Greece's Economic Troubles & More Economic

Updates

The financial crisis in Greece is important to know about, because it can teach lessons on how we
ought to conduct our own finances. In many cases, the wealthy don't pay that much taxes, but
the rest of the citizenry do. Many of the protesters in Greece and the Tea Party movement
reject an oligarchy shifting the tax burden unto labor. Other Tea Party members have lost so
much faith in government that they desire to ignore reforming the government. Reforming
the state can give the government the power to check predatory finance and wealth. A fair
fiscal policy is needed in American instead of a regressive economic policy that benefits those who
are massively wealthy. Some of the Tea Party's lust to shrink government so much as to ruin their
interests doesn't work either. The neo cons and the elite are using the Greek crisis to promote the
borderline fascist policy of cutting social services, Medicare, Social Security, etc. This is the
opposite of what the Greek demonstrators are demanding: to reverse the global tax shift off property
and finance onto labor, and to give labor’s financial claims for retirement pensions priority (over the
claims by the banks to get fully paid on hundreds of billions of dollars of recklessly bad loans
recently reduced to junk status). The Greece bailouts is like TARP for German and other
European bankers (among global speculators). So, almost $1 trillion is provided by the
governments (like Germany) to be sent to Greek government to pay foreign bondholders. This is
occurring while reimbursements occur on Euro-governments, the IMF, and even the U.S. Treasury.
So, the bondholders are being given money as an excuse to cut Greek public services,
pensions, and other government spending. It's junk economics to believe that the economy
can pay down their debt by using austerity measures and give bankers more bonuses. Less
public spending on social programs will leave more bailout money to pay the banks for their
exponentially rising bad debts that cannot possibly be paid in the end. It is inevitable that
loans and bonds will default in the usual convulsion of bankruptcy. Financial experts realize this.
The good news is that many in Greek labor are fighting for their rights and liberty. The Baltic states
have used slashing public sector employment and wages causing their GDP to fall as well.
Latvia's austerity measures were opposed in December of 2008. The EU and the IMF austerity
measures have influenced Europe as well. At least Iceland and the Baltics have the option of
re-denominating loans in their own currency, writing down their foreign debts at will and
taxing property to recapture for the government the revenue that has been pledged to
foreign bankers. Greece is submerged in the euro currency. In America, high finance have more
control over spending programs. The doctrine of the submission of the financial sector under the
needs of economic growth have caused massive economic growth from 1945 to the early 1970's.
Bondholders and financial speculators have ganged up to demand EU, IMF and US support
for them to take their gains before the financial game crashes. Certainly any human
being should be given opportunities to get a job and the working class ought
to have their rights protected. If power today is redistributed in favor of the
rich in the majority of the time, power should be redistributed in the right
fashion to benefit all of the people. Many of the poor pay payroll income
taxes (among about ¾ of Americans) and local taxes. This refute the neo con
lie that the poor don’t pay enough taxes like the rich does (the rich pay the
federal income tax). Tax credits can even fight against tax liabilities from
across the income bracket. One example is that if you owed $5,000 and you
get a tax credit of $8,000, the tax liability is gone. You get $3,000 of surplus
of money. When you take it all in, the tax system isn’t as progressive as a
reactionary claims. It’s a paradox for a reactionary to criticize the
government for making them pay too much taxes, but some of them believe
that the poor pay too little taxes (So, their ilk wants the poor to accept a
regressive tax system). I reject their stands. The tax code should be
reformed, but not in a regressive way. It’s not about having a fetish against
all government. It’s about eliminating corruption in government to make it
work for the people.
Some of the Tea Party people need to realize that a regressive tax shift isn't reforming the
government at all. The people should control the government in creating economic populism
without austerity measures. We should not put the tax burden on labor (and industry). There is no
right of giant corporations to dominate our government. The U.S. is spending billions of dollars in
foreign wars. This policy isn't apart of fiscal responsibility and it's allowing Wall Street to do what it
wants whenever it wants (with little form of regulation). Eliminating all regulations is wrong too.
Some U.S. corporations are intent on continuing — and even expanding — foreign wars, low taxes
for the wealthy, and when needed, further bank/corporate bailouts. Less government does not
necessarily equate to better government at every circumstance. With critical thinking, tea party
zealots must recognize that it was not excessive government action that caused the Great
Recession. It was rather too little government action to stem the greedy actions among banks and
other financial institutions. The core problem is not excessive government but the corruption of
government by those in the corporate private sector and other special interests.

The central banks of the European Union are accused by deliberately controlling the Greek debt
crisis so they can consolidate their power. It's easy to see that the moves by the EU is to try their
best to preserve the Euro currency. The EU was a brainchild of the Black Nobility bloodlines and the
Vatican in order to centralize power in Europe (even if its means that violation of the national
sovereignties of European nations). The unprecedented €750bn EU bailout has been condemned
as not being utilized correctly. This criticism comes from people from across the political spectrum
as again not being utilized correctly. Some in the Financial Times believe that key players believe
that the bailout is apart of an overall consolidation plan in Europe to cause a giant step toward a
fiscal union in the eurozone. Select central banks in control of numerous nations have been a goal
of elitists for a very long time. Right now, some want us Americans to bailout
Greece in their crisis. There is nothing wrong with legitimate assistance, but
the USA is suffering its economic troubles too. Getting money from
Americans isn't the answer to this crisis. People realize that the Great
Depression was created by the giant Wall Street bubble of the 1920's
(Andrew Mellon did bad policies too as the Treasury Secretary 13 years
before the inuaguration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt). This was
when bank deposits came about on speculative gambling, which is why
Glass-Steagall was passed. This caused a run on American banks. Some
believe that the 2nd leg of the depression was caused by European defaults. The 2nd leg of the
Great Depression was worse than the first. The second leg down was primarily initiated by the
failure of the Creditanstalt bank in Austria. Creditanstalt (also spelled Kreditanstalt) declared
bankruptcy in May 1931. This caused a financial panic spreading worldwide. One reason for the
2010 Greece crisis is by the corrupt policies of the IMF, the international bankers' promotion of toxic
waste & derivatives, and other reasons. Spain unveils billions in deficit cuts to halt eurozone crisis
fears. Spain will slash public spending by €6bn and cut civil servants' by 5pc salaries this year as
part of a plan to ease fears the country could slide into a debt crisis like that of Greece.

