plenty has happened in the last month - Turkey and Brazil have both gone into full-scale revolt mode, while the NSA has been publicly exposed for surveilling "meta-data" of the entire world, including all manner of phone calls, emails, and other communications. past reports indicate this surveillance actually extends to all communications, plain and simple - source and destination information as well as content.
the NSA and other "officials" have naturally tried to depict themselves as white knights trying to promote world justice, reluctantly violating the privacy of billions of people in order to stop the non-existent risk of terrorism. these nonsensical arguments are typical - 'government' scam artists predictably, and childishly, resort to fear tactics to justify all possible forms of wrongdoing that they plan to engage in, or that they have engaged in previously.
there is no indication whatsoever that the program has helped the public. the government very publicly parades all examples of "caught terrorists" around in order to justify their police state measures - recent examples include the "Christmas Tree Bomber" and the "Oakland Bridge Bombers". they make an incredulous claim, saying that they would not have announced the prevention of any significant attack to the public, simply concealing the confidential surveillance measures that were used to break the case. it is absolutely non-sensical. the entire federal government wishes to gain a free pass from logic, so that the population will continue to accept its current existence.
obviously a change is needed. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and statist libertarians - along with all other people who have accepted the idea that a society should be threatened/mandated to pay a particular group - will call for some combination of increased scrutiny, abolition of tyrannical programs, and other attempts to scale back what has been revealed as a naked, rampant abuse of authority. surely this is because many of them continue to accept the idea that government spending, since much of it is spent on things which we have become dependent on, must therefore be a necessity to provide these things (roughly, a logical fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent').
so, what can we learn about those ideas from the "unrest" (open revolution) in Turkey and Brazil?
Turkey and Brazil
meanwhile, the people of Turkey and Brazil have taken to the streets and rejected government omnipotence. a huge anarchist/stateless-socialist strand has emerged in these protests, which builds on the profound sense of injustice the members of those societies have developed as a result of their now-public knowledge of the abuse of power by their governments. both protests were initially sparked by relatively meaningless abuses of power - the planned demolition of a park, and a rise in bus fairs - but blew up in a cyclical chain reaction of public resentment and government violence. both abuses of power were the straws that broke the camels' backs.
a society is bound to reject a control system when its central mechanism becomes apparent to the public. public awareness of systemic injustice is simply bound to collapse the system - in so many words, that which will not bend is bound to break, and greed does not bend. Turkey and Brazil's protests clearly demonstrate this trend - the will of the public, and the will of those that would malevolently rule it, are totally incompatible, and can only possibly coexist if the public ignores the malevolence because of entrenched, ideological acceptance - that is, if the public has been gradually led to believe that all the evils of the rulers are normal and necessary.
however, at the same time, we have the cautionary tale of Egypt as a huge warning to the world about the possible outcomes of this protest. in rejecting Mubarak, Egypt somehow wound up with a new dictator. it's of the utmost importance to understand that the new ruling political party, just like the old ruling political party, has its roots in the same power system as the U.S. government.
Hassan Al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the new political rulers of Egypt, and as the second of those two articles points out, a graduate of the Society of Propaganda and Guidance - a British colonial institution designed to craft ideologies to subdue opposition to imperialism.
after the years of direct proxy-rule imperialism (roughly similar to British rule of India, Britain recognized itself as sovereign over Egypt until 1922) - it was found that open imperialism was too prone to revolt to be managable for those trying to impose it, and dozens of organizations were created and promoted in order to craft ideological systems which would allow imperialism to continue in the various puppet states of European imperialism. the systems created to accomplish this would operate under military guidance publicly managed by locals of the nations in question, but realistically managed by the highest bidder - the owners of multinational capital, a surprisingly consolidated and tightly collusive (conspiratorial) group, that I've written about before in some significant depth. for those who understand the significance of it, it also bears mentioning that Al-Banna was also reportedly a Freemason, much like countless others who sought to subvert, neutralize, and profit from revolutions of the past.
the Society of Propaganda and Guidance was one of these groups. future politicians and media figures were trained to promote an corrupt Western conception of "property" and "law", in a section of the world that really had enough experience with it to know better, and to enforce that system through the force of government. the Muslim Brotherhood emerged soon after, under Al-Banna's guidance, as a political party and religious organization, and, as the "Spiked Online" article also points out, it was also used to indoctrinate troops of Anwar Al-Sadat, the infamous U.S.-backed dictator.
moving back to the present - this previously minority party was installed into power after Mubarak's former military - most of whom defected to the side of the protesters, but still respected their chain of command - held elections to find a new dictator to replace Mubarak. the free culture of Tahrir Square was put under direct threat by the false opposition that had been managed in order to pacify threats to Mubarak's rule. it was literally the same situation as Obama's presidency - an obvious dictator was taken out of power, and replaced with an obvious dictator with a new set of lies. thus, the real powers meddling in the situation were revealed through the renewed imposition of 'social order' - whereas Tahrir Square itself, and by extension, the revolutionary movement, had begun to operate as a gift economy, Mohammed Morsi and Mohammed ElBaradei (the headline candidates of the election, Morsi being the victor) wished to reimpose the old system of corporate capitalism, that had endeared Mubarak so greatly to the entrenched, controlling financial interests of corporate capitalism - the multinational banking cartel that, over the years, has managed to buy up the majority of world corporations, in terms of market share. the intention of subverting these revolutions is thus obvious - the point is to establish economic control, both over resources and over labor.
the collapse of "America"
a nearly identical situation exists in the United States, although it is in its infancy. a naked abuse of power has been uncovered - the government and news media are careening to shoot the messenger, Edward Snowden, and have him extradited from whichever country to which he's currently escaped, as they follow him around the world in a pointless wild goose chase. they attack his education, his former girlfriend, his online forum posts, and his personality, but refuse to mention the extreme and dehumanizing police state surveillance system that Snowden bravely uncovered, and simply repeat discredited lies about its uses in "criminal justice". no mention is made of how the uncovered PRISM program nakedly violates the fundamental rights the government is instructed to never violate, in its very own charter for existence, the "Constitution". all the people complicit in promoting this tyranny through the media, who have not yet abandoned it (as much of the media has already done), simply line themselves up and repeat their Orwellian excuses for the evils they wish to justify.
meanwhile, the obvious abuse of power is apparent even to toddlers, who understand the simple creepiness inherent in somebody who wishes to listen in on all conversations. the abuse of power is too much for the population to excuse as acceptable - a fault line has rapidly developed between the population and its would-be rulers, while the henchmen of the rulers rapidly lose interest in supporting them, as the selfishness and sickness of their motives becomes apparent, and thus the enforcers defect to the side of the population, as though they were iron shavings being drawn to a magnet. this is bound to happen whenever an open revelation of tyranny occurs in a society founded on rejecting those principles, with thriving public debate. even attempts to control the debate via control of information are ineffective at surpressing this trend, when the absurdity of the system has reached such extremes.
thus, the entire ideological system of 'government' itself has literally broken - the ideas behind it, and the results it produces, are simply too absurd to accept. the institutions operating as 'governments' are malfunctioning in every possible way, and it's become horrifyingly apparent that this is because of tyranny.
but the cracks run even deeper. it is clear at this point that our entire social system has literally just been designed as a selfish way for sellouts to 'live it up', while everyone else suffers and works for their benefit. we have been denied our fundamental needs - justice, safe food, housing, medicine, safe drinking water, safe air, and even our need for authentic culture - and asked to excuse those who take the lion's share of society's profit and deny it to the rest of us. it is obvious that the fundamental ideas of this system are contradictory and produce unjust results when followed.
there is simply no sane recourse to take except the complete abolition of 'government' and this system which i reluctantly call "capitalism" - not to be confused with a free economy - which privatizes control of the entire world into a few hands, under the excuse that they will safeguard it, while they pollute it and destroy it - and the confusion of "greed" must necessarily die along with it. stateless socialism, as envisioned by the great anarchists of the past, is the necessary remedy and replacement system - people simply must act with full knowledge, care, and responsibility for their actions, and reject the ideology of tyranny, whether they have been positioned in reality as the tyrants or as the tyrannized.
