Happiness in Slavery – REVOLT OF THE PLEBS

By Keith Johnson

Don’t open your eyes
You won’t like what you see
The blind have been blessed with security
Don’t open your eyes
Take it from me
I have found you can find
Happiness in slavery

Nine Inch Nails-Happiness in Slavery

Think you’re free? Think again, slave!

This week the Federal government will attempt to auction off 118 billion dollars in U.S. debt to anyone who thinks the U.S. dollar is a great place to be.   Of course if you ask liars like Fed Chief Ben Bernanke or his young sidekick “tiny” Tim Geithner, they will most certainly assure you that the dollar is strong and that the U.S economy is on a miraculous rebound. But this is fiction.

Lets do our own risk assessment, shall we?   After all, barring any foreign investors stupid enough to take the bait, it’s going to be you and I… and several generations of our descendants left holding the check as the fat gluttons on Wall Street lick their plates before dashing out of the restaurant.   But I warn you; what you are about to read is nothing short of horrifying and should convince you – once and for all – that we are in the final stages of a freefall spiral into outright despotism.

Stewart Dougherty is a specialist in inferential analysis, the practice of identifying historic and contemporary patterns and then extrapolating their likely effects upon the future.   In his recent piece, “America’s Impending Master Class Dictatorship”, Mr. Dougherty crunches some numbers for us and finds:

“According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent report on wealth, America’s private net worth was $53.4 trillion as of September, 2009.   But at the same time, America’s debt and unfunded liabilities totaled at least $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion), or 225% of the citizens’ net worth.   Even if the government expropriated every dollar of private wealth in the nation, it would still have a deficit of $66,600,000,000,000.00 ($66.6 trillion), equal to $214,286.00 for every man, woman and child in America and roughly 500% of GDP.   If the government does not directly seize the nation’s private wealth, then it will require $389,610 from each and every citizen to balance the country’s books.”

Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of scratch!   Few of us do!   And though we should feel no obligation to pay this debt, we still must bear some of the responsibility for allowing it to happen. Somewhere along the way our ancestors dropped the ball.   Our fathers failed to heed the warnings of great men.   They allowed their words to echo down the memory hole into oblivion only to be replaced with the words of actors, sportscasters and anchormen. They allowed great texts and historical documents in our schools to be substituted with training manuals and rulebooks for the enslaved.   Their apathy has delivered us into dependence, and from there we are entering back into the final stage of a never-ending fatal sequence: bondage.

Democracy may well be the worst of all forms of government.   We are often told of the virtues of democracy and taught that it was under its principles that this nation was founded. But that is not true.   We were born a Republic; a representative form of government designed to protect the rights of the individual. However, from the day of our nation’s founding, insidious forces within and from without have incrementally caused our government to deteriorate into a democracy.   Where once the center of power was concentrated in our elected representatives in the House and senate, that power has now been usurped by the Executive Branch.   The vast majorities of Americans have considered their vote for the presidency as the single most important elected office, and as a result, have rendered their sovereignty to that single entity.

The office of the President has become a seat of power.   Through signing statements and a self appointed “executive privilege”, the President has become a ruler rather than a servant of the people who acts upon the direction of Congress.

Though the author of the following passage is unknown, it has been quoted as part of a speech given in 1943 by American Industrialist H.W. Prentis though much of what he said has been attributed to late 18th Century writer Andrew Fraser Tytler.   Regardless of who or when it was said, it certainly seems prophetic now in relation to the situation we currently find ourselves in…

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.   A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.   From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.   The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

· From bondage to spiritual faith;
· From spiritual faith to great courage;
· From courage to liberty;
· From liberty to abundance;
· From abundance to complacency;
· From complacency to apathy;
· From apathy to dependence;
· From dependence back into bondage.”

That last part, that has come to be known as the “Tytler Cycle”, could be used to chronicle our nation’s rise and fall from the day our ancestors fled the tyranny of King George (from bondage to spiritual faith), the American Revolution (from spiritual faith to great courage), the Declaration of Independence (from courage to liberty), the Industrial Revolution (from liberty to abundance), the signing of the Federal Reserve Act (from abundance to complacency), the Great Depression (from complacency to apathy), the entry into the United Nations (from apathy to dependence) and everything that has happened since: the endless wars, socialism/facism, the CIA, etc., etc., etc. … (from dependence back into BONDAGE!)

Should we accept our fate?  Surely we can adapt.  A frightening number of men and women whom have received long-term confinement in our nation’s prison system succumb to a thing known as “institutionalized syndrome” characterized by a loss of independence and self-confidence, erosion of desire and skills for social interaction and fear of authority.  Upon the prospect of release many prefer to stay in that nightmarish environment rather than face the world alone due to excessive reliance on these institutions to provide food, clothing and shelter.  Could this be where we are headed?

