YES YES YES….THE 2014 SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE CAMPAIGN HAS OFFICIALLY STARTED

May 30, 2012

Yes campaign launches as pro-independence groups come together
The pro-independence referendum campaign launches today in Edinburgh as political parties, civil groups and businesses join together to unveil ‘Yes Scotland’.
Yes Scotland will see the Greens and Scottish Socialists join with the SNP in order to try to encourage the people of Scotland to vote yes in the 2014 referendum.
A host of celebrities including Holywood actors Brian Cox and Alan Cumming will be joined by Scots from all walks of life in a campaign that organisers say will offer broad based appeal.
Yes Scotland has been billed at the biggest community based campaign in Scotland’s history, designed to build a groundswell of support for an independent Scotland.
The campaign is also supported by a new website, http://yesscotland.net.
Meanwhile, former UK Chancellor Alistair Darling said the No campaign would be launching in the summer.
The Labour MP has been involved in talks with Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the hope of forming a campaign alliance.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/5042-yes-campaign-launches-as-pro-independence-groups-come-together
SO AT LAST SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE IS ON THE POLITICAL TABLE
SET AGAINST THE SCOTTISH NATIONALISTS IS THE FULL FORCE OF THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT
FROM NEW LABOUR TO THE TORYS AND EVEN THE LIB-DEMS ALL UNITING AGAINST THE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT
LABOUR JOIN FORCES WITH THIER SUPPOSED ARCH-ENEMIES THE TORIES
BUT IN REALITY THE LABOUR PARTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE TORIES PROXY IN SCOTLAND
THEY HAVE ALWAYS IMPLEMENTED TORY POLICY IN SCOTLAND
TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN…….SO THIS IS NOTHING NEW
Pact with Tories leads to all time low for Labour
REMEBER THE LABOUR FEEBLE 50?….AND THE FEEBLE 41? AND THE FEEBLE 49? ETC ETC….
http://reallystopthetories-votesnp.webs.com/thefeeblefifty.htm
JUST SHOWING US THAT THEY ARE INDEED ALL THE SAME PARTY WITH ALL THE SAME INTERESTS AND FINANCIAL BACKERS
SO IS ANYBODY REALLY THAT SHOCKED?
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/a-vote-for-labour-or-liberal-is-a-vote-for-the-tories-in-scotland/
THE ZIONIST LOBBY WILL BE TOTALLY AGAINST SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE AS WELL
 https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/scottish-first-minister-supports-sanctions-against-israel/

ECONOMICALLY IT IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR SCOTLAND TO BE INDEPENDANT
THIS VIEW IS SHARED BY THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT
View from the LEFT
“LABOUR ministers were warned in a secret Whitehall dossier 30 years ago of the powerful case for Scotland becoming independent with booming oil revenues, but the information was kept confidential by Harold Wilson’s government to keep nationalism at bay.
The dossier, most of which was written by a leading government economist in 1974 and 1975, sets out how Scotland would have had one of the strongest currencies in Europe, attracting international capital into its banks in the same way as Switzerland.
It argued Scotland could quickly become one of Europe’s strongest economies with “embarrassingly” large tax surpluses.”
View from the RIGHT
“Adam Smith Institute, Friday, April 27, 2007
The Scottish economy could enjoy record growth if Scotland became independent, leaving the average Scot many thousands of pounds better off each year. This is the finding of a research Briefing Paper published today by the Adam Smith Institute, the free market economic think tank.”
THESE FACTS ARE STILL VERY TRUE TODAY
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE/POST BY JOHN JAPPY FOR SOME VERY CANDID ECONOMIC TRUTH
Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General’s Branch based at Somerset House in London.  His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.
Would an independent Scotland be financially sound? YES!!!
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound/
THE ECONOMIC DISASTER OF UNIONISM
THE UNION DRAINS SCOTLAND OF RESOURSES , JOBS , ITS POPULATION AND CREATES AN UNFAVOURABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE
PLEASE LOOK AT THE BRITISH ECONOMNIC MIRACLE ,COMPARED TO THE NORWAY OIL FUND!!.. OR SWITZERLAND ,WHO DID NOT JOIN THE “GERMAN UNION” AND WILL NOT JOIN THE EUROPEAN UNION. BOTH VERY WEALTHY AND NOT INVOLVED IN ILLEGAL WARS!!!
HERE WAS OUR BRITISH ECONOMIC POSTION JUST BEFORE THE ECONOMIC CRASH 3RD LAST!!!!
WE ARE IN A LOT WORSE POSITION TODAY!!! THIS WAS THE END OF A BOOM PERIOD!! WHO WAS GOING TO PAY THE DEBT DURING THE BUST PERIOD?
PLEASE NOTE NORWAY OR SWITZERLANDS POSTION
NOTE THE BIGGEST DEBTORS IN THE WORLD WHERE THE ONES THAT LIED US INTO WAR IN IRAQ
Rank   Country   CAB USD, bn 
1  People’s Republic of China 371.833
2  Germany 252.501
3  Japan 210.967
4  Saudi Arabia 95.762
5  Russia 76.163
6  Switzerland 70.797
7  Norway 59.983
8  Netherlands 52.522
176  Greece -44.218
177  Italy -52.725
178  Australia -56.342
179  United Kingdom -105.224
180  Spain -145.141
181  United States -731.214 [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance
This is a list of countries and territories by current account balance (CAB), based on the International Monetary Fund data for 2007, obtained from the latest World Economic Outlook database (October 2008).
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/the-rich-get-richer-the-poor-get-the-picture/
SINCE THEM WE HAVE HAD THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND AUSTERITY MEASURES
IF ONLY WE WHERE LIKE ICELAND WE COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!
PLEASE NOTE THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY OF ICELAND UNDER INDEPENDANT SELF RULE DIRECT DEMOCRACY! INSTEAD ECONOMIC UNIONISED REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY(ELECTED DICTATORSHIP)
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/democracy-2-0-progressive-iceland-and-dictatorship-2-0-oppressive-britain-the-difference-between-true-democracy-and-elected-dictatorship/

Who are the real subsidy junkies?

Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007.  Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38.  Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch).

Analysis

It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK.  In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income.  Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage.
With the oil boom, Scotland’s economy was transformed.  Scottish oil has to date funded the Treasury with £300 billion, which has pushed Scotland up from 7th place in World Wealth rankings, had it been in control of its own resources, to 3rd place.
On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland’s oil revenue had been underwriting the UK’s failure to balance its books for decades.  There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars.  This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.
Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland’s top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate.  For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2007 they had risen to £70 million.  They have continued to rise, although I don’t have more recent statistics.
On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil.  The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused.
Even if nuclear is excluded, the future looks bright, the new Glen Doe hydro station on Loch Ness which was opened by Scotland’s First Minister last year can produce enough electricity for 240,000 homes.  Further projects down the Loch which have now reached the planning stage will increase this to over 1,000,000 homes.  Wind and wave energy will also contribute significantly in the future.
No doubt as the time draws nearer to the referendum on Scottish Independence, politicians will do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is something that never varies.
THE ECONOMIC DISASTER OF UNIONISM
Guess Which Country Has Debt Of Nearly 1000% Of GDP…
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/guess-which-country-has-debt-of-nearly-1000-of-gdp/
 a study by Aviva and accountants Deloitte found that the UK has the biggest pension gap in Europe, with Britons needing to increase the amount they save each year to have a good retirement income.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100922/tuk-great-britain-is-worst-place-to-live-dba1618.html
SO OUR FUTURE PENSIONS ARE GONE AS WELL THANKS TO THE BRITISH ECONOMIC GENIUS
BUT ECONOMICALLY TODAY SCOTLAND OUT PREFORMS THE UK
IT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER IF WE COULD CONTROL OUR OWN ECONOMY AND RESOURSES
Scotland outperforms UK in jobs market
Official statistics published today show a strengthening of the Scottish labour market, as unemployment across the UK as a whole rose above 2.5 million.
Among all the nations and regions of the UK, Scotland is the only place where unemployment fell in the latest quarter, May-July 2011.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/3181-scotland-outperforms-uk-in-jobs-market.html
EVEN CHINA AGREES THAT AN INDEPENDANT SCOTLAND WOULD HAVE A BETTER FUTURE THAN A DEBT RIDDEN CORRUPT (DIS)UNITED KINGDOM
Chinese rating agency strips Western nations of AAA status
China’s leading credit rating agency has stripped America, Britain, Germany and France of their AAA ratings, accusing Anglo-Saxon competitors of ideological bias in favour of the West.
The US falls to AA, while Britain and France slither down to AA-. Belgium, Spain, Italy are ranked at A- along with Malaysia.
Dagong rates Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Singapore at AAA, along with the commodity twins Australia and New Zealand.
AN INDEPENDANT SCOTLAND WOULD BE AAA TOO IF IT WAS NOT PART OF A FAILED FINANICAL BASKET CASE, STATE CAPITALIST UK!!!!
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/ten-good-reasons-for-scottish-independence/
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/more-good-reasons-for-scottish-independance/
UNIONISM DRAINS SCOTLAND OF WEALTH , BUSINESS AND POPULATION
Unionism has caused a loss of business investment ,as bank rates are set according to the souths’ needs so encouraging business to move south.
Unionism has increased unemployment due to unfavourable business environment and the migration of businesses to the south
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
Unionism caused a population exodus,note there where less people in Scotland in 2006 than in 1961 and note the amount of ex-pat posters
5,116,900 (2006 est)
5,094,800 (2005 est)
5,078,400 (2004 est)
5,057,400 (2003 est)
5,054,800 (2002 est)
5,062,011 (2001 est)
5,083,000 (1991 est)
5,180,200 (1981 est)
5,234,000 (1971 est)
5,201,000 (1961 est)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Scotland
BUT ITS NOT JUST ECONOMICS …ITS PRINCIPLE AND ITS STOPPING A WAR MACHINE
Craig Murray
Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist
Positively Independent
There are many reasons I support Scottish independence (and Welsh independence and Irish reunification). But among those reasons, and the one which I shall be expounding on Sunday, is that the United Kingdom as an entity is fundamentally tied to US military and neo-imperial interests. Neither Robin Cook nor Lib Dems in government have been able to separate the UK from aggressive foreign occupations, ruinous military expenditure, addiction to weapons of mass destruction and a contempt for international law.
The UK must be broken up. I want to see a Scotland that accepts it is a proud and equal nation among other nations, but has no desire to be more than equal, that plays an active part in the UN and in strengthening the framework of international law, does not possess WMDs and which will never attack another country unless it or an ally is physically attacked,
A Scotland like that is acheivable. A UK like that is not. Part of the reason may be that the UK was in truth in itself an imperial construct, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland the first conquered people. Their later absorption into the imperial culture (which still infects unionists) does not alter that truth.
http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/PDF%20Files/Posivitly%20Independent.pdf
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/11/positively_inde/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/the-modern-military-meat-grinder-and-fake-hero-worship/

NOT ONE COUNTRY THAT HAS LEFT A UNION LIKE THE USSR OR THE OLD CZESCHSLOVAKIA REGRETS IT
UNIONS ARE NOT GOOD THINGS FOR THE SMALLER NATION….OR IN FACT AT ALL
THE LAST BIG EUROPEANS UNIONS WHERE THE USSR AND BEFORE THAT NAZI GERMANY!
MEANWHILE THE BROADCASTING BULLSHIT CONSTANTLY (BBC) PEOPLE ARE PRODUCING THIER USUAL LOW QUALITY UNIONIST PROPAGANDA WARES
The ‘not-so-Great Debate’ – a televised shambles
By a Newsnet reporter
Trailed all week by BBC Scotland, Sunday night’s referendum debate was the political anorak’s dream match-up; Unionists versus Nationalists in a head to head.
Days after the launch of the Yes campaign and – chaired by BBC Scotland’s most respected political presenter, how could it fail to energise the ‘Great Debate’.
But fail it did.
An utter shambles of a programme where viewers were treated to partisan speech after partisan speech, each masquerading as a question.
Tribal hostilities replaced intelligent debate as the rhetorical rent-a-mob took advantage of an over polite chair.  It started with a front row Unionist allowed free reign to make a smear laden speech against Alex Salmond and went downhill from there.
This was no debate, it was a verbal stoning.  Flanked by Unionists on either side, Nicola Sturgeon was also accosted by several audience members, each giving voice to a plethora of media scare stories that have emanated from Unionists over the last few months.
Sadly, Isobel Fraser took the role of passive observer as Sturgeon tried to deal with the Unionist pincer attack.
A pumped up and very aggressive Ruth Davidson behaved appallingly throughout.  The former BBC Scotland presenter even appeared at times as though she was in charge, firing questions at Nicola Sturgeon and, in best BBC interview fashion, talking over the Deputy First Minister, thus making her replies inaudible.
A cheap stunt involving a letter should have been dealt with the Chair, or the producer, but it somehow made it through to the scheduled edited broadcast.
Anas Sarwar contributed little and arrived with a strategy that seemed to consist of nothing more than using any and every question to launch an attack on the SNP.
Patrick Harvie sat on the sidelines watching it play out.  When invited, all too infrequently, to contribute, the Green MSP’s contributions were easily the best of the four.
This is no reflection on Sturgeon, who had clearly been targeted by her two Unionist opponents and was effectively ‘taken out’ by the continual verbal assaults from whispering Sarwar and hectoring Davidson.
The audience was selected using the BBC’s own criteria – we don’t know what this entails but judging by the questions, the crowd seemed less inclined towards Nicola Sturgeon than anyone else.
In my own analysis of the audience participation I found that of the 26 politically partisan submissions by audience members, no fewer than 18 attacked either the SNP or independence.  Only 8 audience members spoke out in favour of Nicola Sturgeon’s party, or voiced opinions that could be interpreted as such.
In short, anti-SNP speakers were allowed more than double the opportunities to speak.  Moreover, the length of time awarded to these audience members was considerably more than pro-independence speakers.
Those who have been critical of Nicola Sturgeon’s performance ought to reflect on this verbal assault.  Sturgeon faced attack after attack, and that the Deputy First Minister managed to make any headway at all is a minor miracle.
Here, for those interested, is an edited segment showing every single speaker.  It really is quite revealing.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/5063-the-not-so-great-debate-a-televised-shambles#comment-157778
THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND FACE A MASSIVE PROPAGANDA ARMY
THE UNITED FORCES OF AUTHORITARIAN GLOBALISM AND THIER USEFUL IDIOTS
A ROLLING 24/7 PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AND SMEARS AND SCAREMONGERING WILL GET MORE AND MORE
THE STAKES ARE HIGH
AN END TO GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNION JACK
…WELL THIS VERSION OF THE UNION JACK WAS ONLY INVENTED IN THE 1950’S SO THIS UNITED KINGDOM IS NOT AS OLD AS ITS PROPAGANDA CLAIMS
IN FACT MOST THINGS UNIONIST CLAIM ARE EITHER HISTORICAL ROMANTIC FANTASY OR JUST COMPLETE NONSENSE
THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS ONLY OFFICIALLY EXISTED SINCE 1953
The new kingdom of Great Britain was superseded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on 1 January 1801, when Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland by the Acts of Union of 1800 following the suppression of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Most of Ireland left the union in 1922, leading to another re-naming of the state in 1927, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The later British states, albeit with territorial changes, are considered direct continuations of Great Britain rather than successor states.
In 1927 the departure of Southern Ireland from the United Kingdom five years before was recognised by the style of the British sovereign being changed, removing from it the term “United Kingdom”. This was not reinstated until 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
THE PURPOSE OF GREAT BRITAIN, RESOURSE THEFT!
Mercantilism
Mercantilism was the basic policy imposed by Britain on its colonies. Mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires. The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximise exports from and minimise imports to the realm. The government had to fight smuggling—which became a favourite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish or Dutch. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses, so that gold and silver would pour into London. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. The government spent much of its revenue on a superb Royal Navy, which not only protected the British colonies but threatened the colonies of the other empires, and sometimes seized them. Thus the Royal Navy captured New Amsterdam (later New York) in 1664. The colonies were captive markets for British industry, and the goal was to enrich the mother country
THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND ARE WAKING UP TO THIS FACT
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/scottish-independence-on-the-rise-while-labour-slowly-sinks-in-the-north/

POST INDEPENDENCE I WANT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY FOR SCOTLAND

“Representative democracy” or “elected Dictatorship” has been a TOTAL DISASTER. It gives us representatives that DESIRE POWER and are open to blackmail and bribery. It has given us a government that rapes and murders our children and covers up for it and also has sent trained killers off to other peoples countries to rape and murder and torture the locals. This does NOT make US safe and YOU can be sure the government is only spending money on protecting ,the government. Just like in the days of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction , that’s mutually assured destruction for YOU and ME ,the government had nice nuclear bunkers to live in!)