this is the direction of all true revolutionary movements, and there is no other possible conclusion to these events, which have risen to a boiling point. that is even taking into account the hideous persistence of the insanity of tyranny, which so often in the past has been effective enough to demoralize revolutionary movements and draw material and military support against them.
those who have been tricked into supporting tyranny simply need to understand their own suffering under it in order to know why it must be rejected - and all people involved suffer, even the tyrants themselves. living life in a state of perpetual conflict, whether you emerge the 'winner' or the 'loser', is simply not conducive to sanity, mental stability, or happiness. only a return of control of society to the people will lift the blight over the world that has existed for so long - the mechanisms that exist to sustain greed rely immediately on sabotage and murder, and cannot coexist with a rational society.
the lie here is on full display due to the juxtaposition of the two clips. nevertheless, close observation will reveal key clues of carefully planned deceit.
this is one of the more bizarre cases of planned lies, considering his admissions in the first clip - it's likely that, one way or another, he was made to 'forget' his testimony on "Democracy Now".
the evolution of the popular theory of 'government' is probably the single most obvious and universal clue to its inherent ill will/malevolence. what follows is a quick overview of how this theory has evolved over time, and how these changes reveal the inherent tyranny of 'government'.
(a) shamanistic/practical skill-based
the shamanistic theory of the propriety of 'rulers' depends on a supposed special connection between the 'ruler' and supernatural forces, which supposedly makes him/her fit to rule over his/her subjects. this connection can be based on actual, hidden scientific knowledge (e.g. knowledge of fire) or fake knowledge (e.g. rain dance rituals).
in the event of sound leadership, the issue of the 'ruler' maintaining control may never come up, and so the issue of 'governance' may not even emerge - high enough quality leadership would not require any forced participation. however, in the event of dissent/contested leadership, this becomes an issue, and the nature of the response - which generally becomes standard practice for the 'ruler' - is a strong indication of the malevolence of the ruler's reign.
this type appears to describe a large minority of indigenous cultures
(b) chieftain/combat skill-based
warrior 'government' - fitness for leadership determined by skill in combat.
this type is characteristic of Spartan-style social structures, which are most common in combat-based or war-like societies, but also present in societies that understand combat skill as an indicator of general skill ("martial" societies).
(c) usurped rule/"cloak/dagger"-based
'government' where best-fit rulership guidelines of all types have been called off, which retains procedural 'governance' rules, if at all, for the sake of illusion. this type of 'government' radiates consequences through the society due to the deceptions inherent in the maintenance of unjust rule, notably the silencing of dissent based on injustices done, which naturally have exponential memetic effects.
this type may overlap with type (a).
(d) direct democratic
typical of a society where social violence is accepted (possibly) - primarily towards threatening or possibly victimized outside groups - but where logical coherence in social practices has become a social expectation. in the event where such a society has accepted major property imbalances, such as towards 'leaders', against gender differences, or other social differences, property schemes tend to be justified by myths of sub-group innate inadequacy, or possibly by perceived just compensation for labor. different degrees of 'democracy' may exist in these systems, ranging from democratic votes on the labor of the group, to the allocation of resources to a subgroup, based on popular vote.
(e) monarchic/feudalistic/'divine right'
based on the rule of 'royals'. rarely, if ever, benevolent.
if benevolent, the 'royals' - often dynastic - are entrusted with directing the rest of a society, regardless of the quality of their decisions, ceding to the population in areas of non-expertise.
if malevolent, the 'royals' represent the top piece of a rigid, allegiance-promotion, pyramidal/hierarchical social structure, and compartmentalize functions of rule into a violence-fallback 'government' structure. this often entails engineering and military coordination in order to guard the 'royals' from popular uprising - i.e., city walls, castles, military/police/thug functionaires, and other self-defensive systems. typically, these societies require some form of parasitic dominance relation with other societies, in order to placate the subjects of the society - citizens receiving preferential treatment to foreign subjects (resembling modern imperialism), thus, forming the middle-lower rung of the pyramidal economic structure of the society, beneath the ruling class, but above foreign subjects.
this type is associated with the theory of 'divine right', at least in a European context, due to the feudalistic theory of appointment of the 'royals' by deity that was disseminated in order to justify the brutal rule of the 'royals'.
based on the ancient premise that some individuals are better fit for social overvision than others, and thus fit to rule. highly strong tendency towards abusive plutocracy, averted only by extremely uncommon fitness of rulers. typical of Greek and post-monarchy, pre-imperial Roman 'government', as well as most neo-classical, post-"Enlightenment" 'government' - first European, and then as proxy government 'colonially'.
if benevolent, the rulers are attempting to 'keep peace' in view of possible foreign threats and civil disagreements. economic systems will often take a property-based approach, or less commonly, a communal approach.
if malevolent, the true rulers are often obscured behind the elected 'representatives', choosing to covertly exert power on them once they have entered into positions of power - otherwise, a consensus of malevolence is required amongst the 'representatives'.
these systems are either inherently malevolent or benevolent, with a transitory period in between the two, due to a policy of polar attraction based on ideology of rule. in explanation: benevolent systems will gradually eject corrupt elements because of the ease of identification and general transparency of financial details - corrupt behavior cannot be hidden, and evidence of bribe behavior is made obvious - while malevolent systems will generally maintain near-total financial opacity, and somehow threaten or bribe benevolent 'representatives' in order to maintain a hegemony of policy.
one of the principal examples of delegatory 'government' in history, the Roman Republic, turned into a covert dictatorship circa 50 B.C.E., and an open empire/imperial system gradually, closer to ~20 C.E..
another major example is the covert corruption of the U.S. "republican democracy", immediately at its creation.
these examples establish that rule by 'republic', presumably due to the reduction of the possible points of corruption, from the society as a whole to a small set of 'representatives', in the absence of any popular check or balance, will inevitably find itself under the control of a single individual. thus, type (f) overlaps with type (c), and possibly also type (e).
evolution of 'government' theory re: information age
the presence of 'government' began in the illiterate ages, and has continued into the internet age. the theories supposedly justifying 'government' have changed with direct regard to what portion of the population was capable of investigating their excuses for 'rule'.
semi-literate Greece and Rome saw the beginning of 'delegatory' government, as the middle/upper class in the society started to investigate the excuses for rule, while mostly-literate "first world" societies, from ~1700 to 2013, have seen a gradually evolving form of public relations from 'government', typically based around worship of politicians based on false descriptions of their actions of office.
this resurgence of 'democratic government' theory coincided with a huge growth in literacy rates, as the 'governments' of the 'first world' needed to excuse their activities to the public, by giving the appearance of public accountability. this worked well with the medium of television, since coverage could be covertly controlled, as it is today - but this 'public debate control' has ceased functioning in the internet era. a great example, discussed previously in this blog, is of how the "change.gov" petition system has demonstrated a complete unaccountability to democracy on even the advertised 'Democratic' party of the 'government', as popular demands were completely ignored and even mocked. this represents an actual public relations failure - the 'government' attempted to create a controlled environment to give the illusion of accountability, and in doing so, revealed their unaccountability.
thus, we see that 'government' only gives the appearance of benevolence to the maximum extent it can, without compromising its mission of exploitation. we also see that it only gives off that appearance if the population has begun to collectively wonder if it actually has their interests at heart.
these rationales/systems of 'governance' shown a direct conflict between popular well-being and the consolidation of rule. we see that the risk of corruption is overwhelming when rule has been consolidated under a single individual, and that 'republican'/'delegatory' systems, which attempt to consolidate rule but keep it from becoming centralized, have a strong tendency to centralize anyway. this demonstrates an inherent flaw in the theory of 'government' - the presence of socially hierarchical 'power' must also create incentives for the abuse of 'power'.
however, due to the social conflicts that originally spawned the institution of 'government' as a social arbitration system - divergences of opinion between two or more parties, which require some kind of binding solution - we are faced with a dilemma of how to resolve this conflict of interest present in 'rule' of a society.
the question facing someone wishing to totally eliminate 'rule' is this - how can social conflicts be fairly arbitrated in the absence of some central authority?
