruthless ruling class of uber-privileged riding the backs of the oppressed who are the ones producing the goods.

Throw Off the Shackles

Is our lost sense of true unshakable spiritual freedom exactly that which would empower humanity to throw off the shackles of a system built on carefully manipulated voluntary slavery? Is this what the war on the human body, mind and spirit is all about? To block our remembrance?

When someone has come to an awakening of true consciousness, or should I say to consciousness since it in itself was never asleep, something profound happens. And continues to unfold. We tap into Source — unadulterated, unfiltered, unlimited, infinite creative Source, or whatever you want to call It. This is where the spiritual and the metaphysical meet the mental and psychological, where true science and knowledge meet the great synchronous Universal life force.

It’s all essentially One. The compartments are gone. There are no divisions in the essential Oneness and everything makes sense. And it’s because you inherently let go into an experiential perspective where you realize it’s not important to know everything or be anything. You just are and everything is wonderful at that level. A great clarity comes over you.

Of course there are differences in manifestations and there are apparent conflicts on many levels brought on by a variety of influences, but in the context of freedom this is where you find its true reality and definition. The sovereignty of spirit that is the inherent right of everything. And man does it blow away any and all man-made structures of any sort in a hurry!

The False Game of False Choice

Herein lies one of mankind’s dominators’ most effective tools for manipulation. This understanding was documented over the past and previous century, realizing people work harder and better and are more complacent if they feel they have a say so about their captivity. It’s quite remarkable. We’re still a feudal society, they just figured out how to make us build our own prisons while thinking we’re free.

Besides the most obvious example of phony democracy and the easily manipulated voting scheme, glaring assumptions are deliberately embedded into society via religion, false science, hobbling education, social pressure, the media, etc. We’re handed platitudes about hope, change and security while the media pumps amusement, materialism, fashion and other forms of acceptance conditioning to keep the populace totally preoccupied with a comatose state of self indulgence.

And as for capitalism (which all forms of government espouse) that’s the end goal. Your personal satisfaction, at whatever cost to others who weren’t as savvy as you in learning to get what they want.

Fear — The Enemy of Freedom

Why do people cling to corrupt, limiting systems even to their own hurt? Fear of the unknown is very powerful, especially amongst the ignorant. Just fear of not having your next meal can trap you. Fear of being without, fear of being alone, fear of being attacked, fear of dying.

All extremely powerful.

And afraid people will not make conscious decisions, but survival instinct based decisions. Of course there’s a time for that as in the fight or flight response to a very real attack from something, but this response can be very easily triggered just by words and bury any chance of conscious living.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a concept that’s always fascinated me. There’s so much truth in the idea that if your basic needs aren’t met first, how can you think about the more erudite and spiritual notions of our existence? Well, easily. It was a way of life for indigenous cultures for millennia. It was incorporated, and without which the culture based on spiritual connectivity would have collapsed. This is why indigenous peoples have been marked for genocide by these parasitic controllers.

They represent living wisdom. The knowledge of how things naturally work using conscious awareness and the underlying principles of love, sharing, giving and cooperation. Diametrically opposed to the abusive farming techniques of today’s controllers.

Control is the issue, nothing else. Personal empowerment beyond their set boundaries is not an option.

The Enemy Within — Those Who Choose Slavery

This begs a huge question. Would you fight for someone’s freedom who doesn’t even want it? Is it worth so-called liberating someone who chooses to remain bound — and may even prove to be a liability for what you’re trying to do?

There are several famous analogies about this phenomenon. Elephants for example are tied to a stake in the ground with little to circumscribe their maneuverability. They learn their “limitations” well. Later on the rope is removed, but the elephant will stay in the same circumscribed limits. The same has been told of many animals.

It works.

It works on humans as well. Scientists have been capitalizing on this behavioral tendency for a long time, the most famous of which is Pavlov and his salivating dogs. Closely watching those experiments from the start were military personnel. I wonder why. Remember your school period bells ringing like fire alarms between classes? You can thank Pavlov’s work and the implementation of the social engineers.

Entrained response. Same dynamic at work in advertising, politics, religion and any aspect of social engineering.

But can those in such a deep coma awake to realize their innate freedom and thus activate? Who’s to say. It’s a phenomenon to be well aware of. Just remember, groomed dependence is tough to shake for anyone. But anyone can wake up at any time, never ever forget that.

Conclusion — Does Knowledge of Its Innate Freedom Freak Humanity Out?

As Yogi Berra allegedly said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” While funny, there’s some good advice there — get the hell going and stop worrying about it all so much.

We’re all up against the wall when it comes to responding to this assault on humanity we’re experiencing. It’s more serious by the day politically, materially, socially, physically, spiritually. It’s a planet gone wild due to the cumulative efforts of manipulating influences that seem to have full sway without anyone knowing how it got that way. We’re seemingly relegated to the observer’s seat, awaiting the decision of some hidden tribunal what shall be our fate.

It’s time to wake the hell up.

It’s bullshit to think humanity has to sit and take this. What’s being perpetrated, no matter how cunning, is a rounding up of the drugged and dazed herd. So many of us can see it clearly for what it is yet seem to be screaming into the ether.

My impetus? The more clearly our challenge and situation is articulated the more conscious activists keep on with their efforts, and on it rolls. We do need to reach a greater audience than those awakening but with the recent setback regarding Syria as well as many other instances that seem to point to our efficacy, we’re on the right track.

And if there’s a better one, well doing what we can now will lead us there in a heartbeat!

Much love, keep on with all your heart,

Zen

Source:  Zen Gardner  |  Just Wondering  | War Is Crime

The Education Establishment Is The Real Problem

August 29, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

The only thing most Americans agree on is that the public schools are mediocre. As to why this happened and what we should do next, there is a total bedlam of beliefs and opinions.

People have a hundred theories to explain our ed problems. But here’s the bizarre thing: people don’t want to blame the obvious culprits, that is, the people in charge. In every other field of human endeavor, when things don’t work out, bosses are fired; then new people with new ideas are brought in. That’s a universal formula for dealing with failure. But in education, the public ties itself into pretzels to avoid blaming the top educators, the ones creating all the problems in the first place.

Has anyone in the Education Establishment ever been fired? For anything less than a major felony? No, they are permitted to drone arrogantly on, even as the country gets more ignorant by the year. These pretenders get promoted. They get grants. They get awards. They are hailed as Educators of the Year.

I should explain that by “Education Establishment” I mean only the people at the very top, 500 people at most. The astonishing thing is how successfully this tiny clique dumbs us down, deflects blame, cons the media, and encourages people to fight among themselves over whether parents, kids, unions, drugs, television, computers, etc., etc. are the real villain.

Maybe each of these things causes some damage, but wouldn’t you always want to go to the very top and find the primary cause of large, systemic failure? The point of this little tirade is to say: stop blaming the victims (mainly, that’s kids and parents). Blame the guilty. They’re called educators, even though their main activity is social engineering. Here’s the new mantra: punish the perpetrators.

One comical aspect of this whole thing is that the Education Establishment seems to encourage kindergarten teachers to call themselves “educators.” In this way, there’s no word left over for the people actually in charge. So they become invisible. Who? It was a fad for a while to call these people educationists; we also saw the term educrats. Some people talk about educational establishment in lower case. I consistently use the term Education Establishment to mean specifically the top people. The bosses. The ruling elite. The commissars. The guilty.

Even then I run into the most obtuse comments as when a teacher insists, “I’ve been in the educational establishment for 15 years. I’ve taught at two public schools…” Absurd but when this school teacher hears me criticize the Education Establishment, he takes it personally and starts defending all the nonsense in the public schools.

Please, people, let’s not waste time criticizing 50+ million parents, 25+ million students, and 3+ million teachers. These are vast unwieldy groups. You can’t make any generalizations about them. You can’t change them or move them in any obvious simple way. Let’s talk about the real problem, i.e. the bosses giving the orders and dictating the world-view at the elite ed schools. If you could change their minds, or just replace them, you would see real change quickly.

When a corporation is failing, you fire the chief operating officers. You fire the board. You fire the top five or ten people. That’s what we need to do here. Get rid of the top decision-makers at Teachers College, Harvard Graduate School of Education, University of Chicago School of Education and other similar dens of dumbing-down.

I’ve always thought that kids, parents, and teachers as well are equally victims of the social engineering that John Dewey and his bunch introduced. Reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, foundational knowledge–Dewey actually dismissed them all. His nonsense is now part of the DNA that guides the Education Establishment. Their souls reek of socialist theory and strange sophistries. They have a death-grip on everything that goes on in the public schools. When children are not learning, it’s obviously the fault of these people at the top. Let’s hold them accountable.


Bruce Deitrick Price is an author, artist, poet, and education activist. He founded Improve-Education.org in 2005.

Bruce Deitrick Price is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

I’m From The Government And Here To Help

August 19, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

Before you jump to a conclusion that the famous quote from Ronald Reagan is still operative, examine the sentiment of the throngs of benefit seekers who actually believe that government help is a good thing. The historically impaired reads this Reagan quip as a talking point out of the Obama playbook. Demanding your own government welfare tailored to the needs of your perceived little slice of paradise, is the new American dream. The reason why empirical evidence of a stained record and miserable failure of government programs does not resonate with the vast expanse of the great unwashed, boils down to the simple fact that the assistance deficient multitude, insist that they are owed a never ending flow of public financed payback.