THE SOLUTION IS DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, (UK and USA systems) where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election ,i.e. a choice of Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, OR what I call an ELECTED DICTATORSHIP. If it is NOT a dictatorship YOU will be able to tell me what else YOU get to vote on other than YOUR CHOICE OF DICTATOR?.

If anyone wants to say ,I’m a dreamer ,or it’ll never work in a real world. FYI Switzerland has been a direct democray for a very long time! Would anyone concider it to be ,a disfunctional state, or an inefficient state or a basket case state or a laughing stock state? It has better living standards than we do, it has less corruption than we do, it has less crime than we do, it is involved in less illegal wars than we are…should I go on?!
Officially the Swiss Confederation (Confoederatio Helvetica in Latin, hence its ISO country codes CH and CHE), is a federal republic consisting of 26 cantons. its a Federal state, with parliamentary system and direct democracy .
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/a-direct-democracy-independant-scotland/

…..and finally do you think that Holland , Finland , Austria , Denmark, Luxemburg,Poland etc. would give up thier soverignty to Germany or Russia for economic reasons!?!? What about the Czech Republic ,Slovakia ,Slovenia , Croatia ,Bosnia , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania ,etc . etc etc. have they all realised what a big stupid mistake they have made by becoming independent soverign countries,none of them pump oil btw.

Whether you’re for or against an independent Scotland, or maybe you’re not entirely convinced either way, this film makes the positive case for Scottish independence in a light-hearted, self-effacing fashion.
Forget the historic grudges, the ancient battles and the unjustly romanticized idols, Scottish independence isn’t about “us and them”, it isn’t about anti-Englishness, it isn’t about ownership, it isn’t even about the SNP!
Written by Jack Foster and Alan Hunter
http://vimeo.com/12458284

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/speakers-corner/285-precious-few-heroes-the-case-for-scottish-independence.html
LuathFingal Comments
Good attempt but, youre talking nonsense about the Darien Scheme. IT WAS NOT THE PREMISE FOR THE UNION. The thing that started of the Act of Union was due to the fact that ENGLAND was BANKRUPT even more than Scotland. Due to the war in SPAIN.
The English Government was in debt to the tune of £14.5M in1707 doubling to £36M by 1715. While the Scots goverment was in Debt to the tune of ~£3M (if that!)
Please read:
The Union of 1707 Why and How by Paul Henderson Scott, The Saltire Society

A pocket guide to an independent Scotland
No one cares more about Scotland’s future than the people who live here. Independence will put the people of Scotland in charge. We’ll speak with our own voice. We’ll have the power and the responsibility to find our own solutions to the challenges we face, and to engineer fairness, confidence, innovation, opportunity and prosperity.

http://www.scotlandforward.net/

Sweden has its enhanced parental rights, including generous maternity and paternity leave; Norway its £300 billion Pension Fund from oil; and Denmark has been able to lead the world in onshore wind technology. And what do they have in common? They are all small independent states.Independence will allow us to take decisions in Scotland that will improve the lives of families, communities and individuals across our country. With independence we will have the ability to solve our own problems and to make the most of the very many opportunities open to all of us. It will allow us to build a stronger nation and a better future for us all.

What does independence mean?

Independence is about making Scotland more successful. At its most basic, it is the ability to take our own decisions, in the same way as other countries. Scotland is a society and a nation. No one cares more about Scotland’s success than the people who live here and that, ultimately, is why independence is the best choice for our future.

With independence we can work together to make Scotland a more ambitious and dynamic country. We could create an environment where our existing and new private industries can grow more easily. We would have the economic levers to create new jobs and take full advantage of our second, green energy windfall. And instead of many young people having to leave Scotland to fulfil their ambitions they would be able to stay and take advantage of the increased opportunities here. We will be able to address the priorities of people in Scotland, from better state pensions to universal free childcare. Scotland could do even more to lead the world in areas like renewable energy and tackling climate change, and play our part in creating a more peaceful and stable world. Independence will allow us to make Scotland a better place to live.

A partnership of equals

And independence will mean a strong, new relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It will create a partnership of equals – a social union to replace the current political union. That means, on independence day, we’ll no longer have a Tory government, but the Queen will be our Head of State, the pound will be our currency and you will still be watching your favourite programmes on the BBC. As members of the EU there will be open borders, shared rights, free trade and extensive cooperation.

The big difference will be that Scotland’s future will be in our own hands. Instead of only deciding some issues here in Scotland, independence will allow us to take decisions on all the major issues. That is the reality of independence in this interdependent world.

Download our pocket guide to an independent Scotland, click:

www.scotlandforward.net

SUPPORT THE ANTI-WAR PARTY
SUPPORT THE ANTI-NUCLEAR PARTY
SUPPORT FREE HEALTH CARE
SUPPORT FREE EDUCATION
http://www.snp.org/
SUPPORT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE 2014
SAOR ALBA!!!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/a-direct-democracy-independant-scotland/

Would an independent Scotland be financially sound?
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/uk-in-decay-but-scotland-ok-independence-some-day-scots-wa-hae/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/precious-few-heroes-the-case-for-scottish-independence/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/scotland-to-win-freedom-from-britain/

THE ECONOMIC DISASTER OF UNIONISM
Guess Which Country Has Debt Of Nearly 1000% Of GDP…
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/guess-which-country-has-debt-of-nearly-1000-of-gdp/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/great-britain-is-worst-place-to-live-in-europe/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/ten-good-reasons-for-scottish-independence/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/more-good-reasons-for-scottish-independance/

PLEASE NOTE THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY OF ICELAND UNDER INDEPENDANT  DIRECT DEMOCRACYSELF RULE! INSTEAD OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC UNIONISED REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY(ELECTED DICTATORSHIP)
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/democracy-2-0-progressive-iceland-and-dictatorship-2-0-oppressive-britain-the-difference-between-true-democracy-and-elected-dictatorship/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/turning-scotland-into-a-greenland/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/who-stole-scotland-and-who-will-steal-it-back/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/scottish-independence-elections-av-direct-democracy-and-human-rights/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/why-every-scot-should-vote-snp-at-the-general-election/


The 15 Trillion Dollar Man! Exposes Political and Financial Fraud and Corruption On A Galactic Scale!!

March 13, 2012

$15,000,000,000,000 FRAUD EXPOSED! Where are our mass media now?!

UK House of Lords Feb. 16, 2012.
Source:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120216-0002.h
It’s incredible how these kinds of things can occur unnoticed by most people

A $15 TRILLION FRAUD! MONEY STOLEN FROM THE TAXPAYER BY BUSH AND OTHER GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
USED TO CLANDESTINELY PROP UP EUROPEANS BANKS
WHY?
BECAUSE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS ARE INSURANCE ON NATIONAL DEBT DEFAULTS.
IF A GOVERNMENT DEFAULTS ON ITS DEBT, THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS TO PAY THE CREDITOR!!
WHEN ITS PEOPLE LIKE GOLDMAN SACHS HOLDING THE INSURANCE POLICY ,THEY WILL DO ANYTHING NOT TO PAY OUT, AS THIS WOULD BANKRUPT GOLDMAN SACHS AND STOP THE AMERICAN ECONOMY DEAD IN ITS TRACKS!!!
THEY HAVE ALREADY RE-WRITTEN THE BANKING CODES AND NOW CLAIM THAT A 70% GREEK DEFAULT IS NOT A DEFAULT AT ALL!! BUT YOU TRY TELLING THIS TO THE BANK WHEN THEY WANT PAID!!!!!
THEFT ,MURDER AND CONSPIRACIES ARE THE ORDER OF THE DAY ,ALL JUST TO SAVE A FAILED AND FLAWED ECONOMIC THEORY AND KEEP DELUSIONAL MEGALOMANIACS IN THE LIFESTYLE THEY HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TOO
ALAN GREENSPAN, TIMOTHY GEITHNER, GEORGE BUSH, RONALD REAGON ETC. ALL FRAUDSTERS, MONEY LAUNDERERS ,TERRORISTS ,PAEDOPHILES AND CONSPIRATORS  ..OR POLITIONS AND BANKERS AS WELL CALL THEM WHEN IN GROUPS
OUR ECONOMIC PRIVATE BANKING SYSTEM NOT ONLY HAS LOST US MORE WEALTH THAN EVERY NATIONALISED INDUSTRY COMBINED ,(AND NOT EVEN A BRITISH LEYLAND BUS TO SHOW FOR IT)IT IS ALSO COMPLETELY CORRUPT TO ITS VERY CORE!!
THESE VIOLENT THEIVES IN SUITS AND TIES HAVE LOST US AND STOLEN SO MUCH MONEY ,THE NUMBERS WOULD MAKE AN ASTROPHYSISTS HEAD SPIN!! WE HAVE LONG GONE THROUGH THE ASTRONOMICAL FIGURES, (WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DERIVATIVES MARKET WE ARE TALKING QUADRILLIONS IN LOSSES!!!) , AND ARE NOW WELL INTO THE GALACTIC FIGURES (NUMBER WISE ,WE ARE NO LONGER EVEN IN OUR MILKYWAY GALAXY)
I THINK THEY EVEN NEEDED BIGGER SCREENS FOR THIER CALCULATORS JUST TO FIT THE NUMBERS IN!!

BUT THE REAL STORY COULD BE WHERE DID THE OTHER $12,000,000,000,000 PLUS GO?
THIS MAKES THE $2,000,000,000,000 THE PENTAGON LOST ON SEPT 10TH 2001 SEEM LIKE CHICKEN FEED.
(BUT IF IT WAS USED TO BRIBE US POLITIONS THEN IT ACTUALLY WAS CHICKEN FEED!!!)

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/911-the-case-for-an-inside-job/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/77-bomber-released-to-silencewhile-lockerbie-bomber-released-to-outrage/
SO WE HAVE HARD EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY , FRAUD AND TERRORISM AND A THEFT LARGE ENOUGH TO PAY OFF THE AMERICAN DEBT AND GUESS WHAT…..THE POLICE AND THE POLITIONS TAKE NO ACTION AND THE MSM MENTIONS NOTHING!!!
EVIDENCE OF A SYSTEM THAT IS ROTTEN TO ITS VERY CORE
OUR POLITIONS ,OUR POLICE STATE AND THIER PRESSTITUTES WOULD RATHER START WWIII THAN PROSECUTE THE GUILTY!!!

Intel Exclusive: Trillion Dollar Terror Exposed

Bush, Fed, Europe Banks in $15 Trillion Fraud, All Documented
By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor
Below is one of the strangest stories in financial history, one involving the US government lying about hundreds of thousands of tons of imaginary gold, illegal wire transfers and loans totalling $15 trillion.  The video, from the House of Lords, is amazing in itself. 
What it doesn’t express is where the money came from though Lord James of Blackheath proves conclusively that an effort was made to say it came from a gold reserve in Brunei that, in fact, never existed.
At surface, it appears we have stumbled upon the largest terrorist organization in the world and have found original documents tracing its funding to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, two of the top financial officers in the US.  A cursory review of terrorism statues in the US indicate that all transactions we will learn about are, in fact, to be assumed “terrorist money laundering” and that the only thing preventing the immediate arrest of hundreds of top financial officials is their political connections alone.
On February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presented evidence of an illegal scheme begun, he has thus discovered, in 2009.  His documents including originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner, show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland.
The Bank of Scotland, under royal charter but restricted from involvement in any such transactions, simply “gave” the money to 20 European banks to use in a highly profitable scheme of co-trading “fresh cut” MTN’s (mid-term notes), generating trillions of dollars in profits over 3 years, none of which is shown on books, none has been taxed or has benefited shareholders in those banks.
As Blackheath outlines, the “deception and cover” for this transfer is the imaginary seizure of 750,000 tons of gold by agents of an unspoken entity (confirmed by the highest official sources as the Bush family and CIA), the listed “source” of the money.
The government of Indonesia confirms this to be an utter fabrication and that the individual named had 700 tons of gold (about half of what Gaddafi was holding), not 750,000.  It is noted that only 1,500 tons of gold have ever been traded in world history, as stated in the House of Lords.
The issues that are initially brought out, issues inconsistent with international convention and starting the reader on what is only the surface discovery of two decades of crimes involving dozens of governments are as follows:

■At no time has the Federal Reserve Bank of New York been authorized to hold the funds indicated
■However, documents held by Lord Blackheath prove, conclusively that they did hold such funds and transfer them in a manner as to obscure their origin by using HSBC and the Bank of Scotland.  This process, seemingly involving Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner and others would appear to be “money laundering” until some other explanation were found.  None has been offered.
■The “collateralization” of these funds, being 750,000 tons of gold, is proven to be fantasy.  These funds then, in no way or manner, are related to Brunei.  The presentation of this false transaction has been conclusively proven to be a “cover and deception” project such as an intelligence organization would use.
■The transfer of these funds, all done without any authorizations, governmental or otherwise, particularly without agreements, payment of interest to the United States and without knowledge and approval of congress makes every aspect of this criminal in nature, a violation of innumerable statutes.
■The receipt and use of these funds by the 20 banks, two of which are Wall Street’s largest, and the use of these funds to generate profits while the funds themselves are held “off the books” and the profits hidden and laundered, themselves the earnings of funds received through criminal acts makes any and all involved part of a criminal enterprise.

WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM
There is no record of the Federal Reserve being authorized to “create” $15 trillion, equal to the entire national debt of the United States.  There is, however, proof that funds that totalled, at one time, $27 trillion had been earned surreptitiously, disposed of as part of an intelligence operation against the Soviet Union and then later stolen with accusations made against George H. W. Bush as being the perpetrator.
I have spoken with two individuals, one President Reagan’s intelligence coordinator and the other Chief Legal Cousel for the Central Intelligence Agency regarding these funds.  Both have indicated that former President Bush had asked that these funds, totalling $27 trillion, be transferred to his control, that threats were made by Bush and that many involved in this operation suffered, issues including murder, illegal arrest, torture and detention among them.
The individuals I am speaking of repeatedly met with President  Bush over these funds, disputed his claim to them, and indicate that the majority of the funds are the property of the people of the United States.
These funds are the mysterious “Wanta” funds, monies earned through years of currency trading aimed at collapsing the Soviet Union, a plan originated by President Ronald Reagan, then White House Intelligence Coordinator Lee Wanta and CIA Director William Casey.  I have been told that, while this operation went forward under President Reagan, he had ordered that his successor, George H. W. Bush not be “briefed” out of “mistrust” for Bush.
The funds themselves were earned through a scheme of trading Soviet roubles at enormous profit, a practice that eventually collapsed their government.  A portion of the profits are subject to current litigation in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Lee presiding.  I have over 2,000 pages of documents on this case which shows a remainder of the original funds had been transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Bank of China, a party to the rouble trading practice, in 2006 and is claimed as totally owned by Ameritrust Corporation.  That amount was $4.5 trillion of which we hold the SWIFT transfer documents.
The other monies, which “likely” make up from the unspent portion of the missing $27 trillion, may well constitute all that is recoverable.
Wanta, sole shareholder in Ameritrust, has offered his companies share, valued by the court now at $7.2 trillion, entirely to the American people as intended by President Reagan.
The origin of the additional funds, issued by the Federal Reserve during the 80s and 90s, totalling nearly $8 trillion is unknown.   High ranking sources within the US government indicate that this can only be either the remainder of funds Wanta raised or profits made from them after the majority of funds were stolen.
Stories, some quite good actually, and personal interviews plus my own review of documents would place the theft or conversion of these funds initially with:

■The Bush family
■The “P2,” a Masonic lodge operating out of Switzerland involved in dozens of terror bombings tied to “Operation Gladio”
■People around Wanta himself including the CIA
What is lacking is a source for half of these funds.  Technically, they don’t exist as there is no record of them being originated by nor transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York though there are clear and discernible records of them being transferred out of that institution which never possessed them, according to their 2010 audit, in the first place.

IMHO ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IS ITS THE PROFITS OF DRUG RUNNING!! A MODERN IRAN-CONTRA COCAINE AND CRACK SUPPLY TO RAISE, “OFF THE BOOKS” MONEY FOR BLACK-OPS AND SUPPLYING GUNS TO OUR SUPPOSED ENEMIES.

IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE  THE PROFITS OF HEROIN GROWN IN AFGHANISTAN ,FLOWN TO KOSOVO VIA BAGRHAM MILITARY AIRBASE AND DISTRIBUTED TO MARKETS IN EUROPE ,RUSSIA AND THE WORLD!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/dying-for-drugs-drugs-war-finance-and-your-government-representative/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/crime-minister-us-eu-in-on-kosovo-pms-mafia-plot-report/

WANTA MONEY
The transfer of Wanta funds, they can be assumed to have no other origin as they track into the Federal Reserve banking system while in escrow and are currently awaiting payment based on the orders of President Obama in accordance with findings of the federal court, is complicated by the Scottish transfer.
Either Wanta has claim to the entire amount or it is the property of the US government.  That no effort has been made to secure the funds or enforce criminal and civil remedies to recover enough money to pay the entire US national debt and more, as with earnings, we are nearing well over $30 trillion by this time, is an indication that a criminal conspiracy with enough influence to overrule our own government is involved.  Whether that “conspiracy is, as noted, the Bush family, rouge sections of the CIA or a secret society such as P2, one we can prove or others we only suspect exist, is another story.
The lack of action, here or as requested by Lord James in Britain, is, in itself, proof of both the seriousness and actuality of these events and the powers that can prevent any inquiry when irrefutable documents such as SWIFT transfers are available.  In fact, Lord James has offered a wealth of documents which, when combined with the 2000 pages of Wanta “discovery” from the Federal Court, constitutes more than prima facia evidence of money laundering, conversion, terrorism or worse.
Thus, the inaction in the face of overwhelming and unquestioned proof is inexplicable.

INEXPLICABLE?

NO…..THE SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY CORRUPT TO ITS VERY CORE. THAT IS THE VERY SIMPLE EXPLAINATION!!

FLOOD OF WANTA LITIGATION AND INDICTMENTS COMING
Currently, Wanta’s legal status is as technical conservator and owner of $7.2 trillion.  However, as nearly half that is owed in taxes and the court settlement required Wanta to purchase $1 trillion in treasury bonds, the federal government should show positive interest other than President Obama and a few others.  More are being obstructionist with the payout and exercise of $3 trillion in US debt reduction.
This is, not only illegal but an indication of conspiracy.
In addition, Russian Prime Minister Putin has communicated that he awaits the agreed upon 3% payment of Russian taxes, initially on the $7.2 trillion.  Will Putin want to be paid on the entire $15 trillion plus interest and will Russia and/or the US have interest in why the Bank of Scotland transferred these funds to 20 European banks to trade in MTN’s (mid term notes) without any authorization or agreement, any participation or sharing of profits.
As the funds, at least the half which the US government can claim ownership of, combined with the interest and earnings of, would quickly put the US “in the black,” again we look at, not just the press blackout on the Wanta litigation of the last 6 years but the press blackout on Lord James of Blackheath and the wealth of damning documentation he submitted to Parliament.
Nothing has been done since, it is as though the proof submitted was so dangerous that those moments in time have been erased by a mysterious g-dlike power.
What makes Wanta dangerous is that he has begun to distribute funds, some to government entities, counties and states, law enforcement agencies, giving them standing, not just in recovering funds intended for their use but in helping prosecute anyone involved in interfering with or attempting to divert funds.
One grand jury is being formed to investigate diversion of Wanta funds even at this early date.  It is likely that Wanta/Ameritrust funds earmarked for border protection could lead to the indictment of high ranking US officials.  This is only the beginning.
If the Royal Bank of Scotland doesn’t think it should be expecting the biggest chargeback in the history of the world, they are in for a shock.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/21/intel-exclusive-trillion-dollar-terror-exposed/

KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE
IF THIS STORY GATHERS MOMENTUM WE MAY WELL SEE HIGH LEVEL POLITIONS PROSECUTED AND THE OVERNIGHT COLLAPSE OF RBS (ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND)
THIS SHOULD SHORTLY BE FOLLOWED BY THE COLLAPSE OF THE BRITSIH ,AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN BANKING SYSTEMS!!
MAYBE ITS TIME TO BUY GOLD OR SWISS MARKS!!
BUT I EXPECT A MASSIVE MEDIA SPIN AND COVER UP AND A GOVERNMENT EXCUSE AS TO WHY THEY CANNOT PROSECUTE ANYONE AND EVEN MORE MEDIA WAR PROPAGANDA ,AS IF THEY START A WAR WITH IRAN IT WOULD TAKE OUR MINDS OF THE MASSIVE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN OUR POLITICAL AND BANKING SYSYTEM!!!
A SYSTEM SO CORRUPT IT WOULD RATHER START A GLOBAL WAR AND POISON THE PLANET THAN ARREST THE GUILTY

BUT THE WESTERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS A WARFARE ECONOMY. IT NEEDS TO FEED ON RESOURSES!! ITS JUST A WAR JUNKIE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WARGASM USING PRESSTITUTES THAT DO ORAL FOR MONEY AND MSM SNUFF PORN!!

AMERICA ,UK AND EU INTERNATIONAL POLICY IS JUST COMMITTING NATIONAL HOUSE BREAKINS AND RUNNING OFF WITH THE VALUABLES AFTER KILLING THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD AND RAPING THE DAUGHTERS

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations since 1945
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/us-government-spreading-freedom-and-democracy-since-1945/
The American way of life cannot survive without WAR and human sacrifice and resourse theft.
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/is-america-on-the-path-to-permanent-war-beware-false-flags-and-fake-war-for-unreal-profit/

AND AFTER ALL THAT BLOOD AND MONEY ,THE TERRORISTS HAVE ACHIEVED THIER GOAL!! TO BANKRUPT THE WESTERN ECONOMIES!!!…AND THANKS TO OUR POLITIONS WE DO NOT HAVE OUR FREEDOMS EITHER !!

I’M JUST WAITING FOR AL QUADA’S “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” VIDEO

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/mission-accomplished-bin-laden-goal-is-to-bankrupt-u-s/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/u-s-bankrupt-its-official-china-to-take-over-us-assets-bp-final-nail-in-us-economic-coffin-is-war-the-only-us-way-out/
https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/its-official-the-economy-will-recover-when-pigs-fly/

BUT ACTUALLY THE TERRORIST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OUR POLITIONS BROTHERS IN ARMS. SINCE THE 1980’S AND THE AMERICAN/SAUDI/ISRAELLI CREATION OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM…THAT IS WHY WE STILL FIGHT ALONGSIDE THEM TODAY!!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/twat-us-terrorists-beating-the-drums-of-war-against-secular-socialism-human-rights-and-direct-democracy/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/us-uk-and-eu-fighting-alongside-al-quada-in-the-battle-against-secular-freedom-and-direct-democracy/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/false-flags-and-patsysthis-twat-the-war-against-terror-is-useless/

AMERICA THE WAR JUNKIE, AND ITS LONG LIST OF NATIONAL “HOUSE BREAKING” AND RESOURSE THEFTS……NO DEMOCRACIES WHERE CREATED DURING THE CREATION OF THIS LIST!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/us-government-spreading-freedom-and-democracy-since-1945/

YES FOLKS WE ARE SPONCERING THE TERRORISTS!! BECAUSE WE ARE THE TERRORISTS!!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/the-real-terrorist-was-me-an-amazing-speech-by-an-iraq-veteran/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/are-the-uk-and-usa-the-biggest-sponcers-of-international-terrorism/

REAL FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY WILL BE CRUSHED UNDER FOOT

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/gaddaffi-wins-amnesty-international-human-rights-award-then-its-cencored/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/u-s-supports-peace-in-the-middle-east-so-long-as-its-not-a-piece-of-ours/

LIES AND PROPAGANDA WILL BE USED

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/bin-laden-dead-again-photoshopped-pictures-crime-scene-burnt-body-disposed-of-obama-presidency-more-popularbeware-wwiii/

AND SACRIFICES WILL BE MADE….SOLDIERS ARE JUST PAWNS AND ARE VERY EXPENDABLE

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/seal-clubbing-in-the-middle-east/

ARE YOU ANGRY YET?


The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order

July 6, 2010

We WE are in the midst of the most explosive development in all of human history. Humanity is experiencing a simultaneously opposing and conflicting geopolitical transition, the likes of which has never before been anticipated or experienced. Historically, the story of humanity has been the struggle between the free-thinking individual and structures of power controlled by elites that seek to dominate land, resources and people. The greatest threat to elites at any time – historically and presently – is an awakened, critically thinking and politically stimulated populace. This threat has manifested itself throughout history, in different places and at different times. Ideas of freedom, democracy, civil and human rights, liberty and equality have emerged in reaction and opposition to power structures and elite systems of control.

The greatest triumphs of the human mind – whether in art, science or thought – have arisen out of and challenged great systems of power and control. The greatest of human misery and tragedy has arisen out of the power structures and systems that elites always seek to construct and manage. War, genocide,persecution and human degradation are directly the result of decisions made by those who control the apparatus of power, whether the power manifests itself as intellectual, ecclesiastical, spiritual, militaristic, or scientific. The most malevolent and ruthless power is that over the free human mind: if one controls how one thinks, they control the individual itself. The greatest human achievements are where individuals have broken free the shackles that bind the mind and let loose the inherent and undeniable power that lies in each and every individual on this small little planet.

Currently, our world is at the greatest crossroads our species has ever experienced. We are in the midst of the first truly global political awakening, in which for the first time in all of human history, all of mankind is politically awakened and stirring; in which whether inadvertently or intentionally, people are thinking and acting in political terms. This awakening is most evident in the developing world, having been made through personal experience to be acutely aware of the great disparities, disrespect, and domination inherent in global power structures. The awakening is spreading increasingly to the west itself, as the majority of the people living in the western developed nations are thrown into poverty and degradation. The awakening will be forced upon all people all over the world. Nothing, no development, ever in human history, has posed such a monumental threat to elite power structures.

This awakening is largely driven by the Technological Revolution, which through technology and electronics, in particular mass media and the internet, have made it so that people across the world are able to become aware of global issues and gain access to information from around the world. The Technological Revolution, thus, has fostered an Information Revolution which has, in turn, fed the global political awakening.

Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has led to another unique and unprecedented development in human history, and one that is diametrically opposed, yet directly related to the global political awakening. For the first time in human history, free humanity is faced with the dominating threat of a truly global elite, who have at their hands the technology to impose a truly global system of control: a global scientific dictatorship. The great danger is that through the exponential growth in scientific techniques, elites will use these great new powers to control and dominate all of humanity in such a way that has never before been experienced.

Through all of human history, tyrants have used coercive force and terror to control populations. With the Technological Revolution, elites increasingly have the ability to control the very biology and psychology of the individual to a point where it may not be necessary to impose a system of terror, but rather where the control is implemented on a much deeper, psychological, subliminal and individual biological manner. While terror can prevent people from opposing power for a while, the scientific dictatorship can create a personal psycho-social condition in which the individual comes to love his or her own slavery; in which, like a mentally inferior pet, they are made to love their leaders and accept their servitude.

So we are presented with a situation in which humanity is faced with both the greatest threat and the greatest hope that we have ever collectively experienced in our short human history. This essay, the third part in the series, “The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom,” examines the ideas behind the global scientific dictatorship, and how it may manifest itself presently and in the future, with a particular focus on the emergence of ‘new eugenics’ as a system of mass control.

Free humanity faces the most monumental decision we have ever been presented with: do we feed and fuel the global political awakening into a true human psycho-social revolution of the mind, creating a new global political economy which empowers and liberates all of humanity; or… do we fall silently into a ‘brave new world’ of a global scientific oppression, the likes of which have never before been experienced, and whose dominance would never be more difficult to challenge and overcome?

We can either find a true freedom, or descend into a deep despotism. We are not powerless before this great ideational beast. We have, at our very fingertips the ability to use technology to our benefit and to re-shape the world so that it benefits the people of the world and not simply the powerful. It must be freedom for all or freedom for none.

What is the ‘Scientific Dictatorship’?

In 1932, Aldous Huxley wrote his dystopian novel, “Brave New World,” in which he looked at the emergence of the scientific dictatorships of the future. In his 1958 essay, “Brave New World Revisited,” Huxley examined how far the world had come in that short period since his book was published, and where the world was heading. Huxley wrote that:

In politics the equivalent of a fully developed scientific theory or philosophical system is a totalitarian dictatorship. In economics, the equivalent of a beautifully composed work of art is the smoothly running factory in which the workers are perfectly adjusted to the machines. The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess. The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification for despotism.[1]

Huxley explained that, “The future dictator’s subjects will be painlessly regimented by a corps of highly trained social engineers,” and he quotes one “advocate of this new science” as saying that, “The challenge of social engineering in our time is like the challenge of technical engineering fifty years ago. If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of social engineers.” Thus, proclaims Huxley, “The twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World.”[2]

In 1952, Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, historian, mathematician, and social critic wrote the book, “The Impact of Science on Society,” in which he warned and examined how science, and the technological revolution, was changing and would come to change society. In his book, Russell explained that:

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.[3]Russell went on to analyze the question of whether a ‘scientific dictatorship’ is more stable than a democracy, on which he postulated:

Apart from the danger of war, I see no reason why such a regime should be unstable. After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.[4]

Drawing on the concept popularized by Aldous Huxley – of people loving their servitude – Bertrand Russell explained that under a scientific dictatorship:

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in  totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.[5]

Russell explained that, “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy.”[6] Russell later proclaimed in his book that, “a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.”[7] He elaborated:

Unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must be from time to time great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation. That is exactly the present state of the world, and some may hold that there is no reason why it should not continue for centuries. I do not myself believe that this is possible. The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible – that is until science is extinct.[8]

Russell explains that eugenics plays a central feature in the construction of any world government scientific dictatorship, stating that, “Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”[9]

In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Aldous Huxley spoke about the real world becoming the ‘Brave New World’ nightmare he envisaged. Huxley spoke primarily of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ that focuses on ‘behavioural controls’ of people. Huxley said of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’:

In the past, we can say, that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. There’s been the political revolution, the economic revolution . . . the religious revolution. All these aimed as I say not directly at the human being but at his surroundings, so by modifying his surroundings you did achieve – at one remove – an effect upon the human being.

Today, we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ – the ‘Final Revolution’ – where man can act directly on the  mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with more-or-less ingenuity, sometimes with utmost crudity, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired with a process of trial and error – finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonments, constraints of various kinds . . .

If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely, it can function for a fairly long time; but sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

Well it seems to me the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always exist – to get people to love their servitude. This is the ultimate in malevolent revolution…

There seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of Ultimate Control, this method of control, by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy; the enjoyment of servitude . . .

I am inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future – and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world – will be probably a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the ‘brave new world’ pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other. That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living – the state of servitude – if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.[10]

In 1961, President Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation in which he warned of the dangers to democracy posed by the military-industrial complex: the interconnected web of industry, the military, and politics creating the conditions for constant war. In that same speech, Eisenhower warned America and the world of another important change in society:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.

Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.[11]

In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about “the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society,” in the “technetronic revolution”; explaining:

Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.[12]

New Eugenics

Many sciences and large social movements are directed by the same foundations and money that financed the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. The Rockefeller foundations, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, Harriman, and Morgan money that flowed into eugenics led directly to ‘scientific racism,’ and ultimately the Holocaust in World War II.[13] Following the Holocaust, Hitler had discredited the eugenics movement he admired so much in America. So the movement branched off into forming several other social engineering projects: population control, genetics, and environmentalism. The same foundations that laid the foundations for eugenic ideology – the belief in a biological superiority and right to rule (justifying their power) – then laid the foundations for these and other new social and scientific movements.

Major environmental and conservation organizations were founded with Rockefeller and Ford Foundation money,[14] which then continued to be central sources of funding to this day; while the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was founded in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization’s first president. Prince Bernhard also happened to be one of the founders of the elite global think tank, the Bilderberg Group, which he co-founded in 1954; and he was previous to that, a member of the Nazi Party and an SS officer.[15] Sir Julian Huxley also happened to be the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). In 1946, Huxley wrote a paper titled, “UNESCO: It’s Purpose and its Philosophy.” In it, he wrote that the general focus of UNESCO:

is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species…[16]

At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable…[17]

Still another and quite different type of borderline subject is that of eugenics. It has been on the borderline between the scientific and the unscientific, constantly in danger of becoming a pseudo- science based on preconceived political ideas or on assumptions of racial or class superiority and inferiority. It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics…[18]

It is worth pointing out that the applications of science at once bring us up against social problems of various sorts. Some of these are direct and obvious. Thus the application of genetics in eugenics immediately raises the question of values- what qualities should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future?[19]

On page 6 of the UNESCO document, Sir Julian Huxley wrote that, “in order to carry out its work, an organisation such as Unesco needs not only a set of general aims and objects for itself, but also a working philosophy, a working hypothesis concerning human existence and its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate, a definite line of approach to its problems.”[20] While much of the language of equality and education sounds good and benevolent, it is based upon a particular view of humanity as an irrational, emotionally driven organism which needs to be controlled. Thus, the ‘principle of equality’ becomes “The Fact of Inequality”:

Finally we come to a difficult problem-that of discovering how we can reconcile our principle of human equality with the biological fact of human inequality… The democratic principle of equality, which is also Unesco’s, is a principle of equality of opportunity-that human beings should be equal before the law, should have equal opportunities for education, for making a living, for freedom of expression and movement and thought. The biological absence of equality, on the other hand, concerns the natural endowments of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them.