the answer is well-known, simple, and obvious. a logical system of ethical conflict resolution must be adopted by the members of a society - something to which, thankfully, billions of individuals have contributed, for countless years.
two major divergences from this system of ethics exist. intra-special and inter-special. some people claim personal exemptions to ethical behavior, often based on their personal suffering, within their own species - additionally, and more commonly, many individuals claim that the suffering of other species is irrelevant (which, interestingly, has profound effects on their own species, due to questions of land use, political dissent/protest, and ecosystem destruction issues).
ignoring 'desert island', survival scenarios, which may pit individuals against each other in a battle for scarce resources, and dealing only with typical social situations - in which widespread scarcity is currently a partially adopted myth - there is no valid reason for barriers to adoption of a common system of ethics - which would entail the spawning of mutually cooperative behavior across the entire society - to be considered as real or valid.
stunningly, in fact, barring whatever naturally predatory behavior in the 'animals' that is natural and unavoidable (which is evidently not all current predatory behavior), we can almost seamlessly extend this logic to the entire animal kingdom. we are not actually in unavoidable conflict for scarce resources - our challenge is actually in promoting non-destructive, common-sense use of resources. basic boundaries and principles of behavior, in virtually every situation that a conscious being on this planet can encounter, are sufficient to avoid any third-party conflict resolution from ever being necessary.
take all the knowledge you have of how horrible our society has become. remove yourself from all the social customs you know, and look solely at how people behave. what's there for you to see?
a whole society, worked up into a frenzy, constantly trying to move from point A to B, achieving goals that they neither dreamed up nor benefit from. so who did dream up this society?
what group spends a third of the GDP of the economy each year? what group writes the laws of exchange, compensation, corporate hostile takeovers, "bailouts", "subsidies", and creates the sinful, unfair, unequal, poisonous economy we find ourselves living our daily lives in - where our food is poisoned, where we seriously pollute the air under the excuse that it will allow us to live, and where we tear at each other's throats, rob each other, kill each other, drug each other, and lie to each other, just to secure the shelter, clothes, water, and food we need to survive, and some luxuries the society dangled in front of us? who created and actively prints the foundation of this system - money?
ultimately, the government controls all of those things. and when all is said and done, and the excuses of 'lobbyists', 'special interests', 'pork', 'lobbies', and other control mechanisms fall flat - who is really making the decisions?
it's a self-evident hypothesis that these wars - one of the dominant 'winds' in the old system - with their myriad faked and manufactured excuses for being declared, eminate from a tiny set of self-interested individuals - if not a single one. i've already written about the process of deduction used to determine who that is, and what answer that turns up, which is outside the scope of this post.
this control, clearly, is enforced by an army of armed thugs - police, military, secret police, army, marines, swat, air force, divine wind, red guard, whatever names they take on. it would give them too much credit to even capitalize the names of their groups. all of them are, simply, a bunch of people who, one way or another, have accepted the idea that it's inevitable for them to submit to, and become an agent of, this system of destruction.
what can possibly end such an intimidating system of control?
it doesn't take much imagination to see that the entire system is rendered obsolete by the idea of cooperation alone. our society is a system crafted by our choices and actions. this system of fear and totalitarian control spreads like an infection on the earth - the destruction caused by the disease, and the size of the infection, is the grip the disease has on its host. it attempts to multiply and gradually weaken the defenses of its host organism. in the event that the host is weak enough, it overtakes them, and claims its host as a victim - otherwise, the immune system springs into effect, purges the infection, and returns the host to homeostasis.
but there's a fine metaphor here for how the cures of an infection carry over to the cure to totalitarianism.
what counteracts a bacterial infection? not only antibiotics - standing for science - but fruits, grains, vegetables, nuts, seeds - standing for nature. in truth, all of these plant foods exist in a sort of continuum, and there isn't really much of a sound distinction between fruits, nuts, seeds, and grains - but, that's just an interesting note.
our science has gathered evidence from the millennia of destruction caused by the system, as it's expanded our understanding of nature so that we understand how simply we can tend crops, avert crop failure, and rely solely on nature for our survival - with a astoundingly improved standard of living relative to the one we have now. organic, sustainable farming has proven itself as the path forward for agriculture, but there's a palpable, overbearing conflict between the path of organic agriculture, and the path of earth-destroying, industrial, fertilizer-based, GMO agriculture. this conflict is perpetuated not by scientific dispute - science rests soundly with the organic farmers, whose practices have been proven through thousand of years of implementation - but by the vested interests in GMO agriculture, who seek to patent and become the sole profiteers of life itself.
it's nature that provides us with the cures to the diseases the society causes, creates, and even spreads myths about - where diseases are made up to sell fake cures. it is a rare disease that's actually incurable, or at least, not soundly treatable - cancers, immune system infections, and even diseases such as multiple sclerosis can all, in truth, be successfully managed or cured with natural treatments - which the rulers of our society have taken the liberty to marginalize, demonize, criminalize, and then synthetically manufacture, with patentable processes, so that they become the sole profiteers off of the gifts of nature.
observe how the milk of the poppy - opium - is nature's painkiller. the opiates exist in harmony with each other, to encourage highly moderate use of the plant - morphine, codeine, theibaine, and papaverine. overuse of these compounds, in their natural state, promotes disgust and the development of psychological aversion. but our society has criminalized this plant, and our society's largest 'medicinal' companies buy its components from foreign countries, isolate its active compounds, sell some of them, and synthesize others into more addictive and harmful compounds - such as diacetylmorphine (heroin) and oxycodone (OxyContin). notice also how our government has chosen to invade Afghanistan, home of the world's poppy production, and how opium and heroin trafficking from it has remained at a steady flow. that's not a hunt for Osama Bin Laden - that's a hostile takeover of the heroin trade. it seems pretty foolish to believe that they would invade Afghanistan and overthrow its government because they were in pursuit of a fugitive, doesn't it?
observe how the cannabis plant - a natural entheogen, with mind-expanding properties, cancer curation properties, anti-inflammatory properties, anti-carcinogen dissolution properties - is criminalized, its users are ridiculed, and then the pharmaceutical industry patents the chemical processes to manufacture a fraction of its manifold active ingredients, and sells it off as an ineffective and overpriced drug - "Marinol". the federal government continues to spread decades-old, discredited lies about imagined harmful properties of the plant, such as of supposed 'brain damage' they allege it causes, which they 'proved' by suffocating monkeys with smoke in the Heath Study. the myth stopped being propagated by central official channels after it was discredited, but continues being spread at the lower levels - the center, official channels, such as the "White House ONDCP", have moved onto similar distortions about how cannabis is associated with depression - presumably in part because people who have used it have often noticed what a joke they've turned our society into.
so, we see that they attempt to commoditize nature, and as a result, extinguish it, and turn its benefits into something much more useless, or dangerous, than what it originally provided. this is nature's self-evident proof that, as we attempt to manipulate it, and profit from it, and use what it provides to enslave each other and remove ourselves from suffering, our suffering simply increases, and we only harm ourselves, and everything else in the process. it is nature that provides us with the cures for the diseases this social system, with its boundless pollution, causes, and it is natural cures that, in the end, discredit the all-too-often gimmicky and pseudoscientific treatments of the pharmaceutical industry - which i can only best describe as treatments that, all too often, try to cure a disease by utilizing side-effects of poisons, and compounding additional poisons onto the original, to treat the other side effects of the poisons.
it is a remarkable hypothesis, that nature provides us with the best cures - not after we isolate and/or synthesize compounds from it, but when we take directly from it - but this hypothesis holds up to scrutiny amazingly well. as best as i can figure, scientifically thinking, it has a single line of support - the theory of evolution, which establishes that we must have evolved to survive off of what nature provides. that any primarily man-made diseases, such as cancer, can be cured naturally, is certainly amazing - but we are, after all, a product of nature.
it is the case at times, such as with 'chemotherapies', that a treatment may address the manifested symptoms of a disease, but worsen the environment that promoted the creation of the disease. chemotherapy agents may choke off a cancer, but at the same time, induce genetic damage, or choke the body's ability to clean itself from oxidative free radicals. this phenomenon is at its most extreme when we observe our attempts to treat cancer with radiation - the entire point of radiation therapy is to damage DNA in order to kill cancer cells - but non-targeted DNA damage is exactly what causes cancer to begin with.
