Thursday, 25 August 2011

The Play-Acting Time is Over

On the 5th of this month I sent the following email to my senior (home-based) senator, Dianne Feinstein:

"Dear Sen. Feinstein,

"I write this to you in an appeal to your statesmanship, as a member of the august assemblage known as the U.S. Senate. I do not say this in jest. I say it to acknowledge fully the role of the U.S. Senate in the American form of government. That role is to bring an overriding sense of responsibility to bear in matters of state, beyond just the level of partisan politics. You do not just represent the citizens of your state. You represent the spirit of the American dream, of self-governance. Not rule by church or royalty or any other form of autocracy or oligarchy; but government of, by, and for The People, in a constitutional republic. That form of government is being imperiled as we speak.

"I speak of the appalling matter of the serious concern about the eligibility of Barack H. Obama to sit in the seat of the presidency of the United States of America. Which is beginning to appear to take on the form of a throne.

"Not that others before him have not played fast and loose with their power in that position. But at least they were eligible for the office - that particular office, with its higher mandate for eligibility than other federal offices. For good reason, in the eyes of the Founding Fathers; who wanted no one with potential 'dual loyalties' to occupy that position, especially with its aspect of being Commander in Chief.

"I won't go into all the details of this current issue. I will just note that many document and electronic experts have established a powerful case for both birth certificate documents released by the Obama administration, or its supporters, to be fraudulent. In which case, the man has something to hide about his background, and bona fides. And The People are not being given recourse to justice, in a hearing in a court of law, because of procedural matters. And Congress seems reluctant to give this matter the hearing it deserves, because of political matters.

"That leaves an ugly stalemate. Which will grow, and grow, until it festers to the point of boiling over. Not the highest outcome to be preferred.

"I will summarize this plea, with an observation. Please help this matter get addressed in the Congress of the United States. Or you will be complicit in the collapse of the Constitution, as "just a damn piece of paper," as former president George W. Bush is reported to have characterized it. (And so this is not a partisan matter. It is a matter, as I said, of state.)

"Don't be a party to the collapse of the rule of law in this country. The outcome of such an event is too horrible to contemplate. Horrible; and sad. That the American experiment in self-governance should end in such ignominy.

"If only for you to rise to a level of true statesmanship, I plead for your intervention in this matter. Posterity will honor you; as one of those politicians to be represented in the annals of those bearing Profiles of Courage.

"Yours sincerely,

"'Stan' Stanfield
"an expatriate (with a California voting address), observing the goings-on in his home country with deep, and growing, sorrow, and alarm"

I have now, today, received a response from Sen. Feinstein, or to say, most probably more accurately, her office; but she is responsible for what goes out of her office. In it, 'she' acknowledges receipt of my letter regarding his presidency, and in reply, lists a number of the 'good' things that have come out of Obama's occupation of the office of the presidency, and of his administration, and of the current Congress in support of these results.*

So the issue of Obama's legitimacy for the office of the presidency is to be dealt with, by the upper echelons of the Democratic party, by drawing attention to his, and their, accomplishments; sincerely.

I have also just come off of watching, last night and completing today, over an hour's video of Jerome Corsi, of World Net Daily, laying out in detail, to an audience in Arizona, the case for Obama's ineligibility for the office, including a (one of many) document expert's analysis of the long-form birth certificate - the purported long-form birth certificate - asserted by Obama as being his official bc. Complete with even obvious falsifications. Including a smiley face put in the purported signature of the official signing off on the legitimacy of the document. So that these people in charge today are even laughing at the American public, for swallowing their fakery; such is the extent of their arrogance.

And they are getting away with it...

Well; they have history on their side. Because of how 'somebody' got away with the assassination of John F Kennedy (a video of which I also watched today). In plain sight as well. Complete with a photograph of the body in Maryland, ready for the autopsy, showing a gaping surgical incision in the front right-hand side of the head, which at least one doctor who had been in the operating room in Dallas subsequently, upon viewing the photo, said was not there when they tried to resuscitate the president at the original scene of the crime. An incision that tried to cover up for the official story, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that terrible day in Dallas, when a cabal of very powerful people brazenly assassinated the president of the United States. In plain sight.

That day, powerful people on the 'right' of politics in America got away, literally, with murder. And today, powerful people on the 'left' of politics in America are getting away, figuratively (and in some cases, literally as well), with murder.** With the arrogant collapse of the rule of law, into a state of despotism.

Which has, at the top of the pyramid of power, the same perps in both instances.

People who would be gods.

I have news for them.

Their days are numbered.

And if I were them, I would tremble.

Because God will not be mocked.