There are instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity. Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane before the law or in respect of most freedoms. However, the full implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very relevant to Unesco’s task.[21]

Many of these “genetic inequalities” revolve around the idea of intellectual superiority: the idea that there is no equality among the intellectually inferior and superior. That inequality is derived from human biology – from genetics; it is a “human fact.” It just so happens that elites who propagate this ideology, also happen to view the masses as intellectually inferior; thus, there can be no social equality in a world with a technological intellectual elite. So eugenics must be employed, as the UENSCO paper explains, to address the issues of raising human welfare to a manageable level; that the time will come where elites will need to address the whole of humanity as a single force, and with a single voice. Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity. Ultimately, eugenics is about the engineering of inequality. In genetics, elites found a way to take discrimination down to the DNA.

Genetics as Eugenics

Award-winning author and researcher, Edwin Black, wrote an authoritative history of eugenics in his book, “War Against the Weak,” in which he explained that,

“the incremental effort to transform eugenics into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure,” with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist, and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation.[22] While not abandoning the eugenics goals, the new re-branded eugenics movement “claimed to be eradicating poverty and saving the environment.”[23]

In a 2001 issue of Science Magazine, Garland Allen, a scientific historian, wrote about genetics as a modern form of eugenics. He began by citing a 1998 article in Time Magazine which proclaimed that, “Personality, temperament, even life choices. New studies show it’s mostly in your genes.” Garland explains the implications:

Coat-tailing on major advances in genetic biotechnology, these articles portray genetics as the new “magic bullet” of biomedical science that will solve many of our recurrent social problems. The implication is that these problems are largely a result of the defective biology of individuals or even racial or ethnic groups. If aggressive or violent behavior is in the genes, so the argument goes, then the solution lies in biomedical intervention–gene therapy in the distant future and pharmacotherapy (replacing the products of defective genes with drug substitutes) in the immediate future.

By promoting such claims, are we heading toward a new version of eugenics? Are we getting carried away with the false promise of a technological fix for problems that really lie in the structure of our society? My answer to these questions is “yes,” but with some important qualifications that derive from the different historical and social contexts of the early 1900s and the present…

The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, geographer, statistician, and first cousin of Charles Darwin. It meant to him “truly- or well-born,” and referred to a plan to encourage the “best people” in society to have more children (positive eugenics) and to discourage or prevent the “worst elements” of society from having many, if any, children (negative eugenics). Eugenics became solidified into a movement in various countries throughout the world in the first three decades of the 20th century, but nowhere more solidly than in the United States and, after World War I, in Germany.[24]

While genetic traits such as eye colour and the like were proven to be hereditary, “eugenicists were more interested in the inheritance of social behaviors, intelligence, and personality.” Further:

American eugenicists also strove to disseminate the results of eugenic research to the public and to lawmakers. They supported the idea of positive eugenics [encouraging the ‘best’ to become better], but focused most of their energies on negative eugenics [to encourage the ‘worst’ to become fewer]. Eugenicists wrote hundreds of articles for popular magazines, published dozens of books for the general (and some for the scientific) reader, prepared exhibits for schools and state fairs, made films, and wrote sermons and novels.[25]

American eugenicists, fully backed by the financial support of the major American philanthropic fortunes, passed eugenics legislation in over 27 states across the United States, often in the form of forced sterilizations for the mentally ‘inferior’, so that, “By the 1960s, when most of these laws were beginning to be repealed, more than 60,000 people had been sterilized for eugenic purposes.” As Garland Allen wrote:

For the wealthy benefactors that supported eugenics, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman, and Kellogg philanthropies, eugenics provided a means of social control in a period of unprecedented upheaval and violence. It was these same economic elites and their business interests who introduced scientific management and organizational control into the industrial sector…

[In 1994] we saw the resurrection of claims that there are genetic differences in intelligence between races, leading to different socio-economic status.Claims about the genetic basis for criminality, manic depression, risk-taking, alcoholism, homosexuality, and a host of other behaviors have also been rampant in scientific and especially popular literature. Much of the evidence for such claims is as controversial today as in the past.

We seem to be increasingly unwilling to accept what we view as imperfection in ourselves and others. As health care costs skyrocket, we are coming to accept a bottom-line, cost-benefit analysis of human life. This mind-set has serious implications for reproductive decisions. If a health maintenance organization (HMO) requires in utero screening, and refuses to cover the birth or care of a purportedly “defective” child, how close is this to eugenics? If gene or drug therapy is substituted for improving our workplace or school environments, our diets and our exercise practices, how close is this to eugenics? Significant social changes are expensive, however. If eugenics means making reproductive decisions primarily on the basis of social cost, then we are well on that road.[26]

Genetics unleash an unprecedented power into human hands: the power of unnatural creation and the manipulation of biology. We do not yet fully understand nor comprehend the implications of genetic manipulation in our food, plants, animals, and in humans, themselves. What is clear is that we are changing the very biology of our environment and ourselves in it. While there are many clear and obvious benefits to genetic technology, such as the ability to enhance ailing senses (sight, hearing, etc.) and cure diseases, the positive must be examined and discussed with the negative repercussions of genetic manipulation so as to better direct the uses of this powerful technology.

Debates on issues such as stem-cell research and genetic manipulation often focus on a science versus religion aspect, where science seeks to benevolently cure mankind of its ailments and religion seeks to preserve the sanctity of ‘creation’. This is an irrational and narrow manner to conduct a real debate on this monumental issue, painting the issue as black and white, which it most certainly is not. Science can be used for good as well as bad, and human history, most especially that of the 20th century, is nothing if not evidence for that fact. Incredible scientific ingenuity went into the creation of great weapons;the manipulation of the atom to kill millions in an instant, or the manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons. The problem with the interaction of science and power is that with such great power comes the temptation to use and abuse it. If the ability to create a weapon like an atom bomb seems possible, most certainly there are those who seek to make it probable. Where there is temptation, there is human weakness.

So while genetics can be used for benevolent purposes and for the betterment of humankind, so too can it be used to effectively create a biological caste system, where in time it would be feasible to see a break in the human race, where as human advancement technologies become increasingly available, their use is reserved to the elite so that there comes a time where there is a biological separation in the human species. Oliver Curry, an evolutionary theorist from the London School of Economics predicted that “the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000” and that, “The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures.”[27] Such was the plot of H.G. Wells’ classic book, “The Time Machine,” who was himself, a prominent eugenicist at the turn of the 20th century. While this would be a long time from now, its potential results from the decisions we make today.

Population Control as Eugenics

Not only was the field of genetics born of eugenics, and heavily financed by the same monied-interests that seek social control; but so too was the field of population control. In environmental literature and rhetoric, one concept that has emerged over the years as playing a significant part is that of population control. Population is seen as an environmental issue because the larger the population, the more resources it consumes and land it occupies. In this concept, the more people there are the worse the environment becomes. Thus, programs aimed at controlling population growth are often framed in an environmentalist lens. There is also a distinctly radical element in this field, which views population growth not simply as an environmental concern, but which frames people, in general, as a virus that must be eradicated if the earth is to survive.
 
However, in the view of elites, population control is more about controlling the people than saving the environment. Elites have always been drawn to population studies that have, in many areas, helped construct their worldview. Concerns about population growth really took hold with Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century. In 1798, Malthus wrote a “theory on the nature of poverty,” and he “called for population control by moral restraint,” citing charity as a promotion of “generation-to-generation poverty and simply made no sense in the natural scheme of human progress.” Thus, the idea of ‘charity’ became immoral. The eugenics movement attached itself to Malthus’ theory regarding the “rejection of the value of helping the poor.”[28]

The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of “Social Darwinism”, which was “the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act.”[29] This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege.

Francis Galton later coined the term “eugenics” to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the ‘genetically unfit’ “would have to be wiped away,” using tactics such as, “segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia – and ultimately extermination.”[30] The actual science of eugenics was lacking extensive evidence, and ultimately Galton “hoped to recast eugenics as a religious doctrine,” which was “to be taken on faith without proof.”[31]

As the quest to re-brand “eugenics” was under way, a 1943 edition of Eugenical News published an article titled “Eugenics After the War,” which cited Charles Davenport, a major founder and progenitor of eugenics, in his vision of “a new mankind of biological castes with master races in control and slave races serving them.”[32] A 1946 article in Eugenical News stated that, “Population, genetics, [and] psychology, are the three sciences to which the eugenicist must look for the factual material on which to build an acceptable philosophy of eugenics and to develop and defend practical eugenics proposals.”[33]

In the post-war period, emerging in the 1950s and going into the 1960s, the European colonies were retracting as nations of the ‘Third World’ were gaining political independence. This reinforced support for population control in many circles, as “For those who benefited most from the global status quo, population control measures were a far more palatable alternative to ending Third World poverty or promoting genuine economic development.”[34]

In 1952, “John D. Rockefeller 3rd convened a group of scientists to discuss the implications of the dramatic demographic change. They met in Williamsburg, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and after two and a half days agreed on the need for a new institution that could provide solid science to guide governments and individuals in addressing population questions.”[35] That new institution was to become the Population Council. Six of the Council’s ten founding members were eugenicists.[36]

According to the Population Council’s website, it “did not itself espouse any form of population policy. Instead, through grants to individuals and institutions, it invested in strengthening the indigenous capacity of countries and regions to conduct population research and to develop their own policies.

The Council also funded seminal work in U.S. universities and further developed its own in-house research expertise in biomedicine, public health, and social science.”[37]

In 2008, Matthew Connelly, a professor at Columbia University, wrote a book called, “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population,” in which he critically analyzes the history of the population control movement. He documents the rise of the field through the eugenics movement:

In 1927 a Rockefeller-funded study of contraception sought “some simple measure which will be available for the wife of the slum-dweller, the peasant, or the coolie, though dull of mind.” In 1935 one representative told India’s Council of State that population control was a necessity for the masses, adding that “it is not what they want, but what is good for them.” The problem with the natives was that “they are born too much and they don’t die enough,” a public-health official in French Indochina stated in 1936.[38]

Connelly’s general thesis was “how some people have long tried to redesign world population by reducing the fertility of other’s.” Further: Connelly examines population control as a global transnational movement because its main advocates and practitioners aimed to reduce world population through global governance and often viewed national governments as a means to this end. Fatal Misconceptions is therefore an intricate account of networks of influential individuals, international organizations, NGOs, and national governments.[39]

As one review in the Economist pointed out, “Much of the evil done in the name of slowing population growth had its roots in an uneasy coalition between feminists, humanitarians and environmentalists, who wished to help the unwillingly fecund, and the racists, eugenicists and militarists who wished to see particular patterns of reproduction, regardless of the desires of those involved.” The Economist further wrote:

As the world population soared, the population controllers came to believe they were fighting a war, and there would be collateral damage. Millions of intra-uterine contraceptive devices were exported to poor countries although they were known to cause infections and sterility. “Perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things,” said a participant at a conference on the devices organised in 1962 by the Population Council, a research institute founded by John D. Rockefeller, “particularly if the infection she acquires is sterilising but not lethal.” In 1969 Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank, said he was reluctant to finance health care “unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion.”[40]

A review in the New York Review of Books pointed out that this movement coincided a great deal with the feminist movement in advancing women’s reproductive rights. However, “these benefits were seen by many US family planning officials as secondary to the goal of reducing the absolute numbers of people in developing countries. The urgency of what came to be known as the “population control movement” contributed to a climate of coercion and led to a number of serious human rights abuses, especially in Asian countries.”[41] Dominic Lawson, writing a review of Connelly’s book for The Sunday Times, explained that:

the population-control movement was bankrolled by America’s biggest private fortunes – the Ford family foundation, John D Rockefeller III, and Clarence Gamble (of Procter & Gamble). These gentlemen shared not just extreme wealth but a common anxiety: the well-to-do and clever (people like them, obviously) were now having much smaller families than their ancestors, but the great unwashed – Chinamen! Indians! Negroes! – were reproducing themselves in an irresponsible manner. What they feared was a kind of Darwinism in reverse – the survival of the unfittest.[42]

As the New Scientist reported, while contraceptives and women’s fertility rights were being expanded, “For much of the past half-century, population control came first and human rights had to be sacrificed.” Further, the New Scientist wrote that Connelly “lays bare the dark secrets of an authoritarian neo-Malthusian ethos that created an international population agenda built around control.” One such horrific notion was “the official policies that made it acceptable to hand out food aid to famine victims only if the women agreed to be sterilized.”[43] In a sad irony, this seemingly progressive movement for women’s rights actually had the effect of resulting in a humanitarian disaster, disproportionately affecting women of the developing world.

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote his widely influential book, ‘The Population Bomb,’ “in which he predicted that global overpopulation would cause massive famines as early as the 1970s.”[44] In his book, he refers to mankind as a “cancer” upon the world:

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies – often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.[45]

The American political elite fully embraced this population paradigm of viewing the world and relations with the rest of the world. President Lyndon Johnson was quoted as saying, “I’m not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems,” while his successor, Richard Nixon, was quoted as saying, “population control is a must … population control must go hand in hand with aid.”[46] Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank and former Secretary of Defense in the Johnson administration, said that he opposed World Bank programs financing health care “unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion.”[47]

Ehrlich was also influential in tracking India’s rapid population growth into the 1970s. The rapid population growth in India was attributed at the time to the result of the public health system the British had set up under the colonial government, as well as the fact that, as a means to maintaining a relationship of dependence with Britain, the British had discouraged industrialization in India. As famine was around the corner in India, President “Johnson used food aid to pressure the Indian government to meet its family planning targets,” and “By the early 1970s, Bangladesh was spending one third of its entire health budget on family planning and India was spending 60 percent.”[48] Further:

[B]etween the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs [intrauterine devices], as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported.[49]

The Population Council knowingly sent un-sterile IUDs to India, and in the 1970s, nearly half a million women in forty-two developing countries were treated with defective IUDs that “heightened the risk of infection and uterine perforation,” after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had “quietly bought up thousands of the devices at a discount for distribution overseas.” Then sterilization was introduced as a means for “keeping the quotas” on population control in India, as “sterilization was made a condition for receiving land allocations and water for irrigation, as well as electricity, rickshaw licenses, and medical care.” A Swedish diplomat touring a Swedish/World Bank population program at the time was quoted as saying, “Obviously the stories… on how young and unmarried men are more or less dragged to the sterilization premises are true in far too many cases.”[50]

In 1967, the UN Fund for Population Activities was created, and in 1971, “the General Assembly acknowledged that UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] should play a leading role within the UN system in promoting population programmes.”[51] In 1970, Nixon created the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, known as the Rockefeller Commission, for its chairman, John D. Rockefeller 3rd. In 1972, the final report was delivered to Nixon. Among the members of the Commission (besides Rockefeller) were David E. Bell, Vice President of the Ford Foundation, and Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council. Among the conclusions were that, “Population growth is one of the major factors affecting the demand for resources and the deterioration of the environment in the United States. The further we look into the future, the more important population becomes,” and that, “From an environmental and resource point of view, there are no advantages from further growth.” Further, the report warned:

The American future cannot be isolated from what is happening in the rest of the world. There are serious problems right now in the distribution of resources, income, and wealth, among countries. World population growth is going to make these problems worse before they get better. The United States needs to undertake much greater efforts to understand these problems and develop international policies to deal with them.[52]

In 1974, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 was issued under the direction of US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, otherwise known as “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Among the issues laid out in the memorandum was that, “Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries],” and “The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions.”

Further, “rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production.” The report plainly stated that, “there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.”[53]

The memorandum lays out key policy recommendations for dealing with the “crisis” of overpopulation. They stated that “our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000,” and that this strategy “will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective [and] U.S. leadership is essential.” They suggested a concentration on specific countries: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.[54]

They recommended the “Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning,” as well as “Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology,” and “Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline.” The memorandum even specifically mentioned that, “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries] of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs.”[55] Essentially, NSSM 200 made population control a key strategy in US foreign policy, specifically related to aid and development. In other words, it was eugenics as foreign policy.

