Your petty bourgeois guidebook for crushing globalism
Dick Eastman
community legislation we (environmentalists, social reformers, economic
reformers) get enacted.
GATS treaties apply to all government "services," that means GATS overrides
popular sovereignty, holds veto power over the decisions of representative
governments and holds the power to impose financial penalties on "offending
governments" -- yet GATS is itself the dictation of finace globalism
(merchant bankers, currency traders, corporation CEO's, networked
billionaires etc.) GATS overrides any legislation activistism may get
enacted -- it overrides the activist fruits of Greens, Populists, Labor,
Right, Left, Democrat, Republican, House, Senate, President, Parliament,
States, Counties, Cities, and the Grass Roots.
Enlargement of the scope of the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) treaties -- has extended regulatory control to all services provided
by government and they have not told you about it.
WTO documentary evidence (below) proves that government services including
health and education are regulated by the latest GATS. Forced
corporatization of the public sector (the same "privatization" process
globalism has used to steal public manufacturing assets from national
populations all around the world) under GATS is, as the European
Commission's website on Services alerts us, "not just something that exists
between governments, but it is first and foremost an instrument for the
benefit of business."
The analysis below is made by one of the few "independent" (non-hireling)
economists to study the treaties in depth. Dr.Sanders is, I believe,
exactly right in his assessment of the inadequacy of public and
public-sector understanding of this series of treaties:
"The GATS is one of seventeen international trade
agreements administered by the WTO. These agreements
are so complex and full of jargon that possibly only their
architects fully comprehend their detail and more
importantly, their implications for society. Most people,
including our government ministers and elected
representatives, have little understanding of the secretive
world where an unelected elite shape the destiny of
humanity."
Here, then, is the clear issue, the universal offense, the catching
red-handed,
the rallying infamy, and the long hoped-for pivot on which globalism's
intended
coup d'main can be turned to start the reaction that will end their 500
years
of destructive manipulation.
Distribute this intelligently. You will not be alone.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
--------
Jay Fenello's introduction (received by Eastman):
GATS: The End of Democracy
Richard Sanders investigates the forces behind its unseemly haste.
Printed in the Australian Financial Review, 15th June 2001.
(Some paragraphs omitted from the published version for space reasons have
been re-included in [square brackets])
Jay Fenello
----------------------
Dr. Richard Sanders' text:
"The liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than that of the state
itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt's warning of the fascist threat is as urgent today as
it was in the 1930s, particularly since the public is blissfully unaware of
the stealthy corporate assault on democracy occurring right now. We are
witnessing the economic colonisation of the world by corporate interests.
This is achieved through 'free' trade agreements designed to run the world
on economic rationalist lines.
Since negotiations began earlier this year, anti-globalisation activists
have been warning that the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
poses a major threat to democracy and that proposed changes being negotiated
will lead inevitably to the demise of most public services including health
and education.
Little notice has been taken of these dire warnings, probably because they
sound so outrageous. After all, what government in its right mind would
voluntarily sign away public services and allow democracy to be severely
eroded?
Yet close scrutiny of the GATS text and related World Trade Organisation
(WTO) documents reveals that there is a great deal of substance to these
warnings. For example, WTO head Mike Moore and Trade Minister Mark Vaile
want the public to believe that all services provided by government are
excluded from the scope of the GATS. As we shall see, WTO documentary
evidence proves that most government services including health and education
will in fact be subject to the GATS in spite of the assurances from Moore
and Vaile.
The GATS is one of seventeen international trade agreements administered by
the WTO. These agreements are so complex and full of jargon that possibly
only their architects fully comprehend their detail and more importantly,
their implications for society. Most people, including our government
ministers and elected representatives, have little understanding of the
secretive world where an unelected elite shape the destiny of humanity.
The first step to understanding the GATS is to understand the forces driving
it and the other WTO trade liberalization agreements. On the face of it, the
WTO consists of representatives of 141 governments sitting around the table
negotiating international trade agreements that are mutually beneficial and
in the public interest.
However, the European Commission's website on Services alerts us that the
GATS is "not just something that exists between governments, but it is first
and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business."
Few realise that the GATS and even the WTO itself are part of a global
corporate power grab. As David Hartridge, the former Director of the WTO
Services Division explains: "Without the enormous pressure generated by the
American financial services sector, particularly companies like American
Express and Citicorp, there would have been no services agreement and
therefore perhaps no Uruguay Round and no WTO."
Few realise that the agendas for these negotiations are set behind the
scenes in private meetings involving a small but very powerful elite who are
avid proponents and beneficiaries of the free trade ideology.
Let us for a moment observe one such meeting that played a key role in
setting the GATS agenda. Our window is
http://www.globalservicesnetwork.com/Ditchley%20Park.htm. It is April 26,
1998, and we are at Ditchley Park, an English country estate near Oxford.
We are looking into a large room with bookshelves to the ceiling and
valuable paintings on the walls. Forty-two people are seated around an
enormous oval table. [The chairman of the meeting, Jaime Serra, a former
Mexican Trade Minister, was responsible for drafting the original GATS
text.]
From a press release lying on the table entitled "Trade Experts and
Policymakers Gather at Ditchley Park to Determine Future WTO Role in
Services" we learn they are meeting "to chart a new direction for
liberalizing global trade in services". It tells us that this select group
of people includes corporate executives, public officials, academics and
advisers from the OECD, UNCTAD, and the WTO. This is clearly a private and
unofficial meeting as we read they are all "acting in their personal
capacity".
[The company executives there that day also launched the Global Services
Network, a powerful corporate lobby to "take the lead in building support
for liberalization of world services trade in the next big round for
services negotiations to begin in 2000". They emphasised that "greater
attention must be given to the importance of enlisting regulators in
furthering liberalization."]
This raises the question of how we, the public, can place trust in our
unelected and unaccountable public officials when they are being enlisted by
corporate interests to work unofficially behind the scenes [to promote the
corporate agenda of tying the hands of government so it can no longer do its
job of protecting the public interest?]
Corporations see government regulation and the provision of public services
as barriers to trade in services. The corporate agenda to remove these is
achieved through the process of 'progressive liberalisation' that lies at
the heart of all WTO agreements. It involves regular rounds of negotiation
where governments progressively negotiate away their regulatory authority
with no back-tracking allowed between rounds. The WTO calls this
'disciplining governments'. Like the ratchets on a pair of handcuffs, the
ties on the hands of government are progressively tightened. This is a
subtle but very real corporate assault on democracy as public control over
the economy, society and the environment is progressively removed.
Although the WTO denies it, the inevitable ultimate outcome of 'progressive
liberalisation' is the commercialisation, privatisation and deregulation of
the world's domestic economies. Essentially, it is like imposing National
Competition Policy at the global level.
The specific aim of the GATS is to remove barriers to trade in services.
Because most trade in services occurs within a country, rather than
targeting external barriers such as tariffs, it targets all internal
domestic laws, regulations and policies that may possibly discriminate
against foreign service providers or even` limit their profitability.
At the heart of the GATS lies the noble sounding concept of
non-discrimination. Its aim is to eliminate existing (and prevent new)
government measures which either discriminate between the services or
service suppliers of other member countries (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment)
or between its own and those of other member countries (National Treatment).
The GATS rules place enforceable restrictions (disciplines) on what
government measures are allowed. Government measures are defined broadly as
any "law, regulation, rule, procedure, decision, administrative action, or
any other form" of measure and also include subsidies and grants. It also
covers every possible means (mode of supply) by which an individual or firm
based in one country may provide a service to a party in another member
country.
The GATS document consists of two sets of rules. The first, called General
Obligations and Disciplines, contains 17 Articles or sets of rules that
already apply to all government measures. Those requiring the closest
scrutiny are Article 6 (Domestic Regulation), Article 15 (Subsidies) and
Article 13 (Government Procurement).
The second set of rules, called Specific Commitments, has three Articles
that apply only to government measures in those sectors that a government
has committed to in negotiations. Article 16 (Market Access) requires the
closest scrutiny. The negotiating process pressures governments to increase
the number of service sectors they will expose to these disciplines in each
successive round.
The GATS contains a 'built in agenda' to renegotiate the agreement every
five years. [The first round was agreed to in January 1995 and the second
round started in January 2000.] Serious negotiations started on 19th March
this year and it is the implications of proposals currently on the
negotiating table that are the major cause for concern.
[Before considering these implications, it is worth noting that the
implications of the first round still remain obscure and many countries are
seeking clarification before moving on. This uncertainty arises because
these texts are wide open to interpretation and there will be no certainty
until there is a dispute and a WTO tribunal consisting of three trade
officials, wedded to the free trade ideology, adjudicate on the matter.
Because of this, and the sheer complexity of the agreements, governments are
often unsure of what exactly they are signing up to. Yet the WTO claims that
certainty is a benefit of GATS.]
The most serious concern about the GATS in current negotiations is the
extent to which WTO disciplines will apply to the provision and funding of
public services such as health and education. Based on the GATS text and WTO
documents there are very strong grounds for concern.
Echoing the WTO, and apparently seeking to allay growing public concern that
public services will be subjected to GATS disciplines, [Australian Trade
Minister, Mark] Vaile recently claimed: "Services supplied in the exercise
of government authority, such as public education, are not covered by the
GATS." However, according to Article 1:3(c) of the GATS, "a service supplied
in the exercise of governmental authority" means any service which is
supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more
service suppliers." Very few public services would appear to be excluded by
this definition.
According to a 23 page Government of British Columbia discussion paper
devoted solely to interpreting this definition, "only a small sub-set of
services - those that are provided by completely non-commercial, absolute
monopolies - appear to be protected by this exclusion." In other words, most
public services would be subject to GATS disciplines.
Even the minutes of a WTO Council for Trade in Services meeting support this
view:
"Members drew attention to the variety of policy objectives governing the
provision of health and social services, including basic welfare and equity
considerations. Such considerations had led to a very substantial degree of
government involvement, both as a direct provider of such services and as a
regulator. However, this did not mean that the whole sector was outside the
remit of the GATS; the exceptions provided in Article I:3 of the Agreement
needed to be interpreted narrowly."
[There is also a legal precedent likely to be accepted by WTO dispute panels
that supports an even narrower interpretation. The European Court of Justice
has ruled that a virtually identical clause in the European Treaty did not
exclude Italy's non-profit job placement service provided as a pure public
monopoly with no private sector competition.]
If the GATS disciplines do apply to most public services, then this has
profound potential implications for the future of all publicly funded
services including health, education and the Australian Broadcasting
Commission, to name a few. The reason is that public funding is seen as a
subsidy under these agreements and GATS will treat subsidies as unfair
competition or barriers to entry for foreign services and suppliers.
National Treatment commitments already mean a country has to give out
subsidies on a non-discriminatory basis. Once Article 16 disciplines on
subsidies are developed and agreed to, governments will not be able to
discriminate between government and foreign service providers in their
funding decisions. This will massively reduce, and could end, public sector
funding.
As the WTO Secretariat has said, an obligation to give out subsidies on an
equal basis to foreign and domestic suppliers is a powerful inducement to
get rid of government subsidies altogether.
[Here is the WTO's public relations response to this concern: "The GATS has
no implications for the funding or subsidy of services provided in the
exercise of governmental authority. Negotiations are under way on subsidies
"with a view to developing the necessary multilateral disciplines" to avoid
distortive effects on trade. Whatever disciplines are developed will not
apply to governmental services, because these are simply outside the scope
of the GATS."]
Because the WTO can't deny that disciplines on subsidies are already
included in the GATS, or the impact of these disciplines on public services,
it dismisses these concerns by saying public services are excluded under
Article I:3. Yet as we have just seen, very few services are likely to be
excluded on these grounds.
Current negotiations on Domestic Regulation (Article 6) could impose new and
severe constraints on the ability of governments to maintain or create
environmental, health, consumer protection and other public interest
standards. Proposals include a 'necessity test' whereby governments would
bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that any of their countries laws
and regulations are the 'least trade restrictive,' regardless of financial,
social, technological or other considerations.
Market Access (Article 16) commitments are the basis under which countries
open up their markets to foreign service suppliers. Governments have a
single opportunity to list their market access restrictions when they first
sign up to the GATS. All signatories to the first round have a Schedule of
restrictions. These restrictions are the main bargaining chips traded off in
negotiations. In the current negotiating round, the pressure will be on for
each government to reduce the number and scope of their restrictions. [The
thrust of negotiations will be a push to expand the number and scope of
specific commitments in national schedules, to remove existing limitations
within already committed sectors, and to bind more new and existing
commitments so that future governments cannot reverse them.]
It wasn't protestors who scuttled the Millennium Round of the WTO in Seattle
in 1999. It was the discontent among less developed countries over bullying
and the undemocratic negotiating processes of the WTO. In spite of this
major setback, a year ago at the GATS 2000 negotiations in Geneva, the
president of the U.S. Coalition of Service Industries, said the U.S.
services industry lobby was very satisfied with the progress made in the
GATS: "Considering Seattle, we have every reason to be pleased. Where we are
now is effectively where we would have been if the Seattle meeting had
succeeded."