And part of the cleansing of the house of American politics will, as I indicate, include both sides of the political aisle. For they are both involved in the crime being committed, right now; and the crimes which have been committed over the years, in a remake of the Roman Republic-cum-Empire.

A pox on both their houses. It's time for The People to rise up and take back their power, over their corrupt leaders. Whom they should have kept a better eye on.

So there are lessons to be learned, all around this point in time. Of the cleaning of the Augean stables.

Which will include the whole truth coming out about 9/11. And. And. And...


it's time.

P.S. You had your chance, Dianne; former collegemate of mine. And you blew it.


* and mentions that if I have any concerns about the Obama administration, I can write to him at such-and-such an address; sincerely, etc.

** There are some murders associated with the rise of Obama in American politics.

Saturday, 20 August 2011

The Time Has Come - cont'd

In the wake of the London riots, Tanya Gold in the pages of today's Guardian has written a paean to single mums.


To criticisms of feral children, she replied, in part: “A sane government would provide cheap child care, of course...”

With all due respect, Tanya: Why would “a sane government” support family breakdown, by concentrating its efforts on the ‘curative’ end of things rather than the preventive end?? Unless it wanted to bring the children up in its image, like the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Otherwise, one has good reason to conclude that simply paying benefits for females having babies - in mindset effect, in order for them to have babies ‘on the house’ - is closer to the definition of insanity. It’s as if they want to have their cake and eat it, too: having children without consideration of, care for, the father, or fathers. Having a way of life, living on ‘benefits’.

Ah, but in reading further on in her article, I see what she is gettting at. And that there is an agenda here, beyond just some mothers enjoying freebies.

She says that only 3% of single mums are teenagers, with the average age of such mothers being 37 (and the majority - 55% - had had their children within marriage). And her next point is: “...and force companies to offer jobs with flexible working hours.”

She now gives away her case. She does refer to abusive spouses, as one reason for older women becoming single mums. But are there that many abusive spouses out there? Or is this a pleading for, preference for, a man-free household. As a societal ideal for some.

And why would the state want to support a state of dysfunctionality? Just because some women want to have children but not spouses?? And that’s pretty tough to do; so the state should support them in that preferred lifestyle???

“But they [the perpetrators of this outrageous situation] are not in the business of solutions. They want punishment,” she concludes. Punishment, of...whom, Tanya.

She refers to such as witches of olde. Women of an independent streak. Strong women. Like her. Like - lesbians.

Her whole case, then, in pointing a finger at the ‘dysfunctionality’ of the government and its ministers, in not providing properly for ‘single mums’, is based on her gender orientation, and ‘feminist’ - ie, women’s lib - philosophy.

She wants the state - ie, the taxpayers - to help such strong women have children without the bother of the presence of the sperm donor. And I say that that is immoral.

It is immoral, not because lesbians are ‘immoral’, but because she would have the taxpayers pay for her desired social structure. And beyond her personal gender orientation, and sexual-freedom philosophy, it is the same immorality engendered in heterosexual females when thinking to have ‘the state’ - the taxpayers, let us never forget - pay for those ‘single mums’ to have babies on their dime. So we have come full circle, back to the phenomenon of a body of females thinking to have babies without full regard for the welfare OF those children, in being born into poverty and lack of role-model circumstances.

I addressed this issue in a Letter to the Editor of the Guardian this past week. I’ll quote it first, and then comment further, on the issues here.

“Dear Editor,

“(The name of a letter writer) has hit the nail right on the head regarding the riots (Letters, 16 August). This outcome has been pending for years, ever since the UK made the mistake of paying females to have babies that they weren’t prepared to be able to take care of properly. It has been a form of child abuse, aided and abetted by a state with misplaced sympathies. The sympathies would better have been directed to the bleak lives of such children, many of whom are now the parents and grandparents of similarly afflicted children, permanently on welfare.

“The state should make contraceptive information available to the poor, and even provide contraceptive materials either free or at low cost. But ‘not one cent for tribute’ - money from taxpayers many of whom can‘t even afford to have their own children, and are being responsible in that life situation by not having them. And soon, when females too poor to be having children in such conditions finally get that - that they’re not to get any money (or housing) from the state for having any - this problem, of rootless and poverty-stricken children striking out at an ’unfair’ world, will become a thing of the past.

“In the meantime, of course give such children who are already in the situation as much social support as the society can afford. But it’s time and past to start spending an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure.

Yours sincerely” (etc)

It is a shortsighted society that thinks that one-parent households can work in the long run. Give those mothers child benefits, and council houses, and food stamps, and other ‘benefits’ (let's call them what they are: freebies), and think that they will ever get off ‘the dole’, is crazy. It is more than that. It is, as I said above: immoral.

