America, Australia, Europe and Canada face sobering futures of entrenched poverty, massive welfare, linguistic chaos and tribal tension.  Those countries continues importing millions of immigrants from disparate civilizations around the world.  Canada expects to add 10 million immigrants. America expects to add 100 million immigrants by mid century.  Neither country can sustain those numbers, but don’t let that stop politicians from opening the flood gates. Australia and Europe are not far behind.

All those countries already witness the effects of mass immigration in crime statistics, failing educational systems, resource depletion, energy prices, crowded cities, endless pollution and dozens of other consequences.

My friend Canadian environmentalist Tim Murray brings it home as to “How not to build a country” in my latest interview with him.  You may reach him at www.ImmigrationWatchCanada.org .

What exactly is happening to Canada as well as many other western countries and what do you mean, “How not to build a country”?

“In the midst of trying to quell home-grown French-English conflict and complaints about new biculturalism and bilingualism policies, surrender to those who object to these policies,” said Murray. “Introduce conflict from outside by initiating multiculturalism. Then, change the source countries of Canada’s immigrants. Aim to dilute the Quebec population with immigrants from a non-European background. Apply the same policy to the whole of Canada in order to dilute it too.

“To further weaken both French and English-Canadian nationalism, elevate multiculturalism to the position of Canada’s new official religion. Transfer Christian good-neighbor principles to multiculturalism. Do not ask Canadians whether they want multiculturalism and a change in source countries. Have politicians assume that politicians know better. Have them impose their will.

“In order to raise Canadians’ acceptance of immigrants from non-traditional source countries, lower the value of Canada’s institutions and traditions. Belittle and demean Canada which immigrants obviously come to because it is superior to their own.  Attack the effects of the colonization of Canada on Canada’s Aboriginals. Imply that immigrants from non-traditional source countries would have done better. Begin the re-colonization of Canada. In 1979, have the Minister of Multiculturalism ( Norman Cafik ) make the outrageous statement, “There are no founding nations in Canada.”

“Have all our federal political parties parrot statements like this so they can get their share of the immigrant vote. Imply that  “multiculturalism” means only “multi-ethnic”. Conceal its real meaning which is to maintain or increase high immigration intake in order to overwhelm Canada’s Aboriginals, French and English. Institute “Thought Police” such as Human Rights Commissions to prosecute all those who think multiculturalism’s real goals are nonsense.

“Diminish any right that Aboriginal, French or English-speaking Canadians might have to setting immigration policy. Describe Canada’s population with a lofty, naive name such as “a United Nations”. Imply that Canada is impoverished and cannot be complete until it contains representatives from every tribe on the planet.

“Ignore the countless examples of countries that have been torn apart by civil war and tribal strife. Present Canada’s “United Nations” as true humanitarianism in action. Ignore the evidence that the United Nations itself, as well as many of its member states, often cannot function because of inter-ethnic conflict.

“Sponsor research into whether immigration produces an economic benefit and whether it will help to solve problems that an aging population might create. When the researchers report that (a) immigration produces virtually no economic benefit and that (b) using Canada’s own population, not immigration, is the best way to solve problems created by an aging population, ignore the researchers. Worse, tell Canadians the opposite of what your researchers have discovered. Repeat the lies many times.

“In 1990, have the Immigration minister raise immigration levels to 250,000 per year because, in her words, “the day is long gone when immigrants or any particular group are captive of any one political party”. In other words, have the Progressive Conservatives increase immigration in order to compete with Canada’s Liberal Party for the immigrant vote. In fact, institutionalize political party grasping for this vote. In elections, have all parties refuse to evaluate immigration policy. When they do mention it, have them grovel to recent immigrants, yet ignore 80% of all Canadian voters. In effect, have the ‘immigration tail” wag the Canadian dog. Have this policy continue for over 21 years, and bring in over 5 million people in that time. Present this 21- year abnormality in Canada’s immigration history as something normal. Ironically, falsely compare immigrant arrivals at Pier 21 in Halifax with immigrant arrivals today.

“To re-inforce the lie that Canada has no founding nations except Aboriginals, invent slogans like “We are all immigrants.”. Help to deny and erase over 400 years of French Canada’s past and 250+ years of English Canadian history. From 1989 on, allow the majority of the 800,000 refugee applicants to remain in Canada in spite of the fraud that many of them have committed. Then allow most of them to bring their relatives here. Play the race card whenever Canadians protest the fact that the refugee system is being abused and that Canadians are being overwhelmed by people Canada never needed.

“Encourage historians, and other like-minded academics who write about Canada’s past, to preach that Canada’s past is of no value. Have them re-write Canada’s history. Have governments make apologies which scorn generations of Canada’s dead. Encourage these academics to heap guilt on the descendants of Canada’s French and UK founders. Feed young Canadians a constant meal of guilt in their schools. Give academics unending public money to proclaim the wonders of multiculturalism and unjustified high immigration. Give preference to those Canadian “researchers” and “educators” who have culturally emasculated themselves.

“To provide jobs to immigrants whom Canada never needed, hire a biased judge to do a major study on Canadian hiring policies. Accept incompetent work and enshrine it as “Employment Equity” legislation which will discriminate against millions of Canadians, particularly white males. Force Canada’s public and private sector to spend millions on instituting “Diversity Committees” and to hire hundreds of thousands of people whom  Canada should never have brought here. Put these people into “Diversity Committee” positions where Employment Equity injustice will be perpetuated.

“In recessions since 1990, continue to import several million people Canada does not need. Put the search for “Diversity” above government’s duty to protect Canadians against unnecessary job competition. At election time, have all political parties shamelessly ignore the country’s own unemployed, yet boast that they support high immigration. Take away the employment opportunities which give hundreds of thousands of Canadians an identity and some dignity in their own country. Have the country’s labor movement do and say nothing about politicians’ betrayal. In fact, have unions participate in the betrayal by concentrating on the recruitment of new immigrants to their ranks rather than attending to the needs of Canada’s own population. Have unions also forget the key fact that an excess number of workers causes wage suppression.

“Tell Canadians, with programs like “Hire An Immigrant” and “Recognize Foreign Credentials”, that Canadians have no more right to employment in their own country than anyone else in the world who wants to come here. When people in many parts of Canada complain that high immigration is reducing their chances to find jobs and to afford housing, follow the model set by lazy  media and government hacks : refuse to look for evidence. Ignore the key fact that a constant inflow of immigrants causes continued demand for housing and raises housing costs.

“ Have a robotic, ill-informed and biased CBC, and media like them, shamelessly deceive Canadians about the immigration issue. Have the CBC and other media refuse to ask the obvious immigration question : “Why has Canada been bringing in about 250,000 immigrants per year for 21 years? Have the Canadian public pay the CBC $1 Billion a year, yet have the CBC daily abdicate its basic responsibility to tell the truth to Canadians. Have the CBC invent slogans like “Canada Lives Here” when in fact,  “Canada Dies At The CBC”. Have the CBC hire a Filipino “Diversity Manager” who arrogantly boasts that “Vancouver is an Asian city”. Have the CBC hire on a racial basis hundreds of other employees who will ensure that the CBC betrayal of Canada continues for generations.

“Have Canada’s cities become crowded and begin to resemble the environmental disasters many of Canada’s new arrivals came from. Have Canada’s Science Council produce a study on an optimum population for Canada. Ignore it when it recommends that Canada restrict immigration and limit its population. In fact, have environmental organizations tell Canadians that unending population growth is not to be feared and that all Canada needs to do is to densify its cities.  Have politicians spread the nonsense that Canada can take unlimited numbers of people and that Canada has unlimited resources. When Stats Can reports that Canada’s population growth is the highest in the G8, have these politicians and the media, especially the CBC, cheer-lead it —as if corrupt, incompetent stewardship of the land and unending growth on it were things that should be rewarded.”

Conclusion : It is no exaggeration to say that continuing down this immigration road will kill this country. The major immigration decisions that have been made in Canada for over 40 years can be reversed and need to be reversed now.