[The GATS is now the spearhead of a highly organised corporate campaign to
systematically sweep away government regulations that restrict corporate
activities and stand in the way of corporate profits. It will effectively
transfer the responsibility for balancing the public interest with
commercial considerations from elected government representatives to
appointed tribunals or WTO panels. It will place foreign commercial
interests above the public interest. It will intrude into many domestic
policy areas including environment, culture, natural resources, health care,
education and social services.]
There is one more thing we need to know - the theoretical basis for 'free'
trade is a sham. The theory of Comparative Advantage, formulated in 1817 by
David Ricardo, only applies under conditions where capital is not mobile
between nations as was the case in 1817. Under modern conditions of high
capital mobility there is no such thing as comparative advantage - only
absolute advantage and that means strong economic players win and the weak
lose. In the global scheme of things, Australia is a weak player.
Why then, is this subtle coup on democracy being allowed to happen? Indeed,
why is government actively facilitating it?
The WTO Training Package provides a powerful explanation: "there are various
economic and political advantages associated with liberalisation commitments
under the GATS . [including] . overcoming domestic resistance to change." In
other words, it provides an excuse for governments wanting to impose
economic rationalist policies against the democratic wishes of the public.
But why would they want to impose such policies?
The simple answer is that they have been conned by a long running corporate
propaganda campaign that stretches back half a century and arose as a
reaction against the prescriptions of Keynes. The message endlessly repeated
through the '60s, '70s and '80s was that the private sector is efficient
while the public sector is inefficient. In reality the efficiencies of both
sectors are, on average, similar. However, the public sector can provide a
service 10% more cheaply because a profit dividend does not need to be
extracted.
The more recent propaganda is that repetitive mantra: "Globalisation is
Inevitable". Of course, in the sense that it means running the world on
economic rationalist lines, globalisation is not inevitable as The Economist
admitted in its editorial in September last year. This clever use of
language serves two political purposes. First, if decision makers believe
this mantra, they will develop policies that accord with what they see as
'inevitable' and turn this 'inevitability' into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Secondly, it creates a mood of resigned acceptance on the part of the
population being impacted on by the structural changes flowing from economic
liberalisation. This also assists in allowing this 'inevitability' to become
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The propaganda tells us economic liberalisation increases economic growth.
While this is true, what we are not told is that GDP does not subtract the
costs of economic growth from the benefits. A new measure that does this,
called a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), shows that for most countries the
costs of growth equal, or are greater, than the benefits. According to the
UN, the gap between rich and poor has continued to grow over the past fifty
years and that the rate has been greatest over the thirty-year history of
economic liberalisation. The reality is that economic growth is taking us
slowly backwards.
The propaganda tells us we'll all be better off. The reality is that
business privatises benefits and socialises costs where possible.
Consequently, the benefits of economic growth flow mainly into private hands
while the social, environmental and economic costs (such as bailing out HIH)
are borne by society. Trade and investment liberalisation serve the
interests of the wealthy at the expense of society in general. Remember, the
words 'private' and 'privatise' derive from the Latin 'privare' meaning 'to
deprive'.
Finally, there are the bureaucrats who negotiate these agreements and advise
our ministers and as mentioned earlier, we must ask whose interests they
serve. The myopia of the bureaucracy is illustrated in the following
response from a Treasury official when a Parliamentary Inquiry was being
held into the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a very similar
agreement to the GATS.
The official was asked: "So Treasury has made no attempt to quantify the
potential benefits or cost to Australia?
Treasury replied: "As economists, Treasury would argue that trade and
investment liberalisation is good for economic growth, both domestically and
worldwide."
This reply based on faith and without a fact in sight had the Committee
members shaking their heads in disbelief. This probably marked the turning
point in the demise of the MAI. Similarly, if the facts about the GATS,
rather than the baseless assertions and half-truths, are allowed to enter
the public debate, it is almost certain that the public will rally behind
democracy and the GATS will be scuttled.
* * * * *
Source:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/Sanders.html
Richard Sanders is an ecological economist and the world's leading
"outsider" authority on OECD's Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
[Sander's text received by Eastman from Jay Fenello's
Aligning with Purpose list.]
Jay Fenello
www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World
----------------------------------------------------------
"They become like machines whose sole purpose is to make a
living. This mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
-- Henry David Thoreau
---------------------------------------
Two websites:
Defending internet freedom and internet democracy;
freedom of political discourse and active alignment:
WorldCity, internet tribunate:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/7842/wcindex.htm
Fred Rock
because you are so into your paranoid fantasies you couldn't see reality if
it hit you in the ass. "Ooooh, corporations are evil. Corporations run the
world. Corporations are conspiring to take away our liberties."
Well, it wasn't a corporation that killed 8 million in Germany. It wasn't a
corporation that killed 100 million in China and Russia. It wasn't a
corporation that tried to ethnically cleanse the Balkans. In every case it
was an oh-so-benevolent and wise government. I've been watching you charter
members of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society spew your ignorant twaddle.
But "GATS" put me over the edge. It's idiots like you that put maniacs like
Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Clinton in power. You will trade your freedom for a
security blanket of a government that feels your pain, especially when it's
causing it.
Free trade will make everyone, including the third world, richer and freer.
But you don't believe in freedom, only the safety of mother government.
And I am NOT responsible for every other man; I am responsible for myself
and those I CHOOSE to be responsible for (i.e., my family). Stalin made
himself responsible for every other Russian and he was so responsible, he
starved 20 million to death. Oh, well, "One death is a tragedy, a million
deaths, a statistic" -- Lenin.
I'm embarrassed to live in the same state as you because I believe stupidity
follows the inverse square law.
Sorry, but it's about time somebody told you imbeciles off.
Dick Eastman
Antonio Novelli. I wish to elaborate on these dangers, and
point out the real source of goal-eroding contamination
that invades all anti-Establishment parties, contamination that
is injected into a party exactly to serve the Establishment's
purposes.
----
There are agents who surreptitiously gain control of mass movements
originally formed to restore government-in-the-public-interest (populist
movements) and to regulate use of the biosphere for the maximum
habitat-benefit of all (environmentalism)
These infiltrators divert/subvert these movments to serve their hidden
masters' wealth-and-power-getting ends rather than to serve the goals the
general membership thinks they are serving and joined the movement in order
to serve. These infiltrators are professionals, selected and groomed to be
more impressive and inspiring than the sincere "organically grown" activists
motivated by the true humanitarian goals of the cause.
These infiltrators backed and supplied from the limitless resources of their
masters ,with every means for making sure that sincere true-to-cause
leaders are instantly marginalized if they show any sign of heeding
anti-establishment analysis such as this message contains -- like this plea
that Greens (and members of any other anti-Establishment party) develop
objective criteria (a system) for evaluating their candidates and
continually testing the sincerity and action-fidelity of their leaders.
(Right now you leave it to the leaders to test and expose the leaders -- you
lack the parlimentary principle of "challenges from the floor.")
But first recognize this serious related problem: It is nearly impossible
anyway to maintain scientific integrity and purity of purpose when also
adopting the role of political party seeking offices that have
responsibility for matters (banking structure, tax structure, foreign
relations, law, crime, etc.) with no readily tracable connection to the core
"identity issues" of the cause.
And the "identity issues" can drift and they can be hijecked.
A "Green" is more than an environmentalist -- he is a member of a party
committed to some areas for which there are deep convictions and firm
resolve (environmental issues) but also is wide open for anything in all
other areas of politics; AND to the extent that the bought-off agents
working as party leaders at the top for the moneyed interests can by hook or
crook constrain the whole party into just one or two issues as "holding
pens" (i.e. to preoccupy you totally with global warming, ozone depletion,
acid rain, anti-nuke AND NOTHING ELSE-- i.e., limits you to just the issues
the establisment chooses to push with their media, foundation, political NGO
and university network monopoly -- to that extent do the leaders have the
run of the store in all those other areas and they capture the use the Green
party workers as dupes supporting things they don't know about -- claiming
their support for things they don't really support and getting them to raise
money etc. to further what they do not know about.
I am going to present three quotes that, with some
serious thinking, will convince you that the Green Party and the
institutional Green movment is led (captured) by infiltrated
enemies of the environment who are exploiting
environmentalism through distortion and disinformation
for their own master's agenda for political domination and the
monopolization of resource and capital wealth.
My only regret -- and the only reason why your mind might refuse to accept
what you will read here -- is that I have no alternative, no solution, to
this enormity -- aside from old ways that most of you discarded long ago
and have scorned ever since.(The Whole Earth Catalog calls
"Paleoconservative" men like Pat Buchanan who understand and expose the
power and clandestine manipulations of the moneyed interests.)
Here are the three quotations (discussion follows):
Henry Kissinger in an address to the super secret Bilderberg Organization
meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 said the following as transcribed
from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates:
"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to
restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if
they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or
promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples
of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this
scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee
of their well being granted to them by their world government."
Zbignew Brzenzski chaired the Trilateral Commission which generated its
"Report on the Governability of Democracies" in its 1975 study emphasis,
"The Crisis of Democracy." Here is the key passage from that report:
"We have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to
economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the
indefinite extension of political democracy . . . A government which lacks
authority ... will have little ability, short of cataclysmic crisis, to
impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary."
And here is Al Gore, from his book, Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the
Human Spirit (New York: Plume Publishing, 1993) from the Chapter "A Global
Marshall Plan:"
"Modern industrial civilization as presently organized, is colliding
violently with our planet's ecological system. The ferocity of its assault
on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so
quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global
implications, and organize appropriate and timely response. ... I have come
to believe that we must take bold and uniquivocal action: we must make the
rescue of the enviroment the central organizing principle for civilization.
Whether we realize it or not, we are now engaged in an epic battle to right
the balance of our earth, and the tide of this battle will turn only when
the majority of people in the world become sufficiently arroused by a shared
sense of urgent danger to join an all-out effort. ...Although very difficult
changes in established patterns of thought and action will be required, the
task of restoring the natural balance of the earth's ecological system is
both within our capacity and desirable for other reasons. ....
"What does it mean to make the effort to save the global environment the
central organizing principle of our civilization? For one think, it means
securing widespread agreement that it should be the organizing principle ...
Historically such a consensus has usually been secured only when the
emergence of a life-or-death threat to the existence of society itself;
this time however the crisis could well be irreversible by the time its
consequences become sufficienty clear to congeal public opinion -- if not
panic.
"Adopting a central organizing principle --one agreed to voluntarily --
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every
law and institution, every tereaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy,
every plan and course of action -- to use, in short, every means to halt
the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecologic
system. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs,
moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rehetoric offered in lieu of
genuine change -- these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy
the public's desire to belive that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching
transformation of society will not be necessary."
-------------
Discussion:
I fully support Howard Switzer's position against
Tony Novelli's proposal that the Green Party align
with the Trotskyite Labor Party. Trotskyites capture
legitimate movements merely to harness their potential
energy to power their own revolutionary agenda for
power, power, power -- not for humanity or the environment,
or intelligent progress of the common good. Trotskyites serve
finance capitalism as the Jesuits serve the Catholic Church -- only
they cover their power-seeking motives in pure radical-left-dogma
deceit.) They want Green
numbers under their control -- to herd panicked animals, to
promote conflict merely to obtain political leverage in group-vs.-group
dynamics, to use Green activists merely as a wedge
to bring down (with revolutionary dialectic) all opposition, i.e.,
pitting one group against another with the purpose of bringing
down both.
I support Howard Switzer's intention, ability, activism,
political acumen, sincerity, and broad fund of knowledge of
both the compex "is" and the humanitarian-environmental "should."
He is a sincere environmentalist, the kind the hirelings at the top
continually manage to marginalize.
I particularly note these thoughts:
> I don't know much about the labor party but i do know that
> union leadership has been very disappointing and has been
> unwilling to come out on a broader platform. Such a narrow
> view has allowed unions to shrink from 40% to 14% over the
> last 30-40 years. Compromising with the democrats
> has been disastrous to unionism. Locally, in our campaign for
> a living wage, the local union leadership's ego has gotten in the
> way and shown itself to be selfish, ineffectual and generally
> unwilling to work with others, especially the Green Party.
> Labor Party? I'm not impressed, I doubt even the rank and
> file would support them from what I can see.
>
> howard
What Switzer is responding to is that the labor movment has
been captured at the top in the same way the Green movement
has been. Switzer sees that this leadership has driven labor power
power into the ground -- the leadership will not even back the
overwhelming desire of the rank and file to scrap, e.g., NAFTA
(which is as much a disaster for the common man's standard of
living as it is for environmental quality.)
But Howard Switzers logic should be taken further.