In the States recently this issue has come up in a big way, in discussions around ‘job creation’, which has revealed that there is a welfare-mentality class that doesn’t want a job to interfere in their cushy way of life. The federal government, it appears, has passed legislation that gives children on welfare free mobile phones, and access to the internet, and such perks, because, well, because they shouldn’t be deprived of things that support their wellbeing, or some such argument.*

This is all getting very dangerous. Not just in the way of partisanship - and how Obama has quietly used Executive Orders to bring millions of (Muslim) Afghanis to America, and housed and supported them, and the same for Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and now has declared a partial Amnesty to illegal aliens; thus diluting the voting strenth of ‘the right’ against this attempted leftwing takeover of the nation. But in the way of the mentality being created by it.

Believing that it’s okay not to work because food stamps and unemployment payments provide a stimulus to the economy is sophistry.** If you don’t become a part of the provision of goods and services to the economy, then you are a leach, feeding off of the lifeblood of others. You may rationalize your action, or to say the lack of, by pointing a finger at the ‘owner class’, including the bankers, and saying that they are ‘doing it’, too, ie, ripping off ‘the system’; but that is all that is: a rationalization. It is their karma. You are responsible for your own.

And are responsible for your old age. If you don’t work, how are you going to earn the money to put in the pot for your retirement years? Oh - the government will pay for that, too? Really? Do you really not understand that ‘the government’ has no money of its own, only has (besides borrowing debt money, which has to be paid by succeeding generations) the money the citizens pay in in taxes; and if more of those citizens take your lead and don’t work, and thus don’t pay in to the pot, there will be no pot??

It’s time for some very clear thinking on these matters, which should result in the awareness that, in a phrase, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’. Somebody has to pay for it, in the end. And it is immoral to think, and teach, otherwise.

Socialists think that their way will create a better world. But we will not be able to get to The Promised Land - to a better way of social being on this planet, than the current one, dominated by the training wheels of interest-bearing money on the one hand and fractional-reserve banking on the other - if we don’t realise the importance of each of us taking responsibility for the functioning of the system; at the minimum, of our own personal responsibility, in contributing our efforts to keep it going. And our best efforts, if we care for our own personal development - our own spiritual evolvement, to our fullest potential.

We are spiritual beings having a human experience. Let’s get to the purpose - to the focus - to the end result - of the exercise. That requires each of us to play our part. Not to expect anyone else - individual or government - to do it for us.

Having said all this; and as for those high-and-mighty examplers, the bankers and benefits-cheating ministers and such, who have their own karma to clear: the fish is rotten from the head. Innit.


* A poster on one thread to an article on this subject told the story of how the person in the supermarket queue in front of him bought around a hundred dollars’ worth of groceries with food stamps and then an additional large purchase of alcohol and such with cash, and when he queried the person why she used food stamps, she said that they were “from Obama” and it was none of his business anyway. Of course not. If you think that your food stamps come “from Obama,” instead of from the taxpayers...

And this reminds me of another chilling story from ’the left’ - this one from many years ago, during the Kennedy administration years. The Left was having a golden opportunity then, too; and one of the ways that it was trying for takeover and remake into a socialist system (with its euphemism, 'redistribution of wealth'. That is, stealing from the better well-off to give to the less well-off, because 'they're worth it') was via the education pathway. We have seen how some primary schools have been hyping Obama in their classrooms, as a Dear Leader: in those earlier days, one technique was the development of such primary-school picture-readers as the one that told the story about one squirrel talking to another squirrel, who was busy gahering nuts for the winter, and telling him that he didn’t have to do that; because “the little boy who lives in the white house” (complete with picture of such) would take care of them.

Squirrely, indeed.

** being actively encouraged by the Obama administration and left-wing members of Congress. The socialists are getting very brazen in their actions. Which, in a way, is a good thing: It is all getting more obvious, to an electorate which, by and large, has not been fully aware of the extent of the takeover going on.

The sheep is close enough now for the flock to see the outlines of the wolf underneath that benign exterior.

Saturday, 13 August 2011

The Time has Come, the Walrus Said... talk of many things; of ships and shoes and ceiling wax, of cabbages and kings.'

Let's talk specifically about 'jobs'. This blog is going to cover current events in both the U.S. and the UK. First the U.S..

The U.S. is involved in a huge debate over its national debt. It stands at $14.2 trillion, and counting. (Some say it is really larger, and much larger, than that.) Firstly, to say: the U.S. will never be able to pay that debt off. The nation is, technically, bankrupt. A bit of Kabuki theatre is going on over there, and in the rest of the world, on this matter. But just to look at one aspect of the matter here, having to do with jobs.