In 1975, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, declared martial law. Her son Sanjay was appointed as the nation’s chief population controller. Sanjay

“proceeded to flatten slums and then tell the residents that they could get a new house if they would agree to be sterilized. Government officials were given sterilization quotas. Within a year, six million Indian men and two million women were sterilized. At least 2,000 Indians died as a result of botched sterilization operations.” However, the following year there was an election, and Indira Gandhi’s government was thrown out of power, with that issue playing a major factor.[56]

Next, however, China became the major focus of the population control movement, which “offered technical assistance to China’s “one child” policy of 1978-83, even helping to pay for computers that allowed Chinese officials to track “birth permits,” the official means by which the government banned families from having more than one child and required the aborting of additional children.”[57] Further:

Even China’s draconian population programs received some support in the 1980s from the US-funded International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund. Before China launched its infamous “One Child Policy,” concerns were being raised about its “voluntary” family planning program. In 1981, Chinese and American newspapers reported that “vehicles transporting Cantonese women to hospitals for abortions were ‘filled with wailing noises.’ Some pregnant women were reportedly ‘handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig’s baskets.'”

After 1983, coercion became official Chinese policy. “All women with one child were to be inserted with a stainless-steel, tamper-resistant IUD, all parents with two or more children were to be sterilized, and all unauthorized pregnancies aborted,” according to the One Child Policy. During this time, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund continued to support China’s nongovernmental Family Planning Association, even though some of its top officials also worked for the government.[58]

The UN was not a passive participant in population control measures, as it actively supported these harsh programs, and in many cases, rewarded governments for their vicious tactics in reducing population growth:

In 1983, Xinzhong Qian and Indira Gandhi were awarded the first United Nations Population Award to recognize and reward their accomplishments in limiting the population growth in China and India in the previous decade. During the 1970s, officials in these countries had launched extremely ambitious population programs that were supposed to improve the quality of the population and halt its growth. The measures used were harsh. For example, slum clearance resulting in the eradication of whole urban neighbourhoods and the widespread sterilization of their inhabitants was an important part of India’s ‘Emergency’ campaign.

In Delhi, hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes in events that resulted in numerous clashes, arrests, and deaths, while a total of eight million sterilizations were recorded in India in 1976.[59]

Horrifically, “between the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs, as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported, but these programs made little effort to treat these conditions, or even determine their frequency, so we don’t know precisely how common they were.”[60]

In the late 1980s, revelations in Brazil uncovered the NSSM 200 in Brazil since its implementation in 1975 under the Ford Presidency. An official government investigation was launched, and it was discovered that, “an estimated 44% of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized.”

Further, the programs of sterilization, undertaken by a number of international organizations, were coordinated under the guidance of USAID.[61]

At the UN’s 1994 World Population Conference in Cairo, Third World delegates to the conference emphasized the need for development policies as opposed to demographic policies; that the focus must be on development, not population. This was essentially a setback for the radical population control movement; however, it wasn’t one they couldn’t work around. There was still a great deal of support among Western elites and co-opted developing world elites for the aims of population control. As Connelly articulated:

It appealed to the rich and powerful because, with the spread of emancipatory movements and the integration of markets, it began to appear easier and more profitable to control populations than to control territory. That’s why opponents were correct in viewing it as another chapter in the unfinished history of imperialism.[62]

It was around this point that the population control movement, while continuing on its overall aims of curbing population growth of Third World nations, began to further merge itself with the environmental movement. While always working alongside the environmental movement, this period saw the emergence of a more integrated approach to policy agendas.

Environmentalism as Eugenics

Michael Barker extensively covered the connection between the Rockefeller and Ford foundations in funding the environmental movement in the academic journal, Capitalism Nature Socialism. As Barker noted, following World War II, the public became increasingly concerned with the environment as the “chemical-industrial complex” grew at an astounding rate.[63] Since Rockefeller interests were heavily involved in the chemical industry, the rising trend in environmental thought and concern had to quickly be controlled and steered in a direction favourable to elite interests.

Two important organizations in shaping the environmental movement were the Conservation Foundation and Resources for the Future, which largely relied upon Rockefeller and Ford Foundation funding, and both conservation organizations had interestingly helped to “launch an explicitly pro-corporate approach to resource conservation.”[64] Laurance Rockefeller served as a trustee of the Conservation Foundation, and donated $50,000 yearly throughout the 50s and 60s.

Further, the Conservation Foundation was founded by Fairfield Osborn, whose cousin, Frederick Osborn, became another prominent voice in conservation.[65]

Frederick Osborn was also working with the Rockefeller’s Population Council and was President of the American Eugenics Society.

In 1952, the Ford Foundation created the organization Resources for the Future (RFF), (the same year that the Rockefellers created the Population Council), and the original founders were also “John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s chief advisors on conservation matters.” Laurance Rockefeller joined the board of the RFF in 1958, and the RFF got $500,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1970.[66] The Ford Foundation would also go on to create the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.[67] McGeorge Bundy, who was President of the Ford Foundation from 1966 until 1979, once stated that, “everything the foundation did could be regarded as ‘making the world safe for capitalism’.”[68]

Certainly one of the pre-eminent, if not the most prominent environmental organizations in the world is the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). The WWF was founded on September 11, 1961, by Sir Julian Huxley, the first Director General of the UN organization, UNESCO.[69] Sir Julian Huxley was also a life trustee of the British Eugenics Society from 1925, and its President from 1959-62. In the biography of Julian Huxley on the British Eugenics Society’s website (now known as the Galton Institute – a genetics research center), it stated that, “Huxley believed that eugenics would one day be seen as the way forward for the human race,” and that, “A catastrophic event may be needed for evolution to move at an accelerated pace, as the extinction of the dinosaurs gave the mammals their chance to take over the world. It is much the same with ideas whose time has not yet come; they must survive periods when they are not generally welcome. Like the small mammals in dinosaur times they must await their opportunity.”[70]

In 1962, Rachel Carson, an American marine biologist, published her seminal work, Silent Spring, which has long been credited with helping launch the modern environmental movement. Her book was largely based around the criticism of pesticides as harmful to the environment and human and animal health. Of particular note, she is seen as being the starting force for the campaign against DDT. Carson died in 1964, but her legacy was set in stone by the emerging environmental movement.

The Environmental Defense Fund was founded in 1967 with the specific aim to ban DDT. Some of its initial funding came from the Ford Foundation.[71] This also spurred the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an official US government agency, in 1970. In 1972, the EPA banned the use of DDT in the United States. Since this time, “DDT prohibitions have been expanded and enforced by NGO pressure, coercive treaties, and threats of economic sanctions by foundations, nations and international aid agencies.”[72]

DDT is widely regarded as a carcinogen, and most have never questioned the banning of DDT until understanding the effects of DDT usage beyond the environmental aspect. In particular, we need to look at Africa to understand the significant role of DDT and why we need to re-evaluate its potential usage, weighing the pros and cons of doing so. We must bring in the “human element” and balance that out with the “environmental element” instead of just simply writing off the human aspect to the issue.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said in 2000, that, “malaria infected over 300 million people. It killed nearly 2,000,000 – most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Over half the victims are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day,” and that, “Since 1972, over 50 million people have died from this dreaded disease. Many are weakened by AIDS or dysentery, but actually die of malaria.” In 2002 alone, 80,000 Ugandans died from malaria, half of which were children.[73] The fact is, that:

No other chemical comes close to DDT as an affordable, effective way to repel mosquitoes from homes, exterminate any that land on walls, and disorient any that are not killed or repelled, largely eliminating their urge to bite in homes that are treated once or twice a year with tiny amounts of this miracle insecticide.[74]

Donald Roberts, Professor of Tropical Public Health at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, explained that, “DDT is long-acting; the alternatives are not,” and that, ultimately, when it comes to the issue of poor countries and poor people, “DDT is cheap; the alternatives are not. End of Story.”[75]

Richard Tren, President of Africa Fighting Malaria, said that, “In the 60 years since DDT was first introduced, not a single scientific paper has been able to replicate even one case of actual human harm from its use.” At the end of World War II, DDT was used on nearly every concentration camp survivor to prevent typhus, and the “widespread use of DDT in Europe and the United States played vital roles in eradicating malaria and typhus on both continents.”

Further, in 1979, a World Health Organization (WHO) review of DDT use could not find “any possible adverse effects of DDT,” and said it was the “safest pesticide used for residual spraying and vector control programs.”[76]

However, organizations such as the WHO, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the World Bank, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and a variety of others still remained adamantly opposed to the use of DDT. While DDT is not outright banned, it is extremely difficult to have it used in places like Africa due to funding. The funding for health care and disease-related programs comes largely from western aid agencies and NGOs, and “The US Agency for International Development [USAID] will not fund any indoor residual spraying and neither will most of the other donors,” explained Richard Tren, which “means that most African countries have to use whatever [these donors] are willing to fund (bed nets), which may not be the most appropriate tool.”[77]

A Ugandan Health Minister said in 2002 that, “Our people’s lives are of primary importance. The West is concerned about the environment because we share it with them. But it is not concerned about malaria because it is not a problem there. In Europe, they used DDT to kill anopheles mosquitoes that cause malaria. Why can’t we use DDT to kill the enemy in our camp?”[78]

Michael Crichton, an author and PhD molecular biologist, plainly stated, “Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die, and we didn’t give a damn.” As author Paul Driessen eloquently explained, the West “would never tolerate being told they had to protect their children solely by using bed nets, larvae-eating fish and medicinal treatments. But they have been silent about conditions in Africa, and about the intolerable attitudes of environmental groups, aid agencies and their own government[s].”[79]

James Lovelock, a scientist, researcher, environmentalist and futurist, became famous for popularizing his idea known as the Gaia hypothesis. He first started writing about this theory in journals in the early 1970s, but it shot to fame with the publication of his 1979 book, “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth.” The general theory is that the Earth acts as a single organism, where all facets interact and react in a particular way that promotes an optimal environment on Earth. Thus, the theory was named after the Greek Earth goddess, Gaia. In the opening paragraph of his book, he stated that, “the quest for Gaia is an attempt to find the largest living creature on Earth.”[80] His theory provoked a fair amount criticism within the scientific community, with some referring to it as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes.[81]

Lovelock has also been known to make wild predictive statements. In 2006, he wrote an article for the Independent, in which he stated that, “My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease,” and that the Earth is “seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years.”[82]

In 2008, the Guardian interviewed Lovelock, who contended that it was “too late” to do anything about global warming, that catastrophe was inevitable, and that, “about 80%” of the world’s population [will] be wiped out by 2100.”[83] In August of 2009, Lovelock became a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a British population control organization. Upon his becoming a patron, he stated that, “Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.” He added, “How can we possibly decrease carbon emissions and land use while the number of emitters and the space they occupy remorselessly increases? When will the environmentalists who claim to be green recognise the truth and speak out?”[84]

Taxes and trades in carbon and carbon credits virtually commodify our atmosphere, so that the very air we breathe becomes property that is bought and sold. A tax on carbon is a tax on life. Since the lifeblood of an industrial society is oil, this requires carbon emissions in order to develop. The restraints on carbon, particularly the notion of trading carbon credits – i.e., trading the ‘right’ to pollute a certain amount – will disproportionately affect the developing world, which cannot afford to finance its own development. Corporations and banks will trade and own the world’s carbon credits, granting them the exclusive right to pollute and control the world’s resources and environment. The carbon trading market could become twice the size of the world oil market within ten years time.[85]

In regards to the Copenhagen Climate talks, which essentially broke down in December of 2009, the real source of this failure lies in a document that revealed the true nature of the negotiations, referred to as the ‘Danish Text.’ The ‘Danish Text’ was a leaked Danish government document which outlined a draft agreement “that hands more power to rich countries,” as, “The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank” and “would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.”[86] In other words, it becomes the new means of exerting “conditionality” upon the developing, and increasingly the developed world. ‘Conditionality’ implying – of course – a restructuring of society along lines designated by the World Bank.

While these are but examples of the influence and shaping of science to mold society and control humanity, much more discussion and debate is needed on these issues. While science can be used for the benefit of mankind, so too can it be used for the control and oppression of humanity. The people who run our societies view us as needing to be controlled, so they redirect the social apparatus into systems of control and coercion. Science can allow us to understand an idea or organism; but in doing so, it can also allow us to understand how to dominate and control that idea or organism. We must continually engage in a discussion of our changing society to better understand the nature of its changes and how that could affect us both positively and negatively.

If not for the Technological (or ‘Technetronic’) Revolution, elites would not have access to such powerful means of control; but, simultaneously, people have never had such great access to each other through mass communications and the Internet. So while environmental science can allow us to better understand our environment, something we seem still to be very much an adolescent in accomplishing, it also unleashes an ability, and what’s greater – a temptation – to control and shape the environment. Science can be used to both free and imprison the human mind. It is imperative that we approach and discuss the sciences (and all issues) from this perspective, not from a narrow-minded and divisive black-and-white world of ‘left’ and ‘right’, of religion or science. We cannot simply view criticism and opposition to social and scientific endeavours as ‘backwards’, or based on ‘religious doctrine’. There are rational reasons and purposes for criticism and debate on all of these issues, and rational positions of dissent.

Issues like climate change are generally divided upon those who ‘believe’ in climate change, and those who are termed ‘deniers’, which is a disingenuous and divisive approach to rational debate. It silences the critical scientists, who do not get funding from governments or corporations. It classifies those who dissent as ‘deniers’, employing rhetoric like that used against Holocaust deniers, whereas the majority of the dissent within the scientific community comes from those who simply see the role of other forces (often natural) in shaping and changing our climate, such as solar radiation. They do not ‘deny’ climate change, but they dissent on the causes and consequences. Is their opinion not worth hearing? If we are reshaping our entire global political and economic spheres as a result of our supposedly ‘collective’ perception of this issue – as we certainly are – then is it not of the utmost importance that we hear from other voices, especially those of dissent, in order to better understand the issue?

Merging Man and Machine: The Future of Humanity

Eisenhower warned, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded,” and that, “we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”[87]

Bill Joy, a computer scientist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who was co-chair of the presidential commission on the future of IT research, wrote an article for Wired Magazine in 2000 entitled, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Joy explained the possibilities in a technological society of the near future, that “new technologies like genetic engineering and nanotechnology were giving us the power to remake the world.” One startling development in the world is that of robot technology and its potential impact upon society. Joy explains:

Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology – pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once – but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.[88]

Joy explains that while these technologies can, and consistently are promoted and justified in the name of doing good (such as curing diseases, etc.), “with each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible advances leads to an accumulation of great power and, concomitantly, great danger.”

Joy ominously warns that:

The 21st-century technologies – genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) – are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses.

Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.

Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication.

I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.[89]

In other words: we are entering an era faced with the “scientific dictators” of Huxley’s nightmare vision in ‘Brave New World’. Joy explained that by 2030, “we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a million times as powerful as the personal computers of today.” Thus:

As this enormous computing power is combined with the manipulative advances of the physical sciences and the new, deep understandings in genetics, enormous transformative power is being unleashed. These combinations open up the opportunity to completely redesign the world, for better or worse: The replicating and evolving processes that have been confined to the natural world are about to become realms of human endeavor.[90]

Joy examined the transformative nature of robotics, as an intelligent robot may be built by 2030, “And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species – to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.” Further, “A second dream of robotics is that we will gradually replace ourselves with our robotic technology, achieving near immortality by downloading our consciousnesses.” Joy further warns of the potential for an arms race to develop in these technologies, just as took place in the nuclear, radiological and biological weapons of the 20th century.[91]

Joy aptly explained that in the 20th century, those technologies were largely the products of governments, whereas in the 21st century, the new technologies of genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR), are the products of corporations and capitalism. Thus, the driving force is that of competition, desire, and the economic system. Hence, there is far less regulation and discussion of these new technologies than there was of the 20th century technologies, as the new technologies are developed in privately owned labs, not public. Joy often quotes a passage from Kaczynski’s Unabomber Manifesto regarding a future dystopia, which Joy feels has “merit in the reasoning.” In the event that human control over machines is retained (as opposed to the machines taking over):

[C]ontrol over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite.

Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.[92]

A horrifying vision indeed; but one which builds upon the ideas of Huxley, Russell and Brzezinski, who envisioned a people who – through biological and psychological means – are made to love their own servitude. Huxley saw the emergence of a world in which humanity, still a wild animal, is domesticated; where only the elite remain wild and have freedom to make decisions, while the masses are domesticated like pets. Huxley opined that, “Men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”[93]

We Can Have a Scientific Dictatorship, or…

We can create an alternative. We use, strengthen, mobilize, decentralize, and mobilize the global political awakening into a global movement of people not simply politically aware, but politically active and engaged. A world where people do not simply observe the apparatus of political, economic and social power influencing their lives; but in which the people actively seek to change it to better suit their lives and their freedom. We need to understand each other better; but to do that, we cannot view each other through the harsh and deceptive lens of power.

To understand each other, we must know each other. People must communicate with one another around the world; ideas must be exchanged between people and discussed, debated, and decided upon; the people must determine their own futures. Take the elites out of the equation: if you do not want them to dominate your lives, do not give them the power to do so. Talk to each other and determine your own polities, economies and societies. Do not entrust dying ideas and diseased institutions to determine your future for you.