The prospects for conducting commerce are never an easy task. The hurdles to start a business much less stay competitive demands the greatest skill and fortitude. Innovation and inspiration often is the best course for those bold enough to become an employer. The idea that a level playing field exists for all comers is preposterous. The entire macrocosm for business rests upon separating your enterprise from that of your rivalries. Such is a basic lesson for those brave or foolish enough to enter the arena.

Courtney Rubin cites the following in Inc. Magazine,

“Businesses with 20 employees or fewer pay 36 percent more than their larger counterparts (defined as those with 500 or more employees), says the report – called “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms” — from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy. This is because a lot of costs are fixed — the same whether you have two employees or 2,000. Total annual cost of following the rules for a small business: $10,585 per employee, or about $2,830 more than big business. Businesses with 20 to 499 employees paid about $7,454 per employee, or about $300 less than the largest companies.The report estimates that 89 percent of all firms in the U.S. employ fewer than 20 workers. By comparison, large firms account for only 0.3 percent of all U.S. firms.

Says the report: “If federal regulations place a differentially large cost on small business, this potentially causes inefficiencies in the structure of American enterprises, and the relocation of production facilities to less regulated countries, and adversely affects the international competitiveness of domestically produced American products and services.”

The screams for jobs, jobs and jobs would give the hint that federal, state and local business policy would favor the productive engine of employment. However, in the real world of political influence and favoritism only the well connected get the advantages.

Government regulations are meant to stifle competition. The legislative process graces those who are well connected, financially heeled and schooled in the art of writing the regulations. Few small businesses have a legal department or experienced lobbyists.

In Big Business and Big Government, Timothy P. Carney writes,

“As the federal government has progressively become larger over the decades, every significant introduction of government regulation, taxation, and spending has been to the benefit of some big business.”

Mr. Carney presents compelling evidence on the history of this axiom, in his article. The net result from this covert partnership of interest and rewards is the never ending campaign contribution cycle that finances every election. The small businessman seldom has the resources or crony relationships to wage off the grand strategies of the giant corporate model.

Their advantage stems not from mastering sound and creative business practices. On the contrary, the major corporations use their brute force to buy or stamp out any contender that dares compete for market share.

Access to capital or the lack thereof, dooms most small businesses. The burden of regulations only compounds the severity of the survival rate and burns up reserved funds which often cannot be replenished. How can small business compete? – offers this insight.

“Small business can’t control mass-market designs or brands, but we are well-placed to do what big business can’t: Get inside the hearts and minds of our customers.“

As true as that advice resonates, the regulation landmines prevent small businesses from operating on a scale that can challenge all the advantages of the state sponsored conglomerates. The hard truth is that free enterprise is dead and in its place is an administered economy designed to suppress individually owned and managed businesses.

The prospects of reestablishing a political atmosphere that favors small business as the primary mechanism of job creation is remote as long as the transnational global and corporatist culture exists. Bigger is not better in most cases. Bigger usually means there are fewer companies in the same industry, accompanied with shrinkage in good paying jobs.

Theodore F. di Stefano suggests four steps that small businesses need to focus upon,

1. Creating a Niche

A niche is a special quality or group of qualities that sets the small business apart from its larger competitors. It has also been described as a small, specialized business market.

2. Employee Training

If a small business is going to act as though the customer is truly special, its employees must be trained accordingly. Also, they must work for managers whom they respect and who respect them. They must not be put on the “floor” to meet customers until they are thoroughly familiar with their product, be it food, auto services or any other product.

3. Management Philosophy

The owners of a small business must know the goals (mission) of their business and how they intend to achieve these goals. They should be clear about what segment of the market is their target and how they intend to appeal to that segment.

4. Good In-House Financial Management

You must be particularly aware of your current and projected cash position. And, you should certainly create a realistic annual budget for your company that serves as a financial road map for the future.

Now these common sense suggestions may assist in certain instances, but in a service economy, living wage jobs are rare at best. The regulations that drive business offshore also destroy a viable income scale. Reinstituting an American industrial and manufacturing base is a necessary step to climb out of this deep hole.

The regulatory climate must reflect policies that will benefit American workers. Open borders, that encourage illegal immigration, are a conscious regulatory policy that displaces domestic employees.

The regulations that slant and foster corporatist preference is the new feudalism. Is it not time to put Americans back to work? Without a political will to champion free enterprise and replace the corporate-state, only more suffering will thrive. It is up to the public to make this challenge the centerpiece for the 2012 elections.

Under the terms of the 50-state mortgage foreclosure settlement, US taxpayers could end up paying billions in penalties that were supposed to be paid by the banks. That’s the gist of a front-page story which appeared in the Financial Times on Thursday, February 17. The widely-cited article by Shahien Nasiripour notes that the 5 banks that will be effected by the settlement — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial – will be able to use Obama’s mortgage modification program (HAMP) to reduce loan balances and “receive cash payments of up to 63 cents on the dollar for every dollar of loan principal forgiven.”

And that’s not all. If borrowers stay current on their payments after their loans are restructured, the banks could qualify for additional government funds which (according to the FT) “could then turn a profit for the banks according to people familiar with the settlement terms.”

How do you like them apples? Leave it to the bank-friendly Obama administration to turn a penalty into a windfall. In effect, the settlement will help the banks avoid losses on mortgages that are vastly overpriced on their books and which were probably headed into foreclosure anyway.

Taxpayers will stump up the money for the principle writedowns that will allow the banks to extract even more tribute from underwater homeowners. What kind of penalty is that?

Here’s how Mark Gongloff sums it up over at Huffington Post:

“Banks will get government cash as an incentive to work down mortgages as part of a settlement that is supposed to punish them for their malpractice. Banks have been getting taxpayer money under loan modification programs like HAMP all along: $615 million in modification incentives so far. Those incentives were tripled on Jan. 28 just days before the mortgage settlement was announced, making the deal appear even sweeter for the banks.

“You can’t say this settlement has anything to do with deterrence or is punitive in nature if money is flowing into banks from taxpayers as part of the settlement,” said New York University Law professor Neil Barofsky, former special inspector-general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.” (“Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement: Who Pays?”, Huffington Post)

Of course, no one knows for sure how many perks and “bennies” the banks will eventually nab,  because the written copy of the settlement still hasn’t been released. Our guess is that the banks’ will come out smelling like a rose and that the 50 Attorneys General will end up looking like fools for taking their victory lap too soon.

Keep in mind, that the banks are really only on the hook for $5 billion in cash. The rest of the $25 billion settlement will be shrugged off onto investors in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) many of who are retirees and pensioners. They’re going to get clobbered while the perpetrators of this nationwide crime walk away Scott-free.

It’s also worth reviewing what this case is all about, which is industrial-scale fraud directed at millions of people whose lives have been ruined by the banks. Here’s a clip from an article in Reuters that helps to put it all in perspective:

“A report this week showing rampant foreclosure abuse in San Francisco reflects similar levels of lender fraud and faulty documentation across the United States, say experts and officials who have done studies in other parts of the country.

The audit of almost 400 foreclosures in San Francisco found that 84 percent of them appeared to be illegal, according to the study released by the California city on Wednesday.

“The audit in San Francisco is the most detailed and comprehensive that has been done – but it’s likely those numbers are comparable nationally,” Diane Thompson, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, told Reuters.

Across the country from California, Jeff Thingpen, register of deeds in Guildford County, North Carolina, examined 6,100 mortgage documents last year, from loan notes to foreclosure paperwork.

Of those documents, created between January 2008 and December 2010, 4,500 showed signature irregularities, a telltale sign of the illegal practice of “robosigning” documents.” (“Foreclosure abuse rampant across U.S., experts say”, Reuters)

Repeat: “84 percent of them appeared to be illegal …(and) those numbers are comparable nationally.”

So, why are we talking about “mortgage foreclosure settlements” instead of criminal prosecutions? Why hasn’t anyone gone to jail with evidence this compelling?

Look: The banks have been foreclosing on homes they don’t even legally own. That’s what robosigning is. Would you be willing to accept a measly $2,000 for being tossed out of your home and onto the street by someone who doesn’t even own the mortgage? Of course, not.