it's subtle, indirectly toxic carcinogens, causing a small number of subtle changes in DNA, on a wide scale, that generally causes cells to become cancerous to begin with - when the level of DNA damage is so large that it becomes directly toxic to cells, it stands to reason that any cells not killed in this process, which had mutations triggered in their oncogenes specifically, would simply become cancerous themselves, especially in the environment of a body which already managed to have such high oncogene mutation rates to begin with - whether from air pollution or radiation exposure.
all this, while natural, but unprofitable, cures to cancer are prolific, even among scientifically unskilled practioners of medicine. remission clearly depends profoundly on the body's chemical input and output. in essence, we have to basically do the opposite of that which is advertised to us - we cannot constantly eat corpses, stolen milk from animals, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, take random powdered drugs, eat refined sugars, juices, vinegars and salts, clog our toxin-expelling perspiration with antiperspirants (as opposed to deodorant - antiperspirants clog a huge outlet for the lymph filtration system, and are linked to neurodegeneration), and so forth. natural, plant and mushroom-based diets are extremely superior, and not only allow our body's natural healing mechanisms to function, but augment them, by cleansing our bodies and sometimes even directly counteracting diseases. plant-contained medium-chain fatty acids can obliterate viruses in their path. cannabinoids can choke blood supply to a cancer and cause cancer cells to self-destruct. willow bark can treat inflammation. the list is seemingly endless, and much of this wisdom, to the distaste of Western scientists, rests in the hands of folk healers who have not been inducted into our modern - and, i should say, imperialist - conception of the scientific process.
in the case of cannabis - which, clearly, is among the most potent of all of the anticancer treatments, as it nearly overflows with powerful anti-carcinogenic cannabinoids - we literally uprooted the plant, abolished and burned even non-medicinal varieties of it, and went so far as to internationalize our insane "War on Drugs" to other countries, so that they might destroy their natural medicines, as well. i have trouble believing that this was not all the result of someone's intention. and high honor should seriously be paid to the people that, in the face of this insane onslaught, chose to continue cultivating these plants anyway - especially those who had begun to understand its effects. that our society looks down on the growers of this plant should have a source of shame to everyone.
now, looping back to the main topic. let's take the 'nature' metaphor a different way, and apply it to the curation of the social - that is, the mass psychological - diseases in our society.
it is as if the universe itself conspires to destroy this entire system of oppression. seeing as the entire system is constructed by people who don't understand its insanity, their own failure is guaranteed - it is an attempt to manufacture absolute control out of a system founded on incompetence. it is incompetent to believe you can control human beings. even with the entire world covered with cameras, and an entire society turned into totalitarian enforcers, single glances of a rebellious thought would signal the time for an uprising. why should we all suffer for the benefit of the few? nobody believes that this is ideal. at most, we submit to it, because we believe a lie - that it's the only way. even while it this system is in place, we can still live perfectly happy lives around it - better than we would live inside of it. so why should we even participate? when we don't participate, their guns fall apart from disuse, the electricity to their system stops flowing, and all their troops stop marching. only our own stupidity makes the destruction continue - and the agents of destruction for this system suffer as much as anyone they victimize, as they rip all the meaning from their lives.
so the system tears at its own seams from the apathy, incompetence, and cynicism of its own members. security protocols break down. information leaks. police stand down and even join mass protests. everyone recognizes the deeply seeded feeling that the system is founded on insanity, and totally broken off from nature - the construct of life that we depend on - and thus, doomed to collapse and give rise to a social system - or, as you could describe it, a lack thereof, but simply individuals acting for common benefit - built solidly on the roots that nature provides for us.
so on a historical note - here's a really fine song, with a great sample, that i embed here because it serves as such a great example of somebody not allowing this insanity to change their course.
Set Fire to Flames - Wild Dogs Of The Thunderbolt/'They Cannot Lock Me Up... I Am Eternally Free...'
"Course I'm gonna get thrown in jail but that makes to me no difference. They can never lock me up again. I'm eternally free, whether I'm behind bars or outside it makes no difference to me at all. I'm just made to wait on the impossible mighty judge for his last coming, and then the suffering will be over from then. I'm made to suffer whether I'm inside or outside I'm always made to suffer. Because of all these people who, these children of darkness.
It is it's God the Devil that works works inside them to see if I won't ah... to see if I won't uh come come back an' beg them so I'd be under their uh... what you call u..under their control *chuckle* Under their sin-legalisation laws what they had made up their names an' borders an' rules an' laws an' books as holy, instead of exposing it as just a bunch of uh.. ...God-damned devil lies. So they don't want me to say it, just it's a bunch of goddamn devil lies, but it's God the Devil's army of lies."
a couple ideas today struck me as ideas worth writing about - so i decided to just make one post for all of them.
why are we trusting the people we are complaining about to manage our complaints?
this is the most pathetic thing i've ever seen. the "White House", "Congress", and "Supreme Court", together, have held the reins as our society drove off a cliff into near-extinction of life on Earth, and we are still supposed to trust them to handle our complaints about society? they have taken their ability to shape our society, have turned it into a battle between the rich and the poor, have accepted the gifts of the rich for doing so, with the understanding that they would vote and campaign on their behalf - and now they speak to us about democracy?
everyone who voted on these petitions blindly vouched their support for a system - and that system was designed only to nullify the dreams of the people, and provide them with the illusion that the people they trust with deciding the direction of society are somehow accountable to them. that was proven through the responses to the petitions alone, as if it weren't proven a thousand times before, through human history. the largest concerns of the people were silenced, laughed at, and dismissed. the rulers do not serve the common interest, and never have. they merely understand that the common interest exists, and that they must pay lip service to it in order to survive in the political world.
mentally grasping the evils the rulers of society have committed throughout history practically motivates one to envision some kind of demon creator god, although in truth, it appears to be only their own stupidity and blindness that has created this evil. humans simply did not assemble their knowledge highly enough in the past, to see past this insanity, where the rulers see truth in greed and gluttony, and their subjects see truth in the lies of their rulers.
this is the ultimate lesson of anarchism - it is the strongest mark of a fool, to trust another man to rule you. if you could verify that they had your best interests at heart, and meant only to guide you into safety, then you would not need to be ruled at all, because you would know already how you should live.
that brings us to the next point:
consider the following definition of a moral philosophy:
not engaging in actions until their positive morality has been verified
what consequences does this have for the individual subject of a government system? it means that they cannot support the state. you cannot pay tax to the state, act as an agent of the state, or even speak in favor of the state until you have verified that your actions are moral, and that your claims are accurate.
attempting to verify that support of the state, verbal or physical, is moral, will not succeed, because the state, by definition, depends on violent coercion of non-consenting parties to achieve its goals - the single clear dividing factor between state institutions and the so-called 'private sector'. this violent coercion involves confiscating the means of survival of those parties - including those who are already relatively disadvantaged in a society - and is thus inherently immoral.
ergo, a moral philosophy, given the prior definition, cannot include support of 'the state', i.e., 'government'.
i saw dozens of police today - more than i am used to, even living in an urban environment. i took this opportunity to conduct anthropological study on them.
urban police in America have accepted that they are doing evil. their entire being rests on a sense of false pride in what they believe to be their "social darwinism"-style superiority over the 'plebs' or 'common people', and a corresponding malice and attitude of 'anything goes', considering the knowledge they possess, that they can (at least for the time being) commit violent acts without serious danger of being subject to them.
this is the attitude of any dominant violent gang. remarkably, these dominant gangs, throughout the world, have taken on extremely similar characteristics - uniforms (usually black), badges, identification numbers, nightsticks, guns, radios, pepper spray, electrocution devices, zebra-striped cars, and 'exploded' rim hats. this suggests a common denominator between the common 'police' of the world - even if you reject the hypothesis of a single entity providing their excuse for organizing as 'police' (which you shouldn't, since it is almost entirely accurate), there is still a very defined reasoning behind their choice of uniforms and tools.