The tools and systems of social control are vast and evasive; they penetrate the very psychology and biology of the individual. The elite feel that they are entrusted – due to their supposed ‘innate’ superior intelligence and specialization – to control society and reshape it as they see fit, to actively mold and construct public opinion and ideas. They have a belief that people are essentially irrational emotional beings, and that they must be controlled by an elite or else the world would be in chaos. This is what underpins the ideas of ‘stability’ and ‘order’. The state has been used to fight every progressive form of change that society has ever developed for its betterment: women’s rights, racial rights, civil rights, the anti-war movement, gay rights, etc. Initially, the impulse – the immediate reaction of the state – is to oppress social movements and to suppress human freedoms. This approach often leads to a situation in which social movements are only accepted by the state when they are co-opted by the state or powerful economic forces, which then exert their influence over the state to alter the policy.

If we gain stability and order at the cost of our very humanity, is it worth it? Do we really need this eternal guidance, which has been constant through almost all of human history, to treat the human species as if it was in a constant state of adolescence, never quite prepared to make its own decisions or go out in the world on its own? Well it is time for humanity to grow up, leave the strange comfort of mental authoritarianism. The strive for human autonomy has only just begun; only now is all of humanity politically awakened; only now – and never before – has all of known humanity had such a great and perfect opportunity to remake the world, retake power, re-imagine individuality and revitalize freedom.

Our world is governed not by a conspiracy, but by ideas: ideas of power, money, the state, military, empire, race, religion, sex, gender, politics and people. The only challenge to those ideas, are new ideas. There are roughly 6,000 members of the ‘global elite,’[94] there are over 6.8 billion people in the world. That sounds like a lot of potential for new ideas. The greatest resource for the future of humanity is not in the ‘control’ of humanity, which is doomed to ultimate failure, but for the release and encouragement of the human mind and spirit.

People can understand the science and mechanics of the brain, the functions of psychology, the ability of human strength; but still, today, we do not know how all that biology can create Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. Humanity is still very much a mystery to humans, and it would seem likely that the best answers to the questions of ‘how should we live?’ and ‘how should our societies function?’ are best answered with the bigger question of ‘why are we here’?

If the purpose of people and humanity is to consume and dominate, then our present situation seems only natural. If we were meant for more, then we must become more. If we were meant to be free, we must become free. Ideas are powerful things: they can build empires, and collapse them just as easily.

In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered one of his most moving and important speeches, “Beyond Vietnam,” in which he spoke out against war and empire. He left humanity with sobering words:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[95]
 
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), and is studying Political Economy and History in Canada.

He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” available to order at Globalresearch.ca.

Endnotes
[1]        Aldous Huxley, Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited. (Harper Perennial, New York, 2004), page 255
[2]        Ibid, page 259.
[3]        Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, (Routledge, 1985), page 40
[4]        Ibid, page 66.
[5]        Ibid, page 62.
[6]        Ibid, page 58.
[7]        Ibid, page 117.
[8]        Ibid, page 118.
[9]        Ibid, page 63.
[10]      Aldous Huxley, The Ultimate Revolution, March 20, 1962. Berkeley Language Center – Speech Archive SA 0269: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Speech/VideoTest/audiofiles.html#huxley
[11]      Dwight D. Eisenhower, Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation. January 17, 1961: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
[12]      Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. (Viking Press, New York, 1970), page 97
[13]      Edwin Black, Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection. The San Francisco Chronicle: November 9, 2003:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-11-09/opinion/17517477_1_eugenics-ethnic-cleansing-master-race
[14]      Michael Barker, The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism: Volume 19, Number 2, June 2008
[15]      Bruno Waterfield, Dutch Prince Bernhard ‘was member of Nazi party’. The Telegraph: March 5, 2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7377402/Dutch-Prince-Bernhard-was-member-of-Nazi-party.html
[16]      Julian Huxley, UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1946). Preparatory Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, page 61.
[17]      Ibid, page 21.
[18]      Ibid, pages 37-38.
[19]      Ibid, page 38.
[20]      Ibid.
[21]      Ibid, page 18.
[22]      Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. (New York: Thunders’s Mouth Press, 2004), page 418
[23]      MARTIN MORSE WOOSTER, The War Against Fertility. The Wall Street Journal: April 1, 2008:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700566688178565.html?mod=hpp_europe_leisure
[24]      Garland E. Allen, “Is a New Eugenics Afoot?” Science Magazine, October 5, 2001: Vol. 294, no. 5540:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5540/59
[25]      Ibid.
[26]      Ibid.
[27]      Niall Firth, Human race will ‘split into two different species’. The Daily Mail: October 26, 2007:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-489653/Human-race-split-different-species.html
[28]      Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2004), 11-12
[29]      Ibid, pages 12-13.
[30]      Ibid, page 19.
[31]      Ibid, page 28.
[32]      Ibid, page 416.
[33]      Ibid, page 418.
[34]      Simon Butler, The Dark History of Population Control. Climate and Capitalism: November 23, 2009: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1293
[35]      History, ABOUT THE POPULATION COUNCIL. The Population Council: September 10, 2008: http://www.popcouncil.org/about/history.html
[36]      MARTIN MORSE WOOSTER, The War Against Fertility. The Wall Street Journal: April 1, 2008: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700566688178565.html?mod=hpp_europe_leisure
[37]      History, ABOUT THE POPULATION COUNCIL. The Population Council: September 10, 2008: http://www.popcouncil.org/about/history.html
[38]      Review, Horrid History. The Economist: May 24, 2008
[39]      Heli Kasanen, BOOK REVIEW: Fatal misconception: the struggle to control world population, By Matthew Connelly: The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 2009, 1(3), page 15
[40]      Review, Horrid History. The Economist: May 24, 2008
[41]      Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books: August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html
[42]      Dominic Lawson, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly. The Sunday Times: May 18, 2008:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3938455.ece
[43]      Fred Pearce, Fatal Misconception by Matthew Connelly. The New Scientist: May 21, 2008:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826572.400-review-ifatal-misconceptioni-by-matthew-connelly.html
[44]      Jack M. Hollander, The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment’s Number One Enemy. (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2003), page 30
[45]      Lara Knudsen, Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. (Vanderbilt University Press: 2006), page 3
[46]      Simon Butler, The Dark History of Population Control. Climate and Capitalism: November 23, 2009: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1293
[47]      Nicholas D. Kristof, Birth Control for Others. The New York Times: March 23, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/books/review/Kristof-t.html
[48]      Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books: August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html
[49]      Ibid.
[50]      Ibid.
[51]      UNFPA, UNFPA and the United Nations System. About UNFPA: http://www.unfpa.org/about/unsystem.htm
[52]      Population and the American Future, The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. The Center for Research on Population and Security: March 27, 1972:
http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm#Commission
[53]      NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200: April 24, 1974: http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html#summary
[54]      Ibid.
[55]      Ibid.
[56]      MARTIN MORSE WOOSTER, The War Against Fertility. The Wall Street Journal: April 1, 2008:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700566688178565.html?mod=hpp_europe_leisure
[57]      Ibid.
[58]      Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books: August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html
[59]      Heli Kasanen, BOOK REVIEW: Fatal misconception: the struggle to control world population, By Matthew Connelly: The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 2009, 1(3), page 15
[60]      Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books, August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html
[61]      F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. (Global Research, Montreal: 2007), page 65
[62]      Simon Butler, The Dark History of Population Control. Climate and Capitalism: November 23, 2009: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1293
[63]      Michael Barker, The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism: Volume 19, Number 2, June 2008: page 15
[64]      Ibid, pages 19-20.
[65]      Ibid, page 20.
[66]      Ibid, page 22.
[67]      Ibid, page 25.
[68]      Ibid, page 26.
[69]      WWF, A History of WWF: The Sixties. World Wildlife Fund: November 13, 2005: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/who_we_are/history/sixties/index.cfm
[70]      John Timson, Portraits of the Pioneers: Sir Julian Huxley, FRS. The Galton Institute: December 1999 Newsletter: http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9912/julian_huxley.htm
[71]      Michael Barker, The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism: Volume 19, Number 2, June 2008: page 25
[72]      Paul Driessen, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. (Merril Press: 2004), page 67
[73]      Ibid, page 66.
[74]      Ibid, page 67.
[75]      Ibid, page 68.
[76]      Ibid, page 69.
[77]      Ibid, page 71.
[78]      Ibid, page 72.
[79]      Ibid, page 73.
[80]      James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. (Oxford: 1979), page 1
[81]      S.J. Gould, Kropotkin was no crackpot. Natural History, June 1997: pages 12-21
[82]      James Lovelock, The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. The Independent: January 16, 2006:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
[83]      Decca Aitkenhead, ‘Enjoy life while you can’. The Guardian: March 1, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
[84]      OPT, GAIA SCIENTIST TO BE OPT PATRON. News Release: August 26, 2009:
 http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release26Aug09.htm
[85]      Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade. The Guardian: November 29, 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
[86]      John Vidal, Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak. The Guardian: December 8, 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
[87]      Dwight D. Eisenhower, Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation. January 17, 1961: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
[88]      Bill Joy, Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired Magazine: April 2000: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
[89]      Ibid.
[90]      Ibid.
[91]      Ibid.
[92]      Ibid.
[93]      Time, The Press: Brave New Newsday. Time Magazine: June 9, 1958: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,868521,00.html
[94]      Laura Miller, The rise of the superclass. Salon: March 14, 2008: http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/03/14/superclass
[95]      Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html

MORE ARTICLES BY ANDREW GAVIN MARSHELL

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Andrew Gavin Marshall

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20028

The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order
The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part 1
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19873

Revolution and Repression in America
The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part 2
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19951

Falling Debt Dynamite Dominoes, The Coming Financial Catastrophe
Stock-Markets / Credit Crisis 2010
Feb 22, 2010 – 03:37 AM
By: Andrew_G_Marshall

 Understanding the Nature of the Global Economic Crisis – The people have been lulled into a false sense of safety under the rouse of a perceived “economic recovery.” Unfortunately, what the majority of people think does not make it so, especially when the people making the key decisions think and act to the contrary. The sovereign debt crises that have been unfolding in the past couple years and more recently in Greece, are canaries in the coal mine for the rest of Western “civilization.” The crisis threatens to spread to Spain, Portugal and Ireland; like dominoes, one country after another will collapse into a debt and currency crisis, all the way to America.

Many Congressmen were told that if they failed to pass the bailout package, they were threatened with martial law.[22] Sure enough, Congress passed the bill, and the financial coup had been a profound success.

No wonder then, in early 2009, one Congressman reported that the banks “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”[23] Another Congressman said that “The banks run the place,” and explained, “I will tell you what the problem is – they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.”[24]

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article17404.html


A Dutch festival of Hypocracy…but they call it democracy

June 10, 2010

The Dutch have just had a general election. As a freelancer with many skills and experiences,that works and travels in the EU, I was invited to work and be part of this setup. You will of seen me on Dutch TV ,in the background. I have a residency in Holland,and other countries, and pay my taxes there. BUT I AM NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE!!!!

The election event I was helping setup was the RTL(TV station) coverage of the event. It was called the “Festival of Democracy”. I happened to notice, of the foreign but “Dutch taxpaying” freelancers that worked on this event ,ONLY 1 in 5 hand a vote!! I happened to mention that “Taxation without Representation” has caused a few problems for governments in the past ,including rights of legitimacy! I also pointed out that DEMOCRACY came from ATHENS NOT SPARTA!!!

Athenians believed in democracy ,democracy ment that ALL people had the right to have thier say, and ALL people had the right to vote on ALL the issues. This is the democracy that Athenians fought and died for, today we would call this DIRECT DEMOCRACY!! WHO did the Athenians fight and what system did they oppose?

The Athenians fought Sparta and the RULE OF THE 30 TYRANTS!!

The rule of the 30 tyrants was based on a select group that was elligable to rule (political parties) . There where another subset of people that where elligable to vote(the electorate ,NOT THE PEOPLE)! Mainly the rich and wealthy and those invested in the status quo.

The Thirty Tyrants (Greek: οἱ τριάκοντα τύραννοι) were a pro-Spartan oligarchy installed in Athens after its defeat in the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC. Contemporary Athenians referred to them simply as “the oligarchy” or “the Thirty” (οἱ Τριάκοντα); the expression “Thirty Tyrants” is due to later historians.[1] Its two leading members were Critias and Theramenes.

The Thirty severely reduced the rights of Athenian citizens. Imposing a limit on the number of citizens allowed to vote (limiting the franchise for example to the wealthiest citizens) was a standard move on the part of wealthy people who objected to being bossed around by the votes of the “rabble” in a broad-based democracy where all free adult males could vote. Participation in legal functions — which had previously been open to all Athenians — was restricted by the 30 to a select group of 500 persons. Only 3,000 Athenians were granted the right to carry weapons or receive a jury trial.

The Thirty Tyrants forced many Athenians into exile and threw their leaders into jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_tyrants

Today we would call this political system REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY or more correctly an ELECTED DICTATORSHIP or what Athenians would call the Rule of the 30 Tyrants certainly NOT DEMOCRACY!!!

If it is NOT a dictatorship YOU will be able to tell me what else YOU get to vote on ,OTHER than YOUR choice of Dictator. You are rule by”edicts” or DICTS that are dictated to YOU! Your only hope is a vote to replace your dictator……ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM PEASANT!!!!!

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a form of democracy and a theory of civics in which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/elected-dictatorship-posing-as-democracy/

Leftwing ,rightwing ITS ALL BOLLOCKS ,THEY ARE ALL STATE CAPITALIST AUTHORITARIANS , not one major political party supports Direct Democracy!!! One side supports Big government and the other Big business.

State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a state calls itself socialist. Corporatized state agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed firms, and thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

OF COURSE THIS IS JUST FASCISM!!

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/government-should-go-on-strike-to-prove-they-are-worth-thier-money/

Today the government steals from the kitty (expenses) takes bribes (brown envelopes and lobby groups) LIES blatantly and frequently starts wars, sponcers terrorists and enables paedophiles. To be able to do all these things the MAJORITY of the government must be involved otherwise they would be hounded out of office by the non-corrupt politions . The people have NO POWER to investigate THIER PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!!

YOUR REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/uk-government-blackmailed-into-war-blair-covers-mps-paedophile-ring-and-the-dunblane-massacre/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/pastors-of-muppets-and-masters-of-puppets-and-other-paedophiles/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/a-list-of-child-sex-offenders-inside-the-british-government/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/governments-traitors-terrorists-and-drug-dealers/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/usa-harbouring-terrorists-should-the-un-declare-war-on-this-rogue-terrorist-nation/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/eu-to-hand-over-financial-transactions-data-to-us-government/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/us-government-terrorists-still-in-power-iran-contra-to-911/

THE RESPONSE?

I was asked to leave the studio and stop making these comments IN A FESTIVAL OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE SPEACH!?!?!?…..  and these muppets could not even see the hypocracy and the comicalness of this statement!! It sure made me laugh out loud!! It made me laugh even louder when half an hour later they realised they really needed me back in the studio to sort some technical problems…..f*ckin useless muppets.

A particularly stupid Netherlander , and probable Geert Wilders supportter ,mentioned that if I had such a problem with Dutch democracy why don’t I leave! I pointed out , 65 years ago my grandfather was here shooting people like Geert Wilders and getting medals for IT!!! and HE did NOT ASK TO DO IT!!! BUT THAT is the ONLY REASON THAT DUTCH PEOPLE CAN HAVE THIER FAKE FESTIVAL OF DEMOCRACY TODAY and its is the only reason why the Dutch can still speak Dutch and even have a nation state. If it was up to the Dutch rightwing in the 1930’s the Dutch would be speaking German with a funny accent ,and Holland would be a province not a country. The Dutch LOST WWII, as they where numerically fighting on the side of Germany. Holland was the biggest non-alligned nation on the German side.

MY FAMILY HAS DONE MORE TO ENSURE DEMOCRACY IN HOLLAND THAN GEERT WILDERS!!! SO GEERT AND HIS SUPPORTTERS WHY DON’T YOU GET OUT OF MY “DUTCH” COUNTRY,IF YOU HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH IT!?!?!!

SO MAYBE ALL FOREIGNERS WITHOUT VOTING RIGHTS SHOULD START SHOOTING NAZI NETHERLANDS!!!! IT SEEMED TO WORK REALLY WELL ,BOTH FOR THE DUTCH AND THE WORLD , THE LAST TIME!