What once was a healthy distrust of government cradle to grave intrusion, has become a dependency cultural birthright. With the upsurge of services and regulations, a tremendous explosion in public budgets is burying the taxpayer in a sea of debt. When more than half of the dole beggars, no longer pay taxes to their federal benefactor, it inevitably follows that the taste of free bennies, just wets the appetite for an endless feast.

If you doubt this assessment, attend a local town meeting. It all starts with local officials, knocking on every door, to apply for additional grant money to expand their town budgets. Financing bloated programs with excessive payrolls, on the backs of property owner taxpayers, has reached the point of punitive ruin. Renters have the attitude that their monthly payment entitles them to the finest and most comprehensive range of public services that someone else pays. Their goal is to become a “public servant” so that they can cash those government checks while building up their retirement fund.

As more local municipalities approach bankruptcy and petition state and federal jurisdictions for a financial lifeline, the escape from reality just pushes up to the next higher level of corruption. Enter the helpful government man, better yet, woman. At every step in the process of spreading the nonexistent wealth, the hungry parasites raise their voices for more government-baked bread. The “let them eat cake” mentality has become, You Won’t Believe This Surfer Living the Food Stamps Dream.

“Today, the federal government operates roughly 80 means-tested welfare programs, and very few promote work. American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray explained to Fox News that government welfare “is systematically undermining a civic culture of independence that was a great American treasure.”

 

With the viral reaction to the unapologetic lifestyle of Jason Greenslate in the video, Fox News Follows California Beach Bum Living Off Food Stamps, an outraged Middle America is eager to label deadbeats as unrepentant spongers. The hypocrisy from defenders of the state extortion establishment goes unnoticed, when they devote their lives to gaming the system. The tsunami wave of abusive public expenditures is a direct result from the clamor of devoted mainstream subjects. Their calls for a new swimming pool at the local government school or for a state of the art fire truck ignore the destructive implications of taxing the homeowner out of existence.When surfer dude thumbs his nose at the taxpayer, why is that any different when a school employee casts a ballot to raise the borrowing limit for a new bond issue that directly benefits his or her own vestige interests?

Oh, cries that the civic good demands public services that pay wage benefits based upon the great responsibility of the position is entirely a phony argument. In an economy, that is rapidly becoming a part-time privilege to find employment, the government careerist stands out as a serial abuser of the public trust. Still, the justifiable criticism leveled at the public sector needs to recognize that the typical populace not only tolerates this insult but also supports the growth and expansion of the government services.

ZeroThink writes about the quote: Hi, I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.

“It was 25 years ago today, that President Reagan said those famous words in a speech to the Future Farmers of America. In that speech, he called them the 10 most dangerous words in the English language.

Ronald Reagan went on to say that the ongoing expansion and economic success of the USA at the time was because “… the truth is, we just got out of your way.” You did it; we didn’t.

Quite a departure from President Obama: ‘If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.’

“. . .There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.) If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. . .”

Do you believe that the type of electorate that cheers the collectivist sentiment that coroneted the Obama regime, the embodiment of state despotism, would select Ronald Reagan as POTUS today?

Jason Greenslate was a baby when Reagan led the country to a fresh renewal of optimism. Nowadays there are millions of self-entitled beachcombers, deriving their living from the government dole and walking the public beaches.

herefromgovernment.jpg

Where are all the fiscally conservatives these days? Many are six feet under and the remaining are now targeted as domestic “Tea Party” terrorists. An insightful gauge on the relative health of the society can be measured by the damning attitudes towards the Tea Party movement. Who hates most, what the Tea Party represents? Just go back to another local town meeting in your community to witness the hostility towards anyone who wants to restore a modicum of fiscal sanity in civic affairs.

The disconnect between legitimate basic public services and the shameless demands for an all intrusive and ostentatious social safety net, defies not only the historic limits and relationships between citizens and government, but also relegates plain common sense to the bowels of passé panache.

Former emotional soccer moms have transformed into Saul Alinsky lobbyists. They retain their co-dependence while acquiring a crazed militancy. Giving any and all the support to make government more egalitarian and fair, includes destroying the last sectors of a free market economy.

Fundamentally, government is not in the business of helping. Most of the social engineering of the last century has done more harm and perverted cultural standards. The results of such experiments produce generations of dysfunctional dependants.

Why blame Greenslate for being the poster boy for the welfare state. Look to your neighbor if you are unable to face your own guilt in the mirror. The breakdown of society is not accidental. Genuine conservatives have been warning fellow citizens about the danger of surrendering individual liberty for the promise of secular security. This message rejected by the government class and their subordinates, is nevertheless still valid.

Refusing to deal with this destructive shift in attitude, which scorns self-reliance, leads invariably to the FEMA principle for normality. Not a new normal, but the only idealism acceptable in the “PC” acquaintance demands in support of government. How did the people do during Katrina? The federal enforcement mental asylum is the only reality that government provides. What kind of help is this?

The abandonment of rational administration, substituted with coercive governance, remains official policy. By supporting such a matrix, foolish government sympathizers are fostering the rot that cannot be intellectually unheeded any longer.

Most dismiss that the SWAT knock at the door will ever be for them, but if it is, remember that all your support for expanding the role and scope of state functions, bears your responsibility. Obama’s victimhood message, coupled with the cynicism that “you didn’t build that“, either requires you to confront a dishonest system or accept a bleak existence. Hey bro surfs up . . .


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?

July 15, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

Every so often there’s that obligatory article asking “Are Women Superior at_____?” or “Do Women Make Better ______?” with politicians often being the focus. Of course, it’s always asked rhetorically. No matter the facts of the case, you’ll never hear, “We examined the issue exhaustively from all perspectives, consulted with premier authorities in the discipline, collated the data and have determined that in this endeavor, women, to employ the official nomenclature, really suck.” In fact, I haven’t heard any kind of dismissal of feminine abilities in any area — of the kind routinely made with men — since a 1993 Golf Magazine piece titled “Women can’t chip.”

So it’s no surprise that National Journal is running a painfully long and vapid article by one Jill Lawrence titled “Do Women Make Better Senators Than [sic] Men?” The answer is a foregone conclusion, so you needn’t imbibe Lawrence’s 4000-plus-word screed (I may pen a piece, “Do Women Make Wordier Journalists than Men?”), which bears the self-revelatory subtitle “They [women] make up one-fifth of the body [the Senate]. It doesn’t look anything like parity (or America), but they believe they can do what the men can’t — namely, get things done.”

Now, I’ll address what’s actually getting “done” momentarily, but, first, can we stop already with the “looks like America” poseur’s platitude? Here’s a clue: the Senate ain’t never gonna’ look like ‘merica, pal. The tremendous resources it takes to wage political campaigns alone ensure we won’t see John Q. Publics — plumbers, carpenters, pipe fitters, secretaries — in higher (lower?) office. The truth? The media, which definitely doesn’t look like America, only notices that legislatures or cabinets don’t look like America when favored groups are, ahem, “underrepresented.” But do they ever notice the relative dearth of masons (as opposed to the many Freemasons) or even non-lawyers? And there’s an idea: get those blasted legalistic, mandate-metastasizing attorneys out of government — whether they be male, female or San Franciscan.

Getting back to Lawrence’s thesis, she says that women exhibit “more collaboration, less confrontation; more problem-solving, less ego; more consensus-building, less partisanship. …And there is plenty of evidence, in the form of deals made and bills passed, that women know how to get things done.” I’m sure. With our government, heck, I think we’re all gonna’ get done good.

Lawrence writes that more women senators “could mean less stasis,” but what does government get “done” exactly? Would less stasis mean the production of more cars, TVs, natural gas, wheat or even Sandra Fluke’s favorite product? No, active government produces more laws, regulations and mandates, which are virtually always removals of freedom and which hamper the private sector; it raises taxes and steals our money; and it engages in social engineering. Less stasis means more statism.

Let’s be blunt: liberals will say that women have more political sense for a simple reason.

Women are more liberal.

And some conservatives pay lip service to the idea partially because of how Cultural Affirmative Action causes them to view certain female politicians.

It’s also because my conservative brethren buy into other myths, such as the notion that women went big for Republicans in 2010. Actually, they broke for Democrats 49-48, a much smaller margin than usual, but still true to form.

Now, Lawrence does acknowledge this in so many words, writing “The issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending, regulation, and abortion rights….” But she treats the leftist agenda as the default yardstick, crediting women senators with being instrumental in things such as expensive farm bills, ObamaCare, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the recent scamnesty bill and averting “a government shutdown.” Except for the last effort, however, I can’t think of one “triumph” she cites that’s constitutional. And all make stasis seem seductive. They’re the kinds of accomplishments that cause me to say, well, women can’t chip.

Lawrence is fair to the not-fairer sex, though, writing that “some men” are “trying to make things work better”; these would be “[a]spiring deal-makers in today’s Senate” such as “John McCain, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker….”

And you put all those guys together and you still have Low T.