police uniforms and tools are chosen to simultaneously provide the illusion of authority to people who have not realized that the police are malevolent, and to provoke fear in people who have realized it. their uniforms are designed specifically to maximize both of these goals.
it is possible that some suburban police are not bad at heart. i don't recall ever meeting one, but that could just be my bad luck. however, urban police have been shown the true reality of their work - they defend the upper class, that have constructed the mammoth cities of the world (as testament to their own insecure sense of self) against the lower class, that the upper class have robbed.
the police - who, often, are the most 'conservative', in the sense of "FOX News", beings on this planet - simply believe the lies they are fed about the people that they are oppressing, such as that they're violent, prone to crime, lazy, or otherwise inferior to them, but nonetheless take delight in causing them harm and misery.
it is thus that "police" are manipulated, have their hearts blackened, and are torn from the reality they live in, so that they can serve the purpose of blackening the world, into the pure nothingness of the misery of sentient beings - the ultimate, insane goal of the "ruling class" being to grant themselves bliss from the misery of others. the police are simply trained, just as dogs are trained, to act as agents of destruction.
this goal of being happy by making others miserable, naturally, does not actually work. attempting to do so inevitably sows misery in yourself, and the enjoyment of life that the 'upper class' pursues, at the expense of others, is wrought with guilt, paranoia, misery, distrust, evasiveness, and the total absence of love.
the police i saw today were great examples of these same symptoms at work, to a lesser degree. they "shot the shit", "chewed the fat", and "dicked around" with each other - recognizing each other's humanity, with some added distrust - but not recognizing the humanity of others, presumably because to do so would make them confront their own reality, something too painful for them to accomplish.
i sat and stood about ten feet from them for nearly twenty minutes, but not one of them would look me straight in the eye. if they noticed i was looking at them in a way that demonstrated my understanding of what they were - with a judgmental look - they would begin to cow in shame, hang their heads, and avoid eye contact with me. after all, as it's been said, the "eyes are the windows into the soul". they were too embarassed about what was behind the window, to leave the blinds open.
they also did not provoke me once i had done this, as one might expect, even though they clearly displayed the understanding that i was judging them negatively. apparently the thought didn't even enter their heads - they were left simply to ruminate on their own shame, so deeply that they did not think to strike back at me, the person that provoked that feeling of shame in them. this should serve as proof that even black-hearted oppressors still possess 'humane' attributes, and kindness, albeit in an extremely suppressed place, buried into a corner by their own pain and insecurity. it should also serve as evidence that calm demonstration of one's own understanding is the safest way to react to an oppressor - at least, assuming a conflict has not elevated.
moving on to an even more horrifying topic...
i knew O'Reilly was horrible, but i never realized he had done this:
On the October 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly presented viewers with a host of misinformation regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to baselessly claiming that "the Bush administration has won a victory in Afghanistan," O'Reilly also asserted that "10 years ago, nobody [had] even heard of" Iraq, despite the fact that the United States led a coalition against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. O'Reilly further stated that while most of the problems in Iraq are "the Iraqis' fault" because they "are the ones that are killing each other," what is "America's fault, the Bush administration's fault" is that "[w]e thought ... [w]e were going to be greeted with flags, as conquerors." Vice President Dick Cheneyfamously predicted U.S. troops would be greeted in Iraq as "liberators," not "conquerors." Additionally, O'Reilly's guest, Fox News political analyst and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), baselessly asserted that support for "unilateral withdrawal" of U.S. troops in Iraq, which Gingrich attributed to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, "would get about 25 percent of the vote." In fact, polling has consistently shown that a majority of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the position Dean and Pelosi favor.
O'Reilly also claimed during the program that he was "not a partisan as far as telling anybody who to vote for. I think you're [his viewers] smart enough to know who to vote for." As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Reilly has suggested that both North Korea and Iran "want to influence the November election" and want Americans to "vote in the Democrats."
During a discussion with Sarah Sewall, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, O'Reilly claimed that "we were successful in Afghanistan"; that it is "a myth" that "Afghanistan's going backwards," as Sewall claimed; that "[t]here's always going to be a Taliban insurrection" in Afghanistan; that "[e]very military analyst working for our team says most of that country is pacified"; and that "[o]ur information is that there's no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country, none. They'll be annoying. There'll be guerrilla warfare." When Sewall tried to argue otherwise, O'Reilly declared her to be "just parroting the left-wing line that America doesn't know what its doing." Sewall replied: "I'm parroting conversations with commanders who are in uniform serving bravely in Afghanistan."
who hired O'Reilly to spit these vile, war-mongering lies? he supports a military invasion of a foreign land, and has the gall to accuse them of "killing each other"? in his viewers, who sat by and believed him, the evils of imperialism were still present - they still believed the myth that the non-white-people races of this planet are simply 'uncivilized'. this is really the worst blindness that can be cast on people - the blindness that stops them from seeing the light common to virtually all animals, not even just all human beings.
at face value, one might accept that it was Rupert Murdoch, or other News Corp executives - his immediate employers, that charged him with spitting this mass murder propaganda. but who ultimately controls News Corp?
as many people know, Roger Ailes was directly commissioned by Nixon to craft FOX into the monstrosity it is today. however, few people have seen a move like this, demonstrating who's calling the shots as News Corp - here, introducing a motion for Rupert Murdoch's removal:
Shareholders from the US, UK and Canada filed a resolution on Tuesday, calling for News Corp to appoint an independent chairman. A similar resolution attracted strong support at the media company's annual shareholder meeting last year.
The proposal was introduced by Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), which manages $4.6bn for Catholic institutions worldwide. [emphasis added] It is backed by the UK's Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, with assets of £115bn ($178.9bn), and British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, one of Canada's largest institutional investors.
that would be the Catholic Church.
who can even imagine why they have invested in News Corp? the people charged with carrying the message of peace are invested in the company that does more than any other company on the planet, to promote the message of war.
and Bill O'Reilly, in desperately trying to pursue his own lusts and satisfactions, put that message on national TV, and assisted in extinguishing what some people estimate at a million lives - which the government's own leaked figures (surely underestimates) placed above 100,000 lives. he fed the American 'right' the lie that so-called "Iraqis", who he depicted as sub-human, needed to be violently 'civilized', and that the horrible misery unleashed in the wake of this insanity should be blamed on them.
it gives me no pride to criticize him, or anyone else, but serves as the most clear proof available of the media disinformation mechanisms required to sustain tyrannies. the television media for our so-called "nation" had to be corporatized, centrally monopolized, and then used to disseminate false reasoning to make the beings of our planet forget their roots, and attack each other, in a form of externally induced mass suicide.
a myth has been disseminated for years, that the Iraq War happened because of an honest mistake on the part of the Bush administration, that made them mistake metal tubes, of which they had satellite pictures, for materials to create so-called "weapons of mass destruction", and of a supposed anthrax attack threat, and of a supposed association between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
these myths are easily proven completely false, and the criminal intent of the 'government' cartel under Bush and Cheney are thus easily demonstrated.
first, it is inconceivable that the entire so-called 'security apparatus' and upper 'executive branch' - including Bush and Cheney themselves, who had both previously worked at oil companies - would fail to envision any alternate use for metal tubes than to create nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.
second, the other justification for the war - the anthrax attacks, that had been used to create a mass fear of chemical weapons attacks, which Colin Powell presented to the "United Nations" as evidence of chemical weapons production in Iraq - have been known for years to originate from within the U.S. government. the vials were eventually found to have been stolen from a government lab, a scandal which clearly culminated in the murder of Bruce Ivins.
third, the other justification for the war, the claimed association between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (which were lied about to the public by Bill O'Reilly, as described in the above Media Matters article):
O'REILLY: OK. And I agree with that. But it is the Iraqis' fault. The Iraqis are the ones that are killing each other. The Iraqi militias in the south have allied themselves with Iran. The Iraqis are harboring Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda couldn't exist in the country without Iraqi complicity.
were never actually supported. John Kerry called upon Bush to support the claims of an association between Hussein and Bin Laden, at a presidential debate, but Bush failed to do even this.
