Why Freedom Was Greater Under the Absolute Monarchy of Elizabeth I, Than Under the Democracy of Barak Obama

The West is at war with the Rest to establish a global system of governance subject to the  clandestine control of the money power.

The only effective resistance to this criminal war of aggression is provided by the independent nation states. All nation states, as independent political entities, are thus targeted for destruction, their natural and human resources to be appropriated in the drive for global empire.

The first nations to fall, were the European states, effectively occupied by the US, despite some French resistance, since the end of World War II.

These nations are now all more or less tightly bound into the globalist system, under the control of globalist plutocracy and their puppet rulers and systems of transnational integration, including NATO, the EU, and the WTO.

Thus destruction of the racial and cultural identities of the European peoples is well advanced and is almost certainly now irreversible, the process being driven by mass immigration, propaganda delivered under the guise of education, and legally enforced political correctness aimed at the demoralization of the indigenous populations and the near criminalization of Christianity, the moral system that dominated Western thought during Europe's age of greatness.

The European settler states are likewise in an advanced stage of disintegration as outpost of European civilization, the European majorities fast fading to powerless and more or less discriminated against minorities throughout the Americas, as in Africa and Australasia.

The Muslim states are now the primary target for assimilation to the global system, those that have proved resistant to internal subversion being subject to direct Western military intervention and the installation of globalist puppet regimes. Meanwhile, no opportunity is lost to incite destructive conflict among the most independent and assertive Asian powers.

Among the brainwashed of the West, the globalist transformation of the world through universal national genocide is largely justified by the spread of the West's supposedly most precious attributes: freedom and democracy. Yet such attributes are mutually exclusive.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson said of democracy:

It is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

 To James Madison, a pure democracy

can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

 Most percipiently, John Adams wrote:

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

So much for the globalist causus belli: mere rubbish to flatter the propaganda-addled masses into believing that those in power somehow, against all the evidence, actually give a damn about what they, the plebs, think.

And, in fact, the thoughts of the masses, stupefied as they are by endless propaganda force-fed as education, political correctness, TV lies, degrading entertainment, and bogus Hollywood history, are not products of independent thought or moral conviction, but only the end product of the process of mental conditioning to which the masses have been subjected.

Election outcomes are determined by the ruling elite through mind-control of the electorate.

The absurdity of confusing the West's so-called democratic forms of a government with some ideal notion of what those forms of government are supposed to be, is nicely expressed by Thomas, Lord Macaulay in his essay on William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, Elizabeth I's chief political adviser throughout her reign.

It has long been the fashion, a fashion introduced by Mr. Hume, to describe the English monarchy in the sixteenth century as an absolute monarchy. And such undoubtedly it appears to a superficial observer. Elizabeth, it is true, often spoke to her parliaments in language as haughty and imperious as that which the Great Turk would use to his divan. She punished with great severity members of the House of Commons who, in her opinion, carried the freedom of debate too far. She assumed the power of legislating by means of proclamations. ...

Such was this government. Yet we know that it was loved by the great body of those who lived under it. We know that, during the fierce contests of the sixteenth century, both the hostile parties spoke of the time of Elizabeth as of a golden age. That great Queen has now been lying two hundred and thirty years in Henry the Seventh’s chapel. Yet her memory is still dear to the hearts of a free people.

The truth seems to be that the government of the Tudors was, with a few occasional deviations, a popular government, under the forms of despotism. At first sight, it may seem that the prerogatives of Elizabeth were not less ample than those of Louis the Fourteenth, and her parliaments were as obsequious as his parliaments, that her warrant had as much authority as his lettre-de-cachet. The extravagance with which her courtiers eulogized her personal and mental charms went beyond the adulation of Boileau and Moliere. Louis would have blushed to receive from those who composed the gorgeous circles of Marli and Versailles such outward marks of servitude as the haughty Britoness exacted of all who approached her. But the authority of Louis rested on the support of his army. The authority of Elizabeth rested solely on the support of her people. Those who say that her power was absolute do not sufficiently consider in what her power consisted. Her power consisted in the willing obedience of her subjects, in their attachment to her person and to her office, in their respect for the old line from which she sprang, in their sense of the general security which they enjoyed under her government. These were the means, and the only means, which she had at her command for carrying her decrees into execution, for resisting foreign enemies, and for crushing domestic treason. There was not a ward in the city, there was not a hundred in any shire in England, which could not have overpowered the handful of armed men who composed her household. If a hostile sovereign threatened invasion, if an ambitious noble raised the standard of revolt, she could have recourse only to the train-bands of her capital and the array of her counties, to the citizens and yeomen of England, commanded by the merchants and esquires of England.

Likewise (to paraphrase Macaulay), it has long been fashionable to describe the Western form of government as democratic and Western society as free, as undoubtedly appears to be the case to a superficial observer. Barak Obama and other Western leaders, it is true, often speak to the public in language as humble and ingratiating as that which an accused person might address to a judge.

 ... Yet we know that such government is not loved by the great body of those who live under it. ...The truth seems to be that the democratic government of the West is with a few occasional deviations, a despotic government, under the forms of democracy. Despite outward marks of servitude to the popular will, the authority of Obama, Cameron, Hollande and their likes rests solely on the support of the police, the army, the security services, and the great bureaucracies of state that consume most of the wealth of the nation, while the hostility of the people is perpetually feared and continuously guarded against, with drones, surveillance cameras, spies, torture, assassination, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorism.