What Switzer rightly says would happen with a Labor Party alliance, I say
is happening anyway without intrusion of an alien organizations incompatible
agenda.. What Howard warns of in the form of the highjacking of
purpose when there is open arms infiltration by an alien-ideology
political party also happens as a much more hard-to-detect political
"virus" when workers and leaders within the body of the Green Party and the
green movement become captives of establishmentarian (globalist, corporate,
finance capitalist)
and affiliated Trotskyite-Zhouist (finance-capital in bed with China
Princelings for economic and environmental exploitation) interests.
Rather than discuss Tony Novelli, whom I do not know -- although the place
he is obviously coming from I know very well -- let me share my
correspondence with Alan Lewis of Michigan -- the arch green's green of my
experience, on the general subject of the establishment's capability to
hijack party vehicles that oppose them, use them as a road weapon and then
crash them into a wall.
---------
"How blindly trusting should we be of the label "Green?", below,
Dialog between Mr. P (populist Dick) and Mr. A (green Alan)-- edited
by Dick to highlight Dick's ideas (NOT a fair representation of Alan Lewis's
deep and sound understanding of many many issues):
--------------------------
Mr. P and Mr. G are discussing Cold Fusion and Zero-Point Energy,
but they go off on this tangent:
Mr. P:
I was unfair in my characterization, but I sincerely do not
see where your confidence in the unworkability of a nuclear
and other available high-energy sources -- every
single one of these alternatives-- comes from.
I have said somewhere that the GP's opposition to
all three: hydroelectric, nuclear, natural gas and new
high-tech technologies is too improbable, to absolute,
to uncompromising as a scientific conclusion or even as
an intelligent-approach-to-the-risk conclusion -- in fact
this straight-down-the-line opposition only makes sense
if you posit that the real reasons have been contrived in order to
serve a monopoly-concentration-increasing "zero-growth" agenda
that comes from the self-aggrandizing big-money interests that
bankroll them and use them as lobbying instruments
deceptively packaged for mass appeal and activist recruitment.
(Not much different from the way Rush Limbaugh packages
and delivers another class of people to his Wall Street lords.)
You can't possibly believe that research and industry
are half trying to solve the energy problem. GP leadership,
in its effect -- not the sincere green's fundamental goals
and science -- alternative energy sources out of competition
with the oil monopolies, ultimately and clandestinely for the
sake of the big-oil families. At least this is what my study of
the political arena has led me to conclude.
Being all but convinced of this, I then find you
stating positions that I have been critical of
for so many years, and doing so as if the arguments
I have urged are not worth a nod.
Nothing personal, but I do disagree about nuclear
energy being bad and I want to liberate the cheap
and clean alternative technologies the oil men
have under lock and key while they gouge
full economic rents from their oil and gas
monopoly/cartel/oligopoly.
Mr. G
Actually, I DO have some misgivings about
workability, or the extent to which these technologies might
substitute for what we're doing now. You, too, will have at
least some misgivings if you undertake a study of the issue
using these URLs (listed below). I don't think that we're
headed for a total meltdown, the way some of the doomers in
those parts do, but it looks like it could be a VERY bumpy
road. We shall see.
> THE IMPENDING (?)* OIL/GAS/ENERGY CRISIS:
> BASIC READINGS and RESOURCES
> Compiled by Alan Lewis
> Version 1.2, 20 January 2001
Here is Alan's compilation (in fairness to him --I have not read
all this. --DE) (Scroll past to continue dialog.)
> MAJOR INFO-RESOURCE WEB SITES
> The Hubbert Peak of Oil Production (Coming Global Oil Crisis)
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com
> http://www.oilcrisis.com/
> Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies
> http://hubbert.mines.edu/
> Jay Hanson's Dieoff.Org
> http://www.dieoff.org
> Matthew Simmons' Oil/Energy Analyses (new!)
> http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/web/html/matt.asp?thispage=simple
>
> BRIEF OVERVIEWS and SYNOPSES; INTRODUCTIONS
> Dieoff.org Synopsis
> http://dieoff.com/synopsis.htm
> Running On Empty "Convince Sheet" (Bruce Thomson)
> http://www.RunningOnEmpty.org
> The Global Hubbert Peak; The Experts Speak
> http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/Iran_186.htm
> RunningOnEmpty Introduction (Bruce Thomson)
> http://www.egroups.com/group/RunningOnEmpty
> Summary of RunningOnEmpty to Date (Bruce Thomson)
> http://www.egroups.com/message/RunningOnEmpty/4630
>
> NEWS ITEMS; CLIPPINGS
> Gasoline To Hit $1/Litre; Economists Say Oil Production Near Peak
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/001006/4643011.html
> The Last Oil Shock (BBC Story)
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/the_money_programme/newsid_1014000/1
014236.stm
> Energy Crisis Threatens a Winter of Discontent (Matt Simmons)
>
http://www.business.scotsman.com/cfm/home/headlines_specific.cfm?headlineid=
4901&subset=archive
> Energy Costs Will Go On Rising (William Rees)
> http://www.egroups.com/message/energyresources/3607
> Cheap Oil: Enjoy it While it Lasts! (Franco Bernab, CEO, ENISpA)
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0615/6112084a.html
>
> ANALYSES and REVIEWS; SPEECHES
> Dr. Colin Campbell addresses British House of Commons 07/07/99
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
> The Coming Oil and Natural Gas Crisis
> http://www.worldoil.com/WO_RESEARCH/Research/whitepaper.pdf
> The End of Cheap Oil (Campbell and LaherrSre, Scientific American)
> http://www.dieoff.org/page140.htm
> Oil Supply: The Crunch Has Arrived! (Brian Fleay, March 2000)
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/fleay/crunch.htm
> A New Energy Crisis: When Will We Ever Learn? (Campbell) (NEW!)
> http://dieoff.com/page202.htm
> After Oil (David Fleming)
>
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/highlights/essay_fleming/index.html
> Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies: Newsletters
> http://hubbert.mines.edu/
> Beyond Petroleum (Susan Bryce)
> http://newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Beyond_Petroleum.html
> Energy in the New Economy: The Limits to Growth (Matthew Simmons)
> http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research/doc/79.pdf
>
> NEWSGROUPS; CHAT
> Running On Empty (folksy; accessible)
> http://www.egroups.com/message/RunningOnEmpty/
> http://www.egroups.com/group/RunningOnEmpty/
> Yourdon Forum: Energy (folksy; accessible)
> http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdonfrm56
> Running On Empty Live Chat
> http://www.egroups.com/chat/RunningOnEmpty/
> Energy Resources (technical; high-level)
> http://www.egroups.com/message/EnergyResources/
> http://www.egroups.com/group/EnergyResources/
> Usenet: sci.geo.petroleum
> news:sci.geo.petroleum
> Usenet: sci.energy
> news:sci.energy
Mr. P:
You say you have doubts about whether new technologies could substitute
for what we are doing now. This, to me, is extraordinary pessimism.
Consider the negatives of mankind's use of fire. Now consider the variety of
technologies that have developed using some form of combustion (kitchen
stoves, steam turbines, infinite variety) . There is no one road. Where do
get your negative anticipatory certitude?
Your sources take the actions and abilities of a newborn infant, then make
linear-regression projections of what the adult can do -- giant loads of
massively loaded daipers to contend with, bigger and more powerful random
flailing of arms, louder adult-voiced crying, etc. Yet mankind's inventions
like the individual human organism itself does not develop linearly.
ANd can you question that Greens oppose hydroelectric power as well as
nuclear and new high-tech alternatives? You are from Michigan.
There is not much hydroelectric power in Michigan. In the state of
Washington big money flows to organizations that powerfully push to breach
the hydroelectric damns to "save the salmon" etc. -- even damns that have
been around since the 1930's.
Do you know of Washington State's late former scientist Democrat Governor
who once headed the atomic energy commission? She gave us plentiful cheap
atomic power. She was a real Democrat, she was laroucheian without
ties to questionable Mr. LaRouche himself, simply because she was
intelligent and rational and independent minded and of good-will. Dixy Lee
Ray's book, Trashing the Planet; How Science can Help Us Deal with Acid
Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things) that
answered Al Gore's book on, Earth in the Balance, on every demagogic
scare-tactic deceitful point. Later she went to the Rio conference --ever
wondered how that mighty conference just suddenly appeared on the scene with
no grass roots effort at all!! --who do you think has the power to make that
happen? -- and there she
successfully debunked the junk science and downright whole-cloth
disinformation behind the Rio treaty. She saw through the steamroller event
as a ruling-class sponsored NGO-pushed effort to carry out an anti-economic
negative-growth constraint upon for middle-class enterprise that competes
with global corporation monopolies and finance capitalism, the true power
behind the
anti-economic-development agenda
-- note I said anti-economic "development" rather than
anti-economic "growth" ; remember the linear-regression projection
prediction of what babies will become! -- growth is a coarse thing, but
development, in man and in man's instrumentalities, involves adaptation,
intelligence, precaution, intelligent avoidance as well as intelligent
attainment etc. The Green leadership, as professional political critics of
technology, are 1) biased anti-technology, 2) biased by funding from people
who with a self-aggrandizement agenda to prevent new technologies from
developing -- what happens to their oil monopoly if cheap hydrogen can
replace petrolium in transportation and industry, or if fusion can be
brought cheaply and safely on line (neither you or I know the true state of
the development of that technology -- but I do know that the advances that
were well known in the early 1970's are totally unheard of, blacked out, in
universities and the media today.
I'll bet you have never heard the argument of pro-technologists that if
technologies are allowed to develop, are allowed to pay off without the
prohibitive-cost-inflicting regulation and impact-studies etc etc etc, then
new and better technologies would constantly be replacing yesterday's
technology and mankind would have l) not so many eggs in one technology
basket, 2) no eggs in any one basket for very long -- i.e., maximum
dynamic adaptation.
Think of the advantages and the prospects for long term human survival and
long-term human habitat (i.e. earth biosphere) improvment for sustained
human welfare and happiness.
(Remember: I am speaking of the Green Party that the hireling
establishment-infiltrated leadership pushes -- not the sincere and
intelligent concern for the biosphere as humanity's continuing
habitat that you who are reading this shares with me.)
(Yes, the distinction pro-technologist vs. pro-environmentalist is valid,
environmentalist's are lobbyists and they are agitated , hidden-agenda
driven activists and voters -- AL Gore has been an agent cultivated to steer
this agitated mass and deliver it for the establishment (mostly big oil),
just as Rush Limbaugh has been cultivated and puffed to steer his mass for
the same interests -- delivering those otherwise populist votes to Bob DOle
and the Bushes rather than to Buchanan (Ike rather than Taft, Rockefeller
rather than Goldwater or (early, ideological) Reagan-- for big-shot
interests that are above the only-apparent differences between Bob Dole and
George Bush (either one) on one hand and Clinton and Gore on the other.
(Notice how Bush has, after a decent interval, fallen in on dealing with
North Korea, not providing the Aegis destroyers (what he did supply was
negligible junk) -- every day we see the same globalist status quo in
place -- I am watching what he offers in compromise with the Kyoto
agreements.) Environmentalism is controlled by the establishment through the
foundations, through the grant system, through the media which selects the
science stories it picks up, through the funding of academic chairs with
strings attached, and through the bullying tactics of agitator driven
(not-science driven) -- let's say agitated-junk-science driven kid's, who
like the idealistic Red Guards, tear down whatever their "leaders" point at.
(I hope they will not resent this characterization and refuse to listen to
this logic.)
Mr. G:
First, regarding hydroelectric?! I was not aware of opposition
to hydorelectric power, though I can imagine resistance in
certain select instances (i.e. when it would mean destruction
of an important habitat, etc.) Is that what you mean?
Mr. P:
Just name a habitat, take out the violins, carefully select the
"study" and you are in business as a middle-class business
destroyer, unbeknownst-to-you-on-behalf-of-corporations-
China-Trotsky-subversion etc. The spotted owl is a plentiful
bird in the Pacific Northwest -- but studies were "selected".
That, by the way, is how come it is so important the Establishment
to control the scientific-academic fields: to make sure that somone will
do the research that will after-the-fact support the pre-chosen direction
(i.e. zero-growth, zero-economic development (actually, lately,
negative growth and development) for the middle class) -- as
one female high-up Democrat operative/official was over heard
"we selected the research we wanted" which she immediately corrected
when she discovered that she had slipped and told the truth during her
Senate testimony -- I forget who it was, but I remember this further
confirmation of what I already knew. (I'm sorry but the females are most
gullible
and therefore most useful--Gore is tall, he says the right words, he does
the Maccarana, "I feel secure, he'll take care of me, unlike those selfish
rigid males who hate the furry little animals etc.etc." That's why women
almost never join the political discussions in the newsgroups -- all they
have are their clichés and they refuse to put them in jeopardy by testing
them -- a reluctance that no doubt keeps them on the Establishment's
hireling payrolls.)
Also "Green" is not the same as a biologist, ecologist, geo-scientist, or
naturalist. "Environmentalism" too is not stictly science; it is a
political movement.