thus, all three primary justifications for the Iraq War were simply lies. the only logical conclusion is that Bush and Cheney were simply ordered to create the war, in order to satisfy the co-conspirators that had engineered their election victory in 2000 (a task they could not possibly accomplish independently). it is only the next logical step to conclude that the Afghanistan War was engineered similarly, especially considering that the Bin Laden guilt theory is easily disproven through forensic analysis of the WTC attacks, through the suspicious fact that the Bin Laden family had previously had business dealings with the Bush family, and through the fact that heroin output from Afghanistan - i believe their most profitable export - continued uninterrupted during the U.S. military occupation of the country, while this specific drug trade has long known to been an illicit undertaking of not only the American empire, but also its predecessor, the British Empire before it (remember the Chinese "Opium Wars"?).
anyway, i may cover the 2000 election fraud at a later date, although i doubt it, since i don't think i can improve on what's already been said about it - it's enough to point out that the Supreme Court intervened and called the election for Bush, in the middle of Florida's highly irregular, tampered-with recount, which was occurring under the watch of election commissioner Katherine Harris, Bush's campaign manager, and under the watch of governor Jeb Bush - Bush's brother.
it's no less significant that the company charged with security at the World Trade Center complex, as well as the Dulles International Airport, United Airlines itself, and even the Department of Defense - the company Securacom - had Bush's other brother, Marvin Bush, on its board of directors, and was owned by the Bush-affiliated Kuwait-American Corp.:
it isn't even subject to debate at this point, the evidence is so settled. the heads of 'government' engineered the attacks on September 11th in order to terrorize the population and make them desperate enough to support a multi-trillion dollar set of wars, from which they had already engineered methods to profit.
they created false justifications for the wars, monopolized the investigation of the attacks that prompted the wars, tampered with the evidence in the investigation of those attacks, and created an "enemy" mythology around the attacks - based on religious division (warning sign of religion being used to create war!) - while the available evidence conclusively demonstrated their own guilt.
even today, after the supposed ('supposed' because no evidence has been released for it) death of Osama Bin Laden, the 'government' is still militarizing itself and trying to orchestrate attacks to keep the division between the Christian and Muslim worlds alive, as proven by the Boston Bombings (see my half dozen previous posts on those attacks for info on that), which they have already tried to use in order to promote new fears of 'radical Islam' as some kind of 'national threat'.
previous incidents with proven FBI affiliation include the "Somali Christmas Tree Bomber", the "Oakland Bridge Bombers", and the "Underwear Bomber" - all of whom had been led along and even supplied fake weapons by the FBI, if not framed entirely.
if they go that far, how can we believe that they didn't simply frame the entire scenarios to begin with? this is precisely where we are called upon to trust them - even though this same organization, laughably called a "Bureau of Investigation", has such ugly marks on its history as covert surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, and Malcolm X, who most people consider to be heroes.
it takes no stretch of the imagination to see why all three of those men, who had dedicated their lives to spreading messages of social uprising, humanity, and resistance against oppressors, were then assassinated.
i digress. moving back to the Christian/Muslim politics of division promoted by the government - these division politics are the only politics that can be used to create war. and, besides to confuse and distract, they really serve no other purpose at all. conflicts do not naturally polarize people in such a sustained manner - they actually tend to resolve themselves in favor of truth, as evidence piles up to show that the division is unwise, and to show what the ideal resolution of the conflict is. it takes the deliberate obfuscation of the truth to sustain the conflicts beyond that natural cycle.
thus, that politics of division are even present in our society is a warning sign that we're being controlled. it is the case that the truth about the conflict between American (ostensibly, Christian) society, and Middle Eastern (ostensibly, Muslim) society, has been obscured in favor of an artificially promoted narrative of fear and inherent division. we are simply ushered away from our common humanity, and made to believe that either 'side' is inevitably bound to attempt to oppress the other 'side'.
moving on to the #1 financial mechanism for profiting from war:
for a given period of time in a budget (let's say a year), the federal government is mandating that its expenditures (output), x, are a fraction of the economy's total expenditures for the year, y (about equal to GDP). the fraction of the spending in the economy that takes place on account of the government is thus x/y.
no matter where the government gets its revenue (input), z, it commits itself to being in control of that fraction of the economy, for the budget period in question.
so let's assume the government runs a deficit for a budget period:
d = x-z
here are its options for funding the deficit:
1) borrow the money by issuing government securities. this creates a repayment obligation equal to d, plus the exponentially-increasing interest that d accrues, f - which is pocketed by the lenders.*
2) raise taxes. this amounts to a tax of amount d on the population.
3) inflate the currency the government produces. this amounts to a slightly time-delayed tax of amount d on the population (such time delay being the amount of time it takes for the artificial imbalance in money ownership to disseminate). this is the case because, in a supply-and-demand based monetary economy, the value of the money in the economy mirrors the goods that money must purchase - ergo, an increase in the supply of money by multiplicand i means that the average value of goods purchased with that money will, post-adjustment, increase by i, where i is defined as i = (m+d/m), where m is equal to the monetary supply of that money's economy.
this all assumes constant population size, although population growth is essentially negligible in these equations, given how small it is compared to the time scale of these events. the same goes for market growth and other various confounding variables.
it is implied in the government's methods, that we are to believe that d+f, paid over time, is superior to d paid at once. that is immediately questionable - what is the amount f, which increases as long as d has not been paid back?
f has been increasing non-stop for a century, give or take 3-4 years. the system is arranged so that the government pays f continuously, while running a nearly-constant deficit d, so that d, the deficit, is constantly added onto debt D - which has recently passed 16 trillion dollars.
accordingly, the annual interest on that debt has grown exponentially as well - last i checked, it's equal to about $220 billion dollars per year. an annual payment of $709 for every human subject to "United States" schemes. the debt of 16 trillion (an under-measurement, which doesn't even measure the massive outstanding obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and others) is equal to roughly $50,000 for every person in the country.
if the borrowing time-delay burden, including the cost of interest, was less than the inflationary time-delayed burden, then it would be justifiable (note: when i use the word 'justifiable' in this section of the article, i'm pretending my earlier criticisms of the inherent immorality of the 'state' don't apply).
however, as we can see, median family income has only doubled between 1955 and 2005 - a 1.395% annual increase for the median family (50th root of 2) - while the interest on the debt paid itself:
is actually increasing at 2.18% every year (24th root of (359,796,008,919/214,145,028,847)).
so the interest burden is actually increasing faster than our median income is increasing. furthermore, our median income is levelling out, while our income burden is accelerating its increase. therefore, this situation is less comfortable for us.
so this is clearly not even a strategy of absorbing unexpected expenses by borrowing money, in which the government's debt-inducing deficits could be rapidly balanced with surpluses - where this borrowing strategy could hypothetically be justified. rather, it's a strategy of creating a scam out of constantly generating new government debt - debt that the public, in theory and in government 'law', is supposed to be on the hook to pay.
so, the borrowing of money to pay deficits is clearly the least preferable approach, because it involves the unnecessary involvement of a third party profiteer. the only way it could possibly be rationalized is if a sudden extreme expense needed to be incurred, that would be too large to be supported unexpectedly by the population, through either taxation or inflation - but which, somehow, could be supported by the tiny portion of the population rich enough to lend that money to the government.
and yet, that is what happens - conclusively establishing that the government's budgeting system is designed around serving "special interests". since natural disasters do not incur increases in government expenditures of this magnitude, the government is forced to manufacture disasters, as discussed previously in this post, in order to satisfy the demands of the money lending lobby - which wants the government to justify massive expenses to the public, which they will gladly lend money to cover - with interest.
if it's not clear enough from the statistics that this is the case, it should be even more clear from how the "Presidents" and "Congressmen" of this cartel continually accept huge bribes from the investment banks in this debt market, and appoint their former executives into positions of control over this system - such as the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, turned Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson. literally, the guy who used to be CEO of the company that bought the government's debt, put in charge of the agency selling government debt to his old company.