And what of our destiny?  Will we go the way of North Korea, a communist regime that controls it’s population through hunger and fear?   One only needs to read accounts of daily life in it’s largest city, Pyongyang to conclude that this is precisely what our masters have in store for us.   Imagine living in tiny living quarters within towering, drab apartment complexes that siphon intermittent supplies of water and electricity while reliably feeding government propaganda through living room speakers that can never be fully turned down.   A place where no citizen is allowed to drive or even own a bicycle.   A place where rations of food are so miniscual that hunger and starvation are commonplace.

And though I suspect that none of us will live long enough to be forced to live under such harsh conditions, is it acceptable to use that as an excuse to leave that fate to our children?  Perhaps for some of you it is.  Perhaps the work that lies ahead of us is an insurmountable task.  Perhaps the victories of our enemy have caused you to become complacent, even apathetic in your own personal “Tytler Cycle”? If so, then I wish you well.   Hopefully you will find comfort in the distractions provided to you by our social engineers.   And although you may find your liberty in short supply, be comforted in the fact that there will always be an abundance of drugs, sports, music and all manner of entertainment to keep your buzz going through these tumultuous times.

If you accept this conclusion then I offer, in parting, these words from Samuel Adams:

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.   Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.   May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

In other words, may you find “Happiness in Slavery”.

Full Article


Advertisements

Obama Administration Approves Killing Americans Abroad

by Noel Brinkerhoff
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obama_Administration_Approves_Killing_Americans_Abroad_100205
Friday, February 05, 2010
Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans. This policy was acknowledged by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair while testifying on Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee.   Blair tried to reassure lawmakers that the government would be careful before making the decision to kill Americans. “I just don’t want Americans who are watching this to think that we are careless about endangering—in fact, we’re not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country,” Blair said   One of the Americans most likely to be targeted is U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, now living in Yemen. Born in New Mexico, al-Aulaki earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering at Colorado State University and an M.A. in Education Leadership at San Diego State University. He has has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and to Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day.   Apparently the U.S. did try to kill al-Aulaki in an air strike in Yemen the day before Abdulmutallab’s attempted plane bombing, but it would appear that he is still alive. -Noel Brinkerhoff   Intelligence Chief Acknowledges U.S. May Target Americans Involved in Terrorism (by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post) US May Kill American Extremists Abroad (Agence France-Presse) Imam Says Fort Hood Killer Asked about Killing GIs a Year Ago.

FACTBOX-U.S. companies involved in Taiwan arms sales

Boeing China Airliner

Boeing China Airliner

Jan 30 (Reuters) – China said it would impose sanctions on companies involved in a planned $6.4 billon arms package for Taiwan that the Obama administration sent the U.S. Congress on Friday.

Here are the main arms included in the package, and the companies that make them. Other weapons systems are to be opened to bid.

* Sikorsky Aircraft Corp, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), would supply 60 UH-60M Black Hawk utility helicopters. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion. United Technologies sells Otis elevators and Carrier brand heating and air-conditioning in China.

* Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) would build 114 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 anti-missile missiles for Taiwan. Raytheon Co (RTN.N) would integrate the systems. The deal’s estimated value is $2.8 billion. Neither of these companies is believed to do major business with China.

* Boeing Co (BA.N)’s McDonnell Douglas unit builds Harpoon Block II Telemetry missiles. A proposed sale of 12 of them to Taiwan would be worth about $37 million. Boeing sells commercial aircraft to Chinese airlines. (Sources: Reuters, U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency) (For more on U.S.-China relations, click [ID:nCHINA]) (Reporting by Ralph Jennings and Jim Wolf, editing by Anthony Boadle)

State Council: U.S. planned arms sale to Taiwan runs counter to sound development of cross-Strait relations

English.news.cn

BEIJING, Jan. 30 (Xinhua) — The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council said Saturday that U.S. planned arms sale to Taiwan was in violation of its commitment to supporting the peaceful development of the cross-Strait relations.

The move ran counter both to the sound development of the cross-Strait relations and to the fundamental interests of the Taiwan people in the long run, said a spokesperson for the office.

The official said the fact that the U.S. side announced plans to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan in disregard of strong opposition from China would only instigate the pro-independence forces in the island and hamper the peaceful development of the cross-Strait relations.

The spokesperson also said the improved cross-Strait relations were in the common aspiration of the people on both sides of the Strait and had won support from the international community.

The current situation did not come easy, and therefore should be cherished, the spokesperson added.

The New American Plutocracy

by Paul Kurtz
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 20, Number 4.

Plutocracy: (1) government by the wealthy, (2) a controlling class of the wealthy. From the Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos, wealth, and kratia, advocate of a form of government.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections there is little or no debate on what I consider to be a central issue for the American future: the emergence of a new and powerful plutocracy wedded to corporate power. Regrettably, none of the major candidates will deign to even discuss this vital question. Only Ralph Nader has identified it. But he has largely been ignored or parodied by the mass media. Typically, Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, has ridiculed Nader precisely for his attacks on “corporate power.” Senator John McCain did raise the issue of the special interests and soft money corrupting the political process. But he has been rebuffed and has climbed into the same bed with Bush. Many do not consider Nader to be a viable candidate, for the Green Party does not represent an effective political coalition. Neither Free Inquiry nor the Council for Secular Humanism can endorse political candidates, but this should not preclude me from presenting my own personal views about the deeper humanist issues at stake.