And the Greens are a party -- with all of the same sociological
dynamics operating that causes every political interest group to eventually
become deflected by the moneyed interests, and every party to be used by the
those interests (by buying the guys at the top) to serve, clandestinely, a
hidden agenda for power and wealth for the few.
Look how anti-nuclear has played into the hands of the oil companies! Don't
look at the poverty of the suckers the agitators have rounded up -- and note
that it is the most dedicated idealist who ends up with the least capital to
work with -- in fact, the message is clear: go along with the junk science
or you will be out of academics and driving a taxi (or working at
Blockbuster).
Mr. G:
How can you possibly even dream that "Big money bankrolls
environmentalism? Please. If you are talking about the
Green Party, they have NO money, "big" or otherwise,
behind them. Everything they do is cash-starved and
shoestring. Where on earth do you get the idea that the greens
have big bucks?
Mr. P:
The greens have just the money they need --and no more-- to fulfill their
lobbying function for obtaining the precision self-aggrandizing legislation
the establishment wants. (When I say establishment I include both
the Trotskyites seeking the destruction of petty bourgeois wealth and
power from envy, and finance capitalism seeking to cut off at the knees all
middle-class competition from greed; that is, for their monopoly-power
rent-seeking highly-inefficient Dilbert-worlded transnational corporations
(all the
drawbacks of a Soviet command economy combined with all the
ruthlessness of of the East India Tea Company, The City and the
Conquestodores.
Mr. G:
To be sure, some environmental organizations
have significant operating budgets, probably running into
hundreds of millions per year, in sum. But certainly the
*oil monopolies*, for God's sake, not the Greens, are the
ones with the motive to keep alternative energy sources out
of the running.
Mr. P:
And what makes you think that these masters of manipulation
are going to keep to the little compartment you have put them
in? What makes you think they are not going to buy their oppostion;
not going to hire the slickest operatives they know (and have been
using all along to get where they are) and have those operatives
go after the leaders of the opposing "compartment" (i.e., the Green
organizations), buy off the leaders, isolate and eliminate the
true-believers who can't be bought (Blockbuster is waiting!) -- yet always
keep up the valuable capital that is the favorable public image and the
"good-will" of this "idealistic" corporation they have just silently taken
over -- in order to use that good will to promote thier own agenda -- while
the cause, becomes the hypocrisy!!!
Mr. G:
Welllll.... I have a muchly different take on the issue.
Mr. P:
Fair enough. And without you and the few at worldcity, none of the
thoughts I call my own would ever have been occasioned -- I would have long
ago succumbed to the intellectual death that should have followed from the
dirty dealings the establishment has employed to rid this idealist from the
organizations they have
sequestered to promote their agenda.
Mr. G:
Is it in the nature of late capitalistic decadence for
everyone to feel impotent?
Mr. P:
Not everyone. Unusual elevation of one must come at the
social cost of the degradation of others. Living off interest
requires others carrying the debt. The command requires
subservience. Not all men choose to be house servants when
they can own their own business in middle-class world -- you
cannot really feel like a powerful lord unless abject poverty
compells the masses to remove their hats in the slim hope of
finding your favor etc.
Mr. G.
Well, at least when you talk about new technologies
kept under lock and key you balme the gouging
"oil men" and not the Greens ... if there is indeed anything
under "lock and key", which there MIGHT be.
Mr. P:
It is too facile to say that I am a populist and you are a green and
never the twain shall meet. I am a green too, Alan -- can't you see the
anti-clandestine weather-modification activism as indicative of that -- or
am I just pegged an outlyer conspiracy theorist who invents his own? Again,
"a compartment for everybody" with no overlap?
The foundations and the grants and the politicalized university departments
elevate the politicals -- the AL Gore supporters -- while former Gov. Dixy
Lee Ray died unexpectedly of "natural causes" merely days after returning
from Rio.
TEST MY CONTENTION: Look at the Greens with money to spare -- were they for
Gore or for Nader; did they argue about "the wasted vote" etc, or did they
stand on sound science and the principle of total honesty? -- and of course
true science and total honesty are inseperable.
Are they no the ones who are totally unsceptical and uncritical about the
global warming predictions? and most certain about the anti-industrialist
solutions? and most adament about rolling back the economy rather than
upgrading the technology? (i.e. sceptical of developing and improving the
production system to be cleaner, more efficient, doing more with less etc.)
Mr. G:
You want me to test your contention that Green's have money to spare.
I don't know that any of them have "money to spare", at least
not from what I've seen. There are probably a few with family
money, no personal financial issues. As a group they are poor.
Most Greens went for Nader, but (predictably) a goodly portion
held to the "wasted vote" idea and went Gore. I was surprised
and gratified at how many of them repudiated -- really
repudiated, vigorously! -- the Democratic Party and Gore,
entirely. I still have a bunch of clippings from that period,
including some of the best and most inspiring thoughts along
those lines. (I also have many clippings illustrating the
utterly shameless, in my view, attack on the Greens from
Dem-sympathizers and sell-outs.) I never came so close to
joining the Green Party yet, and I may yet do so.
I was tempted at one point to disregard the Greens as "left
Democrats", using the fact that many of them actually DID vote
Democratic as ammo. But that is not a fair assessment of a mass
movement. Any mass movement is going to have a struggle on its
hands, with powerful forces moving both in the "realo" AND the
"fundo" direction. Likewise, on the right, I would expect many in
an insurgent Buchanan (or whatever) movement to "defect" at the
last moment ("wasted vote") to the Republicans; no point
excoriating them for that. It is to be expected.
Now, returning to your linear-regression prediction of giant babies
as an analogy for environmental forecasting. That is straw-man if there
ever was one. Indeed, it is the element -- TIME -- that is the most
significant. Anything CAN happen... over TIME. Not anything can happen at
any given moment (or should I say the likelihood becomes smaller and smaller
as the bigness and urgency of that thing increases).
Mr. P:
You have suggested that my confidence in man's ability to adapt to
ever-present
ever-changing environmental challenges when the restraining hand of global
governance --whether concealed in its environmentalist/ Mauthusian glove or
not , amounts to mystical optimism. But, Mr. G, there is also mystical a
paralyzing mystical pessimism.
But the fruitless taxonomic exercise of attributing optimism, pessimism,
mysticism, or hard-headed empiricism aside, I think there are important
discriminations you are not making.
You say you have used the human-potential-for-creativity argument for
years (i.e., this idea that social welfare is maximized when governance
allows market-coordinated entrepreneurs to seek profit from better
cost-effective products) -- of course first making the needed adjustments to
ensure that better-mousetrap-sensitive
fundamentals and not rapacious leveraged super-money speculation
and monopolist rent-seeking guides capital investment. If the original
American political system genius governs the market environment in which
society's resources are selectied, husbanded and organized there will obtain
salutary invisible-hand entrepreneurship and not finance-capitalist
legalized-mega-theft predation) like I say you are not opposed to proper
market-driven solutions as long as the legal-regulatory underpinnings of
market behaviro are such as to prevent harmful rent-seeking
efforts to "beat the system." And, of course, neither of us would exclude,
the freedom of members of society to use government to provide public goods
that private entrepreneurship, when given every opportunity, is failing to
provide.
(With needed reforms to correct for capture by special interests for
self-aggrandizing efforts that actually lead to a net loss of total
private-and-public social welfare (considering the distribution of costs and
benefits in the whole
picture.) (Nothing controversial between us here, I hope.)
But yet, you suggest that because of shortness of TIME this general
strategy is
inadequate, that mankind must be shut down and slowed down and moved to a
cut-back-so-as-to-be-sustainable (static, status quo) means of production,
to a sustainable organization of economic affairs, to sustainable economy,
to a sustainable environment -- in short to a steady-state economic-ecologic
equilibrium (so we won't have to worry anymore.)
May I suggest to you, that, on the contrary, your time argument actually
reinforces the (optimist's) argument for opening the floogates to nuclear
power creativity and other new energy research. The urgency of our problems
is all the more reason to remove the purly punitive
discouragement-intended
regulation, adn all the more reason for encouraging (LaRouchely) investment
to achieve greater "flux density" and BuckyFullerly "more with less."
Why?
Because all research-fed progress requires LEAD TIME. (That one sentence
should generate the flash of insight that introduction of temporal
considerations actually supports -- even clinches -- the
let's-not-impose-limits-to-development argument.)
You say:
> In the case of the energy picture, the TIME
> factor looms quite large. I take it as given that a great deal
> (if not ANYthing) is possible, and that creative and motivated
> humans can work minor miracles. BUT THERE ARE LIMITS.
> ESPECIALLY WHEN TIME IS LIMITED. AS IT IS.
What kind of urgency requires that you not think of new solutions.
What kind of urgency requires that you agree in advance to implement
anything you may think of in the future. Because thinking burns
calories and calories make the earth too hot. ANd implimenting what you
think of takes a great deal more calories and is therefore even worse. And
it is too close to being too hot right now to afford any leeway on this or
even to debate it. --- No, this is not a "straw man" representation of your
position, rather it is a simplified model of one shcool of "PC" Greed
thinking needed to organize the analysis that follows. :-|
Now, at any time "t", man must be looking ahead not only to meet
the short-term exigency --and, of course, rapacious finance-capitalism is
only
concerned with short-term profit -- although the discounted present-value
of long-term investment projects is considered-- but only in the most coarse
and crude way, crude ideas of efficiency as, for example, extremely myopic
long-range view that slave wages are cheaper than union scale and that
therefore long-run shifts of all our industrial capital to China is a good
idea etc. -- how stupid! and how like the intrinsic incompetence of
the central planning of old soviet-style command that financie capitalism
and transnational corporation CEO's in so many critical ways resemble.
Well, as I was saying, at any time, "t", mankind, through its creative and
its entrepreneural and its statesman minds, must be looking ahead not only
to
meet the short-term , but also to meet the medium-term and the longer-term
requirements/opportunities.
We both understand that this is not the forte of finance capitalism.
In fact, when agents of the intelligent,
long-term-standard-of-living-committed middle-classes (i.e., the petty
bourgeois, the populist-and-sincere-green valued masses) direct the
economic system , they always take the future into account (through their
plans and aspirations and through the economic valuation of future events at
their discounted present value).
No one looks to the future like the middle class, they are the ones who own
a piece of the land, and who never consider moving to another country as an
option when things go bad etc. You will notice that in every power play of
the elites to get the middle classes to surrender more economic power to
them, the resort is always to some emergency that requires extraordinary
(ursurping and confiscatory) measures.
So, the globalists (financial sector) are not really looking to maximize the
standard of living over time of the general population (of the household
sector ),
only the household sector itself does that well.
(Also, run-of-the-mill politicians (in contrast to the humanitarian
statesman) is also generally too short-sighted, thinking only to the next
election, or to the string of elections expected in their anticipated
careers).
At any rate, the inevitable constraints of Required Lead Time should compell
us
to free up the research, to begin innovation, encourage start-up, to shorten
the development process and invest heavily in energy innovation
-- and not simply to throttle the very system from which innovation comes
(cutting back back on energy consumption, banning technologies,
restricting and taxing BTUs, permiting the suppression of research and the
sitting-on of energy technology innovation patents (because they are less
profitable for corporations in the sense that they represent the opportunity
cost of the status quo hydrocarbon-based energy rents that the energy
cartel would be forced to forego.).
If there are lead times required for the important survival-serving
innovations, then we had better be getting started. The worst thing is to
say -- "Gee, this won't be ready in time-- global warming will have killed
us all long before any
of this can have effect," (in the extreme of this kind reasoning -- which is
really the disinformation line of the monopolist's
"environmentalism-fronted" mouthpieces who lobby for barriers to entry
preventing the innovation that will
save the day. (They don't want the day saved for the middle class, or for
the non-globalist way of life.)
> I note ....
> the substantive points that I made about implementation of new
> technologies, etc. In the case of the energy picture, the TIME
> factor looms quite large. I take it as given that a great deal
> (if not ANYthing) is possible, and that creative and motivated
> humans can work minor miracles. BUT THERE ARE LIMITS.
> ESPECIALLY WHEN TIME IS LIMITED. AS IT IS.
> So, the ruling-class is pushing an anti-DEVELOPMENT agenda,
> but not an anti-GROWTH agenda? Or both?
Both. While it is the anti-development agenda that is most important, it
is the anti-"growth" agenda, that is easiest to sell. In fact they
carefully conceal the fact that that the "development" baby goes out with
the "growth" bathwater.)
They insist, roughly speaking, that hydrocarbon fueled growth is going to
ruin
the biosphere before cleaner technologies can appear -- so we must
throttle growth now And my reply, roughly speaking, is that it is not
just growth you are throttling, it is human adaptation, human adaptability,
the rate of human adaptability, the capacity of human adaptability, the
lead-time of human adaptability as well. (You are aware that elsewhere I
have called this lobbying operation economic sabotage through disinformation
warfare -- and possibly an act of hostility by a Trotskyite-Zhouist alliance
of enemies of what America once stood for.)