*Austrian economic propagandists are still here. They just don't go by the names of Ron Paul, Lew
Rockwell, Alex Jones, Frank Rubio, John Stossel, etc. One such person is named Jacob
Hornberger. He's apart of the Left/Right paradigm since he feels that economic freedom is a
left/right deal. He mocks the New Deal. The New Deal isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than
what he promotes. The legitimate parts of the New Deal gave social programs for people literally
starving to death in the streets and had some economic populist policies. The government in recent
decades have deregulated the market and laxed laws against usury (plus it has legalized
derivatives). Today, some in the Obama administration and others want to have IMF style austerity
measures. Hornberger tries to glamorized the Gilded Age when it was a time filled with child labor,
corruption, and other evils. These evils were enacted by the robber barons in the late 1800's. In that
time there was the Crime of 73 and other measures that immorally distributed or transferred
landholdings (plus pledged collateral) form bankrupted farmers and business owners to criminal
financiers. There was fractional reserve lending. These policies were done by private interests for
private gain. Austrian schoolers views all government regulation as evil and want the fractional
reserve banking system to be unchecked. I don't agree with that since I reject land speculation and
depression causing monetary deflation. The laissez capitalist proponents typically ignore the
excesses of the Gilded Age like privilege transfer programs. Hornberger uses the deception that
claims that any form of social programs or a safety net is akin to socialism when he criticized Social
Security. Not to mention that people on welfare would decrease if the corporations didn't exploit the
economics of the West. Though, I do believe in welfare to help those that need it.
The reality is that Social Security originally was a trust fund to help the elderly in America.
Even Founding Father Thomas Paine advocated a social insurance program. He wanted a tax on
ground rent to fund it instead of a tax on wages. Austrian school salespeople don't admit this fact. In
Hornberger's mind, anyone who supports Social Security -- or a social safety net of any kind -- is, by
definition, a socialist, fascist, and philosophical soul mate of Adolf Hitler. I don't agree with this at all.
FDR didn't adopt fascism as Hornberger claimed. The industrialists in America tried to assassinate
him to create a fascist dictatorship. The Austrian School don't see economics as grey sometimes,
but more black and white. I disagree with their views. Hornberger is right though to disagree with
Glen Beck on civil liberties and foreign policy matters. The Austrian School was created
by aristocrats from Europe. It's an aristocratic economic philosophy then.
It's as simple as that. For the first years of Mises’s life in the United States,
he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the
Rockefeller Foundation. Ayn Rand (the later leader of this archaic philosophy) saw
selfishness and greed as virtues. That’s wrong. Ironically, the Rockefellers exploited
the Gilded Age in their power to maintain their control (back then, there was
an epidemic of sweatshops, child labor, extremely low wages, and other
evils. In 2010, this doctrine is found in the Chicago University via the Chicago School). The
primary purpose of the Austrian School all along has been to protect and
entrench this privilege of the super rich elite -- not eliminate it (under the
covers of "liberty" and "free markets" that some Tea Party rallies have taken
up). Adolf von Habsburg is the one the mentioned as co-founder of this Pelerin
Society. Otto von Habsburg (from the Pan-European Movement) is the guy whose ideas serve
as the basis for the EUSSR, i.e. the European "Union." The Pelerin Society promotes Austrian
economics or laissez faire capitalism.

Rand Paul is having his controversy. Like father like son I guess. Ron Paul has been exposed as
bashing the 9/11 Truth Movement, believing in the lie that any government interference in society is
akin to socialism, and having ties to a Masonic fraternity group. His economic philosophy existed
from aristocrats who had ties to the pro-European Union movement. Ron Paul spoke out against the
Armenian Genocide Resolution bill when he spoke in CNN’s “The Situation Room.” Ron voted
against action to condemn the genocide in Darfur and voted against Rosa Parks being awarded the
Golden Medal. He doesn’t believe that the government should provide health care among the poor,
the disability, and others that need it. Now, Ron Paul believes in the deception that when a private
organization moves a person out of welfare, that organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its
worth to donors. What is the truth? The truth is these organizations (in welfare reform schemes) get
money and put pressure on people to accept any job (even if you have a handicap or have health
problems). The corporations just get money and reap the benefit as a private agency. So, it’s a
reality that some assistance is needed for those that need it. Ron Paul's Economic doctrine
comes from Adam Smith, which is the modern father of “laissez faire capitalism.” Smith
was friends with Jeremy Bentham, who was a British agent. Let it be known that I know
tons of British people that are real patriots. So, I want to make that clear. Bentham wrote an
essay called "In Defense of Usury." The Mises Institute, which is linked to Ron Paul's
Campaign for Liberty website has propaganda essays like, "The Case for a 100% gold
dollar", and "In defense of the Robber Barons" (where the author tries to defend the
Rockefellers). The labeling of all Government activities as "Marxist Socialism,” which the
Mises website does in nearly all of their articles, is a deadly threat to humanity. Ron Paul's
economic doctrine is the same as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s. Cut everything, and hope the
economy recovers are their agendas. As you can see from the following, the powers that be
are still to this day parroting the Mussolini line of "Balance the Budget" during economic
hardship stuff, all the while completely dumping every cent of our GDP into bailing
bankers out of a abyss. Ron Paul blames the government explicitly for the
problems in this country. The government is to be blamed for many of the
economic & political problems in the USA, but these complications are not
only the government’s fault. The privatized FED spent 24 trillion dollars.
The private sector created the 1.5 Quadrillion dollars of worthless debt
based securitized assets. Numerous bad laws have been lobbied for by
corporations and banks. This isn’t related to socialism at all. Many of
America’s debt come from derivatives that are caused by the deregulation
of the market. Even Dennis Kucinich accurately commented that: “…The
free market doesn‘t mean Wall Street should be free to steal from the
American taxpayer. It‘s a free market, not a spree market…” That's Ron (who
hypocritically believes in competition, but is very skeptical on the government trying to compete with
the private sector). Now, Rand Paul made headlines recently. Rand Paul told MSNBC host
Rachel Maddow that he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, he didn't say whether he
will support or not support whether any private business can discriminate against people
based on race. He also said that he believes in the right of racist people to say mean things,
but he denies being a racist or supporting segregation in the United States. What is the truth?
The truth is legally, free speech is definitely broad. You can say anything you want with exceptions
like slander, threats, etc. Although, even in a private business, there is still government regulation.
Even a private business can't do what they want whenever they want like discrimination, selling
poisons, doing fraud, and other acts of abuse. You still need a public charter in numerous cases to
form a business. Using Rand's logic, BP can pump oil in any U.S. coastline arbitrarily, companies
can sell lead in their products, and private businesses can have theft or they can have fraud (all in
the name of “freedom“). So, Rand Paul is wrong to acquire that extreme libertarian mindset that
government regulation ends in private functions. Private functions are still bound on legal
parameters set up by federal government. The Civil Rights Act acted as a legitimate means to
prevent discrimination in the workplace whether that workplace is in a private or public format.
Nothing in Rand Paul's statements were controversial since his views are common among a certain
segment of the U.S. populace. We know which segment of the populace commonly
embraces Paul‘s views now don‘t we. I don't believe he's a serious racist, but he just
adheres to that extreme form of libertarianism (except on some of the morality questions). He is an
ideological extremist. He is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he
cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated.
You don't have a right to do as you please on your private property as Aleister
Crowley believed. You have no right to murder, and do fraud on your private
property. That's against the law. Limitations exist. I believe in the existence of
private property and private property rights, but I reject private or public corruption.
This doesn't mean that all regulations are legitimate. Some regulations are fine and
some regulations are wrong of course. A bad regulation is the bill that desires the
government to shut down the Internet during times of an emergency. Simplistic
ideologies does nothing to meet the real needs of the environment, health, education, our civil
liberties, our foreign policy, our labor, our economic system, etc. Rand Paul is running for the
Republican Senate seat in Kentucky. I don't hate the man, but I do disagree with the man on some
issues. He's being hit by the neo con crowd too in trying to force him to accept their archaic views on
foreign policy.