Those who say that the power of Western governments is not absolute do not sufficiently consider in what that power consists. It depends on the legally enforced obedience of subjects to codes of conduct and speech that are antithetical to their fundamental beliefs and interests, the resort to all the standard means of control deployed by tyrants throughout the ages, but greatly enhanced through the application of advanced technology, and a sense of general insecurity induced in the populace through state-sponsored violence against innocent persons. These are the means, and the only means, which "democratic" governments have at their command for carrying their decrees into execution, for destroying the resistance of the people, and for creating hatred for those foreign nations yet to be destroyed.

The Curious Case of Sandy Hook Victim, Rachel D'Avino

Rachel D'Aveno was a teacher's aid slain by Adam Lanza during his rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, so the mainstream news media reported.

She had been employed at Sandy Hook for only one week prior to her death.

Such a short time. Few people at the school would have been aware of her existence.

In fact, did she exist at all?

On his facebook page, a Mike D'Avino has posted photos of his neices, Sarah and Rachel D'Avino.

They look rather alike. In fact, it has been claimed that they are identical.

Monozygotic twins? The media have never mentioned that.

Sister and Mother, Sarah and Mary D'Aveno receive
Presidential Citizens Medal on behalf of their sister
and daughter, Rachel. Image Source.

Reddit Photo Of Slain Sandy Hook Teacher's Empty Seat
At Christmas Dinner Gets Harsh Response. Image source.

This is reminiscent of the claim that Adam Lanza was really Ryan Lanza.

Was Sandy Hook a hoax?

Or is the evidence of a hoax a hoax? Which would mean there was a real massacre made to look like a hoax.

Or was it a hoax massacre, with faked evidence intended to make it appear faked, so anyone questioning the evidence would be led to believe that there was a real coverup of a real massacre?

And the point of it all?

According to Richard Cottrell, former member of the European Parliament and author of Gladio: NATO's dagger at the heart of Europe, the purpose is

to intimidate and manipulate ordinary citizens and convince them that the state which is actually behind the commission of these acts is their ultimate protector.

If that is correct, the the strategy of tension is not merely a weapon used by the United States to keep the peoples of Europe behind their puppet masters, the Blairs and Sarkozys, the Camerons and Rajoys, but also to keep the people of the United States behind their puppet Bush's and Obamas.

The broader goal, in all cases, is the racial and cultureal genocide of the European peoples and all those others who come under the control of the US/NATO alliance, leading to the New World Order: a global system of government serving the dynamic components of the plutocratic elite and exercised through well-rewarded military, intelligence, and police instruments, subject to the political control of wholly-owned political assets.

For an outline of how it works, see: Aangirfan, The CIA Run Italy.

BBC 9/11 Bollocks Triumphs Over Honest Citizen

Forty-nine-year-old Briton, Tony Rooke, refused to pay his TV license fee, proceeds of which fund the BBC, claiming that the BBC lied about 9/11.

Tony Rooke, representing himself at Horsham Magistrates’ Court, said he did not wish to give money to an organization 'funding the practice of terrorism'.

Rooke, who was found guilty of using an unlicensed TV set, said his refusal to pay the license fee was in accordance with Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, which states that it is an offense to obtain money for purposes of terrorism.

Rooke told the court:

I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the license fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect.

In support of this claim, Rooke said, was the fact that the BBC reported that World Trade Centre Building 7 had fallen 20 minutes in advance of the collapse. (The building could be seen in the background behind BBC television reporter Jane Standley as she reported  live from New York that WTC7 had already collapsed.)

Rooke said: The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand.

Mr. Rooke was granted a conditional discharges, which according to the Daily Mail, is "often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground."

Tony Rooke's supporters outside the Horsham Magistrate's court.

The case has been ignored by Britain's major news organzations, as noted by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky:

With the exception of London’s Daily Mail, the British mainstream media, including The Guardian and the Independent, chose to abstain from coverage or commentary of this historic court case, which points to a criminal process of media disinformation by the BBC.

The BBC chose to “cover up its own coverup.” Not a single word from the BBC to justify or explain or refute their lies, particularly regarding the collapse of WTC building 7 which had been announced by the BBC 20 minutes before the collapse took place, suggesting that the BBC and other media had advanced knowledge of the collapse of a WTC building 7 which was not even struck by an aircraft.

This is one among a string of BBC media fabrications including fake images and video footage.

We will recall that in August 2011, the BBC showed fake video footage of Libyans celebrating “Liberation” in Tripoli’s Green square, following NATO’s humanitarian bombings. Oops. They were waving Indian flags. They are not Libyans but Indians. “We made a mistake”, assuming that the British public would not see the difference.

It is our hope that Tony Brooke’s initiative will encourage people across the United Kingdom to question the legitimacy of the TV Licence fee, which supports an organization involved in outright war propaganda on behalf of the British government.

February 22, 2007: Lost BBC Precognition Tape Found on Internet Archive
On 22nd February 2007, an extensive collection of television broadcast footage covering the 9/11 attacks was discovered on the Internet Archive, and this was reported on 911 Blogger.

One activist then discovered that BBC World had reported the collapse of WTC7 23 mins before it happened and they produced the attached video. ...
Source: U.K. IndyMedia

February 27, 2007: Part of the conspiracy?
Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, responded (on a BBC blog site) to reports that, on 9/11, BBC News reported the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 more than 25 minutes in advance of the event. You can see these comments by following this link. (If they are still there, that is.) 

At the end of Mr. Porter's comment there is an invitation to respond, which I accepted. However, instead of posting my comment, the BBC responded to my response with the following notice followed by a bizarre sequence of additional announcements, suggesting extreme panic about public reaction to apparent BBC complicity in hiding the truth about its advance knowledge of an apparent controlled demolition WTC Building 7.