9 million homes have been lost to foreclosure since 2007, and there will be another 9 million before we’re done. Homeowners have lost $8 trillion in home equity (in the last 4 years) and 11 million people are currently underwater on their mortgages. All of this is unprecedented. All of this is the result of fraud.

Forget about the mortgage-foreclosure settlement. It means nothing. Someone has to go to jail. That’s what matters.

Let’s be honest, quite a few Americans love a good war, especially those Americans who have never had to bear witness to one first hand.  War is the ultimate tribally vicarious experience.  Anyone, even pudgy armchair generals with deep-seated feelings of personal inadequacy, can revel in the victories and actions of armies a half a world away as if they themselves stood on the front lines risking possible annihilation at the hands of dastardly cartoon-land “evil doers”.  They may have never done a single worthwhile thing in their lives, but at least they can bask in the perceived glory of their country’s military might.

This attitude of swollen ego through proxy is not limited to the “Right” side of the political spectrum as some might expect.  In fact, if the terrifyingly demented presidency of Barack Obama has proven anything so far, it is that elements of the “Left” are just as bloodthirsty as any NeoCon, and just as ready to blindly support the political supremacy of their “side” regardless of any broken promises, abandoned principles, or openly flaunted hypocrisies.  No matter how reasonable or irrefutable the arguments against a particular conflict are, there will ALWAYS be a certain percentage of the populace which ignores all logic and barrels forward to cheerlead violent actions which ultimately only benefit a select and elite few.

They do this, though they rarely openly admit it, because of unbalanced and irrational biases which drive their decision making processes.  In the case of the wars in the Middle East, the common public argument boils down to one of “self defense”.  “They are coming to get us!”  At least, that is what we are constantly told.  And I’m sure that some Americans out there truly believe this.  However, in their heart of hearts, others instead relish the idea of imposing their world views and philosophical systems upon others, even if it means using cluster bombs and predator drones.

Some people simply hate Muslims, for one reason or another.  Some people believe that war will bring with it economic gain.  Some are so afraid of what they do not comprehend that they only feel secure by attacking it.  Some believe that the U.S. citizenry is morally obligated to become entangled with governments like Israel’s, and support them without question as if they are infallible, though they are often just as corrupt as the governments we are directed to despise.  And yet others (for religious purposes), actually clamor for Middle Eastern destruction in the desperate hopes that their version of biblical prophecy will be vindicated.  Ultimately, most Americans who support continued destruction in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, do so out a selfish need for private absolution and elevation, not out of a sincere sense of patriotism, and not because nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Iran present a legitimate danger to their safety.

These men and women have invested their very identities into the mechanizations of collective war.  They will not be swayed by evidence or honorable arguments.  Any criticism of the actions of the collective will immediately be treated as a personal attack on their individual character, causing their minds to shut down completely.

As far as Iran is concerned, I am not here to convince the war-drum pounding zombie hoards infesting the mentally impotent sewage soaked wastelands of my country that their rationalizations for raining laser guided death on the third world is a “reprehensible thing”.  Given their impenetrable biases, which I listed above, that would be a complete waste of time.

I could, indeed, point out how in 1953 the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossaddegh, because he refused to allow global corporate interests to exploit his country’s oil resources.  I could outline how the forced CIA installation of the Shah in Iran and the creation of his secret police led to the torture and murder of thousands of innocent people.  I could list similar covert activities over the past 100 years or so, in countries all over the world, which have created the now universal disdain the third world has for the U.S. government.  I could even show them a PBS special from 1987 which effectively details this history and warns of what is now going on today.  The kind of mainstream news coverage that networks currently blacklist honest and daring journalists for:

But what about all the nuclear talk being shoved down our throats lately?  Doesn’t this supersede any historical concerns between Iran and the U.S.?  What if the terrorists get their hands on “the bomb”?!

On this issue, I could easily interject the fact that countries supposedly hostile to the U.S., like North Korea, have long had nuclear capability, and certainly the means to use infiltrators to deliver that technology, yet, we haven’t sent the Western war machine after them.  I would also set the record straight by mentioning that the ONLY country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon against another is the U.S.  I could educate these people on the exposure of secret Israeli nuclear weapons programs since the 1970’s, and the fact that Israel even attempted to illegally sell this technology to Apartheid South Africa:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-24/israel-tried-to-sell-nuclear-weapons/839404 

I could try to clear the air by reminding the uninformed that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently admitted that Iran has no nuclear weapons capability.  And, that this fact was repeated by an Iranian nuclear scientist, Sharhram Amiri, who defected to the U.S. in 2010 with the help of the CIA in the hopes that he could be used to disseminate propaganda on “secret” nuclear weapons programs in his former homeland.  Instead, he only reinforced the assertion that there are no such programs:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG21Ak01.html

With the CIA made to look foolish, they have now decided that Amiri is “peripheral” to the Iranian nuke programs, and is no longer a solid source of information.  I could follow by pointing out how decidedly convenient this is…

What about all the similarities between the lies on WMD’s in Iraq and the rhetoric against Iran today?  What about the disinformation put forward by the IAEA and its cadre of foreign policy yes-men?

What about the fact that back when Iran was run by our own puppet leader, the Shah, an iron-fisted sociopathic dictator, we were more than happy that the country was developing nuclear power plants:

Sorry, but sharing this information with the warmongering percentage of our American culture is futile.  None of this data means a thing to them.  For these people, it’s not about facts; it’s about foggy perception, uncontrolled emotion, and false identity.  Understanding the situation only complicates their pursuit of the next collectivist high; that frenetic freak frenzy that takes hold of a population and makes them swarm like mad bees, or hungry piranha, poisoning and devouring everything in their path.

With this in mind, the only recourse I could possibly think of to wake them up to their philosophical and moral folly is to expose them to very real and debilitating consequences they will face in their everyday lives in the wake of expanded conflict on the part of the U.S.  That is to say, you may hate Iran, you may hate Iranians, you may despise Muslims, you may be driven by a childish need to live vicariously through the exploits of your government, or, you might actually believe the hype that Iran is in league with Al-Qaeda, that they really are after nuclear weapons in a diabolical plot to harm Americans, and you might truly believe that Israel is that “beacon of freedom” in the Middle East and that all its neighbors must be pacified for the sake of democracy.  At bottom, whatever your deepest intentions, and whatever you might think, this is irrelevant in the face of the inevitable costs of war.  If you support such a war, here is how it will affect you when it breaks loose:

Exploding Oil Prices

The U.S. has had a ban on Iranian oil imports since 1979, however, Iran still supplies about 5% of the global oil market.  This might not seem like much, but Iran also has the means and ability to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is one of two major petroleum choke points in the world.  Around 17 million barrels of oil per day are shipped through the Straight of Hormuz, or about 20% of all oil traded worldwide.

In 2006, during the last major Iran war scare, experts predicted gasoline price increases in excess of $10 a gallon if Iran was invaded.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/07/news/international/iran_oil/

This would devastate the U.S. economy, which is already hanging by a thin thread.  Iran has announced this past weekend it will cease all oil shipments to Britain and France in protest of their support of economic sanctions.  This alone is causing oil to spike today.  A global energy crisis will financially decimate average citizens who will have their savings sapped by extreme price inflation, not just in gasoline, but in all goods that require the use of gasoline in their production and shipping.  If you like this idea, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

War Domino Effect

In January of 2010, I wrote an article for Neithercorp Press entitled “Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War”.  In that article, I warned about the dangers of an invasion of Iran or Syria being used to foment a global conflict, in order to create a crisis large enough to distract the masses away from the international banker created economic collapse:

http://www.alt-market.com/neithercorp/press/2010/01/will-globalists-trigger-yet-another-world-war/

In 2006, Iran signed a mutual defense pact with its neighbor, Syria, which is also in the middle of its own turmoil and possible NATO intervention.  Syria has strong ties to Russia, and even has a revamped Russian naval base off its coast, a fact rarely mentioned by the mainstream media.  Both Russia and China have made their opposition clear in the case of any Western intervention in Iran or Syria.  An invasion by the U.S. or Israel in these regions could quickly intensify into wider war between major world powers.  If you like the idea of a world war which could eventually put you and your family in direct danger, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

Dollar Collapse

Make no mistake, the U.S. dollar is already on the verge of collapse, along with the U.S. economy.  Bilateral trade agreements between BRIC and ASEAN nations are sprouting up everywhere the past couple months, and these agreements are specifically designed to end the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency.  An invasion of Iran will only expedite this process.  If global anger over the resulting chaos in oil prices doesn’t set off a dump of the dollar, the eventual debt obligation incurred through the overt costs of war will.  Ron Paul has always been right; it doesn’t matter whether you think invasion is a good idea or not.  We simply CANNOT afford it.  America is bankrupt.  Our only source of income is our ability to print money from thin air.  Each dollar created to fund new wars brings our currency ever closer to its demise.