*The Senate passes the Financial reform bill. Some critics believe that it doesn't go far enough in
trying to promote real financial reform. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 59-39. It won't fix the
core problems in the financial or prevent a next financial crisis. The bill don't include the Volcker
Rule. It wasn't even debated. The Volcker Rule is about breaking up or substantially reining in the
too big to fail banks. It doesn't force transparency in the derivatives market. Senator Feingold said
that the bill doesn't eliminate the risk to our economy posed by the too big to fail financial firms. It
doesn't have the real safeguards that was created after the Great Depression, which separated
Main Street Banks from big Wall Street firms. That can prevent another economic meltdown. These
reforms were lacking in the bill. This crisis created the nation's worst recession since the Great
Depression. Senator Cantell said that this bill doesn't deal with the loopholes in derivatives
trades that led into the economic implosion. Congress made efforts to weaken the bill by
lacking key reforms in derivatives trading. The bill refocus the financial system away from
synthetic bets and get more capital in job creators and Main Street businesses. There are
some good provisions in the bill, but it still has loopholes in it. Nouriel Roubini said that the bill
is cosmetic and won't stop the next crisis. Others have said that this bill won't prevent the
next crisis. Dodd himself has admitted that his bill “will not stop the next crisis from coming." In
fact, the bill is wholly ineffective, failing to address the core things which need to be done to stabilize
the economy. The bill won't remove the massive government guarantees to the giant banks, and it
won't even increase liquidity requirements to prevent future meltdown. Senator Ted Kaufman said
that there are walls in the bill. The Moody’s report stated: “…the proposed regulatory
framework doesn’t appear to be significantly different from what exists today.” The reforms in
the bill don't change the size of the big banks. The regulators are limited in cracking down on Wall
Street in the future. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman said that the Dodd bill has unlimited
executive bailout authority. This is what Wall Street received. Sherman is the senior member of the
House Financial Services Committee and a certified public accountant. Arthur Delaney said that the
bill have carve outs purchased by lobbyists. Corker mentioned a few hits from the carve-out list:
“Private equity firms are left out,” he said. “Hedge funds are left out.” Select central banks controlling
capital in a feudal fashion has been exposed by Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley (He was Bill
Clinton's mentor) in the following words:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to
dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as
a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central
banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in
frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the
Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned
and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private
corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization
of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of
financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."—Carroll
Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time, Macmillan
 Company, New York, (1966) p. 337.

People have broken up Standard Oil, so it's fine to break up giant banks. Even Senator Ted
Kaufman, who was interviewed recently by the American Prospect's Tim Fernholz said that
Ted (and Senator Sherrod Brown) wanted to have an amendment to cap the size of the
largest banks. This can break them up. Kaufman said that we broke up Standard Oil,
AT&T, and accountants as well. So, he said that: "...A lot of the changes we’re
talking about, the mergers, are just new. When you look at the reasons
these banks are so big — and you know how big they are — remember the
reason JP Morgan Chase is so big is because they bought Washington
Mutual when it was in trouble, and Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, and
Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch [during the crisis]. It is pretty
straightforward, now that these are back on their feet, that it makes sense
to break them up..." Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wants U.S.
regulators to consider breaking up large financial institutions that are considered too big to fail. He
said that: "...Those banks have an implicit subsidy allowing them to borrow at lower cost
because lenders believe the government will always step in to guarantee their obligations.
That squeezes out competition and creates a danger to the financial system..." Greenspan
told this information to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Breaking up Standard Oil
back in 1911 didn't cause too much issues in the economic world. You have to have solutions in
solving economic problems. Busting big banks is needed to have a policy that can work for the
financial system. There should be the resurrection of the Glass Steagall Act that prevented the
separation of commercial from investment banking (and get antitrust laws to the remaining 5 biggest
Wall Street banks so none is too big to fail). Economic historian Niall Ferguson wants a serious
application of antitrust laws to the financial services sectors and an end to institutions that are too
big to fail. Geithner is proposing that] there should be a new “resolution authority” for the swift
closing down of big banks that fail. But such an authority already exists and was used when
Continental Illinois failed in 1984. Indeed, even the FDIC mentions that Continental Illinois in the
same breadth as “too big to fail” banks. William K. Bank was the senior regulator during the S&L
crisis and an associate professor of both Economics and Law at the University of Missouri. He said
that the Prompt Corrective Action Law (PCA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831o, not only authorizes the
government to seize insolvent banks, it mandates it, and that the Bush and Obama
administrations broke the law by refusing to close insolvent banks. So, the government can
find a way to break up the Big Banks if they wanted to.
Those in the economic populist movement want financial and election reforms. There should be a
ban on bad derivatives that have infected mega banks. A Derivative is essentially a mass of toxic
unpayable mortgages or (futures of mortgages) that are worthless. They are "Exotic investment
vehicles" that the private banking sector promised tremendous returns on, in today's case a mass of
unpayable mortgages. All ill gotten assets of Henry Paulson, Bernard Madoff, and others should be
liquidated in order to replenish retirement funds they have raided. There should be a debt free
money system to spend at no interest to fund the repair & production of public goods and other
services. "Rights vs. Privileges" is a book written by Robert De Fremery that
talks about switching from a debt-based money system to a debt-free money
system. Robert believed that you can avoid an collapse by having credit
expansion using money that is independent of debt (and at the same time
take away the banking system's privilege of creating any more credit. This
means to according to Robert De Fremery: "...force banks to confine their
lending operations to the leading of existing funds..."). This can work if the money
supply is spent and mechanisms are used to prevent hyperinflation. All economists from
across the political spectrum view hyperinflation as wrong. Similar proposals have
occurred among Richard C. Cook and Ellen Brown. Cook want a National dividend
paid directly to the people (plus community saving banks) along with the
government spending debt free Greenback-like money to society. Big Money via
monopolists were so evil in the Gilded Age that laws were passed to safeguard workers and
financial instruments. The robber baron had overt market dominance and trusts (or their
power was centralized into a few hands to be manipulated for maximum profits and power).
These robber baron back in the late 19th century and the early 20th century go back the names of
Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and JP Morgan. There was the traitor President
Andrew Johnson. He was probably the most racist President in history as mentioned by the History
Channel. He supported radical free trade and opposed even Abraham Lincoln’s moderate policies.
He believed in the myth that black people were inferior to the white race and wanted black citizens
to be relegated to a plantation system. He opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that simply
gave citizenship rights to African Americans. That is why Congress override his vetoes. He was so
wrong that Congress impeached Johnson and nearly threw him out of office. Andrew Johnson
opposed Reconstruction (he wanted to constrict the currency and tax productive wealth). Even
Morgan hated competition. It would be some of these families that formed the Jekyll Island meeting
to set up the Federal Reserve Banking system. President John F. Kennedy according to Donald
Gibson's book entitled "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency," wanted to oppose "free
trade," he believed that industry should serve the nation, and America ought to develop cheap
energy in order sustain its independence. Gibson believed that the oil/banking cartel raised oil prices
to levels in order to trap the world in a web of debt. In fact, on June 4, 1963, he issued Executive
Order (EO) 11110 giving the president authority to issue silver certificates absent of the Federal
Reserve. This is why JFK followed foreign aid, nation to nation cooperation,
low interest loans, he believed in Third world nationalism, and other populist
policies. It is therefore the Austrian School, not its critics, that is mindlessly
denying "reality" when it blindly insists that printing new money is
automatically inflationary. Printing new money doesn't cause inflation if the
resultant increase in the money supply does not exceed the increase in
economic output. So, our economy is filled with debt-based currency, which of course is
a problem. Yet, the oligarchs want another bad prescription of using austerity measures in Greece,
America, and worldwide in order to praise their god of the "free market." This is why the IMF in
many nations force countries in economic turmoil to force the government to shutdown social
services, thereby cutting off the lifeline of the lower classes. This is class warfare in its most vicious
form. It literally results in starvation just to protect the cashflow of rich financiers who hold the
country’s debt. We also see Greece being required to outlaw cash for some transactions. This is a
strategic goal the financial powers have for the world. A cashless society makes people
completely hostage to electronic debit/credit cards controlled by the banks. Austerity is a bad
plan for everyone except the upper class. This is why economic populists want money spent to
infrastructure projects that are approved by the people in order to grow the economy. The market
isn’t ruled by an invisible hand. Most of the markets are controlled by the elite and their puppets
found in Paulson, Bernanke, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the IMF, etc. It’s as simple as that.