>
> > critics of technology, are 1) biased anti-technology, 2)
> > biased by funding from people who with a self-aggrandizement
> > agenda to prevent new technologies from developing.
>
> Everyone is biased, Dick. I take that as given, the "base-
> line".
Skinner's rats are biased towards food, but it is the incentive system that
determines whether the rat will just walk up to the dish and eat, or whether
it will
instead push a ball down a runway, climb a latter, push a lever, jump unto a
platform, push a button when a light turns green, and do half a dozen other
things first. Forget "bias", and instead look at consequences of actions,
follow the money, see who is getting reinforced for doing what (and for not
doing what).
> Have you considered the ways in which those on the other side
> of this thing are biased (toward pro-growth, no-limits, etc.)?
It is a trick of rhetoric you are pulling here, are you aware of it?
You are appealing to this argument: ( Supply Cheech and Chong accent as you
read):
"Hey man. You got biases. I got biases. Hey, its 50-50 , man! You're not
being fair, man. It's 50-50, you know?"
No, not QED, but still, the guy who brings up the fact that everyone has
biases is usually CLOSED MINDED and AVOIDING THE CONTENT OF THE OTHER GUYS
ARGUMENT.
The fact is that "bias" is intrinsic to all purposive behavior. To call a
guy biased is like telling a swimmer going up against you in a race and just
waiting for the starting gun, "I've noticed that your feet always start
kicking before you hit the water."
Purpose is bias. ANd there is not such thing as bias in the sense of
systematic error in our behavior -- there is no survival value in not
perfectly apprehending the truth of a situation in all its ramifications. No
species could make it with any bias that deviates from an accurate
understanding of how the environment really is working at a given moment.
Our learning does not lean. If we think otherwise we have reasons for
thinking otherwise, not biases.
We may have favoritism, but we know when we are cheating to make sure that
our dear favorite wins. The bias that results from preference and emotional
conditioning, is not intellectual bias. Intellectual bias does not exist.
(It is a species of Marxism which you have fallen into -- the view that each
class or interest group has its own logic. There is a name for this fallacy
of yours, it is called polylogism. It does not exist. We all learn like
Skinner and Pavlov have described, not like Marx or Hegel would have had you
believe.
I CUT THIS HERE -- BUT CONCLUDE AGAIN WITH CFR KISSINGER:
"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to
restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if
they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or
promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples
of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this
scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee
of their well being granted to them by their world government."
I share this, not so you will wilt and give up, but so you will distrust all
grafts not originally growing from the grass root.
Again my apologies for Alan Lewis, for using portions of our correspondence
to promote my own analysis.
Best wishes for a better future through electricity,
Dick Eastman
Dick Eastman
Dick Eastman
this thread.
#1:
MEDIA DECEIVE ON GLOBAL WARMING
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
June 26, 2001
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2001/06/26.html
When the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on global warming
on June 6, responding to questions posed by the White House, the news media
gave it big play. A long story in the New York Times included only one brief
quote from the summary of the report by eleven atmospheric scientists. It
said, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."
That gave the impression that even Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., a
prominent global warming skeptic, had suddenly flipped and endorsed the
theory that human activity is causing the earth to overheat. CNN said the
panel agreed unanimously. Dr. Lindzen denied this in a column in the Wall
Street Journal. He said the Academy had asked that the report present a
range of views, and that there was no consensus, unanimous or otherwise,
about long-term climate trends and what caused them.
That same day, the lead story on page one of the New York Times
claimed that the U.S. has fallen behind Europe and Japan in our "ability to
simulate and predict long-term shifts in climate." It said that our
researchers have to go abroad "to find computers capable of handling their
most ambitious climate analyses." This was an obvious plant by U.S.
climatologists who want the government to give them more money to carry out
their efforts to prove that we are all in grave danger if we don't take
immediate action to slow down the rise in the earth's temperature.
None of the stories we saw mentioned that eighteen months ago another
panel of climatologists convened by the National Research Council had issued
a report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two decades the rise i
n the earth's temperature was greater than the average for the past 100
years. But it also said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending six
to nine miles above the earth's surface showed little if any warming. The
global warming theory does not allow for differences in the temperature
trends on the surface and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat up
together.
The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for the believers
in global warming. It said: "Major advances in the ability to interpret and
model the subtle variations in the vertical temperature profile of the lower
atmosphere" are needed. In other words, they need to figure out how the
earth's surface can be heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere
are not.
The same problem was discussed in Germany by scientists from the world
's leading climate research centers. A German newspaper said they had been
unable to figure out why there was a clear warming of the lower atmosphere
while satellite measurements showed a mild cooling of the middle air layers.
The most comprehensive climate model of the famous Max Planck Institute
could not explain the differences between surface and satellite data. And
they still can't, despite their supercomputers. Here's a simple answer. The
satellite data are more comprehensive and more accurate. The earth is not
overheating.
#2:
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty died recently. His involvement in many aspects of
our strategic planning equipped him with knowledge and insights that few men
ever attain. You have been told that petroleum is the hydrocarbon fossil
product of ancient vegetation that has been buried in sediments before it
can be destroyed by oxidation, then heated and transformed by slow chemical
reactions, then trapped for preservation by folding or faulting -- it is
a story the oil companies want you to keep believing.
-------------------------------
Greasing the Palms of the Oil Barons
by L. Fletcher Prouty
In the first place what is oil? Is it 85% carbon, 13% hydrogen and 0.5%
oxygen with traces of sulfur and nitrogen. Most geochemists ( in the pay of
oil companies) believe that the oil originates from the decomposition of
organic matter. They would have us believe that because organic matter -
that is, formerly living organisms - is quantifiably a very limited source,
the supply of oil itself must be limited.
It is not.
Oil is often called a "fossil" fuel; the idea being that it comes from
formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells
were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great
quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level
of any fossils. How could then could oil have come from fossils, or
decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below
layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not
come from living matter at all!
Furthermore, if all the plants, insects and animals that ever lived were all
squeezed into a massive ooze, there is no way they could have amounted to
the volume of oil that has been found to date. They just would not make that
much juice. On top of this, oil geochemists will admit, if pressed, that if
all the oil wells ever drilled by their so - called scientific methods of
divining had been drilled totally at random, they would have found as much
oil with random drilling as by " educated " drilling. In other words, there
is a lot of oil down there.....most everywhere. Just drill for it - and if
you don't strike it, drill a little deeper.
There can only be one answer to the misinformation we have about oil. The
oil men have always wanted a monopoly control, and with it, they want to
charge as much money as they can for every gallon of gasoline. With this,
they gross hundreds of billions of dollars per - year. They want us to
believe that our present rate of oil consumption, we have possibly 20 to 30
years before we run out. They make this sound credible with their "
decomposed organic matter" fable.
By bursting this bubble and pulling the plug on this scenario, we discover
that petroleum is a natural organic product that is rising, in enormous
quantities , from deep within the earth; with deeper drilling, as
wildcatters are already doing, there will adequate oil for a long, long
time, even at the present rate of consumption.
>From 1956 to 1971, the number of giant oil fields more than doubled as
drills go deep into the Paleozoic strata and below. Today, there is a glut
on the market, and those who control oil are doing all they can to limit
production in order to keep the prices very high. To do this, they get a lot
of government help.
Shortly before William J. Casey became the head of the CIA, he made a speech
before the American Bar Association during which he advocated "
international agreements to establish commodity reserves and maintain
prices". This is the kind of policy oil men like. At the same conference,
Hans Heymann, one of Casey's deputies at the CIA, talked about the "enormous
oil inventory building that we've had", and that " we (CIA) developed a
system of institutions and codes of conduct that make it far easier for
those who influence the international marketplace to exercise that
influence". It is " those who influence the marketplace" who are the oil
barons, and they are taking us for hundreds of billions of dollars every
year - with the aid of almost all Western governments.
L. Fletcher Prouty
http://astridmm.com/prouty/coment13.html
----------------------------------------------
Water
by L. Fletcher Prouty
" Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink". In this day and age
doesn't it sound absolutely ridiculous for the people of any of our large
cities to fear a water shortage? As your good writer (Robert D. Adams,
Letters, June 17) has said, " Most large cities are seacoast metropolis
locations". All they have to do is have the brains, the guts and the
political purpose to use it. Let me recount a brief story.
In November 1963, when I was Chief of Special Operations with the Joint
Staff in the Pentagon. I was sent to Antarctica with a large group of VIPs
industrialists, newsmen, and others. We went there to witness a most
important event. A small nuclear plant was going to be activated at the Navy
Base of the shore of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica; and from that moment on all
water, all heat, and all electricity for that huge scientific establishment
was going to provided by that tiny, inconspicuous nuclear plant.
The marvel of it was that we saw this unit activated. We saw the electricity
come on, we felt the heat and in short time we bathed in and drank pure
water from the ocean that had been desalinated by this plant. Meanwhile, on
the foothills above the base a field of oil tanks were shut off; and for 10
years that base did not draw on those tanks for another barrel of petroleum.
Ten years, that was from 1963 to 1973. We all recall that 1973 was the year
of the "Gas Lines" the "Oil Shortage", the "Energy Crisis", and all of the
dire predictions that were certain to befall this great consumer nation as
soon as that "last barrel" of petroleum had been pumped from the sand domes.
So: In 1973 someone was sent to McMurdo Sound to that scientific base and he
shut off that wonderful little nuclear plant and took it away. The oil
barons were afraid that the penguins might talk.
For half of every year, Antarctica is cut off from the rest of the world.
The Navy's job of supporting that base and its vast scientific programs
becomes bigger. Petroleum for diesel is shipped across thousands of miles of
glacial terrain, and inland stations must be resupplied by air. Since a
two-year fuel supply for that nuclear plant, a Martin Marietta PM-3A, is no
larger than a single oil drum, the logistical advantage was obvious. That
single PM-3A core replaced millions of gallons of diesel fuel. The PM 3-A's
electrical output was five times the normal load which was being carried by
diesel generators before its installation. It was most efficient.
The entire nuclear plant was installed in three small buildings less than
the size of three ordinary dairy barns, above ground. The nuclear element
was at the bottom of a hole about 180 feet deep where it could not bother or
be dangerous to anyone. It was remote from, but in sight of, the main
station. The plan in 1963 was to install other such facilities all over
Antarctica in remote facilities, including the "under-ice" station at the
South Pole Station itself.
http://astridmm.com/prouty/comment4.html
The next question really is unnecessary. "Why, oh why, when we have seen
such magnificent things done well, productively and safely with nuclear
energy, have these most successful units been withdrawn and hidden from
view"? How ridiculous can things get?
There is no reason why such tiny facilities can not be placed all along the
South California shoreline to produce cheaply and reliably all the pure,
desalinated water needed for all the people and for the irrigation of all
the farms in the area.
I am not talking about something that can be designed such as a Space
Station or a trip to Mars. This was done in 1963, and operated flawlessly
for 10 years. I was at McMurdo when that switch was thrown and that nuclear
plant went into action. I was there with officials from Kennedy White House,
with congressmen and with industrial leaders. We all know what it did then
and what it can do now.
We do not need Mr. McAdams' proposed $10,000,000 to come up with a method of
producing potable water. We know how to do it on a large scale. All we need
is the brains, the courage to fight the oil barons and their political
puppets, and the good old American brand of ingenuity that stops at
nothing....nothing at all.....for the good of man.
L. Fletcher Prouty
-----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
When a man looks at the condition of his countrymen today it is not obvious
how much better the world would have been without the planetary disease of
finance globalism. We can not see the cost that our deviant ruling elites
have inflicted upon the households of this planet.This essay is intended to
partially remedy that blindness.
---------
#3:
YOU SAY THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE STOLEN YOUR FUTURE?
by Dick Eastman
It is a bitter pill for middle-class baby boomers that their parents
are dying without seeing the fabulous future which they once reasonably
expected would emerge, certainly by now, from their years of collective
sacrifice and toil.
No one can deny that some marvels have been developed more or less as
predicted fifty years ago. Consider, for example, the ease, speed and
reliability with which computers gain access to incredibly informative
websites and newsgroups . Nevertheless, one need only peruse a few
old magazines to see how very far today's world falls short of the old
prospective "World of Tomorrow" our parents and grandparents were living to
see.
Pick up a 1968 edition of McCall's magazine and you will find the
entry form for a chance to win a voucher for an all-expense-paid trip to
the moon with first-class lunar hotel accommodations, redeemable in 2001.
Open a 1950ıs copy of Forbes and read John von Neumann predicting that by
1980 all power likely would be virtually costless and that by 2000 the
weather would be scientifically tamed for the benefit of farmers
everywhere--not bothering to consider the use international commodity
speculators might make of such technology if they secretly got it first.