OR

YOU EITHER GIVE ME ALL MY TAX BACK , OR GIVE ME MY VOTE!!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ,NOT WITHOUT CAUSING GENUINE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR FOREGIN TAXPAYING RESIDENTS ,AND NO HOLLAND IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!! But it is more representative than the UK Dictatorship,but the UK dictatorship is more inclusive. For example the devolution vote for a Scottish parliment (a much more important vote than just an election) was open to ALL people that had paid tax in Scotland for 6 months, I know Dutch people that voted in this referendum, But I still cannot vote in a Dutch general election!?!? The Dutch election results are a farce, and actually SHOULD BE CONTESTED ,BUT I bet Geert Wilders is very happy with the voting setup,being a notorious Dutch democrate! So what next? Does Holland give its taxpaying citizens a vote OR do we  get Tax exempt status ? OR does the world have to come and sort out the Dutch political system for them… AGAIN!!!!!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/con-dem-coalition-thats-the-trouble-with-political-jokes-they-keep-getting-elected/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/government-should-go-on-strike-to-prove-they-are-worth-thier-money/

A HIDDEN HISTORY OF GLOBAL DOMINATION

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/a-short-history-of-global-domination-or-rockefella-rothschild-and-the-capitalist-communist-nwo-con/

A HIDDEN HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/governments-traitors-terrorists-and-drug-dealers/

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/the-record-of-the-federal-reserve/

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/icelandthe-pheonix-from-the-fire-as-the-long-boats-enter-the-accountant-sea/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/bailout-faltering-banker-arrests-beginning/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/bank-corruption-and-fraudthe-who-the-how-and-the-why-and-the-simple-solution/

“Whether the mask is labeled Fascism, Democracy, or Dictatorship or the Proletariat, our great adversary remains the Apparatus-the bureaucracy, the police, the military…. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus, and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”– The French worker philosopher Simone Weil,1945

“All government, of course, is against liberty. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Most people want security in this world, not liberty.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. It doesn’t take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause.”

Looking forward to getting back to Auld Reekie and setting up the Edinburgh festival again.


CON-DEM Coalition that’s the trouble with political jokes ,They Keep Getting Elected!!!

May 16, 2010

Even by Prime Minister Cameron’s own admission , this alliance is a joke. So Prime Minister Cameron’s first action is to make an alliance with the “best joke he knows” Nick Clegg . He has not even managed to get through the anouncement of his coalition government without his Lib-Dem coalition partner walking out on it! Things do not bode well. All we can hope is that this joke turns round and bites him on the arse!

BUT The trouble with political jokes is that they keep getting elected ….What is the difference between a bag of shit and a polition these days? It used to be “the bag”. BUT these days the bag of shit is vastly superior to the polition.

The bag of shit lies less. The bag of shit is less harmful to the environment .The bag of shit will not be bribed by lobby groups. The bag of shit will not vote for illegal wars .the bag of shit does not cover for paedophiles. the bag of shit does not claim false expences ,the bag of shit does not take money for questions,the bag of shit will not waste taxpayers money on showcase inquires, the bag of shit will not try and run my life for me, the bag of shit does not complain about its wages ,the bag of shit will not pay family members as employees,the bag of shit will not claim for a second home,the bag of shit will not take money for Peerages ,the bag of shit will not take a directorship job in the private sector later, ….. altogether a much more cost effective,environmentally friendly and LESS CORRUPT representative!

REMEMBER WHEN CHOSING A POLITION , VOTE FOR THE BAG OF SHIT ….YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/government-should-go-on-strike-to-prove-they-are-worth-thier-money/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/icelandthe-pheonix-from-the-fire-as-the-long-boats-enter-the-accountant-sea/

So what does this CON-DEM coalition mean in reality?

NOTHING HAS CHANGED JUST THE BADGE OF OFFICE , A SET OF POM POMS AND A SHORT PLEATED SKIRT, HAS CHANGED HANDS, WE THE PEOPLE , HAVE A NEW CHEERLEADER!!!!!  GIVE US A “U” ..GIVE US A “K”

The status Quo is maintained , and things carry on as usual, illegal wars continue , bankers keep getting bailed out , paedophiles still walk the halls of power, politions are still bought and paid for by lobby groups and brown envelopes and blackmail. Scotland and Wales can be used as an experimental ground for Tory policy ,as in Scotland they have nothing to loose. Lib-Dem policys will be sidelined,  they are considered a joke by the Torys.Was Nick Clegg blackmailed or bribed or was he willing to give up his “principles” for his 15  minutes of fame and a seat at the big table.

THE POLICY ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND WAR CRIMES?

THE UK IS NOW A SAFE HAVEN FOR WAR CRIMINALS …AGAIN.

Warrents for British ,American and Israelli war criminals will not be acted upon. We have give immunity to mass murderers. Lib-Dem policy will not effect this.

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/tony-blair-very-close-to-being-indicted-for-war-crime-in-malaysia/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/where-have-all-the-burger-eating-war-monkeys-gone-cry-havoc-and-unleash-the-dogs-of-war-crimes/

POLICY ON BANKER FRAUD AND CORRUPTION?

BAILOUT BANKERS AND GIVE THEM A BONUS AND MAKE THE TAXPAYER A DEBTOR SLAVE

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/bank-corruption-and-fraudthe-who-the-how-and-the-why-and-the-simple-solution/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/bailout-faltering-banker-arrests-beginning/

 THE UK is demanding £ 2 Billion from the failed Iceland bank. There are arrest warrants out for the Icelandic bankers involved. The bankers involved are living in the UK. Why do the UK not arrest them and start claiming thier money back? ……… But that means the Icelandic people are debt free and the bankers and thier investors are made to pay!!!

Iceland: Int’l Arrest Warrant Against Top Bank Official
by Lowana Veal (reykjavik)Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Inter Press Service
Vigorously pursuing those allegedly responsible for Iceland’s 2008 financial crisis, investigators have got issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, chairman of the board of governors of the failed Kaupthing Bank.

An Interpol notice on Tuesday said Einarsson was wanted on charges of counterfeiting, forgery and fraud.

Einarsson, who lives in London, was said to be reluctant to come to Reykjavik for fear of being arrested and Icelandic authorities have refused to offer any assurances.
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/05/12/5564

THIS ICELANDIC BANK AND ITS INVESTORS STILL OWNS A LOT OF VALUABLE ASSETS , THEY JUST BELONG TO GOLDMAN SACHS AND BAILOUT BUDDIES , THATS WHY THEY WON’T SELL THEM.

Over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made aganst the Kaupthing Bank, 23 Jan 2010
This document contains a list of 28167 claims, totaling over 40 billion euro, lodged against the failed Icelandic bank Kaupthing Bank hf. The document is significant because it reveals billions in cash, bonds and other property held with Kaupthing by a vast number of investors and asset hiders, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanly, Exista, Barclays, Commerzbank AG, etc. It was confidentially made available to claimants by the Kaupthing Winding-up committee
 http://file.wikileaks.org/files/kaupthing-claims.pdf

THESE ASSETS ARE THE PRODUCTS OF FRAUD AND THE BANK MUST BE STRIPPED OF THESE ASSETS ,AND MADE TO PAY ITS DEBTS!!

But the government would rather the bankers kept thier assets and the taxpayers picks up the bill. Lib-Dem policy will not effect this.

POLICY ON PROMISED VOTER REFORM?

Voting reform will be talked about ,but nothing major will happen, the elected dictatorship will continue ,what happened to the House of Lords reform after 13 years? Don’t expect the “Con Dem”s to do much about that either. Governments all they produce ,is an excuse. They are Spartan ,we are Athenian.

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/elected-dictatorship-posing-as-democracy/

THIER POLICY ON SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

WE WILL BE BOUGHT AND SOLD TO LOBBY GROUPS

BIG BUSINESS  lobby groups like oil and big Pharma that have turned the NHS into an experimental drug testing centre.

The terms iatrogenesis and iatrogenic artifact refer to inadvertent adverse effects or complications caused by or resulting from medical treatment or advice.

Iatrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten were considered major, and in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications

The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. Death by Medicine—-Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD (2003/4)

Death by Medicine – According to a review study, more deaths are caused annually in the U.S. by medical treatment and diagnostic procedures than by heart disease or cancer.

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/health-in-the-21st-cenutry-is-killing-us/

Oil. What Oil Crisis?

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/the-oil-crisis-what-oil-crisis/

The Israel lobby is still intrenched in the UK governemnt.

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/the-israel-lobby-the-elephant-in-the-room-and-its-drenched-in-blood/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/uk-government-does-what-its-israelli-masters-tell-it-again/

Pro-Israel groups, food processing companies, and the oil and gas industry increased their lobbying expenditures the most (as a percentage) between 2007 and 2008.

Open Secrets.org
Title: “Washington Lobbying Grew to $3.2 Billion Last Year, Despite Economy”
Authors: Center for Responsive Politics

“The spectacle we are more likely to be treated to is Cameron and his trusty lieutenant William Hague, fagging for the US and Israel.”

Incoming British FM Won’t Rule Out Attacking Iran
Hague Vows to Be ‘Friend of Israel’
by Jason Ditz, May 12, 2010
In an interview aimed at cementing his reputation as a “friend of Israel,” incoming British Foreign Secretary William Hague vowed to see British law changed so as to hold Israeli officials immune from war crimes charges, and promised to take a tough line against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, calling it the “most urgent thing” for him to tackle.
In fact, Hague seems to be taking a considerably more hawkish position on Iran than the Labour government had, and says that it would be a mistake to ever rule out military action against Iran, though his first preference seemed to be for “tough sanctions” against the nation. Officials in the Labour government had repeatedly referred to the prospect of a US attack on Iran as a disaster.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/05/12/incoming-british-fm-wont-rule-out-attacking-iran/

The term Israel lobby in the United Kingdom (also called the Zionist lobby) is a term used to describe the loose coalition of groups and individuals who attempt to influence British foreign policy in support of Israel and its policies. Many decisions made in the Houses of Parliament are made as a direct result of lobbying by parliamentary colleagues, constituents or outside pressure groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom

Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is a parliamentary group founded by the late Conservative MP for Bury and Radcliffe, Michael Fidler and currently chaired by Stuart Polak. The CFI states its main aim is to strengthen business, cultural and political ties between the UK and Israel.Between 2006 and 2009, the CFI paid for more than 30 Conservative parliamentary candidates to visit Israel[3] . A Nov 2009 Dispatches documentary claimed that now around 80% of Conservative MPs are members of the CFI[5] and described them as “beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel

Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby [1/2]

Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.Despite wielding great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fd_1258474918

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/zionism-modern-nazism/

(Reuters) – Israel is primed for a war on Iran, a deputy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday, in a rare break with his government’s reticence as world powers try to talk Tehran into curbing its nuclear plans.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6492H420100510

I hope this has not been prompted by the Torys taking over in No.10, and the plan includes William Hague!!! BUT somehow I think William Hague would be very happy to offer the lives of our children ,if it helps Israel. But Of course he would not offer HIS children!!

SO OUR CHANCES OF STARTING A WAR WITH IRAN ,FOR ISRAEL , HAS JUST INCREASED DRASTICALLY!!!!

POLICY ON ILLEGAL WARS?

THERE’S NOT ENOUGH!!! LETS START ONE WITH IRAN AND WE CAN PRACTICE ON AFRICA!!!

New Colonialism: Pentagon Carves Africa Into Military Zones
by Rick Rozoff
As the first overseas regional military command set up by Washington in this century, the first since the end of the Cold War, and the first in 25 years, the activation of AFRICOM, initially under the wing of U.S. European Command on October 1, 2007, then as an independent entity a year later, emphasizes the geostrategic importance of Africa in U.S. international military, political and economic planning.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19007

FALKLANDS II? Hey it worked great for Thatcher……

Another War in the Falklands? British Fleet on Standby, New Maps Highlight Disputed Territory With Oil and Gas Reserves
Researchers at Durham University have drawn up new maps to show the competing claims of Argentina and the UK for resources in the South Atlantic and Southern Oceans.  At stake are a potential 60 billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/44/317/Another_War_in_the_Falklands_British_Fleet_on_Standby,_New_Maps_Highlight_Disputed_Territory_With_Oil_and_Gas_Reserves.html

“All we are saying …is give war a chance”

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/governments-traitors-terrorists-and-drug-dealers/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/are-us-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-well-intended-mistakes-what-we-now-know-from-the-evidence/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/us-government-making-a-killing-on-war/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/us-government-terrorists-still-in-power-iran-contra-to-911/

Lib-Dem policy will not effect this.

POLICY ON ENIRONMENTALISM?

A Carbon Tax!! and a new imaginery stock market bubble to soak up money for the elitists. REAL environmentalism will be ignored, the miltary will continue making the world toxic , btw how big is the US miltarys “Carbon Footprint” in Afghanistan and Iraq? Big Pharma will continue to make toxic drugs ,while government grants them immunity to do so. Monsanto and other Big Business agroculture will continue to genetically splice  and spray toxins on our food ,all with the governments blessing. Bees will continue to die , and governments will continue to do nothing ….so long as you’ve paid your carbon tax. Lib-Dem policy will not effect this. 

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/planet-medea-and-fake-environmentalism/

SO BASICALLY ITS , BUSINESS AS USUAL AT THE UK ELECTED DICTATORSHIP!!!

WELL DONE THE BRITISH ELECTORATE , YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED ,YOU VOTED FOR IT!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/pastors-of-muppets-and-masters-of-puppets-and-other-paedophiles/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/subliminals-from-criminals-and-the-peephole-for-the-people-msm-vs-wikileaks-the-fight-is-on/

When injustice becomes Law , resistance becomes Duty!

SO CONFORM OR BE CAST OUT , RESIST OR SERVE!!!

THE UK , A NATION CON-DEM’ED


Libertarian vs Authoritarian Today’s Real Politic!

November 4, 2009

Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism is the REAL POLITIC today ,here is a picture if it helps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan-chart.svg

Left vs Right ,socialist and capitalist ,liberal and conservative are meaningless words and distractions today.Can you tell the difference between Labour or Tory ,Democrat or Republican or even the US and China these days?

AUTHORITARIANS

You can be a Rightwing authoritarian , Big Business or you can be a Leftwing authoritarian , Big Government .Today in the UK ,US and China ,Russia etc we have state socialists who are exactly the same as state capitalists ,which means we are getting very close to TOTAL AUTHORITARIANISM! (see diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan-chart.svg ) The New World Order is just around the corner right NOW!

ALL Political parties are Authoritarian and governments ,be it socialist or capitalist are doomed to failure, but that is all part of the plan. Why ? Simple , power corrupts and absolute power attracks the absolutely corrupt. Think about it for yourself. How big a suitcase of money will it take for YOU to give up your principles? So endless government promises are met with endless government failure and excuses and its never the governments fault and the solution is always more government.

Also how can governments reduce crime? Passing a Law just creates a new criminal class ,thus increasing crime!!! The more you increase law ,the more you accelerate chaos ,its the second law of thermodynamics ,ignore it at your peril!!!  Crime figures are nothing more than a gauge to see how compliant the masses are., and how successfully the programming is taking hold.

If you want to reduce crime SIMPLE!!!! Repeal laws!

If we repeal the cannabis law today imagine the reduction in crime figures tomorrow!!! Millions of people who yesterday where “Criminals” today are honest taxpaying citizens! Crime figures will plummet!!

We must try and break this chain of endless “social engineers” ,it only leads to failure. You cannot fit a logirythm on a biorythm ,it will ultimately kill the biorythm, or, if you will,within each system lies its own demise. Human beings are a finite piece of infinite possibility. There is no single person capable of imagining all of humanity’s possibilities, nevermind control them!!
Government and social engineering is a futile task that leads to the “system” turning and feeding on the very people it was designed to protect!

LIBERTARIANISM IS THE ANSWER

“All government, of course, is against liberty. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Most people want security in this world, not liberty.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. It doesn’t take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause.”

Just like in Authoritarianism ,in Libertarianism ,you can be a Rightwing Libertarian or a Leftwing Libertarian.

MARX AND LENIN WHERE LIBERTARIANS

“The proletariat needs the state—this is repeated by all the opportunists, social-chauvinists and Kautskyists, who assure us that this is what Marx taught. They ‘forget’ however, to add that, in the first place, the proletariat, according to Marx, needs only a state which is withering away, i.e. a state which is so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately, and cannot but wither away;
“The state is a special organisation of force; it is the organisation of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, the exploiting class only, i.e. the bourgeoisie.”
Lenin

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919

SO WAS ADAM SMITH A LIBERTARIAN

The state is nothing more than an invisible hand, a sort of trade and standards body.