Even Barack Obama's advisers have ties to Wall Street just like the Republicans have their
corporate interests. The elite funds even the Austrian Economic system in order to covertly
promote evil austerity measures here in America. America is the last on the list to be fully
controlled by the corporate elite in the industrialized world. These austerity measures
include cutting Social Security entitlements, increasing the social security tax, and other
measures (as promoted by CFR member Peter G. Peterson and others). The Federal Reserve
is not really pushing money to the people directly. They are lending it to select banks, while the large
banks have been buying up smaller banks, lands, farms, etc. The government should spend money
directly to create jobs, provide services, and stimulate productivity. This doesn't cause inflation if
supply and demand increase together. Inflation only occurs when the demand exceeds supply (or
goods and services). The Social Security going bankrupt is a myth even mainstream economists
really don't believe. It's a pay as you go system. Today’s social security taxes pay today’s
recipients; and if necessary, the tax can be raised. Federal Reserve Notes compose only about
3% of the money supply (or M3). M3 is money supply that deals with things other than
currency, CD, etc. The other 97% is issued by private banks in the form of loans. M1 and M2
are other major money supplies in American society. Money should never be owned by select,
private hands. Those in the economic populist movement want states even to form their own banks
in order to help citizens solve their financial issues. If the banks in the states issue notes without
interest from other places, it can create savings. One example of this is the State Bank of North
Dakota that made its debt solvent (or it meet its financial obligations) and has large surpluses. This
bank partners with private banks to loan money to farmers and small businesses. It makes 1%
loans to start up farms, has a thriving student loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from
public institutions. Conversely, Congress is refusing to sent California a modest $26 billion to cover
its $26 billion budget shortfall. This is in spite of the at least $700 billion bailout money sent into
international banks via Congress. I'm not even mentioning the bonuses and the trillions committed
by the FED to the big banks like Goldman Sachs. The federal government has even rejected
California's request for a loan guarantee that can save the state hundreds of millions of dollars in
interest. A loan guarantee is a promise among 2 parties in economics. One party or the guarantor
makes a promise to assume the debt obligation of a borrower if that borrower defaults (or that party
can't pay off their debts). California can create their own bank to handle that debt crisis. If California
uses their parks, buildings as its capital base (without FDIC capital requirements), the multiplier
effect can take shape to create billions of dollars in credit. The multiplier effect is when your money
supply expands after banks are able to lend (the deposits created are the multiplier effect after you
handle the reserve requirement. For example, if I deposit 100 dollars, and the reserve requirement
is 20%, I can loan 80 dollars to other banks. The remaining 20 dollars are kept in reserves). This
can increase capital if capital is lent and relent many times over to grow capital. We the people did
not precipitate this credit crisis; the elite, central banks did.