{My comments in response to the BBC's notice and subsequent announcements are in curly brackets} 

Problems with comments
* Host * 18 May 06, 12:51 PM
{Note that this message was actually delivered at around 2030 h PST on February 28, 2007, not on the date or at the time indicated above.}
 
At the minute, we've got a bit of a problem with comments not appearing promptly.
The number of comments you see after each post (and on the right hand side of the main blog page) is the number of comments that should be on each post. But we have some technical problems which slows this process...
{Actually, I saw no numbers, but it doesn't seem as though they meant a whole heck of a lot. Or not so as you could tell from their explanation, anyhow.}
 
Here's why it happens.. (you may have seen this explanation before, on Nick Robinson's blog..)
{Who the Dickens is Nick Robinson?}
 
"The difference is due to the way that the content of the blogs is published. Without going into too much heavy detail, when a blog is updated, certain bits of it are rebuilt and certain bits are automatically changed. These rebuilt sections are then transferred across multiple servers. Sometimes due to the heavy load on bbc.co.uk some of the bits find themselves stuck in a queue waiting to be published. The rebuilt bits can take longer to arrive than the others... and so there is sometimes a disparity between number of comments 'totals' and actual published numbers."
{Phew! I'm glad they didn't go into too much heavy detail.}
 
We are looking into a solution.
{That's great, but just in case the BBC loses my astute comment before they find the solution that they're "looking into," or "certain bits" of it (my comment that is) are "automatically changed" while transferrring "rebuilt sections across multiple servers", causing a "disparity" between what I said and what the BBC might eventually publish, here's what I said, which is pretty much what I've said before. But it seems to make a good point}:
 
The problem for the BBC is this. It cannot explain how it announced the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 in advance of the event without admitting that the collapse was known in advance. But the collapse could only have been known in advance if it was the result of human intervention: that is, if it was a controlled demolition. 

In fact, we know it was a controlled demolition because the building's lease owner, Larry Silverstein, bizarrely stated as much in the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America." 

However, until this point, the fact that it was a controlled demolition has not entered the 9/11 story as recounted by the mass media. Having blundered by pre-announcing the demolition, the BBC in effect demolished the official 9/11 account. But it did so, only for those few people whose attention has been drawn to the BBC blunder by a thousand or so blogs. 

So how does the BBC respond. With some fatuous comments on a blog site. In this way, the story remains out of the mass media and will likely so remain. And if you doubt it, search Google News for WTC7 +BBC and see how many mainstream news sites have covered the story (to date, 2030 h PST, February 28, none).

And this is a most significant fact. Many 9/11 "conspiracy theory debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.

But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will not mention the subject.

So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.

March 01, 2007: The MSM: The Dog that Wouldn't Bark
The News 24 "timestamp" footage of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened was uploaded to Youtube. But although the clip is under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Google yanked the video after it was prominently featured in our article yesterday.
Source: PrisonPlanet

July 2, 2008: The BBC eventually explains everything: Just a "cock-up" not a conspiracy to conceal evidence
The way the BBC came by advance knowledge of the collapse of WTC7 is clearly vital evidence relating to a the greatest domestic crime in the history of the United States. The claimed disappearance of the BBC's archive tapes proving foreknowledge of the destruction of WTC7 suggests the deliberate destruction of evidence and the obstruction of justice. Forced to respond, the BBC declared: "Oh, it was just that we put the incriminating tape on the wrong shelf. Sorry about that."

POSTCRIPT
So even though Mr. Porter admits to a BBC "cock-up" (weird the expressions the British use), he's actually handled the situation quite deftly. The BBC admitted it "cocked-up" (if one can verbify a cock-up), but it won't go public with the story, as in an announcement on a major news broadcast. And so, the truth, although known, will not be widely known. For whether it is "catapaulting the propaganda" or simply informing the public, it's the mass media that still does the heavy lifting. Yep, it isn't for nothing that Mr. Porter is Head of News at BBC World.

9/11 News the Corpo Media Won't Cover
Search Google News for "WTC7 +BBC" this morning (1000 h PST) and you get one hit.* Search blogs for the same terms and you get 1,186 hits. And that does not cover hundreds maybe thousands of other news-following web sites (such as this one) that also covered the BBC's psychic advance announcement of the demolition of the World Trade Center Tower 7. 

So what's with the corpo. media? Are all their employees castrated as a condition of employment, or what?
 
In any case, this is the real smoking gun. If there was an easy way to dismiss the evidence that the BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 more than 20 minutes before it actually fell, you can be sure that The Globe and Mail, the National Putz, the Guruniard, Murdoch's Times, WaPo, the NYT, the Jerusalem Post and all the other rubbish papers that people so strangely pay good money to read, would obviously have dismissed it.
 
But the story cannot be dismissed, at least not on the basis of the truth, without admitting what is known on other grounds to be the case: namely, that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition, which many people, not just one reporter at the BBC, were informed about before the event. And if that is admitted, then it is clear that for five years the U.S. Government has been lying about WTC7, for the obvious reason that, if it is admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it makes controlled demolition a more plausible, indeed the most probable, explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
 
The failure of the corpo. media to touch this story, no, let us say the determination of the corpo. media not to touch this story, is enormously revealing for another reason.
 
Many conspiracy theory "debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.
But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will simply not mention the subject. 
 
So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.
Which leaves a fascinating question to resolve. How are the media controlled? How do they exercise such discipline?
 
A free subscription to the Canadian Spectator for the fist correct answer. Send your answer, together with a $10.00 contest entry fee too ... 