Transitioning to High E, Lawrence emphasizes how “[s]ome of the strongest bipartisan relationships are among the women themselves” (that’s easy when your ideology is basically the same) and also reports, “The members have thrown showers for women who are getting married or adopting children. They socialize with their families at each other’s homes. They run together and discuss how to juggle a Senate career and the responsibility of raising young children.” Yes, it’s the Divine Secrets of the Tax-and-spend Sisterhood.

Look, let’s cut the (I’ll be sexist) male bovine. It’s well known by the less brainwashed that women are creatures of the flock; they don’t like going against the group, which is one reason I didn’t think the women judging George Zimmerman would give us a hung jury (though I did predict an acquittal two days ago). And, thank God, this time 6 Collaborating Women did the job of 12 Angry Men. But there’s another way of saying women are of the flock.

They are creatures of the collective.

And of collectivism.

(I explain part of why this is so here.)

Of course, the common thread in all the “Are Women Better?” articles is that women just must be morally superior to men.

Except, uh, for Lois Lerner.

And Janet Reno.

And Hillary Clinton.

And Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren.

And Kathleen Sebelius.

And Susan Rice.

And the Zimmerman trial judge.

And, and…you get the idea.

You see, there is a point almost universally missed here: whatever the sexes’ characteristics in general, male and female candidates must endure the same often corrupt crucible when seeking office. They must get down in the same mud. They must win the favor of and be elected by the same people, who, as the saying goes, “get the government they deserve.” And who are these people? Women have long voted in greater numbers than men, so whatever the shortcomings of politicians — male or female — the strongest wind beneath their wings is a feminine one. Maybe the question we should ask is: do men make better voters than women?

But I will answer Jill Lawrence’s question: No, the men are better senators. This is because of Duke’s First Rule of Female Politicians: as a rule, you don’t find good women in politics. Oh, there are exceptions — perhaps, maybe, I suppose. And there are good traditional women everywhere.

Just not in politics.

Good traditional women are generally at home doing the things women have traditionally done, to state the obvious. The women you find in the bare-knuckle world of politics are almost invariably cut from the feminist stone, which is why so many have stone faces and stone hearts and part of why, to quote Lawrence again, “The issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending, regulation, and abortion rights….”

Of course, we’ll only see more women in politics in the foreseeable future. Society will hail this as a victory, but I’ll just echo an earlier article of mine and say, when women start doing what men have traditionally done, yours is a civilization of the setting sun — and sons. And when this is the case, it will set on our daughters as well


Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine
The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

IRS As A Political Hit Squad

May 15, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

When the Internal Revenue Service admits to violations of law by targeting limited government advocate organizations, you know that the non-divulged crimes are much worse. The discloser in the mainstream media is a pleasant astonishment. The usual pattern of protecting “Big Government” is still intact, while the noise and agency diversion on the abuses of the IRS avoid the fundamental problem with federal taxation, based upon a system of deductions, exemptions, incentives and grants. The extortion and intimidation in the enforcement of the tax code is the entrusted role assigned to the IRS by the political hacks that administer the social engineering experiment that is fundamentally changing America.

The politicalization of the system is premeditated. The revelation that Obama governance resulted in IRS scrutiny went beyond Tea Party, targeting of conservative groups broader than thought, should not be shocking. The sycophants in federal employment have a deranged hostility towards any voice that defends and promotes constitutional federalism. Foxnews reports:

“The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at Tea Party and “patriot” groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011 briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to “make America a better place to live.” It even flagged groups whose file included criticism of “how the country is being run.”

By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations involved in “limiting/expanding government,” education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform.”

The game of citing partisan hypocrisy in describing respective “enemy lists” avoids the necessary task of replacing the taxation labyrinth, designed to select winners and losers. Every administration uses the bureaucracy to punish political foes and most presidencies intentionally engage in illegal retribution, but all share the virtual immunity from prosecution for their misdeeds. What can we reasonably expect from this Obama scandal? It certainly has the hallmark of being a far more severe constitutional violation than those committed in the heyday of the LBJ, Nixon and Clinton outlaws.

Now be forewarned, that the IRS is charged with overseeing compliance under Obamacare. Giving a mandate for expansion under this current cloud of criminality is the height of arrogance. Notwithstanding, the irreversible loss in credibility, the wholesale revamping of the method of taxation should be examined and a trustworthy replacement adopted. However, before reviewing one such alteration, it must be pointed out, that collecting taxes to finance governmental operations is not the primary purpose of the current system.

Perpetual trillion dollar deficits demonstrate that raising revenue to pay for federal programs lacks the ability to balance budgets. The principal function of the Internal Revenue Service is to facilitate the tax avoidance practices of corporatist transnational conglomerates. The retaliatory mission against working class citizens is ostensibly a disciplinary process to maintain control over the finances of producing contributors. Inhibiting upward mobility for the populace, while accelerating elite’s wealth accumulation, is the destructive result of the tax code.

The Hill offers a solution in the article, House GOP seeks to abolish IRS, replace income tax with consumption tax.

“The FairTax Act, from Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), would abolish the 16th Amendment, which was ratified 100 years ago this February. That amendment gives Congress the power to impose income taxes without having to spend the revenues evenly among the states.

Woodall’s bill, H.R. 25, would replace the current tax system with a 23 percent consumption tax on all new goods and services. He said Thursday that this change would eliminate the need for a complicated tax code, and would be the kind of tax reform that helps reinvigorate the economy.”

The merits or criticism of a consumption tax and certainly any final amount of the levy certainly deserves a vigorous national debate. However, the need for eliminating the byzantine complexity and inherent inequity in the present punitive tax collection system should be unanimous.

Obviously, the prospect that the establishment ruling class would allow the slaughter of their cash-cow is zero. The entire existence of the Tea Party movement grew out of a desire to restore the principle of no taxation without representation. Yet, the efforts out of the authoritarian globalists are to ramp up even more draconian measures to monitor and intrude into every financial affair of normal people.

The only prudent political response to this intolerable obliteration of our eternal right to the pursuit of happiness is to require a return to the pre income tax system of revenue collection. Just listen to the screams, from those progressive socialists, who demand that the State must use their penalizing power to force egalitarian redistribution upon every wealth creator or economic producer.

The calculated fear factor imbedded into the Internal Revenue Service goes well beyond targeting just conservative groups. Every self-respecting American shares a vested interest in restoring a constitutional government. As it stands now, the prospect of achieving even a reasonable prospect of legitimate authorities is incompatible as long as the IRS is allowed to run amok over the masses who are attempting to petition and redress their government.

USA Today reports, Obama calls purported IRS targeting “outrageous”, from the latest Obama presidential press conference.

“Obama says first learned about the IRS controversy from news reports. He called the purported targeting of conservative groups by IRS personnel “outrageous and there is no place for it.” The IRS has to have “absolute integrity, ” Obama adds.

“You don’t want the IRS ever being perceived to be biased,” Obama said.

The president adds that his administration will get to the bottom of what happened at the IRS. “I have no patience for it. I will not tolerate it.”

How can anyone believe that Obama has clean hands or that some faction within the Internal Revenue Service was operating without his knowledge? Well Mr. President, prove the meaning in your words and put forth the political capital to pass the H.R. 25 legislation.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

The Supreme Court and Faux-marriage Fallacies

March 30, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

With cultural defenders such as some of our conservatives, who needs liberals? One could draw this conclusion when observing the Proposition 8 case currently before the Supreme Court.

So far we have we heard arguments about the “sociological” impact of faux marriage and, from pro-marriage (conservative) lawyer Charles Cooper, about awaiting “additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing,” as if the case is just a matter of whether the Court should be an agent of social engineering at this time and in this instance. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the swing vote in the case, weighed in on both sides of the debate, saying, “There’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have 5 years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.” But he also claimed that California’s “40,000 children with same-sex parents…want their parents to have full recognition and full status” and asked Cooper, “The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” My answer?

No, it isn’t.

The only voice that matters is the Constitution’s. The whole point in having rule of law is that its application is not dependent upon what the “voice” of a given group of Americans might say at any given time (or upon some smaller group’s conception of what that voice demands), regardless of how sympathetic that group may be. Would you want First Amendment rights to be negotiable based on how a compelling “voice” may be able to tug on heartstrings?

And the Constitution is silent on marriage, meaning that the issue is the domain of the states. What, though, if the states legislate a marriage standard that has negative “sociological” impact? Well, what if a state institutes a poorly conceived driver’s test or productivity-stifling tax laws and regulations? The proper remedy is the ballot box. The Constitution prohibits unconstitutional ideas — not merely bad ones — and these two categories often don’t intersect. Thus, a justice’s legitimate role is not arbiter of sociological impact, but only of constitutionality. Yet many today behave as if “bad” is synonymous with “unconstitutional” and as if both are defined as “whatever I don’t happen to like.”

But then we come to the equal-protection matter. Shouldn’t homosexuals have the right to marry if other Americans enjoy that right? Yes, they should.

They have a right to form that union with a member of the opposite sex that we call marriage.

This isn’t just rhetoric. It is in fact a point that gets to the very heart of the matter, and traditionalists ignore it at their own peril.