This combination of disastrous economic policy and disastrous foreign policy has actually been used before.  Great Britain once sat in the position of economic authority that the U.S. sits in today, and the pound sterling was once considered the world reserve because it was required in the global trade of oil, just as the dollar is now.  However, British intrigues in the Middle East, and more specifically in Egypt, led them into extreme debt.  In the 1940’s and 1950’s, international banks led by America and France threatened to dump British Treasury Bonds in response to their efforts to dominate Middle Eastern oil.  Does any of this sound familiar?

This ultimately led to considerable devaluation of the pound.  In 1967, the death blow was finally delivered when Prime Minister Harold Wilson artificially reduced the British exchange rate by 14% overnight!  Meaning, in the span of a single evening, British citizens lost 14% of their buying power, and every product they went out to buy the next day would cost them 14% more.

It would be practical to mention that the move to destroy the British pound came right in time for the implementation of new programs for the construction of the European Union, and the Euro, the new supranational currency which would later become the standard.  The EU and the Euro never could have come about while the Pound Sterling remained a world reserve.  Just another amazing coincidence I’m sure, and one that couldn’t possibly have any relation to what is happening to the dollar in 2012, right…?

So, if you like the idea of losing 14% or more of your buying power overnight, and having that financial loss blamed on the tides of war, rather than on the corporate bankers who actually created the mess, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

Civil Liberties Destroyed

Do you like being able to walk down the street without having to suffer through constant pat-downs by low wage brain-dead cretins in blue gloves?  Does it make you feel good to know that if you are ever arrested, whether you are guilty or not, you are guaranteed by law to receive a fair trial by your peers in a civilian court with a lawyer by your side?  Do you enjoy taking a long drive with the family without facing check points, and predator drones constantly overhead every time you put the top down to feel the wind in your hair?  Don’t get too comfortable, folks!  These “luxuries” will soon be a thing of the past, especially as the U.S. financial situation deteriorates and war escalates.  Think of all the new threats the elites in our government can use to rationalize the usurpation of Constitutional protections when war with Iran, or Syria, or Russia, or China, or all of them at once, breaks out.

The term “terrorist” will take on a whole different dynamic.  Great national dangers often facilitate broader definitions of who is and who is not an “enemy of the state”.  Crisis gives wings to legislation like the NDAA.  In this kind of despotic environment, no one, even those citizens who support the state in nearly all of its enterprises, is safe.  Maybe you love the idea of war with Iran, but at the same time, hate the idea of having a TSA goon manhandling your wife or daughter in a train station or on a street corner.  Good luck with that.  Speaking out could be treated as disruption of national security measures.  Off to the gulag with you!

The “greater good” somehow always entails the dissolution of civil liberties for the common man.  Invariably, the establishment in power favors no one, save a highly connected few.  Being pro-establishment does not necessarily protect you from a government given free reign to do whatever it pleases in wartime.  In the end, everyone is fair game.

If this is the kind of America you want to live in, by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

If You Can’t See The Big Picture, You Can’t See A Thing…

The relentless drive for war in the Middle East is not about “spreading democracy”.  It is not about terrorism.  It is not about oil (at least for the most part).  It is not about Israel (at least, not the Israeli people).  It is not even about corporate profiteering by the Military Industrial Complex.  War in the Middle East is about changing the way our country and our world operates, culturally, socially, financially, and politically.  War opens doors to social re-engineering that could never be accomplished otherwise.  War creates fear, panic, rage, and allows dystopian fallacies to reign supreme.  War, unjust and dishonorable war, makes countries weak, and ripe for violent change.

Iran is not a threat to our way of life, and never has been.  But, war in Iran could easily upset the core of our entire country, and leave us wayward strangers in the land we were born.

While much of the rhetoric of preemptive invasion that America has been awash in these past few months is carefully crafted and disseminated by government entities whose intentions are far from honest, its effectiveness is mute without the helping hand of a thoughtless subsection of the public.  Every decade or so, a new generation of idiot spawn comes of age to be willingly sacrificed on the chopping block of globalist conquest.  This new decade brings with it the promise of not just more of the same, but perhaps the most costly tithe to the gods of war ever made in our country’s history.  This is not our fight.  This is a fight we are being conned into undertaking for the profit of others, and thus, it is a fight we cannot win.  Perhaps when the blind mobs of this nation feel the abrupt sting of their foolishness in their narrow day-to-day existence, they will finally understand…

Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market

The Israeli paper quoted a New York Times article that described such an attack as ‘highly complex operation’. It would require at least 100 planes.  Israeli jets would have to refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses and attack multiple underground sites simultaneously.

American military experts seem to agree amongst themselves that Israel doesn’t necessarily has the means to accomplish such an operation.

The first problem Israel faces is how to get to Iran. ”Israel has American-built F-15 and F-16 fighter jets that can carry bombs to the targets, but their range — depending on altitude, speed and payload — falls far short of the minimum 2,000-mile round trip. That does not include an aircraft’s ‘loiter time’ over a target plus the potential of having to fight off attacks from Iranian missiles and planes,” according to the report.

In any case, the report claimed, Israel would have to use airborne refueling planes, called tankers, but Israel is “not thought to have enough.”

Israel would also need to use its electronic warfare planes to penetrate Iran’s air defenses and jam its radar systems to create a corridor for an attack.

The analysts said another major hurdle is Israel’s inventory of bombs capable of penetrating the Natanz nuclear plant, believed to be buried under 30 feet of reinforced concrete, and the Fordo site, which is built into a mountain.

For some reason, the Ynet article failed to list the grave inevitable consequences of any aggression against Iran.  Such consequences include destruction of Israeli cities following barrages of Iranian missiles. But we may also bear in mind the possibility of a nuclear conflict that escalates into a global war.

The message to the Israelis is pretty clear.  Israel’s military options are running out. There is no way to maintain the Jewish State by the sword. The time is overdue for Israel to drop its expansionist genocidial philosophy. If Israelis really want to live in the region, they must pursue every means towards peace immediately.

Israel should voluntarily open its nuclear facilities to international inspection. Israel must sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treatyand dismantle its own atomic bombs immediately. Israel better  grasp what humanity is all about, before it is too late.

Moscow – For a month, Moscow was bracing itself for the February 4 Rally. It was pre-planned and prepared by the anti-Putin pro-Western liberal opposition, donning white colours. Despite sub-zero Fahrenheit (minus 20 degrees Centigrade) arctic frost, the organisers hoped to break their pre-Christmas record and gather a huge crowd and a procession to shatter the will of the government supporters. They had bought all thermal underwear in the city stores, joined forces with anti-Muslim nationalists of Pym Fortuyn kind, and marched in strength probably exceeding the previous rallies. Police counted them at 38 thousand-strong; by their own calculation they were up to 60 thousand.

But the surprise of the day loomed elsewhere. While the pro-Western opposition gathered on the Bolotnaya Heath (Le Marais) just across the river from the Kremlin red crenelated walls, a small demo was also planned as a token of government support on the Poklonnaya Hill (La Montagne), overlooking Moscow from the west. The White Fronde of the Heath applied for 60 thousand-strong rally permit and almost made it; pro-government forces planned for 15 thousand, and even this assessment was considered too optimistic: previous pro-government rally made between three to five thousand. Indeed, demos are good “against”, not “for” the government. However, the Poklonnaya Hill demo turned something completely different – the rally of the opposition to the White Fronde. And this rally had 138,000 participants, by the police count, almost ten times more than predicted.