* That Google search was made in February 2007. Interestingly, if you repeat the search today, Feburary 2013, you get only six hits, four of them in foreign language publications. If you do the blog search today, you'll get over 83,000 hits. So who you gonna trust, the MSM or those lyin' blogs? 

 Other amazing instances of precognition about WTC7
It has now been discovered that CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. ...
Jones Report

Actually, this isn't so amazing. Larry Silverstein, lease owner of the Trade Towers and Building 7, admitted during the PBS special "Rebuilding America" that they decided to "pull" Buidling 7: "and then we watched the building come down." So of course the collapse of the building was known in advance.
 
The only problem for the U.S. government is that it has been lying about the collapse of Building 7 for five years. And if it admits now that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demo, then the main argument against controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2, namely that there was no way the buldings could have been prepped for demolition in advance of 9/11 without anyone knowing about it, collapses like the towers themselves.

BBC: The Bizarro Broadcasting Corporation

9/11 Precognition: Part II
The Amazing Foresight of Jerome Hauer
On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax. .... "
Winter Patriot

Accidental precognition at the BBC
If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.... "
Richard Porter of the BBC

BBC 9/11 Rebuttal Rebutted
How the BBC faked audio clips, provided fascinating details about Dylan Avery's laptop, gave a guided tour of Jim Fetzer's basement, and failed to explain how they knew WTC7 was coming down twenty minutes before it happened (see next item), and in general failed to deal with anything remotely relevant to the case for an inside job.
video.google.de/

Sere gute. The Germans really do understand bullshit better than most people. But then they have more experience of its disastrous consequences. 

And needless to say, Google has pulled this informative video.

More fascinating and colorful details about the total corruption of the BBC and its concealment of evidence of treason and crimes against children and humanity over at Aangirfan. 

And this: Jimmy Saville's paedophilia consistent with BBC culture.

 And this: UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up

The End of American Freedom

Your Papers, Citizen: Gun Control and the Changing American Character

By Fred Reed

Fred on Everything: February 19, 2013: A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. This was largely true in, say, 1930. People lived, a great many of them, on farms where they planted their own crops, built their own barns, repaired their own trucks, and protected their own property. They were literate but not educated, knew little of the world beyond the local, but in their homes and fields they were supreme.

If they wanted to swim buck nekkid in the creek, they swam buck nekkid. If whistle pigs were eating the corn, the family teenager would get his rifle and solve the problem. Government left them alone.

Even in the early Sixties, in rural King George County, Virginia, where I grew up, it was still mostly true. The country people built their own boats to crab in the Potomac, converted junked car engines to marine, made their own crab pots, planted corn and such, and hunted deer. There was very little contact with the government. One state trooper was the law, and he had precious little to do.

I say the following not as an old codger painting his youth in roseate hues that never were, but as serious sociology: We kids could get up on a summer morning, grab the .22 or .410, put it over our shoulder and go into the country store for ammunition, and no one looked twice. We could go by night to the dump to snap-shoot rats, and no one cared. We could get our fishing poles—I preferred a spinning reel and bait-casting tackle—and fish anywhere we pleased on Machodoc Creek or the Potomac. We could drive unwisely but joyously on winding wooded roads late at night and nobody cared.

Call it “freedom.” We were free, and so were the country folk on their farms and with their crabbing rigs. Because we were free, we felt free. It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.

Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.

It became ever more a nation of employees. As Walmart and shopping centers and factories moved in, the farmers sold their land to real-estate developers at what they thought mind-boggling prices, and went to work as security guards and truck drivers. Employees are not free. They fear the boss, fear dismissal, and become prisoners of the retirement system. So much for Marlboro Man.

Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we became the Hive.

Government came like a dust storm of fine choking powder, making its way into everything. You could no longer build a shed without a half-dozen permits and inspections. You couldn’t swim without a lifeguard, couldn’t use your canoe without Coast-Guard approved flotation devices and a card saying that you had taken an approved course in how to canoe. Cops proliferated with speed traps. The government began spying on email, requiring licenses and permits for everything, and deciding what could and could not be taught to one’s children, who one had to associate with, and what one could think about what or, more usually, whom.

With this came feminization. The schools began to value feelings over learning anything. Dodge ball and freeze tag became violence and heartless competition, giving way to cooperative group activities led by a caring adult. The female preference for security over freedom set in like a hard frost. We became afraid of second-hand smoke and swimming pools with a deep end. As women got in touch with their inner totalitarian, we began to outlaw large soft drinks and any word or expression that might offend anyone.

Read more

DEFEATING SINGLE ISSUE POLITICS

By Luke Hiken

Nobody to the left of Karl Rove would consider sending a petition to the Koch brothers to do anything that was in the interest of the people of this country. That’s because everyone realizes that these greedy, vicious dogs restrict their actions to stealing from the poor and causing whatever harm they can to the largest number of people.

Similarly, nobody in his/her right mind would send letters to General Betray-Us, McChrystal or any of the Pentagon power-brokers that define our foreign policy, asking them to stop murdering defenseless civilians around the world. People understand that the self-interested killers who run this country’s war machine are not concerned with what their fellow citizens think of permanent war, torture, or the slaughter of innocent people.

Even gullible Americans understand the principles set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Yet the number of well-intentioned activists who end their political analyses with the slogans: “sign this petition” and send it to Congress; or “write Obama” and tell him you want x, y, or z, is astonishing. Virtually every facebook blurb I read about politics ends with the admonition “we’re not going to take it anymore” and we’re going to write, petition, or beg someone important to change the situation for the better. What in the world are these people thinking?

