piecing together bits of truth about gov't and corporate influence

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Civilization at the Crossroads by John Meyer

In our last letter we stated that, "American capitalism ended in 1913 and remains "An Unknown Ideal." We also commented that, "A troubling question arises: Has the financial community hijacked government?"

We are going to discuss those issues in an historical and philosophical context. We all today live in a twilight zone where things seemingly are and yet aren't. We must travel down some roads, which are troubling and rather dark. But, it is necessary, because it is today's reality. We can say at the start that you will find the trip unbelievable - I know I did when I first stumbled down this path. Matter of fact, at first I totally dismissed it as absolute insanity and therefore not possible. For, it was inconceivable that the morality of man could descend to such naked malevolence.

To look more deeply into our history is necessary, because almost all that comes from our "intellectual" community, is propaganda and spin. Before we heap cures on a dying patient, first and always diagnose. Diagnosis is the art or act of identifying the disease. All the talk about free markets and capitalism having failed and always what we need is more regulation and intervention are deliberate obfuscations. Naturally, with this propaganda barrage, Socialism keeps "gaining" by default. You have to be on another planet to think that what we have had for the last century is capitalism or free markets.

So - every once in awhile it pays to stand back and locate one's position in reality. Events have gone well beyond the field of economics, finance and politics. Sub rosa forces seem to be spinning us deep into an Orwellian existence. The Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic. It was not a democracy. The Founding Fathers were quite outspoken on this. Madison in a passage in The Federalist wrote: "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The natural and inalienable rights of the individual trumped the majority vote of a mob. The State was to be the servant of the individual. The Declaration of Independence was the culmination of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism. The individual and the concept of property rights were elevated to be supreme. The individual was set free from the collective, king or god to pursue his own rational self interests. This noble experiment propelled the United States to a level of achievement, which has never been equaled. Productivity is the essential requirement of life. In fact, life demands it. It is metaphysical. That is, it is biocentric. Life is a constant process of self-sustaining and self generated action. The individual is the creator and to deny or impinge, in any way, on the products of his efforts leads society down the road to slavery. The right to life and by extension his property is the source of all rights.

The State is the institutionalization of force, of all exploitation, directly or indirectly. There are essentially only two ways to survive. Wealth is achieved either through industry and production or by force and plunder. The State does not create wealth. The State can only obtain wealth from the productive individual. The State becomes the political means, through "rationalization", by which the wealth of the citizen is looted. The State's power is maintained until the people begin to catch on to the nature of the systematic plunder, and until people begin to challenge this colossal con game. At this point, the State usually turns brutish. We are there today.

From the very beginning of the American Republic, a tension existed between proponents of centralization and political control and advocates of freedom and limited government. The spirit of Jefferson battling against an Aristocracy and the oligarchy of a Hamilton. In fact, this struggle continued throughout the nineteenth century looming larger and larger. The Federalist and their quest for a central bank being the fulcrum of this struggle.

In 1760, Mayer Amschel Rothschild created the House of Rothschild that was to pave the way for international banking and control of the world's resources on a scale both unparalleled and mysterious. His five sons were disbursed throughout Europe. In time, control of the Bank of France and the Bank of England was achieved. It is quite likely that Rothschild was behind the early attempts to establish a national bank in America. Jefferson and Madison remained adamantly opposed. Then later, the statists were confronted by Andrew Jackson. In a letter Jackson wrote dated June 26, 1833 he made clear his opposition to re-chartering the Second Bank of the United States: "The framers (of our Constitution) were too well aware of the corrupting influences of a great moneyed monopoly upon government to legalize such a corrupting monster by any grant either express or implied in the constitution." The great Jackson was the last anti-elitist President.

In these early decades of our history, this tension remained contained within the boundaries of the Constitution. Even the extreme supporters of Hamilton would have been at odds with the arbitrary and unconstitutional edicts issuing from Washington today. Hamilton would have stopped short of a State engaging in social engineering, the redistribution of wealth and perpetual war. The Bill of Rights were a formal reaffirmation of the limited authority of the Federal government. The 9th and 10th Amendment preserving all other non-delegated rights to the states and the people.

read more

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Zinn: 9/11 Truth Is For "Fanatics", Has "No Practical Political Significance"

Howard Zinn my inspiration.
His biggest compromise.
We all have our reasons.

New comments cause more outrage after leftist historian said he didn't care about what really happened on 9/11
Steve Watson

Friday, Nov 21, 2008
Just days after left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn told an audience that he didn’t care if 9/11 was an inside job, he has repeated the sentiment, stating that questions regarding the attacks have "no practical political significance" and that 9/11 truth activists are "fanatics" who are wasting their time.
During a lecture at UQAM university in Montréal, Zinn was once again asked if he would support a new 9/11 investigation.
Zinn responded:
"I have said that what happened on 9/11 deserves to be investigated more than it has been because I don't accept and believe official investigations and official reports.
But having said that, and I want to say that this has really annoyed a lot of people, but why not, and I will annoy more people by saying that I think there are many people who have become fanatics about 9/11. By fanatics I mean, they think we should drop everything and just concentrate our energies on finding out what happened on 9/11.
I don't think the question of what really happened on 9/11 is the most important question we can ask."
Zinn then took a direct swipe at the 9/11 truth movement by stating:
"To tell a movement of citizens in the United States that this is something that we really have to make an issue of, I don't believe it because we don't need what happened on 9/11, we don't need that to tell us about the crimes of the Bush administration.
I believe there are certain things that happen in history and certainly questions that are asked that divert us from the important things that we have to do at hand.
The truth is I don't think anyone will ever really know what happened on 9/11 just as I don't think anyone will really know who killed John F. Kennedy, and there are a lot of people who wasted a huge amount of time working on something that did not have any practical political significance."
Zinn then asserted that his previous comments at a lecture in Colorado has been distorted and that he never said he did not care about 9/11 or the fact that it was in the past.
Zinn's exact words that day were "I don't know enough about it (the 9/11 conspiracy) and the truth is I don't much care, that's past."

read more