Both sides of the political aisle want to be seen as on the side of creating jobs. But a fundamental difference in attitude towards accomplishing that feat is mirrored in the political differences between the right and the left in looking at how to tackle The Debt. The hard right says to tackle it exclusively by cutting spending; the hard left, by raising taxes, especially (or exclusively) on the wealthy; with most people at various positions in between. The 'right' (roughly speaking) feels that the 'left' has had it too good for too long, in getting the federal government to spend too much on 'the little guy', and especially the welfare-mentality category, and also especially through the power of the unions; the latter phenomenon causing many business owners to locate overseas, for their labor-costs advantages. So the 'right' wants to break the power of the unions, which they feel have not been realistic in the economic terms of recent decades, and especially since the Recession of 2008. The 'left' (roughly speaking) feels that the 'right' cares only for themselves, and are sitting smugly pretty, with their bank bonuses and such, while the little guy is forced to take on the bulk of the spending cuts now required to get the federal debt into some semblance of control. Both sides of the political equation, then, feel hard done by events.

But they also see the arcane 'science' of 'economics' itself differently. The right says: Cut taxes on the job-creators, and more jobs will be created, and there will also be more revenue coming in to pay down the debt, because economic activity will thereby have been stimulated; while left-wing economists seem to have more faith in the economic stimulation of more money pumped into the economy, either by 'quantitative easing' - creating money out of nothing (and thereby creating more debt, in interest on that funny money) - or by the federal government paying out monies in unemployment benefits, which then gets circulated directly into the 'main' economy, whereas letting the rich keep more of their money only goes to high-end economic activity. I may not have this difference in perception entirely correct, but it's roughly what I have read; and lets me get to what I really want to say.

Which is to highlight the dangers in both sides only listening to their sides of the arguments. Case in point: Today I received, amongst many other e-newsletters, one from a left-wing source in the U.S. on a strike going on there right now, and one from a right-wing source addressing the same strike, only with a different take on it. The company is called Verizon. The left (the Daily Kos) emphasizes how much money the handful of its highest honchos have made in the last few years and the profit the company made last year, and how the workers feel that they have a right to share in that success, and not be frozen out of the middle class in America; and the right (the Right to Work Foundation) emphasizes how the unions arrogantly take dues from their members and spend it as they wish, without regards to the rights of their members, OR the right of workers not to join the unions involved in the first place.

I signed the petition of the 'left', in drawing attention to how workers in America are facing a huge cut-back in their standard of living, at the same time as the management is being handsomely reimbursed for their services; and I also responded, with some appreciation of the argument, but also some caveat, in the Comments thread to the right-wing's article; which was entitled 'Union Strike Militancy and Violence on Display during Verizon Strike'. The tone of the other responses was decidedly anti-union. My comment, to another poster's anti-union rant:

"Workers have a right to collective bargaining, just as they have a right to sign individual contracts. Violence harms their cause. There are constructive ways to deal with these matters, and destructive ways. I don't want to see unions walking all over businesses, anymore than I want to see businesses walking all over their workers, and creating the 20:80 society of corporate-management infame. A strong middle class benefits us all, in the long run.

"Talk of sending'em to "a burger flipping joint" is no more helpful than a union worker putting his child in front of a vehicle to slow it down from crossing a picket line.

"Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, on both sides of the issue. The bottom line is, as always: a right to be heard."

This same sort of thing was going on in Australia years ago, when I lived there; a union-busting mentality swinging into great action, as the corporate world had sensed its day had come; and it was when I was researching into the roots of these standoffs that I came across information about this '20:80 society' business, whereby Business Management 'experts' were pointing out to their managerial and business-oriented readership that we were reaching a point on the planet where there were going to be too many people capable of being gainfully employed - especially with the development of technology, throwing people out of jobs - and what was going to result was a 20:80 society, where 20% of the populace would be more than 'useless eaters', and 80% were going to be 'superfluous to needs'; and so the point was to pay the 20% handsomely for their loyalty to the system. And as for the 80%; well, there was always the possibility of a police state, to keep the peace, and therefore the scenario of a dystopian future on the planet.

And enter now comment on the current scene in the UK, where that 80% has been having a go - and a very violent one - at a society that sees them as 'superfluous to needs', and what will inevitably result from that attitude. And now as well for what I am getting at.

The point is, the old paradigm has to go. Indeed, technology is 'throwing people out of work'; and that scenario will continue. Creating pressure for a new way of looking at the social structure on the planet. Also because of the mindless creation of such a large number of people who are 'superfluous to needs'. And I say 'mindless creation of', because it has been social policies, in both the UK and the U.S., and other western countries, that have exacerbated the problem. The problem to their societies, and to the carrying capacity of the planet.