Gaze at the fascinating cover art of an old issue of Popular Mechanics and
read the caption: "Robots will be Waiting on You by 1970." Finally--if the
poignancy is not already too much--peer into a 1966 issue of American Home
and find the following:
"By the turn of the next century only 10 percent
of us will be engaged in 'work.' The computer
and automation will relieve us of drudgery and
allow 90 percent to spend time on whatever pleases
them. The machines will do the work, create the
wealth which will allow every family to follow the
leisure path.
"...the computer-financed economy will provide
families with a guaranteed annual income, with
cash to buy their own computer system.
"...One expert has predicted, ıWith the machines
taking on the tasks that now that now consume all
but a fragment of our days, we will be free to
undertake completely new tasks, most of them
directed to perfecting ourselves, creating beauty,
understanding one another better.ı²
"Certainly opportunities for further education,
development of talents in art, music, design,
writing, will proliferate. The home-centered
skills--gardening, cooking, sewing--will be
approached not as make-work but as great works.
...We will want to create our own art forms
and become artists at home."
How tragic that the average American adult today has 30 percent less
leisure time than the day those words were written; that at this moment
millions of people, too tired and otherwise constrained to enjoy once normal
social lives, fill their spare minutes with autistic sexuality (catch the
euphemism here) fanned by curvacious pattens flashing on cathode-ray tubes
or by hot-button words carried over Alexander Graham Bell's somewhat older
invention, as the controlling few rake in the cash. The mind simply
boggles at this and plentiful other evidence of the gigantic larceny that,
blasting all dreams of futurity, has plunged the worldıs middle classes
into todayıs debt-slavery backwash; the predictably non-utopian result of
trying to tread standard-of-living water in foredoomed labor-service
competition with the throw-away New Coolies of the billionairesı 'global
plantation.'
How is it that we have inherited this world that we never wanted, a
world more resembling C.M. Kornbluth's vision (in his 1953 novel, The
Syndic) of a society shaped and directed by organized-crime and aiming only
at affording maximum individual sovereignty to its ³friends?² ('Individual
sovereignty' is Lord Rees-Mogg's honorific term for the liberty of
billionaires no longer bridled by governments of the people, by the
people,... etc.) What happened?
Ironically enough, it was H.G. Wells, the twentieth century's leading
apostle of Mankind's potential for a limitless future, who 50 years ago
fully answered that question. During the first half of this century he
assiduously championed the idea of 'putting things in order' for the speedy
attainment of a highly desirable worldwide scientific utopia. But Wells was
also a well-connected and astute more-populist-than-Fabian social critic and
the first popularizer of nonchauvinistic history from a species perspective,
a vantage point from which he eventually came to see the
darker fate overtaking his civilization. His last two books, are,
unfortunately, his most prophetic.
In his 1939 book, The Future of Man (in the USA; it is The Future of
Homo Sapiens elsewhere), Wells explained how the Anglo-American elites had
recently grabbed the reigns of the collapsing liberalized world order of his
time--that great, good, but never-fully perfected achievement of
nineteenth-century optimism and good will-- and did so for their own
self-serving-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else ends:
"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to
recognize, a system of government almost completely
out of popular control. Practically it has undergone
a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and a
loose-knit combination of court, church, army and
wealth, intensely class conscience, intensely
self-protective, has resumed control of affairs. It
is an oligarchy skillful in assimilation of useful
or formidable individuals but without the slightest
disposition to amalgamate with anything else on
earth. Its ruling motive is fear of dispossession.
Decisions of peace and war are made without
consulting any surviving popular will, and the
whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio
and indeed all possible means of influencing
opinion, concentrate upon the assertion of the
rightness and inevitableness of these decisions.
Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking,
and any inconvenient facts are kept from the
public by requests for suppression that are in
effect commands."
Such a development, spells death to any hope of the majority of mankind
to live any kind of rewarding personal-achievement oriented middle-class
life. In his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether (1945), Wells 'signs
off' with these words:
"Homo Sapiens in his present form is played out. The
stars in their courses have turned against him and he
has to give place to some other animal better adopted
to face the fate that closes in more swiftly upon
mankind. ...The cinema sheet (i.e., screen --DE) stares
us in the face... Our loves, our hates, our wars and
battles are no more than phantasmagoria dancing on
that fabric, themselves as unsubstantiated as a dream.
...There is no way through the impasse. It will be
the Dark Ages over again, a planetary instead of a
European Dark Ages. ...Mankind, which began in a
cave and behind a windbreak, will end in the
disease-soaked ruins of a slum."
The point of the present essay is not, as Well's final words might
suggest, that we give up and trust fabled space aliens to genetically
engineer mankind's more-promising replacement. Nor is it that we must
avenge our betrayed parents by killing off the billionaires, as not a few
today doubtless privately contemplate. Rather, we must attack the root of
why our future was lost and do what must be done to get it back again. To
that end I conclude with these words, written at about the same time as
those of Wellıs above, the creed of a little man who excelled even Wells as
a true friend of mankindıs future:
"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by
effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but
by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching
them to non-cooperate with their exploiters.²
"The moment the slave resolves that he will no
longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees
himself and shows the way to others. Freedom
and slavery are mental states. Therefore the
first thing is to say to yourself, ıI shall no
longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not
obey orders as such but shall disobey when they
are in conflict with my conscience.O The
so-called master may lash you and try to force
you to serve him. You may say, ³No, I will not
serve you for your money or under threat.² This
may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will
light the torch of freedom which will never be put
out."
Certainly there is unfailing hope for a future in that.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
United States
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Here are three items to reinforce the preceding message to
this thread.
#1:
MEDIA DECEIVE ON GLOBAL WARMING
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
June 26, 2001
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2001/06/26.html
When the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on global warming
on June 6, responding to questions posed by the White House, the news media
gave it big play. A long story in the New York Times included only one brief
quote from the summary of the report by eleven atmospheric scientists. It
said, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."
That gave the impression that even Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., a
prominent global warming skeptic, had suddenly flipped and endorsed the
theory that human activity is causing the earth to overheat. CNN said the
panel agreed unanimously. Dr. Lindzen denied this in a column in the Wall
Street Journal. He said the Academy had asked that the report present a
range of views, and that there was no consensus, unanimous or otherwise,
about long-term climate trends and what caused them.
That same day, the lead story on page one of the New York Times
claimed that the U.S. has fallen behind Europe and Japan in our "ability to
simulate and predict long-term shifts in climate." It said that our
researchers have to go abroad "to find computers capable of handling their
most ambitious climate analyses." This was an obvious plant by U.S.
climatologists who want the government to give them more money to carry out
their efforts to prove that we are all in grave danger if we don't take
immediate action to slow down the rise in the earth's temperature.
None of the stories we saw mentioned that eighteen months ago another
panel of climatologists convened by the National Research Council had issued
a report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two decades the rise
in the earth's temperature was greater than the average for the past 100
years. But it also said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending six
to nine miles above the earth's surface showed little if any warming. The
global warming theory does not allow for differences in the temperature
trends on the surface and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat up
together.
The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for the believers
in global warming. It said: "Major advances in the ability to interpret and
model the subtle variations in the vertical temperature profile of the lower
atmosphere" are needed. In other words, they need to figure out how the
earth's surface can be heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere
are not.
The same problem was discussed in Germany by scientists from the world
's leading climate research centers. A German newspaper said they had been
unable to figure out why there was a clear warming of the lower atmosphere
while satellite measurements showed a mild cooling of the middle air layers.
The most comprehensive climate model of the famous Max Planck Institute
could not explain the differences between surface and satellite data. And
they still can't, despite their supercomputers. Here's a simple answer. The
satellite data are more comprehensive and more accurate. The earth is not
overheating.
#2:
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty died recently. His involvement in many aspects of
our strategic planning equipped him with knowledge and insights that few men
ever attain. You have been told that petroleum is the hydrocarbon fossil
product of ancient vegetation that has been buried in sediments before it
can be destroyed by oxidation, then heated and transformed by slow chemical
reactions, then trapped for preservation by folding or faulting -- it is
a story the oil companies want you to keep believing.
-------------------------------
Greasing the Palms of the Oil Barons
by L. Fletcher Prouty
In the first place what is oil? Is it 85% carbon, 13% hydrogen and 0.5%
oxygen with traces of sulfur and nitrogen. Most geochemists ( in the pay of
oil companies) believe that the oil originates from the decomposition of
organic matter. They would have us believe that because organic matter -
that is, formerly living organisms - is quantifiably a very limited source,
the supply of oil itself must be limited.
It is not.
Oil is often called a "fossil" fuel; the idea being that it comes from
formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells
were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great
quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level
of any fossils. How could then could oil have come from fossils, or
decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below
layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not
come from living matter at all!
Furthermore, if all the plants, insects and animals that ever lived were all
squeezed into a massive ooze, there is no way they could have amounted to
the volume of oil that has been found to date. They just would not make that
much juice. On top of this, oil geochemists will admit, if pressed, that if
all the oil wells ever drilled by their so - called scientific methods of
divining had been drilled totally at random, they would have found as much
oil with random drilling as by " educated " drilling. In other words, there
is a lot of oil down there.....most everywhere. Just drill for it - and if
you don't strike it, drill a little deeper.
There can only be one answer to the misinformation we have about oil. The
oil men have always wanted a monopoly control, and with it, they want to
charge as much money as they can for every gallon of gasoline. With this,
they gross hundreds of billions of dollars per - year. They want us to
believe that our present rate of oil consumption, we have possibly 20 to 30
years before we run out. They make this sound credible with their "
decomposed organic matter" fable.
By bursting this bubble and pulling the plug on this scenario, we discover
that petroleum is a natural organic product that is rising, in enormous
quantities , from deep within the earth; with deeper drilling, as
wildcatters are already doing, there will adequate oil for a long, long
time, even at the present rate of consumption.
>From 1956 to 1971, the number of giant oil fields more than doubled as
drills go deep into the Paleozoic strata and below. Today, there is a glut
on the market, and those who control oil are doing all they can to limit
production in order to keep the prices very high. To do this, they get a lot
of government help.
Shortly before William J. Casey became the head of the CIA, he made a speech
before the American Bar Association during which he advocated "
international agreements to establish commodity reserves and maintain
prices". This is the kind of policy oil men like. At the same conference,
Hans Heymann, one of Casey's deputies at the CIA, talked about the "enormous
oil inventory building that we've had", and that " we (CIA) developed a
system of institutions and codes of conduct that make it far easier for
those who influence the international marketplace to exercise that
influence". It is " those who influence the marketplace" who are the oil
barons, and they are taking us for hundreds of billions of dollars every
year - with the aid of almost all Western governments.
L. Fletcher Prouty
http://astridmm.com/prouty/coment13.html
----------------------------------------------
Water
by L. Fletcher Prouty
" Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink". In this day and age
doesn't it sound absolutely ridiculous for the people of any of our large
cities to fear a water shortage? As your good writer (Robert D. Adams,
Letters, June 17) has said, " Most large cities are seacoast metropolis
locations". All they have to do is have the brains, the guts and the
political purpose to use it. Let me recount a brief story.
In November 1963, when I was Chief of Special Operations with the Joint
Staff in the Pentagon. I was sent to Antarctica with a large group of VIPs
industrialists, newsmen, and others. We went there to witness a most
important event. A small nuclear plant was going to be activated at the Navy
Base of the shore of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica; and from that moment on all
water, all heat, and all electricity for that huge scientific establishment
was going to provided by that tiny, inconspicuous nuclear plant.
The marvel of it was that we saw this unit activated. We saw the electricity
come on, we felt the heat and in short time we bathed in and drank pure
water from the ocean that had been desalinated by this plant. Meanwhile, on
the foothills above the base a field of oil tanks were shut off; and for 10
years that base did not draw on those tanks for another barrel of petroleum.
Ten years, that was from 1963 to 1973. We all recall that 1973 was the year
of the "Gas Lines" the "Oil Shortage", the "Energy Crisis", and all of the
dire predictions that were certain to befall this great consumer nation as
soon as that "last barrel" of petroleum had been pumped from the sand domes.
So: In 1973 someone was sent to McMurdo Sound to that scientific base and he
shut off that wonderful little nuclear plant and took it away. The oil
barons were afraid that the penguins might talk.
For half of every year, Antarctica is cut off from the rest of the world.
The Navy's job of supporting that base and its vast scientific programs
becomes bigger. Petroleum for diesel is shipped across thousands of miles of
glacial terrain, and inland stations must be resupplied by air. Since a
two-year fuel supply for that nuclear plant, a Martin Marietta PM-3A, is no
larger than a single oil drum, the logistical advantage was obvious. That
single PM-3A core replaced millions of gallons of diesel fuel. The PM 3-A's
electrical output was five times the normal load which was being carried by
diesel generators before its installation. It was most efficient.