It should be painfully obvious to everyone that there is little, if any difference between the Republican and Democratic parties -- both are owned by the corporate interests that define our foreign and domestic policies. Obama needed a billion dollars to win re-election. Who would believe that he got it from poor people? He has supported virtually every war the Pentagon asks for; every policy that Wall Street demands; every repressive piece of legislation that the Republicans want, and every anti-immigrant demand that the most racist Arizonian can conjure up. He would allow fracking directly underneath the White House, if an oil company magnate instructed him to do so.

Neither party proposes tax reforms that would shift wealth from the 1% to the masses. Neither party proposes to end our imperialist assaults throughout the world. Neither seeks meaningful change to our imprisonment of ¼ of the convicts on the face of the planet. Neither seeks to prevent the complete destruction of the environment, which is progressing at breakneck speed. You don’t create change by asking slave-owners to give up their property voluntarily.

Fights between the political parties in this country are like arguments between competing NFL football teams. They are meaningless! The teams are all owned and controlled by the same billionaires that make a fortune over these modern day gladiator fights. If you want to change the nature of professional football, you go after the owners, not the players and coaches. Only when the owners suffer will you change the nature of football.

We all belong to groups that espouse the issues of our choice: immigration reform; labor unions, environmental protection, abortion rights, gun control, affordable health care, educational opportunities, gay marriage, co-ops, etc. The lists seem endless. Nonetheless, until the advocates of these various issues/struggles understand the relationship between each of them, and unite around a politics that support ALL of them, they are kidding themselves. Unions now comprise less than 10% of the work force. The reason for this is that for decades they abandoned the rest of the nation to work on and profit from their own isolated causes. Advocates for each of the issues know their own topics from top to bottom. But there is absolutely no thread of consciousness that unites them.

Since the downfall of the "socialist" leaders (Russia, China, VietNam, Cuba, etc.) few in the Left have any vision of what a meaningful alternative to capitalism looks like, and it is impossible to build a counterforce to the Koch brothers without such a vision. The organizational solidarity needed to combat those who control the Congress and both political parties is simply non-existent at this time, and good feeling rhetoric is no alternative.

If we don’t find a way to build a meaningful alternative to the choke hold international capital currently has on the world, our self-serving, isolated struggles can’t succeed, even when we are multi-racial, working class, non-sexist and green.

If Americans can't fight for single payer healthcare that is available to all, and covered by the state, it is scarcely a beginning to fight for better healthcare services at any one hospital. Winning the struggle for same-sex marriage is a hollow victory if the earth around us has become unsustainable and toxic. The need to broaden our perspective and reach beyond our single-issue politics is paramount.

I certainly don't want to throw water on other people's pleasures: some like sports, some like co-ops, some like unions, or immigration struggles, or anti-prison work, etc. When people work on those issues, it's great that they are enjoying themselves, and seeking change. But without an overview that incorporates the ultimate goal of overthrowing capitalism, they each go nowhere.

The fear of authoritarian socialist bureaucracy has immobilized the Left to the extent that only isolated, fragmented movements, unrelated to each other, seem to provide an alternative for activism. To the extent that people see anti-capitalist work as supporting authoritarian, un-democratic bureaucracies, we’ve lost the fight. Democracy requires more than a two-party system owned by the same oligarchs. Elections are being held in every authoritarian kingdom in the world: they are little more than shams to rationalize the uncivilized ownership of capital by the 1%.

Active opposition to rapacious, unregulated capitalism requires an alternative vehicle for democratic control. Single issue politics do not provide that alternative. Douglas Lummis, in his book “Radical Democracy” described the broad spectrum of contexts in which democratic principles prevailed under the most astonishing circumstances. The creativity and substance of his vision need to be adopted and followed by Americans who seek to survive the attacks being waged upon us by the corporate magnates who presently control our lives.

__________________________________
Luke Hiken is an attorney who has engaged in the practice of criminal, military, immigration, and appellate law.

The Progressive Avenues website, www.progressiveavenues.org, is regularly updated in the “What’s Added, What’s New” link on the Home page, at http://www.progressiveavenues.org/Whats_New_Added.html

James Fetzer, Conspiracy Theories, and the Defence of the State Against the People

A conspiracy theory can be about anything, but as used by the media, the term "conspiracy theory" — sometimes preceded by the word "outrageous" — refers almost exclusively  to a theory postulating a state crime intended to defeat the will of the people.

Whether true or false, conspiracy theories, if widely believed, may seriously undermine the state, which means that they must be combated vigorously.

If a theory is false but widely disseminated, the most effective means to kill it is an impartial and open judicial inquiry or trial.

Conversely, if a conspiracy theory is true in some or all critical elements, then an open, impartial judicial investigation must be avoided, as in the cases of  9/11, the July 7 London Tube bombings, and the Kennedy assassination (the Kennedy assassination was the subject of a report by a commission of inquiry headed by a judge, but it was not an impartial inquiry. Among the Commission members was Allen Dulles, fired by President Kennedy as head of the CIA, the organization widely suspected of Kennedy's murder).

If a theory is true, there are many ways to discredit and intimidate its adherents, these being chiefly effected through media coverage and commentary. These include:

Cloaking in secrecy police action relating to the event, thereby providing opportunity for the destruction of evidence and the covering of tracks.

Lumping all conspiracy theorists together, then highlighting the wackiest theories, thereby implying that conspiracy theorists are mentally ill.

Launching plausible false theories that when debunked humiliate their adherents, thus discouraging future investment in conspiracy theories.

Creating false evidence to support false  theories for future debunking.

Launching false theories based on defective logic that is easily debunked

Associating conspiracy theorists with foreign enemies or with adherents of repugnant ideas.