The bottom line: The states have been remiss in creating a welfare class, on into welfare generations, by in effect paying young females to have babies that they haven't had the financial wherewithal to raise properly. It has been immoral to have children in poverty circumstances; it has also been immoral to take money from taxpayers - many of whom have not had enough of an income to have their own children, and so, responsibly, have not done so - to give to females without a sufficient income to take care of their child or children, to have such children on the taxpayers' coin.

When I have tried to figure out how this ever became a governmental policy, I have come across the argument that 'it is not the child's fault that he or she is born in poverty, so you can't blame them'. I certainly don't blame them. I blame their mothers, AND the society that led them to HAVE babies on the taxpayers' coin.

Let's get clear. No one is entitled to steal from any other person. A society can choose to spend its tax monies AS it chooses. But it should be aware of the ramifications of those choices. And especially when we are talking about people's lives.

And their properties. Which we have just seen go up in smoke in the UK, in fires lit by children born into poverty situations where their mothers, or parents, have not had sufficient income to raise them properly, but were seduced into having them anyway because of the society's short-sighted policies about 'child care'.

The society should have looked down the road to this sort of very possible outcome, of disaffected youth, with no decent job prospects - or jobs at all - and therefore no future. Except another generation living off of the taxpayers' coin.

How demeaning. And how short-sighted.

A road, paving, and good intentions come to mind.

An answer? The state could make contraceptive information available to those females who are not in a position to take care of a child properly; and could even choose to make contraceptive materials themselves available, at low or no cost. But not one cent for tribute; to say, as incentive to have a baby, or babies, dependent then on 'society'. To say, on individuals who have their own needs that they are often struggling to fulfil.

Having said all this, the answer - the more complete answer, besides just dismantling the welfare state, for its pernicious outcomes - is, as I said, a change in paradigm, where we do away with the current system, of interest-bearing money and the necessity for a 'job' in order to have 'income' - and go up a notch in consciousness, and thus create a better, healthier society on the planet, based on understanding, and fully accepting, our basic natures, as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. But we need to have 'learned our lessons' along the way, in order to inherit such a kingdom.

And one of the most important lessons to have learned - in order for this evolutionary stage to come about - is the lesson of taking personal responsibility.

Of awareness of the outcomes of our actions. And taking responsibility for them.

Not expecting somebody else, or some thing else, to do 'it' for us.

Like giving us money to have babies. And then complaining, because that money given to us is not enough.

What a sorry state of affairs has been created, in this matter of the creation of a welfare class. Which has now become an affair - and a very great affair - of state.

Once we learn this lesson, and this sort of lesson - that we are responsible for our own actions - we can move on.

A great future awaits us, when we do.

But we have to earn it.

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

Scientific Dictatorship, Or...

I feel like going on record on something at this point. It has to do with the theme of 'science based' this-and-that.

Back in the late 90s, whilst living in Australia, I noticed a 'move' appearing in the daily papers to establish an attitude of support for things being 'science based'. Science-based medicine meant, in effect: stop looking outside of the box, at 'complementary medicine' and such; pay attention only to science-based medicine, ie, medicine based on drugs and their expensive development. (Which 'natural' product developers can't afford to run. Thus goodbye, competition.) And when I moved back to Scotland, and wondered if I had prostate problems, and started reading up on it, I ran some of my 'findings' by my local GP, and got short shrift: they were really only interested in "science-based medicine".

Cut to this week, when a professor was widely quoted in the MSM as taking the BBC to task for presenting issues as if the 'minority' perspective deserved 'equal time' with the accepted, 'scientific' position. GM crops; the MMR/autism dispute; anthropogenic global warming/climate change - there was really no case for the flat-earthers. The debate was between sense and nonsense. The 'great weight of international scientific opinion' was on the side, of, well, science, and the other side of the 'debate' in each case was, well, rubbish. Not to be listened to. A waste of time.

And the proponents of this perspective do not want a waste of time, before their perspective takes over, in a Brave New World of their making.

Aldous Huxley's novel of the same name came out at the very time when there was a movement in the west called Technocracy, whereby the scientists and engineers behind it wanted to engineer a new world based on science, and their running of the operation. The money system was to be abolished, in the favour of money based on energy - its distribution and its consumption. Much like the carbon currency idea of today.

In fact...quite like that.

In fact...just like that.

And enter into the discussion at this point: the Global Smart Grid. Whereby everybody - soon - will be linked up to an energy web that determines how much energy they are using, and 'credits' them accordingly - including shutting down their energy-using machines if they have exceeded their quota. Or are just being troublemakers. Any excuse the authorities want to. Because society will no longer be 'government of, by, and for the people', but of, by, and for 'the experts'. The technicians, and their Masters.