Before you can debate whether or not there is a right to a thing, you have to know what that thing is. What is marriage? If we agree that it’s the union between a man and woman, then there is no argument because no one is trying to stop any adult American from entering into such a union. Ah, but the anti-marriage (liberal) side will reject this time-honored definition, and this brings us to the point: the marriage debate is not a matter of rights.

It is a matter of definitions.

It is also brings us to the Achilles heel of the anti-marriage side. They attack traditionalists with the notion that the time-honored definition of marriage is exclusive and discriminatory, but then defend themselves by saying that their agitation for faux marriage won’t lead to polygamy and other conceptions of “marriage” being legalized. But what is implicit in these claims is contradictory. For if they’re putting forth an alternative definition — such as marriage being the union of any two adults — they’re also being exclusive and discriminatory, as any definition excludes what doesn’t meet it. Yet if they don’t put forth an alternative definition and exclude something, they are including everything. And everything encompasses every conception of “marriage” imaginable. This definitional failure would also contribute to the destruction of the institution because the closer marriage gets to meaning anything, the closer it gets to meaning nothing.

This brings us to traditionalists’ great mistake: falsely accusing the other side of redefining marriage. They’ve done no such thing because they haven’t, in fact, consistently propounded any alternative definition. To do this would be, once again, to relinquish their illusory high ground of inclusivity and the bigotry hammer they use against traditionalists. So if the anti-marriage side isn’t redefining the institution, what are they actually doing?

They are “undefining” it.

To reiterate, this is a process by which marriage is rendered meaningless and is ultimately destroyed. This definitional problem is why the left has very smartly framed this issue as a matter of rights. And, tragically, traditionalists have fallen into the trap of arguing it on this basis, of letting the left define nothing — except the debate.

So the relevant questions here are obvious. If the left cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn’t? If they cannot put forth what they’re sure is the right definition of it, how can they say with credibility that the time-honored one is wrong?

This also should inform judicial decisions. If the Supreme Court were to reflexively accept the time-honored definition of marriage, it would simply say that homosexuals already have a right to marry — to form a union with a member of the opposite sex — and that’s that. Barring this, however, it seems that before the justices could rule on laws pertaining to this thing called marriage, they’d have to rule on what this thing is in the first place, something clearly beyond their scope. And why should they even consider redefining the institution when the movement represented by the plaintiffs before them hasn’t even bothered to do so?

This is also why, when crafting pro-marriage laws and amendments, framers should not use language stating that “marriage will be limited to a man and a woman”; rather, it should read, “Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman.” This makes clear that it isn’t people being limited — but an institution. This matters because people have rights; institutions don’t. If you extend legal recognition to some Americans’ marriages, you may have to extend it to all marriages. But this doesn’t mean that if you extend legal recognition to one conception of marriage, you have to extend it to all conceptions.

Of course, winning the debate in the realm of reason won’t hold sway with people awash in the effluent of emotion. But it certainly doesn’t help if conservatives conserve nothing but yesterday’s liberals’ victories, one of which is to convince us to speak of “gay marriage” and “traditional marriage,” as if the former actually exists and the latter isn’t a redundancy. So remember that this debate isn’t about rights but definitions, and something that doesn’t meet the definition of “marriage” doesn’t exist as a marriage. And you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.


Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine
The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Cultural Relativism And Ethical Obscurity

February 27, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

If you wonder, why the world is so confused and incoherent, look no further then the concept that All Truth Is Local. “Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.”

This viewpoint is patently absurd on face value. Yet much of humanity uses “words like “pluralism,” “tolerance,” and “acceptance” in a loose way in which modern society defines these ideas has made it possible for almost anything to be justified on the grounds of “relativism.”

The article by Gene Howington, Ethical Relativism: A Good Idea or a Path to Anarchy? – cites a compelling example of an indisputable immorality performed that resulted in the deaths of innocents.

“One of the strongest arguments against ethical relativism comes from the assertion that universal ethical and/or moral standards can exist even if some practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, it is possible to acknowledge cultural differences and still find that some of these practices and beliefs are wrong. Consider that although the Aztec had a society that was in some ways more advanced that their contemporary European counterparts, that their practice of human sacrifice is simply wrong.”

Most people seldom analyze their personal behavior in light of such extreme historic atrocities. However, many live a life of individual relativism. The OBJECTIVITY, SUBJECTIVITY, AND MORAL VIEWS site poses the danger of accepting a situation ethics and the risk of adopting the dead end captivity of iconoclasm.

“Individual relativism is close to, but should not be confused with, moral nihilism. An individual relativist takes standards seriously perhaps even by going so far as establishing a strict, or burdensome moral code for himself or herself. Under this position, we view the code as binding only for that one person. A nihilist, on the other hand, believes that morality is an illusion. Nothing is really binding, even a code one establishes for oneself. Nihilism about any subject is difficult to overcome, if overcoming it means giving a nihilist reasons adequate to change his or her belief, because the nihilist can continually reject the basis for our reasoning. We may claim that an objective moral code is needed for proper social function, to avoid harm, to do good, to preserve integrity. The nihilist keeps telling us that all of this is an illusion or that each involves an imposed standard.”

Is there really a difference between a personally devised ethical system, which inescapably descends into an abstruseness of conflict and indiscriminate conduct, and the nihilistic delusion that no moral behavior is attainable? Admittedly, each act of moral conscience is individual, but when society promotes a cultural relativism mystique, in order to establish an egalitarian moral neutral acceptance, the glue that binds civilization together breaks apart.

The conventional basis that philosophers acknowledge as foundational for any culture that accepts a deity, is natural law. The University of Tennessee provides an impressive summary of moral thought, in MORAL PHILOSOPHY THROUGH THE AGES.

The traditional underpinnings that apply Aristotle’s precepts, to Christian teachings are found in Aquinas Natural Law Theory. Aquinas’s account of natural law appears in his “Treatise on Law,” a section of his several thousand page Summa Theologica (1a2ae q. 90-144).

“In short, for Aquinas, all moral laws are ultimately grounded in God’s unchanging eternal law, and we discover general rules of natural law through intuition. Legal experts then deduce more specific rules of human law from these, and in scriptural divine laws we find examples of both general and specific rules. Since we don’t have access to the complete list of eternal law, from our limited human perspectives morality begins with a search for the general rules of natural law. But where do we begin looking for the general rules of natural law? Aquinas says that we must look to human nature as a guide:

… [each human being] has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. [Summa Theologica, 1a2ae 90:2]

According to Aquinas, when God created us he gave us natural instincts that reflect the general moral principles of natural law. There are two distinct levels of morally-relevant instincts. First, God implanted in us an instinctive intuition that we should pursue our proper human end. Second, God implanted in us a series of instincts that define our proper end as living, reproducing, and rational creatures.”

Now the relevance of submitting yourself unto the authority of divine design is rare in an age of godless cultural relativism. Without a willful acceptance of inspired purpose and rules for prescribed conduct, the barbarism of immoral nihilism is inevitable. Politically, the rages of wicked government repression become institutionalized, and a much greater cruelty, than most cleric domination abuses. One need not be a defender of any particular faith to accept the fundamental inherent autonomy of your being within the world. Your plight is often proportional to your circumstance, but your morality or lack thereof; is directly tied to the nature of your created soul.

The ontogeny of every individual is a product of social environment, mortal will and providential inspiration. Most of temporal society is geared to combating political disputes or fostering phony promises. Personages cope according to their singular talents and determination to compete. Many reject, from this equation, the role and influence of the muses consorting with your own mythology. Notwithstanding, the very mention of obedience to Almighty God and the submission to His natural law, bears the risk of being burned at the stake of the cultural relativist.

Thinking About Obscurity suggests: “Obscurity is the idea that when information is hard to obtain or understand, it is, to some degree, safe.” Alas, this seems to be the current condition of embracing natural law in an age of cultural relativism. Asking for divine inspiration that seeks eternal reason or using your natural instincts to discover everlasting principles, is hidden from the nihilist and their relativist cousins. Their condescending attacks against religion stems from their own inadequacies, while they spend their energy on convincing themselves of the illusion that a world without God is safe for their own form of Nahuatl liturgy sacrifices.

Dr. Edward Younkins provides a strong defense of Western Civilization in his essay, “Why the World is the Way It Is: Cultural Relativism and It’s Descendents”. By including, “Multiculturalism, racism, postmodernism, deconstructionism, political correctness, and social engineering are among cultural relativism’s “intellectual” descendents”, into this mistaken value system, the stage is set for his valid conclusion.

“In reality, the superiority of Western culture can be objectively demonstrated when cultures are appraised based on the only befitting standard for judging a society or culture—the extent to which its core values are life affirming or antilife. Prolife culture recognizes and honors man’s nature as a rational being who needs to discern and produce the circumstances that his survival and flourishing require. Such a culture would promote reason, man’s natural rights, productivity, science, and technology. Western culture, the prime example of this type of culture, exhibits levels of freedom, opportunity, health, wealth, productivity, innovation, satisfaction, comfort, and life expectancy unprecedented in history.