Many people have talked about socialism before and social justice. Socialism is the
belief that the government should control all of means of production in a nation (or
the government seizing markets in an economy). Some people have exposed it. I don't
agree with aligning with Frederich August von Hayek. Hayek is apart of Austrian
economics and he was tied to the European Union movement. The European Union is apart
of the new world order or globalization agenda. Hayek believed in fascist views as showing
in his "The Road to Serfdom" book. He promoted the Right Paradigm Mont Pelerin
Society, while the extremist Saul Alinsky (of the Left Paradigm) called Lucifer his role
model in his book entitled "Rules for Radicals." Alinksy wanted revolution to change
society. Ironically, Hayek wrote his Serfdom book while teaching at the British Fabian
Society's London School of Economics. So, he's a hypocrite by claiming to abhor
communism, but teaching in a pro-Fabian Socialist College. He opposed National
Socialism as statist and totalitarian. Yet, he falsely claimed that any government
involvement in the economy would strangle freedom, crush markets, and lead into Hitlerian
totalitarianism. He slandered Walter Rathenau (he was the German foreign minister who
was assassinated in 1923 and this continued the draconian rules of the Versailles Treaty
imposed on Germany. This caused the Nazis to rise to power). Berit Kjos is great, but even
she doesn't know that von Hayek promoted near total deregulation, the pan European
Empire agenda, and strict monetarism. Some of these views relate to Nazism. The failed
Austrian Economic system has been proven to be sterile by the existence of Reaganomics.
Kjos don't know that Hayek was an agnostic. So, an agnostic is the founder of modern
Austrian Economics. Now, the Left Paradigm promote their ideals in the name of social
justice. Many of them have a hostility toward Biblical Christianity as Kjos accurately points
out. Jim Wallis promotes social justice in his Sojourners magazine. The Right Paradigm
fails to see that life is social, while the Left Paradigm fails to see that social justice is never
a total cure for salvation. Salvation is done by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ not by
social justice. Although, it is legitimate to have compassion for all people in promoting
justice. Now, Marx and Friederich Engels expressed contempt for some of the poor by
calling peasants bumpkins, a barbaric race, and frightfully stupid. They hated Christianity
and its moral values of course. The weakness of socialism is that it attempts to help out the
poor, but bans any form of private enterprise. The truth is that reduction in poverty occurs
when government services and private enterprise (that can include modernization &
technological advancement) exist in a nation (along with safeguards to prevent corruption).
Socialism sometimes tries to form a society of equals by theft and force instead of real
assistance and radical development of society. You are not equal by force. You are
equal by you being born as a human on Earth alone. You have inalienable rights
that can never be taken away by the State nor corporations. On the flip side, it is
wrong to redistribute wealth from the poor to the super rich. Communism is worst
than socialism since communism is about the abolition of private property, the abolition of
the family if necessary for the collective, moral relativism, the abolition of religion if
necessary, the banning of individual liberties, etc. Communism embraces readily
political totalitarianism. Communism has been related to a history of using
revolutionary violence (as exemplified in the stories of Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and others).
The Left paradigm fails to see that not everything collective is righteous
(although, there is nothing wrong with a collective solution to complex
problem) and the Right paradigm fails to see that individual charity can
only go so far in helping the poor. Also, the Right paradigm forgets that life
bigger is than being an individual. Sometimes a person has a
responsibility to have social awareness to help him or herself including
other people. Life is social not just individual. Not every individual will go
through the same exact experiences at every circumstance in life. Life is
complex at times. Not even capitalism is omnipotent. Almighty God is
only omnipotent.

When you think about it, extreme Libertarian (they love a gold standard currency) and
Communism are more similar than you think. Each have arrogant people that use
hypocritical rhetoric to advance their cause. Ultimately, a centralized elite rule the make up
of their economic plans. These people aren’t true revolutionaries. Some of them murdered
millions in the 20th century alone. The truth is that cartel-capitalism (whose evil history is
related to imperialism, racism, sexism, economic exploitation, and viewing man as a
commodity. We know this easily) and communism in the Cold War was funded by the
same international banking elite. Vulture capitalism as shown in the British East India
Company contributed to the evils of slavery & imperialism. Now, I forgot to mention this.
They (or the cartel-capitalists) love to promote recreational drugs, occultism, GMOs,
and other evils in our communities to ruin the health of people. Also, it’s valve of
control over human beings that can make conformity (to their evil, unjust cultural
standard) that much more available. Therefore, the Cold War hoax was contrived in order
to stop sincere Nationalism and permit political agitation (that inherits the restrictions of
the real solutions unto the Third World especially. These restrictions constitute
nothing more than a form of neo-colonialism). Sincere nationalist movements in
Hungary and other places were crushed ironically by the CIA. You can’t support a savage
economic system.

Brazil having its right to independence is important to be made known. Brazil is the largest
nation in the South American continent. It having one of the world's richest natural
resources have made it a key place for the globalists to try to control. Of course, many
people live there including people of African descent. I don’t agree with discrimination
there or any where else. In 1961, a young idealistic nationalist named João Goulart
became the president of Brazil. He promoted land reform, nationalization, and
industrialization in order to try to make the most of his nation's enormous potential. In the
Goulart Presidency, he became good friends with President John F. Kennedy. JFK started
the Alliance for Progress foreign aid initiatives involving Brazil in 1961. These initiatives was
made on a government to government basis that sidestepped the World Bank, the IMF,
and the profit driven policies of Wall Street. JFK's policies were criticized by establishment
via Nelson and David Rockefeller. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and McCloy's
CFR journal Foreign Affairs criticized his policy too. David Rockefeller believed that publicly
owned enterprises shouldn't compete against privately owned companies. David wanted
Kennedy to proclaim a shift in foreign-aid policy toward private entrepreneurs, both
American and allied local investors, on the grounds that private enterprise per se was the
basis of freedom. David Rockefeller wanted any public enterprise to be opposed. JFK
wanted development in the Third World, but not on the terms of multinational
corporations though. Goulart nationalized a subsidiary of American-owned International
Telephone and Telegraph (ITT). The president of ITT then began to furiously lobby
congress for an amendment to Kennedy's 1962 foreign-aid bill that would immediately
cancel all aid to any country that nationalized, repudiated a contract, or specially taxed or
regulated any American company. Kennedy opposed the amendment to the bill as
enflaming the region Also, Kennedy was opposed to imperialism. JFK wanted to mediate a
settlement between ITT and the Brazilian government. Afterwards, Goulart made an offer
to buy out all American-owned utilities that were squeezing the Brazilian economy with
steadily jacked up rates. John F. Kennedy supported the idea. Goulart's plan didn't work
out, so he want to limit the amount of net profit foreign companies would take out of the
country and he had control over foreign aid. The CIA falsely called Goulart a Communist
when he wasn't. The real threat in the region to the Anglo-American establishment wasn't
the Soviets. Yet, the threat was the Third World having power over its own government, its
own economy, and using their own natural resources independently. When, Kennedy was
assassinated, people in Brazil mourned. According to Gibson, when Kennedy died, the
Alliance for Progress was changed to be favorable to David Rockefeller. A CIA
backed coup eliminated President Goulart from power in March of 1964. Brazil
suffered a dictatorship with death squads, etc. until 2 decades later. The Rockefeller
family (via Nelson) had huge power in Brazil's oil, mining, electricity, communications, etc.
Nelson used religion in the Wycliffe Bible Translator and William Cameron Townsend as a
means to control Brazil. The Rockefeller would praise the dictator and evil man Mao.
Nelson supported the apostate preacher Billy Graham too. The lesson here is the evil of an
oligarchy have spanned centuries and continents.

People like Bill O'Reilly obsess with debt and claim that austerity measures are needed to
solve our economic crisis. He omits that we can have state banks, create debt free money,
and other populist methods to have the money available to create economic growth. We
don't need to cut legitimate services that can allow the poor and the disabled to possibly die
in the streets. Even Alan Greespan want to radically cut programs as other deficit hawks do.
Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (who are both economists) want a 2nd round of stimulus.
These neo con hypocrites like O'Reilly talk about cutting spending, but they refuse to cut
any spending from the war on terrorism. The global elite want austerity as to maintain their
power base, while economic growth is more stagnant among the poor and middle classes.
Strangling wealth and radically cutting spending don't grow the economy at all. It slows
down growth. The private sector is not maximizing its profit. How can you get sufficient
economic growth from the private sector when that sector isn't growing right. You need
some injection of capital to act as a foundation for more growth to occur (among both the
private and public sectors). And while it is not true that the stimulus "has done nothing" as
the deficit hawks claim (IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's
Economy.com all estimate it created around 2.5 million jobs.) its effects have largely been
canceled-out by the gigantic state budget gaps. This is why some want a real stimulus to be
sent into the financial system until the economy truly gets on track. Once, the economy get
on track, then you can handle budget concerns in a real way. If people are unemployed,
you don’t cut spending of real services in a radical way.