Destroying or concealing real evidence concerning the crime. 

Threatening legal action against public speculation about the crime.

Most, if not all, of these techniques appear to have been deployed in the case of the Sandy Hook Massacre.

The police investigation, if any, is being conducted in secret.

Key witnesses, the parents of slain children, have been placed under police guard, which insures that they remain silent.

Key evidence has been, if not destroyed, carefully guarded from public view, e.g., the school's CCTV video that should have recorded the alleged entry of Adam Lanza into the school.

The public has been threatened with State and Federal prosecution for public speculation about the event.

Wild theories, based on seemingly faked photographic or other evidence, have been widely disseminated.

Which brings me to Professor James Fetzer.

Jim Fetzer is a distingushed professor emeritus of philosophy with an impressive publication record of works on the scientific method and related topics that, should I come across them, I would certainly look into with interest. In addition, Fetzer has made an intensive study of the Kennedy assassination, has written extensively about 9/11 and is currently engaged in the public discussion of the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Judging by his style of argument, Fetzer is a go-for-the-jugular kind of guy, an excellent trait under some circumstances, no doubt,  but perhaps less than excellent in a philosopher. In the field of conspiracy theory, the Fetzer, running amok approach seems highly counterproductive.

In December, within a week of the Sandy Hook Massacre, Fetzer published under the auspices of the press agency of America's currently most hated enemy, namely, Iran's PressTV, an article entitled Mossad death squads slaughtered American children at Sandy Hook, which aids the work of discrediting Sandy Hook conspiracy theories in four ways.

First, by associating conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook with an enemy of the United States.

Second by associating conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook with virulent anti-Semitism.

Third by associating conspiracy theories with defamation of the US Government.

Fourth, by associating conspiracy theorists with evidence-free speculation.

Taking the last point first, Fetzer's article adduces not a scrap of real evidence to support the theory he advances. His thesis is based solely on this:

When DHS is gearing up to conduct a massive civil war against the American people, what better excuse could there be for banning assault weapons than the massacre of 20 innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School?

And who better to slaughter American children than Israelis, who deliberately murder Palestinian children?

Meaning, (a) if it would further the objectives of the state to kill 20 innocent children, then in a heart beat, that's what the administration of Barak Obama would do; and (b) such a vile act would naturally be outsourced to the Jews.

The premise that I have labelled (a) may have a certain plausibility, but it cannot be taken as proof of that which has to be proved. As for premise (b), that also is advanced without any evidential basis and thus serves only to characterize this conspiracy theory as highly anti-Semitic.

Emphasizing that the theory is largely based on a highly negative assessment of the Jewish state of Israel is the following quote, which throws in another wild anti-Semitic theory about the Breivic massacre in Norway:

Mike Harris of Veterans Today has exposed the pattern relating what happened there to earlier assaults: “This is exactly what Israel did in Norway; the political party that voted sanctions against Israel was retaliated against by a ‘lone gunman’ who killed 77 children. This is what Israel always does, they go after the children."

The article then continues with:

The most likely scenario, given what we know now, is that Adam Lanza and his mother killed the day before. Adam's body picked up by local police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school.

Ha! So now, without providing any evidence whatever, Fetzer introduces the Connecticut State Police as auxillary murderers providing those vicious Jewish child killers a dead patsy, a harmless vegan nerd, upon whom criminal responsibility will be laid.

To some, despite to total absence of evidence, Fetzer's theories will seem eminently plausible, which is why they are so harmful to the public interest.

Many people, some too busy to think things through, some simple-minded and easily gulled, some deeply prejudiced about Israel, or deeply opposed to the Obama administration will believe and disseminate such theories and thus expose all who wish to discuss Sandy Hook or other politically pivotal events to blanket condemnation as dupes of the lying Iranian propaganda apparatus, anti-Semites, disloyal Americans, mentally challenged individuals incapable of understanding that one cannot bandy about charges of monstrous criminality unsupported by evidence without destroying one's own credibility.

Which leaves one with a question. What kind of man is Jim Fetzer?

One suspects that to those who know him, he is a charming, highly intelligent and learned individual, able to bring a wide knowledge of ideas and events to bear on a multitude of questions in an engaging and informative way. Why then does he appear to be engaged in exercises in crude propaganda that seem to go entirely against the ethic of a professional philosopher?

The answer, perhaps, lies in Fetzer's past. Not only is he a distinguished professor emeritus in philosophy, he is also a former Marine Corps. Officer, a man committed, we may therefore assume, to the defense of his country, right or wrong.

That would explain a lot.

We Discover that PressTV Lies Like the New York Times

We are used to lies from the Western media.

Remember Judy Miller at the New York Times, raising a panic about Sadam's search for "thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium."

Or Fox News and  Sadam's drones of death, designed to launch "a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps."

Or the BBC running a Christmas tribute to its late resident pedophile, Jimmy Saville, instead of conducting an inquiry into his well-known proclivity for child abuse.

Then there's the Gruniard, the conscience of the Liberal left, with its resident climate warming alarmist and 9/11 Non-Truther, George Monbiot: A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact. Yeah, right, George.

When all these crooked information distributors gang up on some oil-rich country outside the orbit of the New World Order, the natural tendency is to consider whether the story emitted by the other side might not be closer to the truth than that of our own propagandists.

PressTV, a mouthpiece for the Iranian government, would seem, therefore, able to serve its masters well, providing only that it keeps to the truth or what is at least difficult to distinguish from the truth. Such a rule seems, however, to be beyond the comprehension of Press TV. The agency is capable of the lie not only direct, but easily identified as the lie direct, as we recently discovered.