Western civilization represents man at his best. It embodies the values that make life as a man possible—freedom, reason, individualism, and man’s natural rights; capitalism, self-reliance, and self-responsibility based on free will and achievement; the need for limited, republican representative government and the rule of law; language, art, and literature depicting man as efficacious in the world; and science and technology, the rules of logic, and the idea of causality in a universe governed by natural laws intelligible to man. These values, the values of Western civilization, are values for all men cutting across ethnicity, geography, and gender.”

That so many pseudo intellectuals not only reject this timeless assessment and actually rebel against the natural order of society, demonstrates why the world is such a mess. Diversity of ethnical relativism cries out for a methodical demise. The cultural suicide of civilization is really a crisis in valid moral values.

There is little safety left on a planet that surrenders it individual responsibility to the collective and forgoes any duty to fulfill ones natural purpose. The progressive slough that society proceeds upon only demeans the whole. Abandoning the quest for universal ethics denies our instinctive intuition. In order to fulfill our nature as a rational creature, humanity must believe that rightful moral principles are ubiquitously applicable.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Prominent American Scientists Call For Eco-Dictatorship Under UN Rule

February 22, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

Upcoming Scientific Publication: “governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation.”

In a peer-reviewed paper by the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” (available ahead of print), to be published in the march 2013 edition of the Institute’s yearly journal BioScience, a group of well-known scientists calls on government and scientists to start with the planned social engineering of “norms” and “values” in regards to environmental policies. In addition, they propose putting into effect all sorts of environmental fines and regulations in the spirit of Agenda 21 to hasten the social acceptance of increased governmental control. Also, they propose that the scientific community as a whole should align itself with government “through a concerted effort to change personal and social norms”.

The group of scientists involved in the upcoming publication include two Nobel Prize winners, economist Kenneth Arrow and political scientist Elinor Ostrom, as well as behavioral scientists, mathematicians, biologists- not to mention population scientists, the most well-known of whom are Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily- whose professional relationship dates back to the Ecoscience days. The authors start out by stating:

“Some have argued that progress on these (global environmental) problems can be made only through a concerted effort to change personal and social norms. They contend that we must, through education and persuasion, ensure that certain behaviors become ingrained as a matter of personal ethics.” Stating that education and persuasion are insufficient to accomplish behavioral changes, they note:

“Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems. Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient. Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant behavior modification.”

Proposing that “effective policies are ones that induce both short-term changes in behavior and longer-term changes in social norms”, the collection of prominent scientists assert that “government is uniquely obligated to locate the common good and formulate its policies accordingly.”

The upcoming report however stresses that scientists are given the tools to have a hand in
“government policies intended to alter choices and behaviors” such as “active norm management, changing the conditions influencing behaviors, financial interventions, and regulatory measures.”

Each of these policy instruments potentially influences personal and social norms in different ways and through different mechanisms. Each also carries the danger of backfiring, which is often called a boomerang effect in the literature—eroding compliance and reducing the prevalence of the desired behaviors and the social norms that support those behaviors”.

“Eroding compliance”, it is called. Anticipating that an increase in regulatory interventions by government are sure to create resistance among the target population, the scientists express confidence that their recommendations “can be carried out in a way that abides by the principles of representative democracy, including transparency, fairness, and accountability.”

Despite these on-the-surface soothing words, the authors stress that government (and the scientific community) should ultimately “move beyond” public consent when it comes to top-down regulations imposed on the American people:

“Some have argued that regulations are inherently coercive and cannot or should not exceed implied levels of public permission for such regulations. An alternative viewpoint is that governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation”.

By admitting they are willing to “move beyond existent levels of public permission” to push ahead with draconian environmental policies, these prominent scientists (among whom we find two Nobel laureates and one Paul Ehrlich) have proven their willingness to deceive the American population for their “environmental” control model. As Aaron Dykes put it while interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton,, the environmental “cause” is nothing more than “an absolute valued pretext for their absolute control model”.

The engineering of public “norms” serves not so much any environmental cause, but another one, namely that environmental policies, even draconian ones, will finally be perceived by the US population as being consistent with their own personal norms.

The way in which government may go about it shifting norms, the scientists argue, is by on the one hand “managing norms” through “such things as advertising campaigns, information blitzes, or appeals from respected figures”. The other aspect involved is the use of financial incentives and disincentives with the aim of conditioning the public to accept an increasing governmental control over personal behavior. The paper continues by saying that the best way to alter existing behaviors is through persuasive government regulations “such as penalties, regulations, and incentives” in order to “achieve significant behavior modification.”

“Fines can be an effective way to alter behavior, in part because they (like social norm management) signal the seriousness with which society treats the issue.”

By extension, the authors express hope that behaviors and values will “coevolve” alongside increased government control in the form of state regulations and “fines”:

“A carbon tax might prove effective even in the face of near-term opposition. What needs to be assessed is the possibility that behaviors and values would coevolve in such a way that a carbon tax—or other policy instrument that raises prices, such as a cap-and-trade system—ultimately comes to be seen as worthy, which would therefore allow for its long-term effectiveness”

In the context of this idea that shifting norms will “coevolve” alongside increased government regulations, the authors state:

“Each of the government interventions can influence both personal and social norms, although they do so through different mechanisms. Only social norm management directly targets norms. Choice architecture, financial instruments, and regulations can all alter social norms by causing people to first change their behaviors and then shift their beliefs to conform to those behaviors.”

In other words: the scientists propose arousing the concept of cognitive dissonance in the minds of people in order to guide the herd towards “proenvironmental” citizenship.

“When it comes to environmental issues”, the scientists write, “two different types of social norms are at play in these dynamics: social norms of conformity or cooperation and proenvironment social norms. Only the first type need be present to induce proenvironment behaviors (although proenvironment personal norms may emerge from this through, e.g., cognitive dissonance, experience, or associating the positive feeling from social approval for an act with the act itself).”

In the upcoming publication the concepts of peer-pressure and cognitive dissonance are being brought into the equation as effective norm-determining factors:

“norms of conformity and cooperation are far more universal than are proenvironment norms and are therefore far more powerful in inducing proenvironment behaviors that do not conflict with preexisting values or preferences. In other words, proenvironment values are not a necessary prerequisite to proenvironment behaviors.”

While the authors express their hope that government expands control through all kinds of environmental regulations, they argue that scientists (especially life scientists) should align with big government, join forces in an unrelenting campaign to gradually create changes in behavior so environmental policies will be more easily accepted over the course of some time.

“Life scientists could make fundamental contributions to this agenda through targeted research on the emergence of social norms”, the group asserts.

“many of the empirical studies cited in this article originate in law, psychology, economics, behavioral economics, anthropology, political science, and sociology. We know, for example, that the effective management of any commons requires sensitivity to local conditions, sound monitoring, graduated sanctions, and conflict-resolution mechanisms.”

Who better to guide the sheep towards “good environmental citizenship” than those scientists specialized in social engineering:

“Life scientists have a role to play in this by extending their existing theoretical analyses. To be effective, scholars of all stripes will have to extend their capacity to collaborate with decision- and policymakers in order to ensure realism and relevance.”

The scientists would, in such an environmental dictatorship, also have a monitoring capacity:

“Scientists could effectively examine how combinations of different policy interventions and of the relative timing of deployment play out.”

The paper is concluded with three distinct recommendations to both scientists and governmental agencies:

“(1) the greater inclusion of social and behavioral scientists in periodic environmental policy assessments; (2) the establishment of teams of scholars and policymakers that can assess, on policy-relevant timescales, the short- and long-term efficiency of policy interventions; and (3) the alteration of academic norms to allow more progress on these issues.”
|
This entire publication is a clear and unmistakable sign that a scientific dictatorship is emerging under the pretext of environmentalism. More government control through regulations and fines combined with a proactive scientific community, brainwashing people into accepting this increasing governmental control where they would otherwise reject it. And guess who should be the coordinating body of this scientific dictatorship, according to the report:

“Teams might be supported by permanent entities that maintain communication with policymakers; these will differ among nations but could be attached to the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies in the international context. One potential model is a national commitment of scientific talent in the service of United Nations agencies.”

The United Nations. Of course!

“These teams could also be charged with anticipating crises and evaluating potential policy responses in advance, since detailed evaluation in the midst of a crisis may be problematic; such emergency preparedness would probably focus on the immediate effects of policies on behaviors rather than on changing social norms, because this is likely to be of greatest relevance in a crisis.”

All this talk of putting the UN behind the steering wheel of American government and the American scientific community points to the coming of age of the dreaded scientific dictatorship, against which many observers have warned us.

Source: Jurriaan Maessen | BlacklistedNews.com

Time For The Second American Revolution

July 2, 2012 by · Leave a Comment 

For well over the last decade BATR has argued that the Republic is dead. Now that the Supreme Court has rendered their decision on Obamacare, there can be no doubt that the funeral for a nation, born out of a revolution for liberty, is over. The country, buried in the ashes of totalitarian despotism, is now history.

The plurality of citizens naively accepts that the national government has legitimacy. Such a claim is erroneous. What more proof does one need that slavery is the official status for the American public. The implication of affirming the health insurance mandate sets the precedent for and escalates an unlimited federal tyranny.

The twisted interpretation that a forced and binding purchase of medical coverage is justified because the government can tax its citizens is demonic in its inception. Coercion as a mean for compliance is like whipping your indentured servant for the privilege of serving the master.