but it doesn't even end there. the government is not only relying on this insane, corrupt system to handle its deficits - it's actually selling the securities that represent its debts to private organizations, and then buying it back from them. as if things couldn't get any more corrupt. yes, the Federal Reserve actually buys the debt that it sold, at a loss. back, and forth, and back, and forth. and the worst part about it? none of the organizations involved are obligated to release statistics about it. the 1.6% of our economy we're paying in interest on the national debt appears to not even be a fraction of the robbery we're being subjected to - we can't even measure how much money is being leaked out through these unaudited 'discount window' transactions.
and who are these organizations buying this debt?
the biggest investment banks on the planet - the first name that comes to mind is Goldman Sachs. the Treasury reports that private banks only hold a small fraction - about 5% - of the outstanding debt of the government, but honestly, you would have to be an idiot to believe that. the actual holders of the debt are all confidential, so why would they even tell you? we're talking about an integrated criminal cartel - they're not under any obligation to release their records. all we can do is look at the skyrocketing inequality in our economy, the huge market shares possessed by banks, the tallest buildings in our cities, and see how it all seems to stem directly from the center of this system.
and, so, that's how the federal government's accounting system works. time for an alternative, huh?
the only way we could even salvage this mess, and keep a monetary economy, would be to have a debt jubilee (nullification of debts), and a serious "moment of silence" nationwide to think about who actually should own our real, physical property, including the actual physical dollar bills we have in circulation**. it's definitely not the people the government says have the rightful claim over these things.
*this debt has not been cleared for at least a century, and so the interest has been accruing constantly since - partial payments, to pay off the interest on the debt, have guaranteed that the government debt business has grown exponentially more profitable for an entire century.
**$1.028 trillion, or $3,275/person. there's that whole "fractional reserve banking" issue, too, where debt instruments are used as the reserves for more loans, which is why it seems like there's actually way more money in the economy (about 50x more, at around $55 trillion).
oh, and none of those dollars are actually worth anything outside of our imaginary social protocol economy, because they're just stupid looking pieces of paper we've been brainwashed into valuing. ask anyone who lives off of the earth - dollars are only worth as much as their myth.
"Illuminati" is just a term i'm using for convenience - at this point, i don't think they refer to themselves internally with anything but symbols and vague "us" or "we" references. (note added May 11 - i am simply referring to the world dominating cult, and ignoring the mythology that this group originated with Adam Weishaupt in the 18th century).
i'm skipping the time-wasting argument about whether or not this world-dominating group is real, because obviously somebody has been using "Christianity", "Judaism" and "Islam" to fuck with us for a few millennia. it's obvious that this mass deception has been malevolent since day one, due to the air of authenticity given to the falsehoods in the religions - which establishes that a group of insiders have exercized control over those religions throughout their history. since the religions share common Abrahamic theological roots, it's trivial to conclude further that the same group has orchestrated control over all of these religions, and has branched out the religions in order to promote division, dischord, and violent conflict among their followers.
how should the average person imagine this group of insiders?
now, i'm very sensitive to minority group issues, so i'll ask any gay and/or Jewish readers of this blog to see if they can avoid being offended when i say this, since it really doesn't have much of anything to do with them. i have to use these terms in an imagistic way, to communicate my conception of these world-dominating whackjobs, in a way that's transmissable through the modern American language (not an easy task).
the "Illuminati" are a bunch of flaming, pansy-ass faggots. they are so fucking gay that they actually enjoy making the entire public miserable. they are everything bad that anybody ever said about Jewish people (even though many of them aren't even Jewish) - they are miserly, unmanly, pathetic little bitches who can't even find enjoyment in life without the sick and perverted glee that they get from tricking hundreds of millions of people into killing themselves and each other, and generally being completely miserable.
they are everything bad you can say about people who've lost their connection to the truths of nature - they have imprisoned themselves inside a world of horrifying, alienated, perverted humor.
and here's the really important part. they had to combine the normal pleasures in their lives, with the knowledge of their horrific guilt regarding 9/11, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, etc., in a botched attempt to retain their sanity - meaning they their only remaining coping mechanism was to twist themselves so that crimes against humanity were mentally internalized as something conducive to sexual enjoyment. this psychosis was self-imbued by them, onto themselves, in order to provide an illusion of the harmony they had robbed themselves of.
that's what we're dealing with. police and military personnel, if they've figured out the evil of their organizations and kept participating, like to imagine that they're being led by some kind of warrior god, or something. in reality, the people giving them orders are sad, tiny-dick, sniveling little bitches born with silver spoons up their asses. and you can quote me on that. again, imagistic descriptions. we are talking about people whose extreme privilege, and distance from hard labor and poverty, has been growing for thousands of years. they are like "Gollum" from "Lord of the Rings", or like "Ebenezer Scrooge". their entire lives are comprised of executing a series of cheap tricks they've learned to keep the population of the world moving in a suicidal spiral, while they learned to promote their own interests, so to speak, at the center of that spiral.
among the exploits of the "Illuminati" are:
playing both sides of military conflicts - i.e., using the Battle of Waterloo to engineer a financial coup d'etat of the British stock market; investing in both sides of the war
turning the anti-Roman anarchist movement of Christianity into the sad and pathetic Roman religion it is today (particularly, Roman Catholicism) via agents Theodosius, Constantine, possibly Marcion and Saul of Tarsus, etc.. this was achieved by introducing insane theologies into the Christian tradition, creating internal conflict and, in turn, an anti-heretical movement, and then dominating the anti-heretical movement, throwing the followers of the original (peaceful) religion under the bus by declaring them to be heretics, and then converting the religion into the war-mongering nightmare it had become by the 5th century, while introducing more false theologies and religious myths (such as resurrection of the dead!) in order to obscure the roots of the religion.
seizing control of the world's means of production by engineering fiat monetary control systems (unlimited expansion of control)
engineering the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Napoleonic wars, World Wars, and countless others. military expenses have historically created a huge wake of corruption, including government 'money borrowing' activity, arms sales, increased militarization (and thus 'security' for the moneyed classes of society), and other hugely successful ways to pilfer money from populations of people. in the frantic rush of people scrambling to protect themselves from an invented 'threat', government accounting transparency and integrity - whatever existed to begin with, at least - basically vanishes.
engineering the "Crusades" (interesting fact - many of the priests, who had encouraged men to participate in the Crusades, literally seized those men's land in their absence, and refused to give it up when they returned). this is very interesting as a historical note - many people do not realize just how severe and maniacal the evils present in medieval and classical society were.
inventing and/or manipulating "Islam", apparently to prevent a resurgence of original anarchist Christianity (like Ebionitism) in the Middle East/North Africa (a parallel to their original false religion, Judaism) (please see footnote *)
apparently inventing "Judaism", presumably in order to trick the local population into supporting them while they did no labor. remember that part of "Genesis" (as if that was how the Earth began!) about which animals they preferred to have sacrificed to their god? the part where one brother kills the other because his offering of plants wasn't good enough? the priests were the ones who ate those offerings after their followers had left. sounds like they really wanted to eat some meat. you forsake some beings, and it can be a real slippery slope...before you know it, you're laying down six-thousand year lies about the origin of the earth and the nature of the universe.
engineering political theatre in the seats of their host empires (depending on the era, this has been Rome, London, Washington D.C., and others), including false spectacles of political elections, engineered PR events (the New Deal), and other pathetic, really disgusting distractions for the public to consume, in lieu of justice. this has turned into the disgusting, one-up-manship contest we see today, with the disgusting spectacle of cult-of-personality campaign advertisement being shoved down the throats of millions of people. Anthony Weiner's embarassing sexting scandal, Republican anti-gay senators who sleep with men...do i need to say anything more? the "Illuminati" can barely keep the weird fucks in their employ under control - although a crisis rarely goes to waste for them, since they use the public shaming of politicians who are caught in such behavior in an attempt to normalize and legitimize the rest of the psychopaths in the political sector.
apparently using Israel Mossad agents at "Urban Moving" and George Bush's cousin Marvin Bush's WTC-affiliated security company to engineer the WTC disaster. very literally, this event was a sacrifice of 3,000 people in an attempt to achieve world domination, which is the conclusion of all legitimate paths of research into the event. the ridiculousness of the idea of Mossad agents engineering this attack is not lost on me, but regardless, it is clearly what transpired, as evidenced by highly irregular news reports, not to mention police reports - describing the presence of explosives in their vehicle - and a later interview of the suspects on Israeli television. this is one of several red flags remaining that demonstrate that the attacks were orchestrated independently of any Islamist radicals.