The numbers are discussed and debated. Vechernyya Moskva, a city paper, published huge headline “138 000 : 36 000 Putin Leads”. Echo Moskvy, the voice of the Orange opposition gives 62 000 Heath vs. 80 000 Hill. The disparity in assessments is partly due to methods of counting. Some count how many people are located in the square at any given time (this will be a low estimate) but it is just a guess how many people came and went away; this is the flow factor. I would guess that the Heath had a considerable flow: it is a downtown place, easy to come, easy to go. Probably the Hill have had less flow, as it is an out-of-town place, hard to get there, hard to leave. So my guess would be 50 thousand for the Heath, and 110 thousand for the Hill. Though precise numbers are being argued about, but the numerical victory of the Hill was accepted by the Heath people, who said that they are fewer but of better quality Some Heath organisers claimed that the Hill mobilised hire-a-mob technique and paid cash to participants. This is an empty claim: nobody in Russia can hire so many participants. It is a common knowledge that three to five thousand people is the absolute maximum that can be mobilised by such measures, especially at such frost.

The Hill won because this largest rally was not “for Putin” – there were many speakers known for their dislike of Putin and his regime, but they hated the “white” (or “orange”) opposition of the Heath even more. If the West hates Putin, it should try the forces woken up by the rally. It became a rally against neo-liberals, against pro-Western policies, a rally of Red-Brown (or “patriotic”) alliance of statist nationalist opposition of Russia-First. They out-Putined Putin in no time.

This was a great surprise for the people of Moscow. It was thought that Putin will rely upon his own pet youth movements like Nashi and Steel, organised and paid for by the Kremlin some years ago as a fighting reserve in the case of an Orange revolution, but they folded and faded away at the first sign of trouble. The government officials, both high and low, did not support Putin, either. Nobody predicted Putin will wake up the sleeping beast of popular feelings.
The western mass media missed the point altogether claiming that the participants were hired or forced to demonstrate, or alternatively that there were few of them. Fox News did their best by broadcasting pictures of the Hill demo and saying it was the Heath. Other western agencies published pictures of 1991 rallies saying they were taken yesterday on the Heath. In Moscow, nobody was fooled: people knew when they were licked.

There is a huge untapped potential of Russia-First feeling, connected with resentment against Western imperialist policies. It is not homogeneous: some of these people have strong attachment to the memory of the USSR, others prefer memory of Tsarist Russia, and some are looking for an alternative future. These people and these tendencies were repressed and delegitimised in the Nineties, during the unhindered rule of the pro-Western liberals.

Putin is a compromise figure between the westernised liberals and Russia-Firsters; he used some of the Russian nativist rhetoric while carrying out liberal economic policy. Russia-Firsters survived his years, but they were never allowed into the corridors of power, where such figures as Alexei Kudrin and Anatoli Chubais, the favourites of IMF, prowled. This opposition burst forth on the Hill rally.

Among the speakers, there was flamboyant Prokhanov, a prolific writer and the chief editor of the Zavtra newspaper, the main organ of the Brown-Red coalition. He placed Russia as the next on the line of the imperialist attack, after Libya, Syria and Iran. He fully supported the Russian veto in the Security Council, but he would like to see more of direct Russian support for Syria and Iran, more friendship with China. He is a frequent traveller to Syria and Iran, is a great friend of Palestine, published a book glorifying Hamas and supporting Hezbollah. An Orthodox Christian, a mystic and a unrepentant Soviet-style Communist, Stalin admirer, he was very critical of Putin and his compromises. Fear and loathing of the Orange revolution mobilised him and his numerous followers to the demo.

Actually, it was the first time since Yeltsin shelled the Parliament in 1993 with the US blessing, that this hard core of Russian political life emerged and was allowed by the Putin’s government to show its strength. There were other speakers, notably Maxim Shevchenko, a popular presenter of the state TV, known for his sympathy to the Muslims and his staunch anti-Zionist stand; Alexander Dugin, “the Russian Heidegger”, a controversial philosopher from the Moscow State University, the founder of the Eurasian movement and a friend of the European anti-American non-racist New Right. They were fiery and outspoken, not-so-much for Putin but surely against his liberal “orange” opponents.

The pools say this feeling is widely spread in Russia, as the Heath protesters allowed themselves to be presented as spoiled brats, rich kids, people in expensive fur coats who like each other and despise the rabble. In vain they protested that they do not strive for an Orange revolution; this was the general feeling, and their connection with the leaders of the Nineties did not add to their prestige. The Heath organisers were aware of that, and none of these old politicians, no controversial figure was allowed to speak during the demo. As the result, they had very little to say beyond chanting Down with Putin.

In the end, the Heath protesters emerged with despondent mood, contrasting their feelings after December demos. They discovered that they hold no patent on rallies, and that their opponents can field many more people to the street. Probably their enthusiasm for rallies will now vane somewhat. The Russians are afraid of “orange” revolutions, as arranged by your friendly NED and other tools of the State Department. Many, perhaps majority of the Hill demonstrators were afraid of a replay of Nineties, or of Tahrir, and they were happy to support Putin as a symbol of stability. The government stocked up the fears, by flooding with limelight a visit of the opposition leaders to the US Embassy. Michael McFaul, the new US Ambassador found himself in the centre of controversy, with many parliamentarians demanding him being sent home for this meeting took place almost immediately upon his arrival and even before he presented his accreditation papers.

The Western governments did not understand this change of mood in Moscow when they demanded to vote on their draft of Syrian resolution. They expected that the Heath rally will frighten the Russian government and make it more pliable. They had a good reason: this was the general feeling among embassies’ interlocutors. When President Medvedev visited Moscow State U a few days earlier, a student (a Heath protester, apparently) asked him whether he is ready to meet the fate of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, or will he escape to his friendly North Korea. After the Hill demo this Saturday, he would not ask this question: it seems now too far-fetched. Nor the Russian government felt it should give in to the Western pressure on Syria: if the Hill speakers are to be judged by, now Russia is more likely to send its anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.

So it was a momentous day; a day of cruel frost, probably the coldest day of the year – next day, as if by order, it rose to perfectly palatable minus 12 degrees Centigrade (10 degrees Fahrenheit). Putin can be pleased with this development: the demos brought the Russians out of their hibernation, they are likely to participate in the Presidential elections on March 4, and the danger of massive stay-away disappeared. Putin supporters were woken up and discovered they are majority, while liberal protesters were reminded that Putin is a compromise figure, and their lot could be much, much worse if the Hill crowd were allowed to set its rules.

The Communists stayed away from both demos, they are busy building up the party chairman Gennady Zuganov as a credible alternative to Putin in the forthcoming elections, so they did not want to be seen as supporting Putin. It is possible that the elections will run in two tours, and then it will be Zuganov vs. Putin. For pro-Western forces in Moscow, that will be a difficult choice: they will have to decide whom do they hate more: Putin or Communists?

However, the liberals are not defeated. Their numbers are small, but they are well positioned. Though ex-Finance Minister Kudrin is now out of power and with the protesters, all his former minions are still installed in the upper echelons. The opposition has a lot of media at its disposal barring the powerful federal TV channels, and the latter are mainly putting out entertainment. The opposition has its supporters among the ultra-rich, and within the inner sanctum of the Secret Service as well. Liberal anti-Putin papers receive quite a lot of advertising from friendly oligarchs. The struggle will go on well beyond March 4, the elections day.

Alexei Navalny

Alexei Navalny is a rising star of the opposition movement. He made his name on disclosures of the barely legal tricks of Russian officialdom integrated with the moneyed crowd. These disclosures would hardly amaze Americans who remember Enron and the Brits who follow Tony Blair’s tax saga. Apparently, that is in part where the Russians learned the features of real capitalism, mainly warts. Such ugly arrangements – profiteering, usury and asset-stripping – are the mainstay of the current world political economical system. They should be disclosed, outlawed and punished, no doubt, but they are not uniquely or predominantly Russian, rather “modern-capitalist.” The U.S. ambassador in Moscow reported on Navalny some years ago to his bosses, calling him “a Russian Don Quixote” (08MOSCOW2632), for he fought a widely spread and common injustice.