The G8 have tried to stagnant Third World progress for decades since the 1970’s.
Even the Dulles brothers believed that the non-alignment agenda of the Third World
(or being neutral from Communists and the West) was still pro-Communism. That
was a lie of course. John Foster Dulles shared bugbears with Winston Churchill. Both were
obsessed with Communism, what Dulles called “godless terrorism.” There has been
structural adjustment conditionalities, aerial bombardment. Now in 2010, the G8 (with
Russia) want to meet in Toronto, Canada. There will be protests there as this is a common
feature of the meeting. This gathering is its 33rd official gathering. The G20 was formed in
1999 at the initiative of the “locomotives of the South,” the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia,
India and China), South Africa (who joins them in another iteration, the IBSA – India,
Brazil and South Africa) and Mexico. Soon, the G20 will be the premier economic alliance.
Even with the failure of neoliberalism, European banks still wanted austerity measures in
Greece. That Goldman Sachs had colluded with the Greek ruling elite to enable and mask
its debt was not the issue. The lesson from the Greek debacle was that European countries
had to hastily bring down their deficits. Some of G20 agents want deficits to now be paid
for not by higher taxes on the rich (or even more effective tax collection on extant
rates), but by cuts in government social spending and non-effective taxations of all kinds
on the working-class. The consumption of the elite could not be touched, but the
consumption of the poor, low as it is, is going to be curtailed. The newly elected
Conservatives in the UK hastened to slash government spending, with the Conservative
leader, David Cameron, telling his fellows to change their “whole way of life.” This policy
is brutal. Zapatero is going to cut 15-billion euros from his budget in Spain. The socialist
& IMF member Dominique Strauss-Kahn support the measures in Spain. So, there is a
battle between economic populists and the speculators who want economic harm against
most of the people in the world. Some liberals are right to say that it’s truly despicable
that some Republicans want to block unemployment benefits to Americans. Some in Wall
Street oppose giving legitimate benefits to people suffering in places like Michigan when
Wall Street is experiencing records bailouts plus bonuses. It‘s a disgrace. One Democrat
called Ben Nelson voted against giving people unemployment benefits. Some GOP
members have tried to filibustered the bill. Numerous Republicans are very hypocritical to
support billions of dollars being spent in Iraq for rebuilding that country, but they oppose
giving money to the people in helping rebuilding their own lives in America.

Belt tightening now will only increase the deficits by reducing government tax revenues. In
a recent interview, Nomura economist Richard Koo was asked if the US should try to
reduce their deficits by cutting back stimulus. Here's how Koo responded:

"Not until private sector deleveraging is over. At present, private sectors in the US,
UK, Spain, Portugal, and Italy are still deleveraging. This means these countries
should not try to reduce fiscal stimulus. Any attempt to cut deficit in these countries
is likely to result in a weaker economy and a larger deficit as seen in Japan in
1997.... When private sector is deleveraging, money multiplier is negative at margin.
No monetary stimulus will work in such an environment where people are trying to
reduce debt, even with zero interest rates, in order to repair their damaged balance
sheets.

Until people realize that they have contracted a completely different disease called
balance sheet recession where the private sector is minimizing debt instead of
maximizing profits, a constructive policy dialogue is not likely to be possible. Once
the exact nature of the disease is understood, the remedy (sufficient and sustained
fiscal stimulus until private sector balance sheets are repaired) will become obvious
to everyone." ("Interview: Richard C. Koo, Nomura Research Institute", Acemaxx
Analytics)
The economy is still in bad shape. Some folks fear another recession in the year of 2010 or
2011. There is a threat of a double dip recession and deflation. Deflation is when the value
of money radically decreases that can constrict wealth. The yield on 2 year U.S. Treasuries
has fallen to the record low of 0.61. This is a level that hasn't been seen since the time of the
Great Depression. In June of 2010, the U.S. workforce shrank by 652,000. This is one of the
sharpest contractions ever. The rate of hourly earning fell by 0.1 percent, which increases
the risk of deflation. "The economy is still in the gravitational pull of the Great
Recession," said Robert Reich, former US labor secretary. "All the booster rockets
for getting us beyond it are failing." Home sales and retail sales are down. Even
California is cutting pay for 200,000 state workers to the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour
to cover the 19 billion dollar deficit. Some like Peter Schiff wants cuts in spending. Other
people want another stimulus package. The credit crunch continues because of derivatives
and too many debts. The stimulus will soon expire. Wealth can continue to contract. More
personal saving can make the aggregate demand decrease since people don't have enough
money to spend commodities. Inflation is important to keep under control, but deflation is a
real economic threat too. You need some government spending in infrastructure projects,
job creation programs, and public works systems to grow the economy. You handle the
deficit after economic growth (I mean real economic growth) exists in the picture.
Austrians see that doing nothing and allowing the business cycle to work is going to end
the recession. This doesn’t work since in history, economic recovery plans allowed us to get
out of depressions and recessions. I worry about a person dying in the street above and
beyond the deficit. You have to have a directed fiscal stimulus to build up consumer
confidence, grow the CPI, etc. You don't reduce wages and follow neo-liberal economic
propaganda to get things moving again. Ron Paul can support von Hayek all he wants, but
von Hayek opposed nationalism.

One smoking gun refuting the austerity mythology are the events in the Baltic Sates. The Baltic
States have some of the most extreme monetary austerity policies in the world. Government
spending cutbacks and deflationary monetary policies have shrunk the GDP by more than
20% over the past two years in Lithuania and Latvia. Wage levels in Latvia’s public sector
have fallen by 30%, and the central bank has expressed hope that the wage squeeze will
continue and lower private-sector wages as well. The problem is that these program cutting
programs haven’t worked to improve the economics of the Baltic states. These policies
have causes strikes and slowdowns. This lowers the domestic markets and investments.
Unemployment spreads and wages fall. This leads tax receipts to plunge, because Latvia’s
tax system falls almost entirely on employment. Half of the employers’ wage bill goes to pay
the exorbitant set of flat taxes amounting to over 51%, while a VAT tax absorbs another
7% of disposable personal income. Yet the central bank trumpets the wage decline as a
success – and would like even further shrinkage. There are for sale signs in Downtown
Riga and the Baltic beach suburb of Jurmala. There is a lack of a property tax to allow
speculators to leave prime properties unrented. Some want to reform the tax system in
Latvia, because real estate taxes are only a fraction of 1 percent. Untaxed land value is paid
to banks. There is a tax on labor and little property taxes causing economic issues. Some
want to shift the tax burden off labor and wages and into the land’s rental value to lower the
cost of employment (without harming government finances). Hong Kong rose its economy
because of that plan. Michael Hudson is the Chief Economist of the Reform Task Force
Latvia. Michael wants the policy of less taxes for employees and more taxes on land.