And that is why the Constitution is being so severely challenged in America. From both sides of the political aisle. Because the Powers That Be at the top of the pyramid of power are the same. And Joe Blow is to be totally dependent on them for his life.

Not just his livelihood.

His very life.

To be. Or not to be.

It is the outcome desired by the members of a group called the Trilateral Commission; who have planned for some time for a 'New International Economic Order'. Which seems to be the same thing as that described by George Bush the First as the 'New World Order' By whatever name: the new structure for the world.

With the Global Smart Grid now in place for it.

As we speak.

And the likes of the North American Union ready to fall right into place in this scheme of things.

While the world looks at the current economic crisis. And scratches its head; and wonders how things will turn out.

The Powers That Be already have that all figured out.


Because there's just one thing missing from their best-laid plans.

It's not the end of the civilizational process. The culmination of the climb out of the cave, for humanity.

It's a part of the process.

It has value, in its essence.

It just needs one ingredient.

You can call it Spirit.

At least, that's what I call it.

And so should you. And relate to it.

And with that missing piece, the capstone is in place; for our bridge to the future.

Our true future.

And that ain't a scientific dictatorship; or any other sort of top-down monstrosity of a totalitarian, people-controlled-to-within-an-inch-of-their-lives system.

It's government of, by, and for The People. Who are the true inheritors of the Golden Age, just waiting to be born.

In its own good time.

On the other side of the process that we still have a ways to go through, yet.

To learn our lessons fully. Before we can move on.

Including into the heavens; that have been sealed off from us - all the rest of the teeming universe - until now.

Now, that we can come together truly as One.

And give thanks for the experience.

And know it as if for the first time.

Thursday, 4 August 2011

'Just a Damn Piece of Paper' - Not

I really have to comment, in putting together some dots in the news. Or rather, from Before It's News - ie, an enewsletter site, with interesting articles. Two of them:

(1) An ex-CIA agent, who was part of a team trying to alert the Bush administration in August of 2001 to intelligence info warning about a pending airliner attack on the WTC, and who spent five years under indictment and 1 year in prison for her pains - under the terms of that same administration's pushed-through Patriot Act - recounting her story, under the title 'The Missing Security Tapes From the World Trade Center'. Reporting, amongst other important matters, on mysterious teams of workers coming to the WTC parking garage after the janitorial crews had left, in the time period leading up to 9/11. Her conclusion: The GOP leadership was involved in that atrocity. (P.S. Involved in the security company for the WTC block was a Bush family member.) The result of 9/11: the war in Iraq, and access to its oil; the War on Terror, and huge profits for such companies as VP Cheney's Halliburton; and the Patriot Act, whereby dangerous people - like whistleblowers - could be put out of harm's way. Into prison. Like this woman. (Who at least has been able to tell her story in a book, titled 'Extreme Prejudice: The True Story of the Patriot Act And the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq'.)

(2) A blog by an investment advisor, titled 'The Next Crisis Is At Our Doorstep'. My response speaks for itself:


"Posted by (Anonymous)
"And so you're recommending how people can make money on the collapse of the system. Capitalists eating their children.

"'Good investing' - in what. A Dead Man Walking?

"P.S. Do you really believe the Fed's role was 'to get the economy roaring in no time'?? The Fed's role was to bring about the crisis. They couldn't have been as dumb as they were, except on purpose."

Let's be clear. America is being taken down, not by terrorists with box cutters, but with weapons like thermite/thermate, and the power to collapse the economy. To further their end. Which is the establishment of a New World Order, in their image. Which is the image of fascism. Aka corporatism.

And hence the reason why the GOP has failed to be a proper opposition party in calling Obama on his lack of eligibility to hold the office that he is in. Because he is a placeman of theirs. To bring about the same end.

And that is why the American public has to stop hoping, and wishing, that the Republicans will do something about Obama's lack of proper bona fides for that office.

He has been parachuted into the job.

And is jailing whistleblowers under the terms of the Patriot Act.

Just like his predecessor in the job...

People, people. These are criminals running the country. And the world.

Stop looking to them for your salvation.

Look within yourselves.

And start acting like you deserve to be the government By taking it back from these criminals in high places. Who are about to collapse the Constitution around your ears. With the Homeland Security 'feds' taking over power unconstitutionally from state and local officers; and all the rest of The Scenario, that is running over the Constitution - the rule of law - like with a tank.

Let's see what you are really made of.

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

The Debt Debate: A Sign of Things Coming to a Head?

So the great Debt Debate is resolved. For now.

What do I see, over here in the UK, about what is going on, in the U.S., and the UK. And the world, for that matter. But first things first.

I see a change coming. But I also see a change having already happened.