By opening the flood-gate of unlimited federal taxation authority to compel behavior, guarantees punitive submission for a limitless concoction of social engineering. It is a short leap to require ID chip implants and compulsory designated conduct.

The hijacking of health care by a mandatory federal oppression pushes citizens to renounce their fidelity to a constitutional framework, already abandoned by the political power elite. Constrains and separation of the “Federalism” system of shared authority, is now eliminated. The central government is all-supreme in the gulag version of benevolent dependency.

The Supreme Court is a pitiful tool of the executive autocrat that wheels administrative regulation like a crazed beast. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is a disgrace. Whether his decision reflects intimidation or legacy hubris, the net effect is that he shoveled dirt on the tombstone of the constitution.

The seemingly limit on the commerce clause is circumvented by validating that taxing obligated conduct is legal. This extreme viewpoint condones any dictate by government fiat that Congress conspires to force people to obey. Such a conclusion abdicates the essence of constitutional protections.

Natural law is not arbitrary and subject to the whims of radical statists. Ignoring fundamental human rights is the definitive abuse against humanity. The federal government is making the nanny state into a chamber of horror.

Immutable principles that protect individuals from compulsory demands that violate free choice always are reprehensible. However, the latest rebuke to the sovereign dignity of citizens – poisons the water for any thirsty seeker of liberty and justice.

The consequences of the added financial costs from the Obamacare administration are frightening. The devil is in the details, never was more appropriate. Driving the economy off a cliff is a designed strategy of the collectivist criminals. The unholy alliance of big pharma, health insurance corporatists and dedicated Marxists want the public to be docile serfs in a land of slaves.

Add this dire result of the horrendous increase in taxes from the “Taxmageddon” catastrophe come the end of this year and you have a meltdown formula for a second depression. The Tea Party advocates are correct, “Taxed Enough Already” gains new meaning with the legalization of Obamacare.

Conversely, how can the legislation be legal when a Supreme Court that is determined to worship at the altar of an absolute tyranny violates the rule of law itself?

Incrementalism is the gradual assimilation of society into a different matrix of acceptability. This judicial tragedy is a rapid surge to the system. The body politic is under assault by a deadly virus of biblical dimensions. The core reasons for the War of American Independence seem trite when compared to the level of perdition experienced under the succession of recent presidents.

The bipartisan despotism of both Bush presidents, Clinton and now Obama only accelerate acquiescence to a virtual dictatorship. In order to understand the nature of the dilemma, appreciate the message in The Meaning of Independence Day.

The justification for a Second American Revolution should be self-evident. However, there are few real Americans left, who comprehend the unique heritage of this nation. A spontaneous uprising to overthrow the political outlaws is unlikely. With that admission, the moral imperative still requires a personal commitment to oppose the corrupt regime that proceeds in enslaving society.

The tipping point is upon us. The chains you wear are shackles you lock each day; you observe, obey or consent to unlawful government. You have the power to refuse compliance. Confront the consequences or suffer the indignation of a life of servitude.

Celebrate this July 4th with a renewed dedication that the future of American lies in the moral authority of civil disobedience.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Democrats Delusional Worldview

May 29, 2012 by · Leave a Comment 

Democratic politics is a false premise experiment. The foundation of modern liberalism, based upon an erroneous worldview, is a dead end ideology. Compared to the mad NeoCon war-mongering alternative, the fatal attraction of progressives, allures weak minded and desperate people into thinking government can provide solutions. Step back from the false left-right political discussions and focus upon the principles that make up sound and balanced standards for a civil society.

Basic contrasts between Conservatives and Liberals defined by Christian Walker seem plausible.

“At the core of it, Conservatives base their ideology on what they see as reason and logic and it is individualistic by nature, whereas a liberal’s ideology is based on emotion and ideals and is collective by nature. A liberal is interested in curing society’s ills by social engineering. A conservative is interested in curing society’s ills by individuals exercising their own choices to better themselves. Because of this, conservatives view centralized power with deep suspicion. Liberals on the other hand see centralized power as an opportunity to affect great change for good.”

The central precept that separates and differentiates democratic politics from traditional conservative advocacy rests upon moral doctrine. However, scholars are determined to avoid this requirement with theories such as Realism V. Liberalism. Understanding International Relations Theory, “how the world works IR scholars usually subscribe to one of two dominant theories, realism or liberalism. One, classical/neo-realist thought, is more pessimistic about the prospects of peace, cooperation, and human progress whilst the other, liberalism/idealism, is more upbeat and sanguine about human nature and human possibilities.”Modern Liberalism is based upon the following set of assumptions:

1.Human nature is essentially “good”

2.The fundamental human concern for others’ welfare makes progress possible

3.Sinful or wicked human behavior such as violence is not the product of flawed people but of evil institutions

4.War and international anarchy are NOT inevitable

5.War is a global problem requiring collective rather than national efforts to control it

6.Reforms must be inspired by a compassionate ethical concern for the welfare and security of all people

7.International society must reorganize itself in order to eliminate the institutions that make war likely

The America First foreign policy viewpoint is anti-war and anti-empire. Foreign intervention to make the world safe for democracy is pure poppycock. The premises of democratic liberalism suffer from the illusion that humanity, as a whole, is able to build a global alignment of institutions, treaties and interconnections that can result in international harmony.

The notion, which discredits democratic bias and governmental programs that surround us, is all around. The utter catastrophe of the Obama administration is not simply a failure of a partisan regime. It is systemic of a system that has abandoned time-honored principles.

The inspiring and late Dr. Schaeffer preached the following message back in 1982.

“I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view — that the final reality is an infinite creator God — over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.”

Can any person argue with sincerity that fundamental improvement in the plight of humanity has improved in the last three decades?

Facing up to the decline in Western Civilization is hard for many people. Most prefer the comfort of illusionary denial. Justin Raimondo offers a cogent insight in TheDemocratic Delusion.

“Rooted in the old-fashioned idea that people are merely the playthings of all-powerful and highly abstract forces, Soviet socialism was a throwback to the reactionary mechanistic doctrines that had ruled the earth and its peoples since time immemorial. Human beings, in this view, are passive lumps of clay whose fate is determined by History, the gods, or, perhaps, the gods of history.”

This looming conflict for the democratic liberal is unsettling, since their beloved governmental authority structure, is their presupposed answer to resolve intrinsic power struggles. After stripping away all the political posturing and propaganda, the Obama cohorts are left with an empty intellectual defense of their pernicious and intrusive tyranny.

 

LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS – MAXINE WATERS

 

 

MICHAEL SAVAGE EXPLAINS THE MENTAL DISORDER LIBERALISM

 

 

 
 

 

 

Those who identify themselves as part of the Democratic Party or supporters of liberal policies really do suffer from a mental disease. The Maxine Waters’ video illustrates, while caring the bucket for the cause. Move over and watch Michael SavageHerb Denenberg is giving you a run for top honors.

“You can look at almost any plan and policy of Obama, and more often than not find it runs contrary to common sense and logical thinking. He more often than not does the opposite of what common sense would dictate.”

Apply the following Obama traits to your favorite liberal. Do they also suffer from the same symptoms?

A. NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. If that’s not enough, consider the Mayo Clinic’s definition of narcissistic personality disorder: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”

B. PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. I think the most obvious disorder to add to all of the above is being a pathological liar. That condition is defined by the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary as follows: “an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.”

C. THE TALKING DISEASE. I’ve spoken of another mental disorder, which I don’t think psychiatry has yet named. It is the talking disease. He thinks his words are magical, and that all he has to do is talk to solve problems.

Liberals and progressives want to feel your pain, while inflicting misery from the consequences of their policies. The Manchurian Candidate president champions Marxist pillaging as a badge of pride. The crux of the rationale that drives such plunder is humanism. Dr. Schaeffer warns, “A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It’s the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration.” The point made is that the liberal sickness infects “so called” conservatives with the integrations of the progressive disease into all levels and stratums of a dependent society.Utopian delusions are the prevalent and dominate political mindset. This infection forbids a serious and substantial contraction of government deficit spending or useless programs. As long as Democrats swallow the social poison of multicultural nirvana, in a futile attempt to create a worldly paradise, the planet is doomed.

The few remaining conventional Democrats bear little similarity with the ultratotalitarian collectivists that currently hold the majority in the U.S. Senate. Abdicating the responsibility of passing a federal budget may seem trivial to the hordes of dependent addicts that vote the liberal/progressive slate. Nevertheless, the results from the next election, the prospect of instituting a sober and comprehensive reform of government is but a pipe dream for wishful escapists.

The final indisputable proof of neurotic perspective is that the electorate may likely vote Barry Soetoro to another term. The reason for such an irrational prospect is that the infected public is plagued by modern liberalism. Is it possible to dialogue with institutionalized progressives? Can cogent arguments penetrate the locked doors in their palatial asylum suites or are they so committed to their medicated state of denial that the destruction of the country is viewed as a mere academic speculation?