The entire nuclear plant was installed in three small buildings less than
the size of three ordinary dairy barns, above ground. The nuclear element
was at the bottom of a hole about 180 feet deep where it could not bother or
be dangerous to anyone. It was remote from, but in sight of, the main
station. The plan in 1963 was to install other such facilities all over
Antarctica in remote facilities, including the "under-ice" station at the
South Pole Station itself.
http://astridmm.com/prouty/comment4.html
The next question really is unnecessary. "Why, oh why, when we have seen
such magnificent things done well, productively and safely with nuclear
energy, have these most successful units been withdrawn and hidden from
view"? How ridiculous can things get?
There is no reason why such tiny facilities can not be placed all along the
South California shoreline to produce cheaply and reliably all the pure,
desalinated water needed for all the people and for the irrigation of all
the farms in the area.
I am not talking about something that can be designed such as a Space
Station or a trip to Mars. This was done in 1963, and operated flawlessly
for 10 years. I was at McMurdo when that switch was thrown and that nuclear
plant went into action. I was there with officials from Kennedy White House,
with congressmen and with industrial leaders. We all know what it did then
and what it can do now.
We do not need Mr. McAdams' proposed $10,000,000 to come up with a method of
producing potable water. We know how to do it on a large scale. All we need
is the brains, the courage to fight the oil barons and their political
puppets, and the good old American brand of ingenuity that stops at
nothing....nothing at all.....for the good of man.
L. Fletcher Prouty
-----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
When a man looks at the condition of his countrymen today it is not obvious
how much better the world would have been without the planetary disease of
finance globalism. We can not see the cost that our deviant ruling elites
have inflicted upon the households of this planet.This essay is intended to
partially remedy that blindness.
---------
#3:
YOU SAY THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE STOLEN YOUR FUTURE?
by Dick Eastman
It is a bitter pill for middle-class baby boomers that their parents
are dying without seeing the fabulous future which they once reasonably
expected would emerge, certainly by now, from their years of collective
sacrifice and toil.
No one can deny that some marvels have been developed more or less as
predicted fifty years ago. Consider, for example, the ease, speed and
reliability with which computers gain access to incredibly informative
websites and newsgroups . Nevertheless, one need only peruse a few
old magazines to see how very far today's world falls short of the old
prospective "World of Tomorrow" our parents and grandparents were living to
see.
Pick up a 1968 edition of McCall's magazine and you will find the
entry form for a chance to win a voucher for an all-expense-paid trip to
the moon with first-class lunar hotel accommodations, redeemable in 2001.
Open a 1950ıs copy of Forbes and read John von Neumann predicting that by
1980 all power likely would be virtually costless and that by 2000 the
weather would be scientifically tamed for the benefit of farmers
everywhere--not bothering to consider the use international commodity
speculators might make of such technology if they secretly got it first.
Gaze at the fascinating cover art of an old issue of Popular Mechanics and
read the caption: "Robots will be Waiting on You by 1970." Finally--if the
poignancy is not already too much--peer into a 1966 issue of American Home
and find the following:
"By the turn of the next century only 10 percent
of us will be engaged in 'work.' The computer
and automation will relieve us of drudgery and
allow 90 percent to spend time on whatever pleases
them. The machines will do the work, create the
wealth which will allow every family to follow the
leisure path.
"...the computer-financed economy will provide
families with a guaranteed annual income, with
cash to buy their own computer system.
"...One expert has predicted, ıWith the machines
taking on the tasks that now that now consume all
but a fragment of our days, we will be free to
undertake completely new tasks, most of them
directed to perfecting ourselves, creating beauty,
understanding one another better.ı²
"Certainly opportunities for further education,
development of talents in art, music, design,
writing, will proliferate. The home-centered
skills--gardening, cooking, sewing--will be
approached not as make-work but as great works.
...We will want to create our own art forms
and become artists at home."
How tragic that the average American adult today has 30 percent less
leisure time than the day those words were written; that at this moment
millions of people, too tired and otherwise constrained to enjoy once normal
social lives, fill their spare minutes with autistic sexuality (catch the
euphemism here) fanned by curvacious pattens flashing on cathode-ray tubes
or by hot-button words carried over Alexander Graham Bell's somewhat older
invention, as the controlling few rake in the cash. The mind simply
boggles at this and plentiful other evidence of the gigantic larceny that,
blasting all dreams of futurity, has plunged the worldıs middle classes
into todayıs debt-slavery backwash; the predictably non-utopian result of
trying to tread standard-of-living water in foredoomed labor-service
competition with the throw-away New Coolies of the billionairesı 'global
plantation.'
How is it that we have inherited this world that we never wanted, a
world more resembling C.M. Kornbluth's vision (in his 1953 novel, The
Syndic) of a society shaped and directed by organized-crime and aiming only
at affording maximum individual sovereignty to its ³friends?² ('Individual
sovereignty' is Lord Rees-Mogg's honorific term for the liberty of
billionaires no longer bridled by governments of the people, by the
people,... etc.) What happened?
Ironically enough, it was H.G. Wells, the twentieth century's leading
apostle of Mankind's potential for a limitless future, who 50 years ago
fully answered that question. During the first half of this century he
assiduously championed the idea of 'putting things in order' for the speedy
attainment of a highly desirable worldwide scientific utopia. But Wells was
also a well-connected and astute more-populist-than-Fabian social critic and
the first popularizer of nonchauvinistic history from a species perspective,
a vantage point from which he eventually came to see the
darker fate overtaking his civilization. His last two books, are,
unfortunately, his most prophetic.
In his 1939 book, The Future of Man (in the USA; it is The Future of
Homo Sapiens elsewhere), Wells explained how the Anglo-American elites had
recently grabbed the reigns of the collapsing liberalized world order of his
time--that great, good, but never-fully perfected achievement of
nineteenth-century optimism and good will-- and did so for their own
self-serving-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else ends:
"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to
recognize, a system of government almost completely
out of popular control. Practically it has undergone
a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and a
loose-knit combination of court, church, army and
wealth, intensely class conscience, intensely
self-protective, has resumed control of affairs. It
is an oligarchy skillful in assimilation of useful
or formidable individuals but without the slightest
disposition to amalgamate with anything else on
earth. Its ruling motive is fear of dispossession.
Decisions of peace and war are made without
consulting any surviving popular will, and the
whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio
and indeed all possible means of influencing
opinion, concentrate upon the assertion of the
rightness and inevitableness of these decisions.
Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking,
and any inconvenient facts are kept from the
public by requests for suppression that are in
effect commands."
Such a development, spells death to any hope of the majority of mankind
to live any kind of rewarding personal-achievement oriented middle-class
life. In his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether (1945), Wells 'signs
off' with these words:
"Homo Sapiens in his present form is played out. The
stars in their courses have turned against him and he
has to give place to some other animal better adopted
to face the fate that closes in more swiftly upon
mankind. ...The cinema sheet (i.e., screen --DE) stares
us in the face... Our loves, our hates, our wars and
battles are no more than phantasmagoria dancing on
that fabric, themselves as unsubstantiated as a dream.
...There is no way through the impasse. It will be
the Dark Ages over again, a planetary instead of a
European Dark Ages. ...Mankind, which began in a
cave and behind a windbreak, will end in the
disease-soaked ruins of a slum."
The point of the present essay is not, as Well's final words might
suggest, that we give up and trust fabled space aliens to genetically
engineer mankind's more-promising replacement. Nor is it that we must
avenge our betrayed parents by killing off the billionaires, as not a few
today doubtless privately contemplate. Rather, we must attack the root of
why our future was lost and do what must be done to get it back again. To
that end I conclude with these words, written at about the same time as
those of Wellıs above, the creed of a little man who excelled even Wells as
a true friend of mankindıs future:
"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by
effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but
by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching
them to non-cooperate with their exploiters.²
"The moment the slave resolves that he will no
longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees
himself and shows the way to others. Freedom
and slavery are mental states. Therefore the
first thing is to say to yourself, ıI shall no
longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not
obey orders as such but shall disobey when they
are in conflict with my conscience.O The
so-called master may lash you and try to force
you to serve him. You may say, ³No, I will not
serve you for your money or under threat.² This
may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will
light the torch of freedom which will never be put
out."
Certainly there is unfailing hope for a future in that.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
United States
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Here are three items to reinforce the preceding message to
this thread.
#1:
MEDIA DECEIVE ON GLOBAL WARMING
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
June 26, 2001
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2001/06/26.html
When the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on global warming
on June 6, responding to questions posed by the White House, the news media
gave it big play. A long story in the New York Times included only one brief
quote from the summary of the report by eleven atmospheric scientists. It
said, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."
That gave the impression that even Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., a
prominent global warming skeptic, had suddenly flipped and endorsed the
theory that human activity is causing the earth to overheat. CNN said the
panel agreed unanimously. Dr. Lindzen denied this in a column in the Wall
Street Journal. He said the Academy had asked that the report present a
range of views, and that there was no consensus, unanimous or otherwise,
about long-term climate trends and what caused them.
That same day, the lead story on page one of the New York Times
claimed that the U.S. has fallen behind Europe and Japan in our "ability to
simulate and predict long-term shifts in climate." It said that our
researchers have to go abroad "to find computers capable of handling their
most ambitious climate analyses." This was an obvious plant by U.S.
climatologists who want the government to give them more money to carry out
their efforts to prove that we are all in grave danger if we don't take
immediate action to slow down the rise in the earth's temperature.
None of the stories we saw mentioned that eighteen months ago another
panel of climatologists convened by the National Research Council had issued
a report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two decades the rise
in the earth's temperature was greater than the average for the past 100
years. But it also said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending six
to nine miles above the earth's surface showed little if any warming. The
global warming theory does not allow for differences in the temperature
trends on the surface and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat up
together.
The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for the believers
in global warming. It said: "Major advances in the ability to interpret and
model the subtle variations in the vertical temperature profile of the lower
atmosphere" are needed. In other words, they need to figure out how the
earth's surface can be heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere
are not.
The same problem was discussed in Germany by scientists from the world
's leading climate research centers. A German newspaper said they had been
unable to figure out why there was a clear warming of the lower atmosphere
while satellite measurements showed a mild cooling of the middle air layers.
The most comprehensive climate model of the famous Max Planck Institute
could not explain the differences between surface and satellite data. And
they still can't, despite their supercomputers. Here's a simple answer. The
satellite data are more comprehensive and more accurate. The earth is not
overheating.
#2:
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty died recently. His involvement in many aspects of
our strategic planning equipped him with knowledge and insights that few men
ever attain. You have been told that petroleum is the hydrocarbon fossil
product of ancient vegetation that has been buried in sediments before it
can be destroyed by oxidation, then heated and transformed by slow chemical
reactions, then trapped for preservation by folding or faulting -- it is
a story the oil companies want you to keep believing.
-------------------------------
Greasing the Palms of the Oil Barons
by L. Fletcher Prouty
In the first place what is oil? Is it 85% carbon, 13% hydrogen and 0.5%
oxygen with traces of sulfur and nitrogen. Most geochemists ( in the pay of
oil companies) believe that the oil originates from the decomposition of
organic matter. They would have us believe that because organic matter -
that is, formerly living organisms - is quantifiably a very limited source,
the supply of oil itself must be limited.
It is not.
Oil is often called a "fossil" fuel; the idea being that it comes from
formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells
were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great
quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level
of any fossils. How could then could oil have come from fossils, or
decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below
layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not
come from living matter at all!
Furthermore, if all the plants, insects and animals that ever lived were all
squeezed into a massive ooze, there is no way they could have amounted to
the volume of oil that has been found to date. They just would not make that
much juice. On top of this, oil geochemists will admit, if pressed, that if
all the oil wells ever drilled by their so - called scientific methods of
divining had been drilled totally at random, they would have found as much
oil with random drilling as by " educated " drilling. In other words, there
is a lot of oil down there.....most everywhere. Just drill for it - and if
you don't strike it, drill a little deeper.
There can only be one answer to the misinformation we have about oil. The
oil men have always wanted a monopoly control, and with it, they want to
charge as much money as they can for every gallon of gasoline. With this,
they gross hundreds of billions of dollars per - year. They want us to
believe that our present rate of oil consumption, we have possibly 20 to 30
years before we run out. They make this sound credible with their "
decomposed organic matter" fable.
By bursting this bubble and pulling the plug on this scenario, we discover
that petroleum is a natural organic product that is rising, in enormous
quantities , from deep within the earth; with deeper drilling, as
wildcatters are already doing, there will adequate oil for a long, long
time, even at the present rate of consumption.
>From 1956 to 1971, the number of giant oil fields more than doubled as
drills go deep into the Paleozoic strata and below. Today, there is a glut
on the market, and those who control oil are doing all they can to limit
production in order to keep the prices very high. To do this, they get a lot
of government help.
Shortly before William J. Casey became the head of the CIA, he made a speech
before the American Bar Association during which he advocated "
international agreements to establish commodity reserves and maintain
prices". This is the kind of policy oil men like. At the same conference,
Hans Heymann, one of Casey's deputies at the CIA, talked about the "enormous
oil inventory building that we've had", and that " we (CIA) developed a
system of institutions and codes of conduct that make it far easier for
those who influence the international marketplace to exercise that
influence". It is " those who influence the marketplace" who are the oil
barons, and they are taking us for hundreds of billions of dollars every
year - with the aid of almost all Western governments.