Other reforms came out. South Korea wants to have new restrictions on derivatives trades,
cross currency swaps, and forwards. The currency controls will come into effect from July
2010. There will be a grace period of 3 months to avoid any disruptions in the derivatives
trading markets and banks (banks can cover their existing forward positions for up to 2
years if they exceed the ceilings). There are restrictions in loans as well in North Korea.
The Korean authorities have further tightened the existing regulations on foreign currency
liquidity ratio of domestic banks. The domestic banks will monitor the soundness of foreign
currency liquidity on a daily basis and report it to authorities every month. North Korea
wanted global financial safety nets via international cooperation. North Korea authorities
wanted currency control to limit risks & to curb the short term debt. Indonesia have done
new regulations to handle their own economy too. Capital controls can’t be the total answer
to solve economic problems. According to Kavaljit Singh, there needs to be regulatory and
supervisory measures to grow macroeconomic systems in nations.

*The neo-conservative movement isn't new. It's a representation of the same old
philosophies of the aristocrats. They believe in accepting privatization, banning
any attempt of the government to finance internal improvements, eliminate
protections of our liberty, and a radical form of a “law and order doctrine” (that
includes abolishing parole, eliminate amenities for prisoners, that has prison
exploitation, etc. There are even prisoner chain gangs in Alabama. Prisons
should not be like Club Med neither a concentration camp either). They
embrace a contradictory stance. They say that we have too much government, but
they love a huge government to be involved in our prison system, the military, our
civil liberties, and other parameters in our lives. They feel like that government can't be
trusted to run a post office, a railroad, etc. but they can run our criminal justice system.
Many people in that movement follow a script. So, they hate welfare to assist the people. On
the other hand, they love a police state that oppresses the people. Some of
them think that some people should fend for themselves and starve to death.
We shouldn't follow the path of oligarchy or the ways of Lycurgus (in his Spartan state
wanting to harm industry and science). Today, Austrian proponent Llewellyn Rockwell (of
the Ludwig von Mises Institute) believes in the Confederate Constitution. He doesn't even
believe in the general welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist followed in the neo cons' footsteps.
He promoted states rights even if the state contradicts federal law. He sympathized with the racist
Justice Roger Taney. Taney deprived human rights protection from a black man, who was a
runaway slave. The states have rights, but they can't do what they want whenever they want
without federal legal protections. The federal judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court,
were established by the Constitution as instruments for enforcing the federal Constitution
over the states. Marshall put this ``federal supremacy'' into practice, and Taney tried to destroy it.
He didn't believe in the interference in state administrative procedures even if federal constitutional
rights are at stake. William Rehnquist opposed school desegregation cases like the 1954 Brown vs.
Board of Education. He was a clerk for Justice and Freemason Robert Jackson at the time. He
wrote a memorandum for Jackson stating that "Plessy v. Ferguson," the 1896 case which
established the Jim Crow ``separate but equal'' principle, was correct, and should be reaffirmed.
Even Thurgood Marshall (once head of the NAACP legal defense fund) accurately pointed
out the majority can't deprive a minority of its constitutional rights. Later, Rehnquist claimed
that he was expressing Jackson's views and not his own. However, the views expressed in the
Rehnquist memoranda were not consistent with Jackson's views, but they were consistent with
Rehnquist's own known views. A secretary to Justice Jackson accused Rehnquist of smearing
Jackson's reputation. Other clerks said that Rehnquist held onto pro-segregationist views in the
lunchroom table. Rehnquist back in 1964 opposed a proposed public accommodations ordinance in
Phoenix barring discrimination on the basis of race, color, or creed. In 1967, Rehnquist wrote a
letter to the "Phoenix Republic," saying that ``we are no more dedicated to an `integrated' society
than we are to a `segregated' society.'' Rehnquist has never dissociated himself from this statement.
Senator Edward Kennedy, who opposed Rehnquist's confirmation as Chief Justice in 1986,
said that ``he [Rehnquist] denied that he harassed and intimidated voters in Arizona in the
early 1960s, but the evidence is substantial that he did.'' Another eyewitness, Dr. Sidney Smith,
testified that he had seen Rehnquist confront two black men at a polling place, and tell them; ``You
have no business being in this line trying to vote. I ask you to leave.'' So, he was a racist and how
did he get in the Court? The deal is that the Senate Judiciary Committee back in those days of the
1970's and 1980's were dominated by pro-segregationists or remnants of the Confederates. In
1971, when he was confirmed the arch segregationist James O. Eastland of Mississippi headed the
Senate Judiciary Committee from 1958 to 1978. The old Dixiecrat turned Republican Strom
Thurmond supported Rehnquist back in 1986 when he became Chief Justice. Like many neo
cons, he isn't a real conservative. He follows the doctrines of Thomas Hobbes
(that even the Founding Fathers rejected). Rehnquist classified Hobbes' views
as a realist. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature man is at war with every
other person. So, men must give their rights to the sovereign (which is given
unquestioning obedience. This is totalitarianism). In truth, man is created in the
image of God with a creative spark and true reason to advance civilization. The
government shouldn't oppress people, but it should foster progress in science
and technological development. Hobbes' views violate the truthful principal that
natural law is superior to the power of the state. No government could usurp
these inalienable rights. Welfare isn't some sin if it's used in the right way. Nixon's team
had ties to the Nazis. George H. W. Bush had his share of corruption. Nefarious actions are
common among both political parties. Also, welfare isn't necessarily immoral when it's
given to those that need it. The law said that the government is created to promote the
general welfare of the people you know. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that
the government can promote taxes, build roads, promote science, promote the arts,
and do other progressive things. As JFK said, a progressive citizenry is a benefit for
the development of American society. Life is complex and sometimes you need unique
solutions to answer unique problems. Also, compassion for the poor is much better than
embracing some laissez faire propaganda. The neo-liberal economic lie has been totally
refuted after the event of our modern recession. We aren't founded on majority rule since
majority rule is basically the mob rule. Majority rule can violate the rights of the minority. Rehnquist
voted in the Court in favor of opposing Miranda and other civil liberties. He was a piece of work.
*The political awakening among the general public is huge nowadays. Even the
Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that global activism is more entrenched in
society. This awakening deals with exposing the excesses of globalization. Also, there
are a centralized group of people in the military, intelligence, media, and academic
institutions that have inordinate influence in the world. This has been even exposed by
David Rothkopf's literature. We know that the elite use a fake capitalism called laissez
faire capitalism in other to centralize wealth and power. They promote a globalized
system that hates legitimate regulations and safeguards to protect economic & political