When the political situation in the U.S. is explained, to 'the Brits', through the media, the position of 'the Tea Party' adherents is made out to be very old-fashioned, in its core call for smaller government and fiscal responsibility; the latter equated, for them, with moral rectitude. But over the decades - centuries - a sea change has happened: the capitalist system, with its two-valve engine of interest-bearing money and fractional-reserve banking,* has resulted in people thinking it is perfectly fine to go into debt, because that is how that system works. Money is debt, in its very nature, in such a system.** And people like bankers and brokers make 'big money' by borrowing big; and thus 'creating wealth'. And the little guy, seeing this, starts to feel that he has been sold a bill of goods, when he is told he has to 'live within his means', but sees that that is not, really, how the system works; and so he starts scamming the system just like the big guys do. Spend, spend!, and let tomorrow take care of itself.

Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. As we are seeing, all over the world. But in the meantime, an ethical attitude towards 'money' has been seduced into almost total non-existence. As exemplified in the current 'debt' debate in the U.S., between the camp that says the issue is one of spending, and the one that says the issue is one of revenue. The former camp sees all the waste, and considered waste - like 'welfare cheats' - going on, of their tax money, and the latter camp sees the tax cuts and fiddles allowed to the rich, and 'those who can afford' to give more to the revenue side.

The glass is either half full or half empty, depending on how you look at it.

That latter camp hangs in tough, to get at least some of the benefis of the system for themselves, not just for the fat cats. And the 'moral rectitude' camp sees this as sponging off their own hard-earned income. And both sides fail to see the larger picture; having had their eye taken off the ball, to mix metaphors.

I addressed all this in an email this week to a friend, fellow expatriate, who sent me the comments of a (UK) Channel 4 correspondent based in Washington, D.C., in relation to the great Debt debate in that country. She posted a blog on the matter wherein she referred to a scene in the political series The West Wing, on the same subject; the fictional repartee very appropriate to the real-life situation, if rather cynical, in referring to the debt-ceiling scenario being "routine or the end of the world". My friend asked me if I agreed with that series segment's ho-hum, nothing-new take on the subject. I responded:

"Ah yes: the annual (or whatever) Kabuki theatre about The Debt.

"You asked me my opinion about The Matter. On the one hand, I'm a traditionalist, it would probably be called. You live within your means. And especially when some clever s.o.b.'s engineered the situation, so that they could make a bundle in interest payments on 'the full faith and credit of' the stupid sheep, who don't realise fully how they are being sheared by their erstwhile Masters, the classic, through-the-eons 'moneychangers'.*** I'm with the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Andy Jackson on this one.+ (And now ironic that is: the two main totems of the Democratic party, supposedly the party standing against the fat-cat moneyed elite & their big-spending habits - the main one being wanting to make money ON money- but in our day and age the party of the big spenders, in the 'redistribution of wealth' game; wherein the whole lot of'em, both sides of the political aisle, have been seduced into 'getting while the getting is good': the name of the game in Washington.) And with Ron Paul, in his impassioned but lonely call for an audit of The Fed. Actually, he would do better by calling for its outright dismissal, and the Treasury printing its own money; subject to the knowledge, and wisdom, gained by hard experience.++ Me, I'd clean out the Augean stables, root and branch, and start over. But with a twist. And that brings me to

"On the other hand, it's time for more than just a clean-out of the stables. It's time for a change in the basic template, of how we 'do business' on planet Earth. Through a releasing of 'money' - of interest-bearing money, and its training-wheels partner, fractional-reserve banking - and a moving into the truly post-modern world. The world where people give in goods and serbvices to one another, and of their best in human ingenuity, out of a superior motive than that of merely 'making money'. Out of the motive of, in a word, Love; to say, more specifically, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning. And the full realisation that We Are One Another anyway. Now a prince, now a pauper. Now one race or nationality or sex, now another. In the school of Life; where we learn our lessons, and move on.

"Are supposed to move on. And not get mesmerized and captured by the fools' gold of money, and power. Which we are certainly witnessing a lot of, these days. More's the pity.

"Well. They say that it's always the darkest before the dawn.

"I hope we wake up to that awareness, from this waking dream that we are walking through, in time. Anyway: them's my thoughts on the subject..."

And a final note, at this point: In today's paper I see that in China, in a huge electronics manufacturing 'warehouse', where great numbers of Chinese men and women drudge away for little money (which was the reason the plant was located there in the first place), the management is looking to replace many of them with robots. The whole process triggered by some suicides, which put pressure on the management to raise their wages, which caused the management to look at their sums, and....

the rest, as they say, is history.