mass poisoning with toxic compounds (barium, aluminum, sodium hexafluoride, benzenes/benzoates, creosols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.), both directly - in so-called "chemtrails" (yes, those huge chemical release clouds behind planes, which are absolutely NOT water vapor from jets), water poisoning, food poisoning through companies in which they own massive shares through their holding companies (Kellog, PepsiCo, Nabisco, Nestle, etc.), through chemical weapons administered during warfare (long list - sarin, mustard, CS gasses, depleted uranium shells, etc.), through oil/coal/gas/hydrofracking pollution (again, by proxy, through their holding companies, which own companies such as Exxon, Shell, BP, Halliburton, etc.).
the invention of nuclear weapons (what kind of sick fuck...)
generally sucking (emphasis on "sucking") the enjoyment out of everyone's lives by side-effect
engineering a popularly held conception of mankind as materialistic, pleasure-driven psychopaths, which in turn has created a culture of extreme greed and exploitation, leading to sky-high poverty, crime rates, sexual assault, war crimes, police state-style oppression, and other god-awful miseries. at a more severe level, engineering a popularly held conception of mankind as a pre-afterlife stage of beings, held to rigorous and insane moral standards - thus robbing people of the ability to enjoy their lives
engineering countless other wars, religious conflicts, mass thefts, and crimes against humanity
what kind of person is still enjoying any part of their life after committing crimes like these? it seems that they've sucked (emphasis on "suck") themselves so deep into their own insanity that the only people interested in joining them are people who think there's no other option.
framing the problem like that helps you see this problem as what it really is - their massive egos are so sick and insane that some people read genius into their perverted insanity, and hence, get absorbed into their cult. it is literally the case, that our entire society has gotten caught in a massive "ego distortion field", so to speak - and that the horrible, weird shit that they're into is bleeding out into our news media and popular culture.
and THAT, basically, is why people love anarchism. it amounts to a rejection of all of the forms of control that have been exercised over us, including all of those i mentioned.
"say that to me again, you fucking pervert!"
* (note added on May 11): i have spent a few years investigating Islamic theology, and have found a really puzzling mix of great truths about modern civilization, as well as in-group religious nationalism and some draconian proscribed punishments. i'm still consulting varying translations of the Koran in an attempt to understand Islam - my best understanding so far is that of a semi-Abrahamic religion which disavows its Jewish roots, and, insofar as Christianity has deviated from its roots, its Christian roots. the Jewish/Islamic conflict that characterizes the modern Middle East, logically, seems to only be able to stem from a failure to recognize mutual humanity through common teachings.
on that line of thought, the Koran repeatedly describes the Jewish people losing sight of the truths in Moses's law, and the Christians losing sight of the truths in Jesus's law, which is predicted to be resolved in the Muslim eschatological "Yawm al-Qiyāmah" (apocalypse). at best, I can only say that egregious flaws exist in Islam, or at least, its modern form, which, by standard financial network analysis, appears to be have been deliberately tainted by Western ("Illuminati") influence. it is unclear to me, to what extent Islam was originally designed as a cult, versus to what extent it has evolved to that point, but it's clear that manipulation of it has occurred in order to sustain centuries of violent conflict.
a lot of people - understandably - really hate religious texts preaching about "judgment Day" and "apocalypse". this is fine, because people have been scamming each other with false apocalypse claims for most of recorded history.
nevertheless, i think it's really interesting how this article talks about how drug addiction, money lending, sexual identity issues, murder, etc., flourish in a society in which evil people have seized control, which is really applicable to American society.
further, i think it's really interesting that these 'prophecies' seem to apply amazing well to how worldwide culture is changing as a result of the Internet waking people up to the damage being caused by thoughtless behavior, and the countless crimes of people in power which do so much to cause it.
i'm also very fond of Islam's prohibition of usury ("Riba")! something is very weird about the idea that you should profit from temporarily lending money or resources - that you deserve interest because you could hypothetically put them to use. this is just like saying that having money amounts to deserving more money - what else are they paying you interest for? this practice pervades American society, and yet Islam - correctly - describes it as a sin. "mix of truths and half truths".
what if Islam is just Judaism Lite, made to be more palatable for people with more developed cultures - who had become aware of the evils at the center of Judaism and the then-modified Christianity, and thus, needed to be fed an opposition theology? in attempting to understand the character of Mohammed, we are thrown several confusing, conflicting hints - a strong, religiously-themed resistance narrative against the growing threat of Jewish and faux-Christian societies - which, paradoxically, is imbued with not only the group-think, nationalistic, xenophobic, and violent tendencies imbued also into Judaism and the contemporary, heavily modified version of Christianity - but also with the creation myth of Judaism itself - the stories of Adam, Eve, and Abraham, among others. at the same time that Mohammed spoke against the evils of Abrahamic religions, he invented a new one, and thus cemented its non-factual myths - which he had no basis to validate - into the consciousness of his followers.
what could motivate somebody to do that?
now, if the legacy of Muhammed was manipulated after his death, as with the case of Jesus, and potentially, Moses, Ezekiel, and god, who knows, Joseph Smith or whoever - then it's a different story. what's certain is that the lines he drew eventually turned into lines of division.
Syria warns Israel after 'latest air raids' - Al Jazeera
how did this situation hinging on "war" emerge?
history teaches us that at least one national 'government' in an 'international' dispute is attempting to provoke a conflict. in the worst cases, chiefs of both 'governments' are complicit, and engineer a conflict in order to mutually alienate their populations and center resources into corruptable military expenses.
it's become clear that arms funding, by the U.S. and/or Israel, has occurred in the context of an insurrection that's recently occurred in Syria. examining Assad's past - a family semi-dynasty in Syria, with a claimed 1.5 billion dollar fortune - could easily provoke some people to point fingers at him as the sole aggressor - especially in combination with heavily publicized reports from the last several years of many real and imaginary attacks by the Assad administration, but a more calm approach is needed to understand the nature of the conflict. we have to look at his history of opposing U.S. 'interventionism' (invasions), opposing territorial expansions in the region by Israel (which, contrary to some people's beliefs, constitute military invasions on lands with established settlements). at the same time, we are forced to acknowledge reported human rights violations in Syria, including major surveillance and anti-protest symptoms of anti-democratic elements ruling the society.
nonetheless, the U.S. and Israel complexes are unequivocably the aggressors in the scenario, and it should be noted that the citizens of 'Syria' has had their 'territorial airspace' invaded by Israel. 'Syria' has reacted predictably, describing the attacks as part of an implicit declaration of war, and has also described the internationally-funded insurrection as an extension of the U.S./Israel alliance, which is clearly the truth.
there are human rights concerns under Assad, but they appear to be completely negligible when compared to the human rights concerns posed by the U.S. and Israeli 'governments'/complexes, both intraterritorially and extraterritorially. it is possible that Assad is somehow complicit in engineering the conflict alongside them, but that seems unlikely, especially given his refusal to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time.
in light of how 'cluster bomb' attacks, and possession of 'chemical weapons', were claimed to have occurred in Syria by the U.S. and Israeli government/media complex, were not internationally corraborated, appear to have undergone major fabrication (false flag/orchestrated event), and the alleged cluster bomb attacks were even explicitly denied to have occurred by the Russian government, along with countless other facts regarding the obvious power conflict at play - in light of all that, the only smart thing to do is simply highlight the financial interests in the U.S./Israeli power complex that seek to benefit from the escalation of hostilities, and have all parties involved simply refuse to enter into any conflict, regardless of who tries to lead them into one.
of course, that's the exact same principle that applies to all unstable international pre-conflict stages such as these - support needs to never be given to any aggression. the language of self-defense simply breaks down at the group level, as the principle loses whatever meaning it has, the closer you get to the reality of populations of humans being divided into imaginary groups and made to fight each other.
fuck the mafia IRS, end the racket forever