rights. In 2010, the elite use new tactics of genetic exploitation, immoral surveillance,
and neo-eugenics as means to promote their scientific dictatorship. All human beings
deserve dignity. Technological advancement is fine if it's done in the right fashion. Yet,
technology that strips human dignity and human liberty is a threat to true human
advancement within the confines of a civilization. You're not civilized if you support
oppression. It doesn't matter if you live in a wealthy nation either. As the Third World
increases in political power and much of the West is having population growth issues,
there is a power shift. China is having more socio-economic influence in the world
stage, while Western European & America want more trade with China. China is
reluctant, because they want to establish their own priorities in financial affairs. China
isn't perfect, but the global elite aren't either. One big point is that power ought to be
controlled by the people, not transnational corporations or oligarchs. Oligarchs love a
hegemon or an Empire system since it take consideration away from the people and
thrust these concerns into corporate interests (political think tanks, banking, academic,
and other instruments of control facilities the agenda of oligarchy too). The global
hegemon of the West use the imperfect systems of Communism, cartel-capitalism,
socialism, etc. to promote the interests of the elite. Trade deals and groups that benefit
the global Western hegemony include NATO, the UN, the IMF, GATT, the WTO, etc.
We live in a new era in the 21st century. New news are exposing the oil pollution and
more corruption achieved by BP.
We exist in a technetronic era where computers, satellites, blackberries, Ipods, and other
advanced devices dominate the cultural/social parameters of the present world order.
These tools are utilized and manipulate by the elite to promote propaganda and control
among the human race. The new world order is the shifting from power among nation
states and sending that power into global institutions. With the massive bailouts of
banks, poverty is still in record levels worldwide. In April of 2009, a major global
charity, Oxfam, reported that a couple trillion dollars given to bail out banks could have
been enough “to end global extreme poverty for 50 years.” This is why the recession
hurt the developing world worse than the developed nations in the West, Japan, etc. The
vast majority of the Earth's population lives in straight up poverty. Austerity is a threat
to. Privatizing all resources, cutting services, and having an unfair tax system will cause
devastation in this country of America. Austerity definitely failed in Latin America,
Africa, and parts of Asia. This was in response in the 1980's debt crisis (and these
policies continued in the 1980s and the 1990s). The result of the fiscal austerity
measures imposed upon nations by the World Bank and IMF was the social dismantling
of the new societies and their subsequent enslavement to the international creditors of
the IMF, World Bank, Western corporations, and banks. It was an era of economic
imperialism, and the IMF was a central tool of this imperial project. It's very
hypocritical for the reactionaries and fascists to talk about entitlements when the
bankers are getting record bonuses (the bankers are mostly responsible for the financial
crisis in the first place) & the manufacturing sector is very low in its vitality. It's also
hypocritical for the neo cons to have an obsession with the deficit, but don't care that
billions of dollars are spent in the war on terror. Ironically, the Tea Party movement
rose, because of the errors in the Bush administration. Some of them want to be
independent and others are in the Republican establishment (as aided by the pro-CNP &
pro-Heritage Foundation Freedom Works clique). Some of them are right on some
issues. Others are wrong on various points as well. Ironically, much of the anti-war
movement has vaporized since Barack Obama is President today.
So, governmental oppression via Homeland Security, etc. is just as evil as
corporate oppression against human beings. These oppressive system turns various
locations into military concaves. The state is not our state. It’s an elite dominated
system. You don’t want to be a slave to the machine of the State. I’ve started to
figure the following information out in a higher level in my mid to late 20’s. Now,
we know about propaganda that is shown in television. Mainstream television
harbors the immoral self hate agenda (against especially people of color worldwide
not just here in the USA. We should be thankful of what God created us to be
physically, mentally, and spiritually), militarism, and materialism. You better
know what you are, because that defines your fundamental identity. Also, this
corporate-dominated mainstream culture harbors anti-intellectualism. One
example is that television would promote random information and simple
concepts. Yet, if any man, women, or child will try to show the bigger picture
about agendas, concepts, and goals (about the new world order, the evils of
militarism, the genocide in the world, the cultural exploitation, etc.) publicly, then
that is taboo. It’s taboo to promote real Nationalism as well. The mainstream
culture thrives on ignorance. We should reject that mindset and embrace wisdom
& truth. That wisdom should be about respect for women and men. You don’t
need to act like a puppet like Glen Beck nor have rages of egomania like Alex
Jones. You can be you own self in expressing your God-given speech to inspire
people to do the right thing. There is nothing wrong with real success. Yet, when
you value human life as a liability or an asset alone, then that is seriously immoral
to think like that. The system is broken of course. You don’t suck up to the system.
You should destroy the evil in the system and make a better existence for people.
The fear of the unknown can cripple spiritual development, but the love of your
neighbor can transform your heart to have true understanding. Even if a man
hates you, this doesn’t mean that man can never change. Changed lives fulfill the
essence of human perseverance. You give your talents to the world and you assist
people in the world. Oh, I will talk about the Illuminati regardless of the skeptics
say. The skeptics never intimidate me and I say these things to their faces. I have
no fear of these skeptics. It’s time to ascend higher spirituality without distractions
& hatred against our fellow man. I will expose police brutality, I will agree with
religious freedom, I will talk about the BP oil spill and I will focus on other real
issues too. I will never quit in my life. I have inspiration from God and my
ancestors that died to allow me to overcome complications. Isn’t it ironic that Alex
Jones claims to support liberty, but endorses an Arizona immigration law that
contradicts the essence of personal freedom or liberty. There is nothing with
preserving national sovereignty and handling border issues in a real way. Yet,
omitting compassion for people is just as much a crime as disregarding national
sovereignty. Jones and his ilk hate the fact that the 14th Amendments says that all
people born in America are citizens irrespective of who they are. That is apart of
just law. The system acts as a beast to cause friction and agitation. In our
generation, it’s our turn to not let the system get us down in life. We shouldn’t ally
with the wicked system, but we ally with real neighbors and real people to develop
justice from oppression. You have to think revolutionary. Stagnant thinking
doesn’t solve an iota of complications. Revolutionary, radical thinking lead to
inventions, end of wars, and other evils abolished in the realm of civilization. We
still have a long way to go in creating a more tranquil world though. You don’t
have to agree with me on every issue as human beings have the right to agree to
disagree me on some topics. That’s apart of the freedom of conscience. You should
test what I mention since I’m not perfect and no human in Earth is perfect either.
We have to look in mirror and see what can we do to make a legitimately positive
impact in the world.

By Timothy