In a December 19 report entitled Ottawa orders Canadian scientific journals not to publish Iranian articles, Press TV  stated:

The Canadian government has reportedly ordered the scientific journals of the country not to publish articles authored by Iranian researchers and scientists, Press TV has learnt.

And

In a recent move, the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research refused to publish an article by an Iranian assistant professor despite the earlier acceptance of the article.

The journal argued that it "will not be permitted to publish" the article as previously stated, citing the political and non-academic reasons.

Which seems pretty clear and prompted us to question whether John Baird, Canada's Minister of External Affairs, "is a moron" or whether Canada had been bribed, if not blackmailed or otherwise coerced, into acting as if the Minister of External Affairs is a moron. 

In this, it seems, we were granting PressTV all too much credibility. Which prompts us now to express our sincere apology to John Baird for suggesting that he is a moron. On the basis of the Press TV report, the idea that John Baird is a moron seems totally unsupportable, as we were to discover when an.anonymous commenter, referring to our post about the PressTV report, asked simply:

Besides this single unattributed article, is there any actual evidence that this has happened?

A search of the Web suggested that the answer was, no. We could find no other evidence that the incident reported by Press TV happened.

Thus confronted with the fact that we might have been a little naive in accepting without question the truth of the PressTV report, we asked the Editors of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research, if the PressTV report was accurate.

The answer received was prompt and definitive:

... [The Press TV report] was fictitious. [The manuscript in question] was blind peer reviewed and many amendments suggested before publication could be considered.  The author ... did not comply. [And the author was] advised the article, in its present state, was unacceptable for publication. 

So rejection of the paper referred to by the PressTV report had nothing whatever to do with the John Baird or the Government of Canada. As often happens with articles submitted for publication in a learned journal, this article failed to make the grade, although the possibility was held out to the author of publication after revision.

But ever anxious to be fair to the Iranians who seem the target of so much hate speech from the Western mainstream media, we emailed the Directors of PressTV, informing them of the information provided to us by the Editors of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research and requesting:

In the interests of fairness to the Editors of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research, and of the avoidance of misunderstanding between the scientific communities of Iran and Canada, would you please check the details of your report and, as necessary, issue either a retraction, or evidence to substantiate the cited claims in your report.

Two days later, having received no reply from PressTV, we emailed the Directors again asking them to:

advise whether, as requested, the matter is being inquired into.

Failing such acknowledgment, [we will] assume that you intend no action concerning this apparently false report by PressTV.

Since no response has been received to this request, we can reasonably assume that PressTV has, by default, acknowledged that its report was false and that they don't give a damn.

Which seems a pity. A scrupulously honest news channel would be a rare and wonderful thing, which would surely have great value in any international war of words.

Anyhow, it's an idea we'll leave out there. Who knows, one of the Western news sources might adopt it.

AB

Do We Have Inflation, Deflation or the Two Co-existing

In How To End the Depression Now, I proposed that, instead of printing $89 billion a month to buy treasury paper, the US Government (a) abolish the minimum wage, (b) deny welfare to the able-bodied unemployed, (c) send every worker a monthly check equal in amount to the current minimum wage, thereby providing every worker with a living income, and (d) claw-back the free money from better paid workers, but at a rate that does not impose a severe marginal tax rate on the low paid.

These suggestions infuriated one commentator who repeatedly demanded to know why I thought:

... the current Fed policy of increasing the money supply by monetizing debt is inflationary, but wouldn't be if those same counterfeit dollars from thin air were sent to individual workers instead?

In fact, I do not think what that person thinks I think, and I never said that I did. What I said was that, if the Fed is to continue printing $89 billion a month, why not use the money for something more useful than buying government debt. In particular, I proposed the scheme outlined above for driving down wages of marginal workers to the market rate without forcing those workers  to starve.

Additional to the elimination of unemployment, benefits of the program would include (1) a huge saving in welfare costs and other costs associated with mass unemployment and under-employment, and (2) a boost to business and the GDP through the availability of several tens of millions of workers in North America and Europe prepared to work for wages comparable to those of the Third World.

To consider the inflationary consequences, if any, of current central bank money printing operations was not the objective of my earlier post. It is an interesting question however, that I will consider here.

In ordinary palance, inflation is taken to mean a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. To economists, however, it is generally understood to be an increase in money supply, achieved either by debasing the currency, if based on precious metals, or by issuing additional paper (or digital) currency.

US Money Supply Growth to 2008. St. Louise Fed.

The terms monetary inflation and price inflation tend to be used interchangeably because it is generally assumed that monetary inflation leads to price inflation. But that is not necessarily the case as is evident from events since the finacial crisis of 2008, when the US Fed approximately doubled the US money supply as variously defined.

Prices of energy and food, it is true, have risen sharply, though they have not doubled, and the price of many things has actually declined. Automobiles, for example, cost roughly the same in America today as they did more than a dozen years ago, although they have undergone many technological improvements. Home construction costs in Canada are no higher today than several decades ago. And prices of all those hand-held electronic devices and the cost of network connectivity on which so many people spend so much of their income continually fall.

There are several reason why monetary inflation and price inflation are so loosely connected. One is that, for many goods and services, increased demand lowers the marginal cost of production, which in a competitive market will lower prices.

Cell phones, i-Pads and many other manufactured goods fall into this class. The big costs are the up-front costs of design, marketing, setting up a manufacturing process. But once those first-copy costs have been incurred, the cost of production may be relatively trivial. The economics of cellphone and internet access fall into this category. Likewise, digital products such as movies, downloadable music, e-books, learning solutions, etc.