Navalny’s other line was the uncovering of shady oil deals. The U.S. Embassy was not impressed by his results: they checked his findings, according to the wikileaked cable 08MOSCOW3380, with Western managers who told them in confidence that Russian seaborne oil trade had became “open and transparent,” in the words of Dave Chapman, general director of oil trading for Shell Russia.

The idea of Navalny as a new savior ran into obstacles, as his liberal supporters were visibly upset by his ties with Russian nationalists. An old Moscow liberal lady, a respected widow, reported that he called an Azeri party member by a racist term and was expelled from the liberal Yabloko party. Navalny reportedly made snide remarks about Georgian poets qua Georgians. However, the Russians are quite tolerant of racist abuse and probably this story did not hurt him much.

In a long interview with another liberal luminary, the best-seller writer B. Akunin (a Russian Harold Robbins), Navalny tried to dispel such fears, but he did not denounce nationalism. Perhaps Navalny’s nationalism is a clever card well played: at the top of the new Fronde there are not many ethnic Russians, and a “real Russian” with nationalist background would be a good thing to have in the front of a revolutionary movement which is blessed by many Jews.

“Ethnic origin” is not a major consideration in Russia – the country has been led by Tatars (Ivan the Terrible was a son of a Tatar princess), Germans (Catherine the Great was a German princess by birth), Jews (Trotsky and Sverdlov), by Georgians (Stalin) and Ukrainians (Brezhnev, also Khrushchev). Ethnic Russian nationalism was actively discouraged in Soviet times. Still, it is an advantage to have an ethnic-Russian personality at the helm of a movement.

Many liberals and non-ethnic Russians are deeply suspicious of Navalny. But their presentation of Navalny as a “new Hitler” is far-fetched. Blue-eyed, good-looking, a dash of the racist, yes, but not an especially silver-tongued one. Navalny tried to talk to the demonstrators in December but was catcalled more than once. His manner was too rude, as if he were talking to a street gang. He did not speak on the Saturday demo at all. His views are far from clear. When asked for a model state Russia should follow, Navalny said, “Singapore.” This is an odd choice for a person fighting Putin’s strong-arm style, as Lee Kuan Yew was probably more authoritarian than Putin. As fond as I am of Singapore street cooking, I can’t imagine a less suitable model for a vast multinational ex-empire than the tiny Chinese polis.

In an American Thinker piece titled, “Contraception, the New Useful Passion,” Horrocks does make some good points about how the left could turn the birth-control issue to its advantage and expand contraception to include even abortion.  Yet she also makes this claim:

“As a woman, I am qualified to state the following very clearly: there is no issue less suited to public discussion than abortion.  Like it or not, it is a personal decision.”

Actually, the above proves that, her chromosome configuration notwithstanding, Horrocks is thoroughly unqualified to comment on abortion.  And, as someone who has pondered the matter deeply and sought Truth, I am qualified to state the following very clearly: like it or not, abortion is a decision to murder another person.  Like it or not, it is for this reason a grave evil, a serious moral issue.  And, like it or not, since it is an action that directly harms another, no issue is more suited to public discussion than abortion.

Wherever one stands on the matter, however, there is more wrong with Horrocks’ statement than just the implicit misunderstanding about abortion’s nature, as bad as that is.  First, the idea that only a certain group defined by race, sex or ethnicity is qualified to comment on a moral issue has never been a conservative argument.

Rather, it is right out of the left’s playbook.

And, when taking this position, we are in league with those who state that only blacks are qualified to comment on racial discrimination in theU.S.  If we accept this position, we may as well accept that we Americans aren’t fit to comment on human-rights abuses in China because we’re not Chinese or on female genital mutilation in the Islamic world because we’re not Muslim.  We don’t understand the cultures, you see, so we should reserve judgment.  And sexual relativism is just as ridiculous as this cultural relativism, as both overlook a certain universal.

That is to say, just as there is no such thing as “personal” morality, neither is there such thing as the group variety.  To say otherwise is to wax relativistic – as the left will – and implies that morality doesn’t really exist; only personal preference does.  Morality, however, if it is anything but a confusing synonym for taste, refers to an absolute, universal and eternal standard for behavior that transcends not only individuals and groups, but man himself.

In point of fact, the only truly personal issues are those of taste.  This is because while morality originates outside of me and thus cannot truly be mine, my tastes actually are my own.  Thus, if Horrocks were to say that she loves vanilla but hates chocolate, it is a matter of preference, and it would be ridiculous for me to cast her palate as “wrong” and my love of chocolate as “right.”  There is no eternal truth stating, “Thou shalt not abide vanilla in thy midst,” and I’d be completely out of line if I mobilized for the flavor’s prohibition.

Being a universal, however, morality is far different.  To be good, to live a happy life and to derive meaning from it, morality is necessary – for everyone.  Being objective, it can be grasped by everyone.  And because man does not live on bread alone – and because the Truth does set him free – we all have a duty to search for, accept and profess morality.  It is not a flavor of the man or moment.

This is why, mind you, it’s silly when leftists (and some conservatives, it appears) dismiss unwelcome truths with the dodge, “Those are your ‘values,’” as if we’re talking about choosing a topping for a sundae.  If my “values” are correct, then they are not just values but virtues, and then, while I recognize their validity, they aren’t exclusively “mine” any more than the air God gave us to breathe.

Now, I’m not fond of throwing around the words “offensive” and “discriminatory” haphazardly as the left does.  But given that morality is needed by and meant for all of us, if anything is offensive and invidiously discriminatory, it’s the notion that I have no right to passionately express the truth on a moral issue because I’m of a certain race, ethnicity or sex.  I am a child of God, endowed by the Creator with an intellect designed to apprehend His law and with a divine mandate to do so.  Morality is a gift to which we all have a duty.  And to accept the proposition that racial, ethnic or sexual group identification disqualifies a person from professing it on a given issue is no different than claiming that this identification has a bearing on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, there can be a Machiavellian motivation for claiming that certain groups mustn’t say certain things: to grease the skids for an agenda by silencing opposition.  And while I don’t accuse Horrocks of this, it is a ploy of the left.  Note that liberals never claim that firearms owners, as the main group affected by gun-control law, are the only ones who should weigh in on it.  The left might now say that I’m ignoring here the victims of gun crime, but it seems there are some victims of abortion who are being ignored as well.  Anyway, the point is that just as many leftists seem to believe that life begins when a child can be taught liberalism, they also seem to believe that freedom of speech begins when you start peddling it.

Now I’ll for a moment discuss abortion, men and the micro.  We should note that a man is involved in procreation, and half of an unborn baby’s genes come from his father.  Moreover, many accept that the father has zero percent say on whether or not his child will be murdered; however, even more accept that, should the woman decide to have the baby, the man is 50 percent responsible for him.  But this is unjust, as with authority comes responsibility; and with responsibility, authority.

As for the macro, implicit in Horrocks’ commentary is something common today: the idea that social issues must be put on the back burner in the name of political expediency.  Now, I do accept that in the midst of a campaign and with politics being “the art of the possible,” it’s often wise to focus on what resonates with the people.  I also understand that the best way to reorient public opinion toward morality is through culture-shaping institutions in the media, entertainment arena and academia (call it a reverse Gramsci).  The problem, though, is twofold: traditionalists don’t have control over those institutions.  Second, there are many today – and some are “conservatives” – who behave as if there is never a time to talk about social issues.

These people simply don’t see the obvious connection between the ills they complain about and society’s moral state.  But there is a reason why Edmund Burke said, “It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters.”  There is a reason John Adams wrote, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue]…,” and Ben Franklin observed, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  And there is a reason why a multitude of other brilliant thinkers expressed the same sentiment throughout the ages.  Do you really think these men among men just needed a bunch of moderns to come along, shower their sagacity with shades of gray and set them straight?  Do you really suppose that the problems of crony “capitalism,” the most corrupt government in our history and the thoroughly immoral crypto-Marxist in the White House have nothing to do with the morality of the electorate?  Can we be one kind of people but have another kind of government?