Radical Reactionaries understand that co-existence with essentially decadent bottom feeders is a suicidal prospect. America’s collapse is a certainty on much more than an economic level. Political dialogue or activist immersion is a most painful exercise for the average person. The depths of the “Politically Correct” culture disallow a serene separation from federal supremacy. Individual state sovereignty is the only practical response to central despotism. Democrats refused to run a primary challenge to a sitting President in their own party. That error renounced any assertion of the high ground or argument claiming the role of an honest opposition.

The legacy of FDR haunts the socialists that strive to empower the nanny state. H.L. Mencken had it correct, “The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.”

Still the demographics, especially in several swing states like Virginia and Wisconsin, may rally the government employed or the entitled reliant to rise up the dead and vote for Democrats in November. To these kind of voters, the democratic view of the world, transforms into digging graves for the dynamic producers, who create all the wealth.

The progressive malady that shapes public policy is the ultimate superstition. I am from the government and here to help you.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

The Case Against Common Core Curriculum

May 26, 2012 by · Leave a Comment 

Race to the Top?? Sounds more like continued slide to the bottom. You think the public schools are mediocre now? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Here is one researcher’s conclusion: the much ballyhooed Common Core Curriculum is merely new jargon and marketing for all the same old, same old we ought to avoid. Namely, diminished academic content and rigor, but now locked in place by federal control.

It’s a sad spectacle, the government throwing money at the states by way of making them give up their own standards today and forego control in the future. Some say it’s the Chicago way.

If you like pretty ironies, note that this story actually started in Chicago, in 1896, when John Dewey set up his Laboratory School at the University of Chicago to put progressive education ideas into practice. Those ideas are the bad dreams we can’t awake from.

The goal, for over 100 years, has been consistent. Focus on social engineering while downplaying intellectual concerns. Our elite educators want to create cooperative children who are more or less equal. The minute you bring facts (or achievement) into the classroom, you create differences. Obviously, some students will do better than others. There will be A students and D students.

What’s the answer to this dilemma? Don’t bring in facts. As Dewey piously noted, “There is no clear social gain” in the acquisition of “mere learning.” Mere?

Another problem with facts is that some kids might use those facts to think for themselves and to come up with their own answers. In Dewey’s brave new socialist world, that’s not permissible.

During the tumultuous 1930s, Dewey’s agenda crystalized into rock-solid dogma. The Depression convinced many of the nation’s intelligentsia that Marx was right, capitalism was finished, everything important was settled, America was over, and Dewey was indeed a god.

The results, educationally, was a self-righteous embrace of dumbing–down. Many people would probably be startled to find how blatant these anti-intellectual attitudes were in the years following World War II. The stated goals were “life adjustment” and “real needs.” Students were supposed to study practical things: filling out forms, dressing for a job interview, getting around in the subway, decorating a home. It’s amazing how clever our educators became at dreaming up things for kids to study to make sure they didn’t have time to study anything academic.

Parents, however, remained stubbornly attached to a traditional definition of school; and intellectual critics launched a blazing counter-attack. At least eight books, published in the years 1949 to 1957, ridiculed educational quackery, and snickered at the dumbing-down everywhere evident. (The most famous of these was Flesch’s 1955 explanation of why Johnny can’t read.) I suspect the Education Establishment was shocked by the intensity of this resistance. Academic knowledge is useless, so why do people persist in asking for it?

During the 1960s and 1970s, the public demanded a return to basics. The elite educators fought back with world-class sophistries and brilliant marketing. You know most of the names: Whole Word, Whole Child, Open Classroom, New Math, Reform Math, Outcome Based Education, Self Esteem, Multiculturalism, Bilingual Education, Constructivism, Cooperative Learning, Spiraling, Relevance, and many, many others.

They sound good; but if you burrow into all these theories and methods, you find a bad pattern. They never do the academic things that are claimed. What they all do very well is to numb the intellectual side, dismiss content, and keep kids busily engaged in socializing, if anything.

It’s this institutionalized prejudice in favor of low content that is now flowing incessantly into the future. Common Core Curriculum, I fear, will mean more of the same cliches we have seen since the advent of John Dewey more than a century ago. Now the Education Establishment wants to hide continued educational decline behind soft (or subjective) testing, and to lock the whole project inside government guidelines. Going back won’t be an option. Recovering real standards will be almost impossible.

Here’s a small part of the Core Standards for first-grade math. Savor the prose: “Students develop strategies for adding and subtracting whole numbers based on their prior work with small numbers. They use a variety of models, including discrete objects and length-based models (e.g., cubes connected to form lengths), to model add-to, take-from, put-together, take-apart, and compare situations to develop meaning for the operations of addition and subtraction, and to develop strategies to solve arithmetic problems with these operations. Students understand connections between counting and addition and subtraction (e.g., adding two is the same as counting on two). They use properties of addition to add whole numbers and to create and use increasingly sophisticated strategies based on these properties (e.g., “making tens”) to solve addition and subtraction problems within 20. By comparing a variety of solution strategies, children build their understanding of the relationship between addition and subtraction….”

If you are serious about teaching math to kids, you don’t talk like this. The elegance of math is lost in such denseness. Will teachers know what to teach? Will parents know what to expect or how to help? If the National Council of Teachers of Math were serious about kids learning arithmetic, they could use a modified form of the highly respected Singapore Math, save tens of millions of dollars, and have better results.

However, as I’m suggesting throughout, the real goal is not to teach more but to level toward mediocrity. When we look back over the past 100 years, we are sure of one thing. The professional educators can’t stop their “progressive” compusion to dumb down everything in sight. If Common Core Curriculum seemed to be something original, if we saw a separation from the past, we might be optimistic. But it really seems to be a mere recycling of Reform Math, Whole Langugae, and all the rest.

Is there any hope? Only if individual citizens take an interest and then take a stand. Here’s a great way to go deeper into this subject. “Closing the Door on Inovation–A Manifesto” is the most important document on this debate.
http://www.k12innovation.com/Manifesto/_V2_Home.html


Bruce Deitrick Price is an author, artist, poet, and education activist. He founded Improve-Education.org in 2005.

Bruce Deitrick Price is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Medicare and the Ryan Budget

March 28, 2012 by · Leave a Comment 

Health care is on the mind of many Americans. The Supreme Court is taking up Obamacare. Costs are going up at an alarming pace. The access to quality medical care is eroding. Hospitals are under pressure and closings are rising. Doctors brace for reduced payments for services. No wonder any proposal for altering the trajectory of all these trends gathers interest. Medicare is the gorilla in the federal budget china shop. This primate is hungry for more takings. Survival of the fittest may well come down to the realignment of the entire health care system. Just what can the public expect out of this struggle for wellness?

Within this context, the Paul Ryan budget proposal bears consideration. Forbes provides the analysis Paul Ryan’s New-and-Improved Plan for Medicare and Medicaid Reform.

“Ryan’s proposal for Medicaid reform involves “converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant indexed for inflation and population growth.”

Another key detail: Ryan’s plausible assumption is that competitive bidding could drive Medicare spending down without hard spending caps. However, as a backstop, the proposal caps the growth of Medicare spending at GDP plus 0.5 percent, which—not coincidentally—matches the targeted Medicare growth rate in President Obama’s budget.

The PTP 2 growth rate cap of GDP + 0.5% is meaningfully higher than that of PTP 1, which grew Medicare at the rate of inflation, something that was a principal source of criticism from the left (Alice Rivlin called it “much, much too low” ).

A key question is: what will the CBO do? Will the CBO score this new plan with the GDP plus 0.5 percent Medicare growth cap? Or will CBO give Ryan any credit for the benefits of competitive bidding?”

 

 
Congressman Ryan argues his case in the You Tube, The Path to Prosperity.Frightening prospects and dire results are unavoidable. All should acknowledge the danger, but the denial blame game seems to be the only factor that spikes higher than the national debt.

The National Review warns in Ryan and the Middle Class.

“Ryan’s Medicare and Medicaid reforms are both slow, workable, conservative solutions to the fiscal imbalances of those programs. The American middle class may not accept Medicare reform willingly, but it is something close to a mathematical certainty that it ultimately will accept it in some form. One possible form is that the checks stop coming as the nation becomes insolvent, another is that the government pays benefits nominally to the penny but radically devalues the dollar to do so. I suspect that the Ryan plan, or something like it, will be enacted long before that happens. We’re stupid, but we’re not that stupid.”

The underlying assumption that Medicare and Medicaid are intrinsic entitlements and an inherent right is an assumption that is seldom challenged. The stupidity is not in the creative social engineering of payment alternatives, but in the very concept that personal liberty and corresponding responsibility is a chronic disease. Few distortions in the nature of a free people are more confused than the mental disorder that demands government mandated health care.

It is because of this sharp departure from sanity that the nanny state demands compliance. The pharmacology complex, which is the driving force that underpins hospital therapy and officially sanctioned medicine, is managed treatment. The managed aspect, frequently based upon the funds available for further coverage, is cold-blooded. Medicine has evolved into a monitory arbitrage function for HMO to hedge their returns.

 

The Whole Truth is the other cliff dropping Medicare video that counters the infamous Obamacare attack on the previous Ryan initiative.The explosion of costs to be part of this system enriches a dependent drug society. The financial return on assets for the major drug producers is stellar. However, upon an in-depth examination of quality of care standards, how many people will agree that the medical community is ready for a major retraction, much less affordability, of services?