So you can be a Leftwing Libertarian(Libertarian Socialist) or a Rightwing Libertarian(Free Market Libertarian ,Objectivist) . In my opinion ,Marx was just trying to fix where capitalism had gone wrong. That is why the Communist manifesto is just a pamphlet. All the economics can be found in “Capital” or Das Capital if you will. Adam Smith was trying to create a meritocracy in a time of feudalism and Kings appointed by god ,a truely amazing visionary .Marx just saw where it had gone wrong and tried to suggest adjustments. Both men ultimately believed in a libertarian society without governments!!

SO IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOVERNMENTLESS SOCIETY ,you have got some pretty big questions to ask yourself, about what YOUR political beliefs actually are! Because they are NOT Capitalist OR Socialist OR Libertarian! Maybe your authoritarian government  and thier presstitute MainStream Media have been feeding YOU Bullshit! QUESTION EVERYTHING ,Truth can handle awkward questions, LIES need Laws and threats to be maintained.

AUTHORITARIANISM IS STATE CAPITALISM ,WHICH IS THE SAME AS STATE SOCIALISM.

THE BIRTH OF STATE CAPITALISM (STATE SOCIALISM) AND THE DEATH OF LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM

State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism.
The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late nineteenth century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: “Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!” [5]
It has been suggested that the concept of state capitalism can be traced back to Mikhail Bakunin’s critique within the First International of the potential for state exploitation under Marxism, or to Jan Waclav Machajski’s argument in The Intellectual Worker (1905) that socialism was a movement of the intelligentsia as a class, leading to a new type of society he called state capitalism

STATE CAPITALISM AND STATE SOCIALISM IS JUST FASCISM

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)

STALINS STATE SOCIALISM(FASCISM)

The break with Lenin’s internationalism led to the theory of “Socialism in one country.” This in its turn has led now to the open break with Marxism on the question of the state.
A significant speech was delivered by Gregori Aleksandrov at the Lenin memorial meeting in Moscow. Aleksandrov is the chief of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist (Stalinist) Party. Present at his speech were the elite of the bureaucracy and all the members of the Political Bureau.
In this speech he openly proclaimed a revision of the fundamental doctrines of Marxism-Leninism on the state.
“Theories developed by Marx in the middle of the nineteenth century could not be accepted unchanged by Lenin. Lenin developed the idea that Marxists could not regard the theory of Marx as inviolable, and that that theory must constantly absorb the new experience of history and exert a transforming influence on the development of society. He accurately foresaw that the forces of reaction abroad would attempt to destroy the Socialist Soviet Union.
“The establishment of a powerful and flourishing Socialist land had been possible only, the speaker explained, because the theory of building a Socialist society in a single country was put into effect. There were two aspects of this policy. There were internal obstacles to be swept away and dangers from abroad to be met. Today there was no force within the Soviet Union capable of preventing the further development of Socialism and its gradual transition to Communism. Vigilance against attack from without had necessitated the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the State, based on the assumption of international Socialism and the adoption of the Stalin theory of building a strong State with a powerful army and its own military science capable of winning in war and achieving the military and diplomatic consolidation of victory.” (The Times, February 1st, 1946).

Stalinism cannot show a single line in Lenin which would justify the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the state. Just the contrary. Lenin’s little masterpiece State and Revolution categorically refutes this revisionism. The argument that a strong state is necessary because of the danger of intervention from without, is palpably false. If socialism really had been achieved in the Soviet Union, there could be no question of intervention on the part of the capitalist world. On the contrary, the capitalists would be powerless economically, militarily and politically in the face of a socialist society. This would be because socialism would achieve such an enormous development of the productive forces that America’s vast productive facilities would seem puny by comparison.
Such a system, far from requiring an enormously strengthened state, as Lenin taught in the above mentioned work, would need no state at all. The necessity of the state does not arise from the danger of military intervention—but from the inequalities within society, and to regulate the antagonisms that arise from these inequalities. Lenin called the state a capitalist survival. Far from seeing the need for a constant strengthening of the state and of the army, Marx and Lenin expounded the idea of the “armed people” replacing the standing army, pouring scorn on the opportunists and the Mensheviks who argued the need for a military caste and a civil bureaucracy standing above the people.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ …aleksandrov.htm

HITLERS STATE CAPITALISM(FASCISM)

National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit alargely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above

Think people Stalin and Hitler where the 2 political extremes according to the powers that be, I cannot see the differnce between them.

BUT WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation… the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
USA LIBERTARIANISM
Due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of “libertarian socialism” to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many “Libertarians” think anarchists are just attempting to associate the “anti-libertarian” ideas of “socialism” (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those “socialist” ideas more “acceptable” — in other words, trying to steal the “libertarian” label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term “libertarian” to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850s. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term “libertarian communism” dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use of the term “Libertarian” by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get around anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word “anarchy” in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire — The Libertarian — in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside USA, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised “The Libertarian League” in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based “Libertarian” Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970s, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression “libertarian communism” was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have “stolen” the word.

  This “Free Market” US version of Libertarianism should more correctly be called Ayn Rand Objectivism with Austrian Free Market economics glued on. It is an obviously self defeating philosophy. WHY? Well anyone who understands the capitalist free market economic system knows it is better called the Boom and Bust economy. After a couple of Free market Boom and Bust cycles the majority of the resourses would end up in the hands of a minority again. The majority is under the thumb again ,Libertarian or not!!! That is why this is a self defeating philisophy!

HERE IS FREE MARKET ANARCHISM EXPLAINED (OBJECTIVISM) IMHO it cannot work because it buys and sells resourses ,thus making modern robber barons and it STEALS the working mans labour. When YOU work for someone else and they own the resourses YOU WILL BE EXPLOITED (like a disneyland employee). In this description of Objectivist ,free market anarchism, DISNEYLAND and MORMON COMMUNITIES are given as working examples of Objectivism…… I WOULD NEVER CALL DISNEYLAND AN EXAMPLE TO ASPIRE TOO…..WOULD YOU?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/casey/casey45.1.html

LIBERTATIAN SOCIALISM = MARXIST/LENINIST SOCIETY CERTAINLY NOTHING LIKE FASCISM!!
Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual’s right to own resourses(including the state) ,in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. The worker would own his own labour not the state or the community .
 Only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership — what is commonly called “socialism” — is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact,state “socialism” is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is “not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest.” [quoted by Colin Ward, “Introduction”, Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM IN ACTION

Anarchism has historically gained more support and influence in Spain than anywhere else, especially before Francisco Franco’s victory in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
There were several variants of anarchism in Spain: the peasant anarchism in the countryside of Andalusia; urban anarcho-syndicalism in Catalonia, particularly its capital Barcelona; and what is sometimes called “pure” anarchism in other cities such as Zaragoza. However, these were complementary trajectories, and shared a great deal of ideological similarities.
Early on, the success of the anarchist movement was sporadic. Anarchists would organize a strike and ranks would swell. Usually, repression by police reduced the numbers again, but at the same time further radicalized many members.
In the 20th century, this violence began to fade, and the movement gained speed with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism and the creation of the huge libertarian trade union, the CNT. General strikes became common, and large portions of the Spanish working class adopted anarchist ideas. The FAI was created as a purely anarchist association, with the intention of keeping the CNT focused on the principles of anarchism.
Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. All remaining social reforms ended in 1939 with the victory of Franco, who had thousands of anarchists executed. Resistance to his rule never entirely died, with resilient militants participating in acts of sabotage and other direct action after the war, and making several attempts on the ruler’s life.
Their legacy remains important to this day, particularly to anarchists who look at their achievements as a historical precedent of anarchism’s validity.

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM TODAY
After the non-violent collapse of the Argentinean government in 2001/2002, the social and economic organization of Argentina has undergone major changes, though how important these changes are remains to be seen. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. Approximately 200 “recovered” factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. These co-operatives have organised themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups have often been important for the survival of these factories. Similar developments have taken place in Brazil and Uruguay.[6] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take, which is about these events.

Free Software Movement
The Free Software movement is an example of anarchist characteristics. The nature of the GPL which is the most widely used Free Software license in the world and most all Open Source licenses is such that there is a collective sharing of resources (in this case, source code) between all developers, thus putting into practice the theories behind social anarchists’ perspective on private property and economic organization.

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/history_of_anarchism

Switzerland and Iceland are both Direct Democracys,a form of anarchy.They have both managed to achieve high living standards and low crime and corruption. Iceland has told the bankers to get lost and is likely to setup an investigative journalistic whistleblowers haven with Wikileaks.

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/icelandthe-pheonix-from-the-fire-as-the-long-boats-enter-the-accountant-sea/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/government-it-may-not-be-reliable-but-at-least-its-consistant-consistantly-corrupt/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/elected-dictatorship-posing-as-democracy/

But do not expect to read this or about the Argentine economic model on the MainStreamMedia ,or the wonders that Open Sourse Software and the Internet have brought to humanity. Our government either ignore them ,throws shit at them and tries to shut them down. According to government the internet is full of terrorists ,criminals and peadophiles …this is a better description of the government!!! I have not come across any of this online , but our governments have been accused and found guilty on ALL THESE COUNTS!!! and in more than just 1 country. 

“Whether the mask is labeled Fascism, Democracy, or Dictatorship or the Proletariat, our great adversary remains the Apparatus-the bureaucracy, the police, the military…. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus, and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”– The French worker philosopher Simone Weil,1945

Law is stagnation , Conformity is death by boredom and ignorance ,Obedience is for slaves and Specialisation is for insects!

WE ARE CREATURES OF CHAOS

It is our natural and best state , from the chaos ,patterns form that we can live by.THINK we do NOT percieve the universe we only percieve its CHAOS (or its changes) For example listen to a monotone noise , after a while you do NOT hear it , it has NOT gone away it is just NOT varying so we do not precieve it! It is the same with smell and with sight! We do not percieve reality ,only the changes around us.

REJOICE IN YOUR INDIVIDUALISM

It is humanity’s diversity that will save us , NOT our conformity.

Conformity makes us weak and stupid and is most likely to lead to our destruction.

ALL HAIL DISCORDIA


Internet Victory over Old Regime …Traders in Death and Misery named and shamed

October 16, 2009

Hopefully this is a sign of the times, as the People and the Internet ignore Big Brother and SPREAD THE WORD!

The reigns of power are slipping from the hands of government and big business.

Carter-Ruck Law Firm ,

probably the most incompitant law firm in the world at the momment., as well as immoral!

Trafigura ,

multunational that trades on toxic waste ,death and disease and oil and spends a lot of money to keep this quiet rather than improve thier business practices.

Labour MP Paul Farrelly local hero , or at least a polition that is doing his job.

This MP stood up in parliment and asked some very searching questions on big business and thier business practices , especially in this day and age when the people are being asked to change THIER lifestyles and pay MORE TAX for ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS!!!!

THEY ARE STILL GAGGING THE GUARDIAN ,BUT NOT THE INTERNET!!

The Guardian is still forbidden by the terms of the existing injunction, granted by a vacation duty judge, Mr Justice Maddison, to give further information about the Minton report, or its contents. Last month, Trafigura agreed to pay more than £30m in compensation and legal costs to 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan in Ivory Coast, for “flu-like symptoms” they might have suffered following the dumping.

THAT’S A LOT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING THEY CLAIM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM!!

THEY TRIED TO GAG HIM WITH A D-NOTICE , ……..well the people DIDN’T NOTICE!!!! AND WE WON!!!!

CARTER RUCK AND TRAFIGURA ,I HAVE SCRAPPED BETTER THINGS OFF MY SHOES!!!!

Profiteers in death polution and misery YOU SHOULD ALL BE IN JAIL !!!

“Yesterday, I understand, Carter-Ruck quite astonishingly warned of legal action if the Guardian reported my question. In view of the seriousness of this, will you accept representations from me over this matter and consider whether Carter-Ruck’s behaviour constitutes a potential contempt of parliament?”
The Commons question reveals that Trafigura has obtained a hitherto secret injunction, known as a “super-injunction”, to prevent disclosures about toxic oil waste it arranged to be dumped in west Africa in 2006, making thousands of people ill.

THE ARTICLE

Trafigura Drops Bid To Gag Guardian Over MP’s Question

An unprecedented attempt by a British oil trading firm to prevent the Guardian reporting parliamentary proceedings has collapsed following a spontaneous online campaign  to spread the information the paper had been barred from publishing.
Carter-Ruck, the law firm representing Trafigura, was accused of infringing the supremacy of parliament after it insisted that an injunction obtained against the Guardian prevented the paper from reporting a question tabled on Monday by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly.
Farrelly’s question was about the implications for press freedom of an order obtained by Trafigura preventing the Guardian and other media from publishing the contents of a report related to the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.
In today’s edition, the Guardian was prevented from identifying Farrelly, reporting the nature of his question, where the question could be found, which company had sought the gag, or even which order was constraining its coverage.
But overnight numerous users of the social networking site Twitter posted details of Farrelly’s question and by this morning the full text had been published on two prominent blogs as well as in the magazine Private Eye.
Carter-Ruck withdrew its gagging attempt by lunchtime, shortly before a 2pm high court hearing at which the Guardian was about to challenge its stance, with the backing of other national newspapers.
MPs from all three major parties condemned the firm’s attempt to prevent the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. Farrelly told John Bercow, the Speaker: “Yesterday, I understand, Carter-Ruck quite astonishingly warned of legal action if the Guardian reported my question. In view of the seriousness of this, will you accept representations from me over this matter and consider whether Carter-Ruck’s behaviour constitutes a potential contempt of parliament?”
The Commons question reveals that Trafigura has obtained a hitherto secret injunction, known as a “super-injunction”, to prevent disclosures about toxic oil waste it arranged to be dumped in west Africa in 2006, making thousands of people ill.
Farrelly is asking Jack Straw, the justice secretary, about the implications for press freedom of a high court injunction obtained on 11 September 2009 by Trafigura “on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura”.
The Guardian is still forbidden by the terms of the existing injunction, granted by a vacation duty judge, Mr Justice Maddison, to give further information about the Minton report, or its contents. Last month, Trafigura agreed to pay more than £30m in compensation and legal costs to 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan in Ivory Coast, for “flu-like symptoms” they might have suffered following the dumping. The oil traders continue to deny that the waste could have caused serious or fatal injuries.
The use of “super-injunctions”, under which commercial corporations claim the right to keep secret the fact that they have been to court, has been growing. Anonymity is also increasingly being granted to individual litigants.
Last week, an anonymity order was overturned at the supreme court under which Mohammed al-Ghabra, an alleged al-Qaida financier named in official UN and Treasury publications, was to be known only as G. A further pending supreme court case involving an MI5 officer’s memoirs is currently only known as “A v B”.
Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, said yesterday: “I’m very pleased that common sense has prevailed and that Carter-Ruck are now prepared to vary their draconian injunction to allow reporting of parliament. It is time that judges stopped granting super-injunctions which are so absolute and wide-ranging that nothing about them can be reported at all.”
Carter-Ruck, whose partner Adam Tudor has been representing Trafigura, issued a press release conceding: “The order would indeed have prevented the Guardian from reporting on the parliamentary question which had been tabled for later this week.” But the firm said the Guardian’s reporting on the issue had been “highly misleading”.
The firm added: “There is no question of Trafigura seeking to gag the media from reporting parliamentary proceedings, and the parties have now agreed to an amendment to the existing order so as to reflect that.”
The previous night, Carter-Ruck had written to the Guardian saying: “The threatened publication would place the Guardian in contempt of court … please confirm by immediate return that the publications threatened will not take place.”
At Westminster, the Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris said there was a need to “control the habit of law firms” of obtaining secrecy injunctions, and his colleague David Heath told the Commons a “fundamental principle” was being threatened: that MPs should be able to speak freely and have their words reported freely.
On the Conservative side, David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, criticised the rising use of super-injunctions, in which the fact of the injunction is itself kept secret.
He said courts should not be allowed to grant injunctions forbidding the reporting of parliament.
Bercow said the issue could be raised formally as a matter of privilege, but he understood the injunction had been lifted.
Farrelly told the Guardian afterwards: “The issuing by the courts of so-called super-injunctions is rightly controversial and a matter of growing concern. That is why, using parliamentary privilege, I tabled these questions.

“The practice offends the time-honoured rule against prior restraint, which safeguards freedom of expression in this country.

“It also fails to protect whistleblowers acting in the public interest. The huge legal bills involved in fighting cases, too, have a chilling effect on legitimate investigative journalism.

“So often, the beneficiaries are big corporations. The fact that the press is also barred from reporting the existence of these gagging orders is doubly pernicious.”

October 13, 2009 “The Guardian”

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE HOUSE OF AFRICA!!!

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/somali-pirates-guided-by-london-intelligence-team-report-says/

BUT the first step is realising the problem ,the next step is getting rid of the problem……..

“All government, of course, is against liberty. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Most people want security in this world, not liberty.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. It doesn’t take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause.”

SOLUTION?

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/libertarian-socialism-is-the-future/