Furthermore, although the marginal cost of some goods is higher than the average cost, e.g., food and energy, an increase in the availability of money may have little effect on demand for such goods. One can only eat so much in a day, however, much money one has to spend on food. Similarly, people won't necessarily raise the thermostat or drive more miles because their income has edged up a bit.

Curiously, therefore, insofar as central-bank-created money gets into the hands of consumers, its overall effect may be price deflationary.

There are many other things that could be said about this, a discussion of the role of credit in determining demand and its effect on prices being perhaps the most obvious.

What is clear, though, is that the price inflationary effects of money inflation are not immediately apparent, and that it is quite possible to have monetary inflation with price deflation and rising unemployment. Moreover, without arrangements that allows marginal workers to work for less than mandated by minimum wage laws, mass unemployment will likely be endemic in the West indefinitely.

Has the Sandy Hook investigator, Prof James Tracy, been targeted for total disruption of credibility by a drone named Jim Fetzer?

The best way to discredit those who point to evidence of a conspiracy against the public is to associate them with advocates of the wackiest conspiracy theories going. For instance the belief that on 9/11 the Twin Towers were brought down by space-based beam weapons, or that JFK was murdered by the Mafia or Fidel Castro, or both working in collaboration, or that Sandy Hook was the work of a Mossad assassination squad.

Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University, who has raised important questions about the Sandy Hook Massacre, has now posted a letter from James Fetzer defending some of the most bizarre and factually unsupported theories about Sandy Hook, in particular, that a Mossad death squad was involved. In view of the, at present, complete absence of evidence of such involvement, such theories only bring discredit upon those who advance them and those who associate with those who advance them.

Perhaps Professor Tracy is playing a deep game,aiming ultimately to debunk those who promote nonsensical conspiracy theories to discredit plausible and probably theories. If so, we wish him luck. If not, we guess his credibility is permanently shot.

For information about the way in which credible conspiracy theories are discredited by association with ridiculous nonsense, see:

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11

How Fetzer Aids Defenders of the Official Account

PostScript

Since writing the above, it has become clear from the comments on Prof Tracy's blog that Jim Fetzer, a veteran of extreme wacko conspiracy theories has, through his guest post, created rancor and dissension among Prof. Tracy's blog followers, leading to a vociferous debate about who, among the conspiracy theorists, is an anti-Semite.

My own last comments on Prof Tracy's blog, which though critical of Jim Fetzer were not irrational or hateful, have been censored. One has to conclude that the professor of Florida Atlantic University is either rather simple minded or that he has been hypnotized or blackmailed into making a travesty of his own inquiry into the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Post-Postscript

One of my comments on Prof. Tracy's MemoryHole blog post by James Fetzer has now been allowed. Specifically:

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11.

While Professor Tracy, you may associate with whom you like, if you continually associate with those who propagate wacko conspiracy theories, many will draw the conclusion that your judgment about Sandy Hook and other matters is open to serious question.

This was followed by a trollish comment by a pontifical character posting under the name of Rev Dave, who states:

It sounds to me sir, like YOU have already made that decision – or maybe your employer made it and you’re just still here working that angle as well as you can? Seriously, if questions can somehow ‘hurt’ the story, then the story itself is shaky and won’t hold up, meaning there are genuine killers going free today, who need to be identified and prosecuted. If the ‘truth is out there’ already, then the questions can’t hurt, can they? So what is your real purpose or issue here?

A pretty feeble response for a vicar, it seemed to me, and thus prompted the following comment, which at this time of writing had yet to pass the censor.

The issue is not the questions being asked, the issue is the baggage that is being brought along with the questions. Also the wacky theories. For example:

"Most likely, Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before with Adam Lanza’s body picked up by police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school. "

"Most likely," indeed, except we ain't got one scrap of evidence.

LOL

Jim Fetzer has a history of crazy ideas advanced as "Most likely" (see the article I linked to above), which only discredits the intelligence of his adherents.

And, Rev. Dave, since you use the title Rev, would you mind telling us by which church you were ordained. I mean if the title is supposed to confer credibility, the name of the church is surely relevant.

And now Prof. Tracy has allowed another of my comments at the MemoryHole blog:

Jim Fetzer has done a great job, sewing rancor and dissension among the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists and tarring most of them with the anti-Semite brush. Good work, Jim. But I guess as with my earlier comment James Tracy will delete this one.

In fact, Prof. Tracy did allow that one, with the following comment:

[Your] previous comment was not deleted, yet it appeared inflammatory and unproductive, and thus was withheld. One does not have time to “background” every post and the assertion here that James Fetzer is a sower of discontent and the one previous (“wacky conspiracy theories”) do not in my view hold up to serious scrutiny.

Which prompted me to point out that Jim Fetzer was a veteran wrecker of independent inquiry into possible state crimes, having successfully ousted Prof. Steven Jones, a key 9/11 researcher, from Scholars for 9/11 Truth and organization that Fetzer then made his own.

I am strongly inclined to believe that Prof. Tracy is what he appears, a decent academic undertaking a risky investigation for the sake of truth. But I fear that he has been targeted for total disruption of credibility by a drone named Jim Fetzer.

But we will see.

The Latest

Happily, Prof. Tracy has now approved all my comments, which naturally confirms my view that he's a sound fellow. But I will not test his patience for a while with further comments. I hope, though, that others who think it proper to ask questions when state authorities and the media offer a highly questionable account of policy shaping events, will visit Prof. Tracy's blog and provide constructive support.

And more from Aangirfan about the mysterious invisibility of Adam Lanza during the years preceding Sandy Hook.

See also:

Hate Week in America: Targeting Sandy Hook Truthers