A plutocracy is defined as “government by the wealthy.” The critical question that should concern us is whether the United States is already a plutocracy, and what can be done to limit its power. This question, unfortunately, will not be taken seriously by most voters-but it damned well ought to be.

Ancient Greek democracy lasted only a century; the Roman republic survived for four, though it was increasingly weakened as time went on. As America enters its third century we may well ask whether our democratic institutions will survive and if so in what form.

As readers of these pages know, I have been concerned by the virtually unchallenged growth of corporate power. Mergers and acquisitions continue at a dizzying pace, as small and mid-sized businesses and farms disappear; independent doctors, lawyers, and accountants are gobbled up by larger firms; and working men and women are at the mercy of huge global conglomerates, which downsize as they export jobs overseas.

I have also deplored the emergence of the global media-ocracy, whereby a handful of powerful media conglomerates virtually dominate the means of communication. A functioning democratic society depends upon a free exchange of ideas; today fewer dissenting views are heard in the public square, as diversity is narrowed or muffled.

Full Article

THE ATLANTIC: The Quiet Coup

FACTSNEWS- MUST READ! Lengthly, we will only post the first paragraph.

Full Article

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

ONE THING YOU learn rather quickly when working at the International Monetary Fund is that no one is ever very happy to see you. Typically, your “clients” come in only after private capital has abandoned them, after regional trading-bloc partners have been unable to throw a strong enough lifeline, after last-ditch attempts to borrow from powerful friends like China or the European Union have fallen through. You’re never at the top of anyone’s dance card.

The reason, of course, is that the IMF specializes in telling its clients what they don’t want to hear. I should know; I pressed painful changes on many foreign officials during my time there as chief economist in 2007 and 2008. And I felt the effects of IMF pressure, at least indirectly, when I worked with governments in Eastern Europe as they struggled after 1989, and with the private sector in Asia and Latin America during the crises of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Over that time, from every vantage point, I saw firsthand the steady flow of officials—from Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and elsewhere—trudging to the fund when circumstances were dire and all else had failed.

Every crisis is different, of course. Ukraine faced hyperinflation in 1994; Russia desperately needed help when its short-term-debt rollover scheme exploded in the summer of 1998; the Indonesian rupiah plunged in 1997, nearly leveling the corporate economy; that same year, South Korea’s 30-year economic miracle ground to a halt when foreign banks suddenly refused to extend new credit.

But I must tell you, to IMF officials, all of these crises looked depressingly similar. Each country, of course, needed a loan, but more than that, each needed to make big changes so that the loan could really work. Almost always, countries in crisis need to learn to live within their means after a period of excess—exports must be increased, and imports cut—and the goal is to do this without the most horrible of recessions. Naturally, the fund’s economists spend time figuring out the policies—budget, money supply, and the like—that make sense in this context. Yet the economic solution is seldom very hard to work out.

No, the real concern of the fund’s senior staff, and the biggest obstacle to recovery, is almost invariably the politics of countries in crisis.

Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.

In Russia, for instance, the private sector is now in serious trouble because, over the past five years or so, it borrowed at least $490 billion from global banks and investors on the assumption that the country’s energy sector could support a permanent increase in consumption throughout the economy. As Russia’s oligarchs spent this capital, acquiring other companies and embarking on ambitious investment plans that generated jobs, their importance to the political elite increased. Growing political support meant better access to lucrative contracts, tax breaks, and subsidies. And foreign investors could not have been more pleased; all other things being equal, they prefer to lend money to people who have the implicit backing of their national governments, even if that backing gives off the faint whiff of corruption.

But inevitably, emerging-market oligarchs get carried away; they waste money and build massive business empires on a mountain of debt. Local banks, sometimes pressured by the government, become too willing to extend credit to the elite and to those who depend on them. Overborrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country. Sooner or later, credit conditions become tighter and no one will lend you money on anything close to affordable terms. Full Article

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails

Infowars
June 21, 2009

It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Herr Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.

It is significant Kissinger went on television and said this — it means flattening Iranian cities and killing babies is more than likely the position of the globalists if the “green revolution” currently underway fails. Kissinger is a big muckamuck Bilderberger and David Rockefeller minion.

Attacking Iran, as the neocons have long called for, will prove to be disastrous. The Iranians will shut down the Strait of Hormuz where around 60% of the world’s oil passes if they are attacked by the United States. This will take down the world economy overnight.

But then the globalists and banksters want to take down the world economy so they can impose their globalist banking and control structure. Attacking Iran and killing thousands will kill two birds with one stone.