Treatment by pill is not all that it advertises. Health through radiation is deadly. And healing through bureaucratic panels is fatal.

The transactional fraud that exists in the government medicine administration is reason enough to scrap socialized medicine. The automatic Medicare Part A availability subjugates citizens into the medical system even if they reject the principle of state distributed healthcare. Currently accepting the copayment contribution for Part B is optional, but how long do you believe that will remain in effect?

Nonetheless, the media and pundits overwhelmingly demand government public health coverage. Criticism of the Ryan reform, especially from the Progressive Left is deafening. A more balanced approach is expressed by Bloomberg in Paul Ryan’s Medicare Voucher Plan Improves With Each Pass,

“The danger is that Ryan may be cutting costs too steeply, forcing Americans to choose from a stingier menu of options while shouldering ever-higher out-of-pocket costs. He may also be relying too heavily on seniors’ ability to make smart decisions about their insurance — often when they are frail or seriously ill.

To avoid these pitfalls, Ryan should clarify that insurers wouldn’t be able to charge any Medicare patient excessively high premiums. One way to do that would be to require insurers to charge the same premiums for all enrollees of the same age. To keep private insurers from cherry-picking the healthiest seniors, plans must be “risk-adjusted,” insurer-speak for customizing government subsidies for the average beneficiary’s health status. Finally, participating plans must be required to offer benefits at least as comprehensive as traditional Medicare.”

The out of control health care spending and the skyrocketing rise in government debt to finance the cost leads to an inevitable sentiment that people are living too long. The systemic design for a eugenic policy is the most disturbing aspect in the health care debacle. Congressman Paul Ryan is attempting to set the fracture of broken bones for managed care. The politics of government medicine is lethal. Solutions seek a miracle cure but the treatments are just as toxic as the expenditures.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Living with David Duke and Louis Farrakhan

October 25, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 

A discussion about race is one of those subjects that frighten most people. Yet, the facts of social and ethnic differences are a major cause of our idiotic public policy in a society that is rooted in denial. Of course, ethnic groups are different, but it does not follow that they cannot have common ground. A comparison of David Duke and Louis Farrakhan might seem to the casual observer to be a study in dissimilarities, but for the scholarly practitioner of the “real world”, the commonalities of - Just What’s in those Genes? – illustrates a universal nature.

The reason why both Duke and Farrakhan are vilified in the popular culture stems from their shared pattern of taking on the establishment sacred cow of multiculturalism. Add to this dangerous trait of defending your own people, targeting the Zionist cult that seeks global superiority, is the ultimate transgression.

If people of color view themselves as victims of discrimination, how is that any different from European descendants being singled out as bigots for resisting social integration? The power struggle for supremacy fails to understand that separatism is achievable and preferable. Both Duke and Farrakhan exemplify the validity of this principle.

Carving out a multiculturalism society has been a miserable failure by any objective standard. Examine their respective reports on housing and the mortgage debacle.

David Duke quotes Ian Mosley about the experience in the US and lesson from Ireland,

“While people may surrender their homes to the new agencies, they will still owe any shortfall between the current value and their mortgage to their lender. This will remain the case until the introduction of personal insolvency legislation which is to be fast-tracked by the Department of Justice. The report stressed that reform of the bankruptcy and personal insolvency law was fundamental and stated that without it the mortgage problem would not be resolved.”

Renting out foreclosed homes is a logical next step to limit further financial losses. Banks can do this in Ireland since they’ll be renting to White people, who will take good care of the homes. In the US however, banks haven’t been renting out their foreclosed homes because the federal government will force them to rent out a large percentage to blacks and Latinos, who will likely destroy the homes. Considering that there are more than 19 million foreclosed homes in the US, political correctness and federal interference is costing society hundreds of billions of dollars in losses —again.”

Minister Farrakhan draws from - Foreclosures mount, mediation fails, wealthiest Black suburb suffers.

“For communities of color around the country, a “lagging collapse” may be ahead, said Alan Mallach, a nationally known housing expert who has done extensive on-the-ground research into the foreclosure crisis. Prince George’s county is a case in point. The nation’s wealthiest majority-Black county, it has been devastated by the foreclosure crisis. Heavily targeted by subprime lenders in the boom years, the county is now staggering under the weight of abandoned homes and plummeting prices. The county received more than 7,100 notices of intent to foreclose in March.”

Housing foreclosures have devastated everyone who overbought and leveraged their purchase. Targeting blacks for subprime loans or reluctance to rent out foreclosed homes to blacks and Latinos are understandable statements coming from the respective viewpoints of their own ethnic identity. Clearly, the banking laws that drove the irrational notion that anyone is responsible enough to own a home has caused much pain and loss of capital. However, the theme that different groups naturally gravitate to reside in neighborhoods of their own kind is apparent. So why not respect that inherent trait and abolish the social engineering experiments that force unnatural behavior?

When it comes to the international arena, both Farrakhan and Duke are not shy in voicing their shared disgust for the global integration into a perverse New World Order.

Now that the mendacious media message is rejoicing over the demise of Gaddafi the Farrakhan video is even more relevant. Watch Minister Farrakhan’s message in “That’s A Murderer In The White House!” and you will see a much different person than the one the media manipulators wants you to believe.

Farrakhan’s support for Colonel Gaddafi is well known. But, his warnings went unnoticed by most readers in the press and globalists in the government. Back in March of this year, he stated:

“Well, today our dear brother (Obama) has to be very, very careful in this decision that he and his Secretary of State, and [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy and [British] Prime Minister [David] Cameron and others are planning. They would love to go into Libya and kill Brother Gadhafi, and kill his children as they did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, Qusay and Uday. You must remember, dear people of America, that whenever government wants you to think and act in a certain way that would bring justification to an action that they are already planning to make, they must make the person that they hate a ‘boogey man,’ ” he said.

Note the sharp contrast between the way Minister Farrakhan addresses President Obama and the way he calls him out in the video. Now that the war against Libya is shifting into a new stage of regime change, the path to the next target comes into the cross hairs.

David Duke is most vocal about the coming strike upon Iran. In his 2010 video - No War for Israel in Iran – Keep Americans Safe he points the finger at Zionism. The NeoCons drive the foreign policy of the US Empire, bent on expanding a greater Israel, is a basic part of the New World Order arrangement. Obama is just a continuation of the Bush foreign policy.

Farrakhan knows the wrath from the Jewish Lobby. Nevertheless, at the recent 16th anniversary and commemoration of the historic Million Man March, he said:

“I would respectfully submit to you that we all should conscientiously object to the wars going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan Somalia, Yemen and Libya and we must not let our government send our babies to die on the basis of a lie!” Minister Farrakhan stated emphatically. “The media is stoking the fire for war with Pakistan and war with Iran. As a Muslim, never will we fight against our Muslim brothers for the Zionists of America that have locked down the government of America. Never will we die for the state of Israel!”

Duke and Farrakhan may differ in the particular emphasis of exploration endured by their respected identity groups, but both are unequivocal in their understanding that there is a pervasive link, to a different tribe, that adversely affects their mutual interests. This linkage traverses both foreign and domestic policy. Moreover, when it comes to the institutions that benefited from the housing and mortgage fiasco, they are in total agreement.

The significance of this mutual awareness is that both racial populations are casualties of the same manipulation. The dense middle class, of any race, has a hard time accepting that the real cause of the disintegration of society is a designed process, intended to play one group against another. The solution is not a homogenous forfeiture of your cultural legacy, but a restoration of a separation from the absurdity of the multicultural model that destroys individual identity.

Appreciate the offense from the Chutzpah that claims a false legitimacy for a Chosen People, when the practice of racial suicide is fostered at every turn upon the gentile and Islamic communities. Exempting the perpetrators of global Totalitarian Collectivism from scrutiny, much less accountability is irrational. All along, the race baiters continue their promotion of intermingling, which is a guaranteed formula for cultural demise.

Both Farrakhan and Duke are champions of the human race, because they know the natural boundaries required for every ethnic group to maintain their own unique identity.

Libya destroyed and Iran is on deck. The similarity with the predictable collapse of the mortgage scam and the methodical elimination of dissenting political regimes is not a stretch. It is part of the plan to impoverish humanity in confined prisons of beggary and dependency. Living in the same locality with David Duke and Louis Farrakhan is a step up in personal integrity and self-fulfillment from being neighbors with NeoCon, Christian-Zionists or NeoLib multiculturalists.

Isn’t it time to grown up as a society and have the guts to converse in a serious discussion about the true causes that are destroying America? Let people live their own lives in the way and manner that strengthen their own heritage and aspirations. Lines between and among cultures is entirely natural. Globalists want to deceive you into thinking that everyone should be accepting of the New World Order.

Those who challenge and combat the decaying and decadent system are the real heroes. Those who parrot the politically correct jargon facilitate the race divide by playing into the myth that compatibility is the noble goal. Finally, those who continue to pour out the poison of regime change are the same elites who set up the walls and barriers that protect them and keep the rest of us in a slum of government design. The choice is yours. Whom do you want for a neighbor?


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Next Page »

Bottom