As that apocryphal observation goes, “Americais great because America is good, and if she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”  No, it does not profit a nation to gain the world but to lose its soul.  And it won’t happen, anyway.  Because as our soul withers, along with it so does our world.

Like it or not.

The indigenous population and immigrants, we are all victims of a huge con. The perpetrators are a consortium of social manipulators and political elites that are on the payroll of the higher echelons of the banking cartel. These people can carry out treason and create mass misery and suffering on a global scale without a hint of conscience as they are psychopaths.

A psychopath has no empathy and no concern for fellow humans. It is a clinical condition in which part of the frontal lobe in their brain is missing. Families, such as the royals, deliberately want psychopaths hence the reason for their interest in bloodlines. They strive to keep that condition within their family as it has served them well throughout their bloodthirsty history. When looking through the royals’ family tree it is awash with blood curdling antics of their ancestors. Their huge wealth was achieved by their ruthlessness throughout the ages. The same can be said for the banking families such as the Rothschild’s, whose monetary scam holds the world to ransom.

Regardless of race, it is estimated psychopaths amount to about 4% of the population. They are brilliant at what they do; they are evil master illusionists and manipulators. The current mass influx of immigrants into Britain today is similar to what happened in the former USSR. Stalin deliberately uprooted populations, moving them into areas where they would swamp the indigenous population thus destroying their culture. Such a wicked policy can only result in misery for the indigenous population and immigrants alike. Whereas Stalin’s immigration policy was at the point of a gun, the European policy is much more subtle, it’s done by economics. The objective is very simple. Once the populations’ culture has been destroyed and they have no hope, they are then easily controlled. Create an economic slump and degradation whilst promulgating the notion that the indigenous population are lazy and don’t want to work. That creates resentment and ultimately civil unrest. It divides society and creates race hate. In addition to this, all totalitarian governments endeavour to break up the family unit, thus creating disharmony and a population of inner city feral youths. This can be clearly seen today along with deliberate dismantling of the countries industry, thus creating high unemployment. Degradation leads to riots, race hate and a break down of law and order.

Eventually the government creates a police state in order to, in their words, maintain law and order. The entire con comes from the mindset of the Tavistock Centre and Frankfurt School and the British public have fallen for it hook line and sinker! The evidence is clear to see, but due to the mindset the masses have been brainwashed with, they choose not to see it. That is how the criminals in government and their overseers get away with it; the general public are extremely ignorant and gullible! In reality we currently live in a single party corprotocracy. We are supposed to vote for a left wing or right wing political party but in reality all major political parties have the same hidden agenda. Even lower rank political party members appear to be too gullible to notice it. They believe the hype and the illusion that’s constantly pumped out on the mass controlled media, that’s mainly owned by the same banking families that operate the world wide banking scam. The collusion of state and industry, ultimately controlled by banks, where an elite bunch of super rich industrialists and government ministers rule over a population of tax slaves is pure totalitarianism.

That is what we have today. Living under the constant threat of unknown bogy men, such as state sponsored terrorists, enables the rulers to tighten the dictatorship screw even further. Simply look at the evidence for 9/11 and 7/7 and the official story can be shown to be a pack of lies. The masses prefer to accept what they are told from an official source as that is what they are conditioned to do. Even, so called, educated people go along with the official story whilst evidence for the opposite is obvious and staring them in the face! I have nothing against anyone from any race, religion, country or culture providing they respect British culture and they have chosen to settle in this country for the right reasons. Getting the best from other countries, such as cuisine, natural medicines and technological know how can only enrich, providing respect is given to the indigenous culture and such respect is reciprocal. Many immigrants in the past came to these shores because there was something about Britain they liked and they wanted to be part of it. Some fled persecution in their own countries. Their offspring’s are now very British and many have no connections with the country their parents or grandparents came from. Mass immigration has, in many cases, upset the social cohesion they once had. Sometimes second and third generation offspring’s from immigrants are incorrectly labelled as economic migrants or bogus asylum seekers when they are not!

Again, I believe this is all part of the master plan to divide and rule people, eventually leading to a police state. Mass media debates about the huge influx of economic migrants are deliberately skewed in order to miss the obvious. Anyone that speaks out is instantly branded a conspiracy nutter or racist. The psychopaths divide and rule agenda under the guise of “Multiculturalism” is like rat poison – 90% sweetener, 10% lethal and their hidden agenda appears to be running like clockwork! The planners of the forthcoming Orwellian nightmare know full well that economic migrants attract criminal psychopaths from their countries of origin, like bees around a honey pot. Criminal psychopaths’ predatory behaviour instinctively capitalises on any new opportunity We wouldn’t allow a village idiot to captain a ship, neither would we allow a mental retard to fly a fighter aircraft, so why then do we allow psychopaths to rule us? The answer is simple; it’s because we don’t know how to recognise them!

As said in previous articles, if a system were set up to root them out before they reached high office, it would probably be run by psychopaths who would start a witch hunt that would victimise innocent people! It’s not easy. I have had around forty years experience of an in-law that’s allegedly a psychopath who caused an emotional tsunami in my family. I know their mannerisms and thought process but armed with that knowledge and experience, it’s still very difficult to recognise a psychopath before it’s too late! The reason is because they are brilliant at what they do. Even so, there are some chinks in their armour that can reveal their real motives, if you know what to look for. Psychopaths lack the ability to dream and they are usually as shallow as a puddle on a billiard table! Contrary to popular belief, very few actually kill or maim people; they get others to do their dirty work! Because they don’t have a conscience they can create mayhem without feeling the slightest tinge of guilt.

Psychopath politicians can promise the earth. When they achieve high office they can go back on all they said without any conscience about it whatsoever. Their acting skills are second to none. When creating a war and sending young men to their deaths, psychopath politicians can give breathtaking performances of consideration and grief, when in fact they couldn’t give a damn! Strangely, they all seem to work to the same agenda, as if they were given a script when young. They also recognise fellow psychopaths and form alliances with them. From an early age they know they have the condition and are fully aware they are different from the rest of the population. They create havoc around them so that they can be the pillar of strength and reason amongst the ongoing pandemonium. Their objective is to create an atmosphere of distrust amongst honest individuals. When people distrust each other, it creates stress. This is clear to see around us today. Psychopaths seem to thrive on that form of tension. They are never in the firing line as their skill of manipulation enables them to work on people that are susceptible to their domination. Such people unwittingly create the mayhem whilst the psychopath distances themself from it, as if it’s nothing to do with them, whilst in reality they are the instigators and controllers. Psychopaths have an uncanny ability to overpower and control susceptible people; their targets are usually shy polite articulate individuals that don’t answer back.

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions but it would have been impossible for him to do it himself, he got others to do it! Many of those that carried out executions were probably not psychopaths, but they had been brainwashed by them. Those in high office seem to have an obsession with clubs. They like to get people into clubs and organisations so they can categorise them and ultimately control them. Clubs and organisations can be infiltrated. Any opposition can therefore be controlled. To peacefully and lawfully fight against psychopath dictators it is essential to be individualists. They can’t infiltrate an individual, although they can arrange a suicide or fatal accident for them if they get too dangerous. It is therefore essential for the criminals in government to be overwhelmed with individuals in the general population, so much so it would be impossible for them to destroy them all. There are many aspects of the psychopath psyche, too numerous to list here that gives their game away. Unfortunately anyone that has not had first hand experience would probably not notice such clues.

Science though may have the answer. A brain scan would reveal dark spaces in the frontal lobe area of their brain, indicating psychopathic tendencies. Perhaps if everyone seeking high office were compelled to have a brain scan, it could prove to be a step in the right direction. Again though, how could we be sure the test would not be run and corrupted by psychopaths? In that sense, brain scans are probably not a good idea. My personal belief is education is the answer. If the populous are educated and taught to seek out the facts and not accept propaganda as fact, psychopaths would find it increasingly difficult to promote their hidden agenda. People are waking up to the fact they are being continuously conned but within that process, the psychopaths are busy putting out red herrings and promoting false awakenings. As said at the beginning of this article, the indigenous population and Immigrants, we are all victims of a huge con.