But now, history "with a twist". How about thinking outside of the box. And letting
robots take over more and more of the drudge work in life. To free people for more creative pursuits. Because their 'income' is not dependent on earning 'money'. It is dependent basically on being a member of the one human family, now going up a notch in consciousness.+++

I addressed this theme recently in a short essay; to wit:

We Are One

Once humanity as whole awakens - really awakens - to the reality of reincarnation, and its implications - that therefore we are just playing parts in a drama; for, obviously, a reason, since a drama implies/is the material evidence of an Author - they will release the drama and move closer to the real thing: aware, then, that we are but sparks off of One Source. Parts of a Whole. That, in truth, We Are One Another. That, in further truth, We Are One.

Some of those sparks will be more willing to release their roles than others willing to release theirs; the latter having become comfortable in the particular role, and of a lesser consciousness than some of those others. The 'stuck', thus more acclimatized to their roles, still climbing out of the cave of their individuated identity. But there comes a time when the Whole can and will begin to act AS a Whole.

This is that time, for this stream-family of souls, awakening to their true identity, behind the masks of the illusion that we are in. The masks belonging TO that illusion. That hologram. That matrix.

So. We have work to do; a larger work than any heretofore, on planet Earth.

Let's be about it.

Circumstances of the collapse of the old paradigm, the old reality - the stage on which we have been playing out the drama - will force us to do so anyway.

A thought you might be entertaining: What has it been all about, really?

My thought, in response, and reflection on the matter: that the Whole is growing with the growth in consciousness that we as its parts bring to It, from our experiences at one remove from the Whole, in the realm of free will, ie, in our individuated states of being; our individuated soul states.

But then that's just conjecture. What is beyond conjecture is the realisation that, with the detectable phenomenon of reincarnation (detectable from material confirmations, dreams, healings based on its 'insights' regarding the human psyche, etc.), there is Plan in and Purpose to 'the universe'. To the exercise, that we are engaged in.

Could that Plan in actual fact be a malevolent one, instead of a benevolent one?

I would seriously doubt that to be the case. If only for the fact that we experience Love, and Joy, as higher, more sublime states & emotions than Hate, and Anger.

I'd bet my life on it.

There may be some creatures in the universe - the matrix - that, having gotten stuck IN the matrix (having identified too much with their roles in the drama), find the more gross emotions more fitting, more desirable to their level of consciousness. If so - and there is a considerable amount of evidence to that effect - the best thing we can do for them is to send them Love, to help them out of the trap they have created for themselves, and further on their way.

For Love is the key, the Way, out of the illusion. Love for the Whole. Love for ourselves as part of the Whole. And forgiveness OF ourselves, for having dallied in the classroom, and failed to graduate sooner; mesmerized by the magnets of the moment, in the material realm.

So, then, let's turn that Key; and walk into the light of a new day, dawning for all of humanity. For all of us on planet Earth. On Being Earth. As it, too, readies for - in a word - Ascension.

But that's another subject, in the exercise in which we are involved.

The exercise of consciousness raising. Of getting closer, and closer, to

the One. Of which we are, now, but a part.

But getting There. Which is Here, in fuller consciousness.

For We already Are

the One.

And the One we have been waiting for.


* I actually think of these as training wheels: what has apparently been needed to help Man have the incentive to produce 'wealth'. Not understanding that he already has it within himself to produce all that he needs, and more. But I digress. A bit.

** A good read, in this regard: 'Web of Debt' by Ellen Hodgson Brown.

*** Reference is to the Federal Reserve, a creature of the moneyed elite, who bought their way back into power in the U.S. through legislation enacted in 1913, along with an amendment to the U.S Constitution enacting an income tax, to pay for the hordes of interest-created money they saw accruing before their very eyes, when they could, gently gently, over a period of time, seduce the U.S. public into paying for more and more goodies. Like wars. See in particular 'The Creature of Jekyll Island' by G. Edward Griffin.

+ T. Jefferson warned the American people in no uncertain terms about the encroachment into power in the fledgling republic of the moneyed elite; Andrew Jackson saw it all happening in his day, and managed to turf them out of power, by eliminating the national bank that the 'moneychangers' had managed to put in place. With a little help from their friends in politics; who they have continued to buy off ever since, in this ongoing struggle, of the Elite over the Mass.

++ One of the selling points about the Federal Reserve at the time was that politicians couldn't be trusted with the handling of money, since they would have continual pressure put on them by their constituents to spend more money, so the federal government needed a 'safer', professional set of hands holding the purse-strings. That way the big boom-and-bust waves that had afflicted the country many times could be 'scientifically' ironed out, with monetary policy measures. As we have, of course, seen since. Oh wait. Wrong.

+++ With things of limited amounts - ie, not enough for all - dealt with by individuals earning credits for their services to the societal Order. But not in the classic way, with interest-bearing money, where people do things FOR 'the money'; incentivized BY 'the money'. Rather than by Love.