Unless honest, decent folk of all cultures and faiths stick together and peacefully and lawfully root out the real enemy of the people, we face a very bleak future.

I am currently writing a book about psychopaths, based upon my experiences and research. The book was started about three years ago and is currently about two thirds finished. It will hopefully be available later this year. For further details, please see: 

Source: warveteranson.blogspot.com

Do you remember the second terms under President William Jefferson Clinton and George Walker Bush? Even the most rabid partisans cannot say with a straight face that memorable government came during their last four years. Now the nation suffers from the Obama malaise that rivals the Jimmy Carter debacle. The dependency culture, especially in the post 911 incarnations, adjusted to the heavy hand of government omnipotence to accept the next level of political excess. Recent polls suggest that the enlightened voters of the nanny state are prepared to cast their ballot to give Barry Soetoro another term. Their answer to the proverbial question, are you better off today than four years ago, indicates just how far the collective mentality of the electorate has fallen.

The essential dialogue, which the mainstream press refuses to report, avoids the depth of the tyranny that government has achieved. Examine the range and scope of federal agencies and compare those to the most invasive and desperate days of World War II. If one awoke from a long Rip Van Winkle sleep and declared your loyalty to the American Revolution you would be judged a terrorist. This ironic twist from rising from a resting slumber as a British subject, to a free and independent citizen, is all upside down today. The American empire replaced the Crown and the sovereign individual became a doped dependent to a dominating despotism.

With this context in mind, can you blame the brain dead voter from casting their X on the ballot form and pay homage to the foreign-born dictator? If you are one of the parasites that feed off the public trough, you will hail the emperor that wears no clothes as your hero. This simple relationship may well explain why the prospects for four more Obama years are in the cards.

A site called Obama’s Achievements Center provided a laundry list of Obama Administration’s Achievements. The categories include:

Take the time to browse some of the items on this site and separate the promises from the results. If this is progress, can you imagine the giveaway programs in a second Obama Term? By any reasonable standard, the presidential election should stand or fall on the prospect of the economy. However, Michael Tefft sheds perspective on how one defines the political significance of the economy in It’s Official: Most Americans Make Their Living Off The Government.

“A widely covered report from TrimTabs Investment Research, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, has found that 35 percent of all earnings are now direct transfer payments from the government. According to CNBC, “social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960.”

But the real story is much worse. Nearly 8% of Americans work directly for the government while an additional 9.6% of Americans work as contractors for the government. Taken together, more than half of all Americans make their living directly from the government. “We have reached a tipping point,” says Grassfire Nation’s Steve Elliott. “That’s why what is happening in Wisconsin could have huge ramifications. Unless citizens stand now for less government and fiscal restraint, the government-dependent class will demand more and more government and our nation will be destroyed from within.”

A little historic context adds to the analysis. Michael Filozof in Prepare Yourself for Obama’s Second Term reminds what happens when the opposition loses their nerve.

“Does anyone remember the disaster that was Bill Clinton’s first term? The first attempt to put gays in the military, the first attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics, and the “Assault Weapons” Ban? The proposal to raise taxes, increase spending, and downsize the military? Hillary arrogantly proclaiming that she was no little Tammy Wynette standing by her man and baking cookies? That she would revamp the entire health care system, by herself, in secret, without congressional input? Does anyone remember the Waco debacle, which led directly to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Clinton’s allegation that it was the fault of talk radio? Does anyone remember the landslide Republican victory in the House in 1994, breaking forty straight years of Democratic control — a massive rebuke of the Clinton administration?

And yet…Clinton got re-elected in 1996. He didn’t just squeak by, either — he won a crushing 379-159 victory in the Electoral College and beat the Republican ticket by eight and a half percent in the popular vote.

Conservatives were in shock. How could this happen? Answer: after the 1994 conservative revolution in the midterm elections, the Republican 1996 presidential campaign turned into the Revenge of the Flaming Moderates.”

Nonetheless, most rational voters ignore the phony illusion that Republicans are really a counterweight to the madness of the Marxists that pose as Democrats. The preposterous pipe dream that the loyal opposition will act different from the current criminal regime is a true test of the mental health of the idiots that believe there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

A favorite leftist site alternet lists Nine Things Obama Should Do In a Second Term.

Now some of these objectives as, break up the big banks seem appropriate in the abstract. However, the devil is in the details, which are written or managed by the very institutional interests that are viewed as the cause of serious problems. Some will reach out for a small glimmer of hope for gridlock. However, few astute observers project that a genuine reversal of the nanny state is possible much less likely.

From Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis theorizes in Obama’s Second Term Would Be Neither Groundbreaking Nor A Calamity.

“As I noted, the tendency for second Presidential terms to be largely a disappointment is something neither Democrats nor Republicans would like to acknowledge publicly. Democrats would prefer their supporters to think that a second Obama Administration would mean further progress on the goals set in the campaign, many of which have been abandoned over the past three years. Republicans, on the other hand, want their supporters to believe that a second Obama Administration would be an absolute calamity and, indeed, I’ve run into more than a few conservatives who seem absolutely convinced of the silly idea that the re-election of Barack Obama would mean the end of America. Neither of them would get much political mileage out of telling their supporters the truth, which is that a second Obama Administration is unlikely to be anywhere near as successful in achieving its goals, especially if one or both Houses of Congress is controlled by the opposition (or as long as the filibuster exists in the Senate).”

Most serious conservatives see every administration as a calamity because disappointment is the actual legacy of the last presidency. Even the venerable Daily Paul site fears that the Liberty message will die once again at another Republican convention. Consider the horror of this prospect. ‘Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, has said that Republican turmoil might lead to a brokered convention in which Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, would emerge as a ‘possible alternative’ party nominee.’The tangible tragedy is why did not some “Blue Dog” Democrat challenge President Obama in a primary? The Loony Left can always draft Keith Olbermann as their standard-bearer if they were serious about their mindless ideology. Allowing the Obama clone another four years proves that big government proponents have lost their own self-respect.

The absurdity of staged elections should sicken every real American. Under a second Obama presidency, you will never be better off again. A vote for this pretender tool is the height of lunacy. What else can you expect from a society populated by comatose Rip Van Winkle snoozers? If you want your vote to have meaning, Ron Paul is the only choice.

Warren’s death raises the Taser-related death toll in the U.S. to at least 500.

Warren was unarmed. And that is not uncommon. In fact, a 2008 report by Amnesty International (AI) examined data on hundreds of deaths related to police Taser use and found that an alarming number of those who died were unarmed.

According to the report, “Tasers are frequently deployed in situations where firearms or other weapons would not be an option. For example, police have used Tasers on unarmed people who fail to comply immediately with instructions, who struggle while they are being handcuffed or who try to run or walk away from minor incidents. People who are intoxicated or verbally disruptive, but not committing, or threatening to commit, a serious crime have also had Tasers used against them.”

More recently, AI cited the case of Roger Anthony, who last November “fell off his bicycle and died after a police officer in North Carolina shot him with a stun gun. The officer reportedly shocked Anthony – who had a disability and hearing problems – because he did not respond to an order to pull over.” Anthony, too, was unarmed.

In the wake of the grim new milestone of 500 Taser-related deaths, AI is repeating its call for tighter limits on police use of lethal weapons. “Of the hundreds who have died following police use of Tasers in the United States, dozens and possibly scores of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force being used,” said Susan Lee, Americas program director for AI. “This is unacceptable, and stricter guidelines for their use are now imperative.”

AI is calling for strict national protocols for police use of Tasers and similar stun weapons that would effectively replace local police policies that permit a wider use of the weapons, often in situations that do not warrant such a high level of force.

While law enforcement agencies defend the use of Tasers, saying that they save lives and can be used to subdue dangerous or uncooperative suspects, AI contends that the weapons “should only be used as an alternative in situations where police would otherwise consider using firearms.” Indeed, as we’ve seen at least 500 times now, Tasers can be just as lethal as firearms. And too often misused.

And so I contend that the unnecessary overuse of Tasers against unarmed and unthreatening individuals can only be called lazy and cowardly at best.