L. Fletcher Prouty
http://astridmm.com/prouty/coment13.html
----------------------------------------------
Water
by L. Fletcher Prouty
" Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink". In this day and age
doesn't it sound absolutely ridiculous for the people of any of our large
cities to fear a water shortage? As your good writer (Robert D. Adams,
Letters, June 17) has said, " Most large cities are seacoast metropolis
locations". All they have to do is have the brains, the guts and the
political purpose to use it. Let me recount a brief story.
In November 1963, when I was Chief of Special Operations with the Joint
Staff in the Pentagon. I was sent to Antarctica with a large group of VIPs
industrialists, newsmen, and others. We went there to witness a most
important event. A small nuclear plant was going to be activated at the Navy
Base of the shore of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica; and from that moment on all
water, all heat, and all electricity for that huge scientific establishment
was going to provided by that tiny, inconspicuous nuclear plant.
The marvel of it was that we saw this unit activated. We saw the electricity
come on, we felt the heat and in short time we bathed in and drank pure
water from the ocean that had been desalinated by this plant. Meanwhile, on
the foothills above the base a field of oil tanks were shut off; and for 10
years that base did not draw on those tanks for another barrel of petroleum.
Ten years, that was from 1963 to 1973. We all recall that 1973 was the year
of the "Gas Lines" the "Oil Shortage", the "Energy Crisis", and all of the
dire predictions that were certain to befall this great consumer nation as
soon as that "last barrel" of petroleum had been pumped from the sand domes.
So: In 1973 someone was sent to McMurdo Sound to that scientific base and he
shut off that wonderful little nuclear plant and took it away. The oil
barons were afraid that the penguins might talk.
For half of every year, Antarctica is cut off from the rest of the world.
The Navy's job of supporting that base and its vast scientific programs
becomes bigger. Petroleum for diesel is shipped across thousands of miles of
glacial terrain, and inland stations must be resupplied by air. Since a
two-year fuel supply for that nuclear plant, a Martin Marietta PM-3A, is no
larger than a single oil drum, the logistical advantage was obvious. That
single PM-3A core replaced millions of gallons of diesel fuel. The PM 3-A's
electrical output was five times the normal load which was being carried by
diesel generators before its installation. It was most efficient.
The entire nuclear plant was installed in three small buildings less than
the size of three ordinary dairy barns, above ground. The nuclear element
was at the bottom of a hole about 180 feet deep where it could not bother or
be dangerous to anyone. It was remote from, but in sight of, the main
station. The plan in 1963 was to install other such facilities all over
Antarctica in remote facilities, including the "under-ice" station at the
South Pole Station itself.
http://astridmm.com/prouty/comment4.html
The next question really is unnecessary. "Why, oh why, when we have seen
such magnificent things done well, productively and safely with nuclear
energy, have these most successful units been withdrawn and hidden from
view"? How ridiculous can things get?
There is no reason why such tiny facilities can not be placed all along the
South California shoreline to produce cheaply and reliably all the pure,
desalinated water needed for all the people and for the irrigation of all
the farms in the area.
I am not talking about something that can be designed such as a Space
Station or a trip to Mars. This was done in 1963, and operated flawlessly
for 10 years. I was at McMurdo when that switch was thrown and that nuclear
plant went into action. I was there with officials from Kennedy White House,
with congressmen and with industrial leaders. We all know what it did then
and what it can do now.
We do not need Mr. McAdams' proposed $10,000,000 to come up with a method of
producing potable water. We know how to do it on a large scale. All we need
is the brains, the courage to fight the oil barons and their political
puppets, and the good old American brand of ingenuity that stops at
nothing....nothing at all.....for the good of man.
L. Fletcher Prouty
-----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
When a man looks at the condition of his countrymen today it is not obvious
how much better the world would have been without the planetary disease of
finance globalism. We can not see the cost that our deviant ruling elites
have inflicted upon the households of this planet.This essay is intended to
partially remedy that blindness.
---------
#3:
YOU SAY THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE STOLEN YOUR FUTURE?
by Dick Eastman
It is a bitter pill for middle-class baby boomers that their parents
are dying without seeing the fabulous future which they once reasonably
expected would emerge, certainly by now, from their years of collective
sacrifice and toil.
No one can deny that some marvels have been developed more or less as
predicted fifty years ago. Consider, for example, the ease, speed and
reliability with which computers gain access to incredibly informative
websites and newsgroups . Nevertheless, one need only peruse a few
old magazines to see how very far today's world falls short of the old
prospective "World of Tomorrow" our parents and grandparents were living to
see.
Pick up a 1968 edition of McCall's magazine and you will find the
entry form for a chance to win a voucher for an all-expense-paid trip to
the moon with first-class lunar hotel accommodations, redeemable in 2001.
Open a 1950ıs copy of Forbes and read John von Neumann predicting that by
1980 all power likely would be virtually costless and that by 2000 the
weather would be scientifically tamed for the benefit of farmers
everywhere--not bothering to consider the use international commodity
speculators might make of such technology if they secretly got it first.
Gaze at the fascinating cover art of an old issue of Popular Mechanics and
read the caption: "Robots will be Waiting on You by 1970." Finally--if the
poignancy is not already too much--peer into a 1966 issue of American Home
and find the following:
"By the turn of the next century only 10 percent
of us will be engaged in 'work.' The computer
and automation will relieve us of drudgery and
allow 90 percent to spend time on whatever pleases
them. The machines will do the work, create the
wealth which will allow every family to follow the
leisure path.
"...the computer-financed economy will provide
families with a guaranteed annual income, with
cash to buy their own computer system.
"...One expert has predicted, ıWith the machines
taking on the tasks that now that now consume all
but a fragment of our days, we will be free to
undertake completely new tasks, most of them
directed to perfecting ourselves, creating beauty,
understanding one another better.ı²
"Certainly opportunities for further education,
development of talents in art, music, design,
writing, will proliferate. The home-centered
skills--gardening, cooking, sewing--will be
approached not as make-work but as great works.
...We will want to create our own art forms
and become artists at home."
How tragic that the average American adult today has 30 percent less
leisure time than the day those words were written; that at this moment
millions of people, too tired and otherwise constrained to enjoy once normal
social lives, fill their spare minutes with autistic sexuality (catch the
euphemism here) fanned by curvacious pattens flashing on cathode-ray tubes
or by hot-button words carried over Alexander Graham Bell's somewhat older
invention, as the controlling few rake in the cash. The mind simply
boggles at this and plentiful other evidence of the gigantic larceny that,
blasting all dreams of futurity, has plunged the worldıs middle classes
into todayıs debt-slavery backwash; the predictably non-utopian result of
trying to tread standard-of-living water in foredoomed labor-service
competition with the throw-away New Coolies of the billionairesı 'global
plantation.'
How is it that we have inherited this world that we never wanted, a
world more resembling C.M. Kornbluth's vision (in his 1953 novel, The
Syndic) of a society shaped and directed by organized-crime and aiming only
at affording maximum individual sovereignty to its ³friends?² ('Individual
sovereignty' is Lord Rees-Mogg's honorific term for the liberty of
billionaires no longer bridled by governments of the people, by the
people,... etc.) What happened?
Ironically enough, it was H.G. Wells, the twentieth century's leading
apostle of Mankind's potential for a limitless future, who 50 years ago
fully answered that question. During the first half of this century he
assiduously championed the idea of 'putting things in order' for the speedy
attainment of a highly desirable worldwide scientific utopia. But Wells was
also a well-connected and astute more-populist-than-Fabian social critic and
the first popularizer of nonchauvinistic history from a species perspective,
a vantage point from which he eventually came to see the
darker fate overtaking his civilization. His last two books, are,
unfortunately, his most prophetic.
In his 1939 book, The Future of Man (in the USA; it is The Future of
Homo Sapiens elsewhere), Wells explained how the Anglo-American elites had
recently grabbed the reigns of the collapsing liberalized world order of his
time--that great, good, but never-fully perfected achievement of
nineteenth-century optimism and good will-- and did so for their own
self-serving-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else ends:
"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to
recognize, a system of government almost completely
out of popular control. Practically it has undergone
a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and a
loose-knit combination of court, church, army and
wealth, intensely class conscience, intensely
self-protective, has resumed control of affairs. It
is an oligarchy skillful in assimilation of useful
or formidable individuals but without the slightest
disposition to amalgamate with anything else on
earth. Its ruling motive is fear of dispossession.
Decisions of peace and war are made without
consulting any surviving popular will, and the
whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio
and indeed all possible means of influencing
opinion, concentrate upon the assertion of the
rightness and inevitableness of these decisions.
Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking,
and any inconvenient facts are kept from the
public by requests for suppression that are in
effect commands."
Such a development, spells death to any hope of the majority of mankind
to live any kind of rewarding personal-achievement oriented middle-class
life. In his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether (1945), Wells 'signs
off' with these words:
"Homo Sapiens in his present form is played out. The
stars in their courses have turned against him and he
has to give place to some other animal better adopted
to face the fate that closes in more swiftly upon
mankind. ...The cinema sheet (i.e., screen --DE) stares
us in the face... Our loves, our hates, our wars and
battles are no more than phantasmagoria dancing on
that fabric, themselves as unsubstantiated as a dream.
...There is no way through the impasse. It will be
the Dark Ages over again, a planetary instead of a
European Dark Ages. ...Mankind, which began in a
cave and behind a windbreak, will end in the
disease-soaked ruins of a slum."
The point of the present essay is not, as Well's final words might
suggest, that we give up and trust fabled space aliens to genetically
engineer mankind's more-promising replacement. Nor is it that we must
avenge our betrayed parents by killing off the billionaires, as not a few
today doubtless privately contemplate. Rather, we must attack the root of
why our future was lost and do what must be done to get it back again. To
that end I conclude with these words, written at about the same time as
those of Wellıs above, the creed of a little man who excelled even Wells as
a true friend of mankindıs future:
"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by
effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but
by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching
them to non-cooperate with their exploiters.²
"The moment the slave resolves that he will no
longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees
himself and shows the way to others. Freedom
and slavery are mental states. Therefore the
first thing is to say to yourself, ıI shall no
longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not
obey orders as such but shall disobey when they
are in conflict with my conscience.O The
so-called master may lash you and try to force
you to serve him. You may say, ³No, I will not
serve you for your money or under threat.² This
may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will
light the torch of freedom which will never be put
out."
Certainly there is unfailing hope for a future in that.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
United States
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Here are three items to reinforce the preceding message to
this thread.
#1:
MEDIA DECEIVE ON GLOBAL WARMING
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
June 26, 2001
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2001/06/26.html
When the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on global warming
on June 6, responding to questions posed by the White House, the news media
gave it big play. A long story in the New York Times included only one brief
quote from the summary of the report by eleven atmospheric scientists. It
said, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."
That gave the impression that even Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., a
prominent global warming skeptic, had suddenly flipped and endorsed the
theory that human activity is causing the earth to overheat. CNN said the
panel agreed unanimously. Dr. Lindzen denied this in a column in the Wall
Street Journal. He said the Academy had asked that the report present a
range of views, and that there was no consensus, unanimous or otherwise,
about long-term climate trends and what caused them.
That same day, the lead story on page one of the New York Times
claimed that the U.S. has fallen behind Europe and Japan in our "ability to
simulate and predict long-term shifts in climate." It said that our
researchers have to go abroad "to find computers capable of handling their
most ambitious climate analyses." This was an obvious plant by U.S.
climatologists who want the government to give them more money to carry out
their efforts to prove that we are all in grave danger if we don't take
immediate action to slow down the rise in the earth's temperature.
None of the stories we saw mentioned that eighteen months ago another
panel of climatologists convened by the National Research Council had issued
a report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two decades the rise
in the earth's temperature was greater than the average for the past 100
years. But it also said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending six
to nine miles above the earth's surface showed little if any warming. The
global warming theory does not allow for differences in the temperature
trends on the surface and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat up
together.
The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for the believers
in global warming. It said: "Major advances in the ability to interpret and
model the subtle variations in the vertical temperature profile of the lower
atmosphere" are needed. In other words, they need to figure out how the
earth's surface can be heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere
are not.
The same problem was discussed in Germany by scientists from the world
's leading climate research centers. A German newspaper said they had been
unable to figure out why there was a clear warming of the lower atmosphere
while satellite measurements showed a mild cooling of the middle air layers.
The most comprehensive climate model of the famous Max Planck Institute
could not explain the differences between surface and satellite data. And
they still can't, despite their supercomputers. Here's a simple answer. The
satellite data are more comprehensive and more accurate. The earth is not
overheating.
#2:
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty died recently. His involvement in many aspects of
our strategic planning equipped him with knowledge and insights that few men
ever attain. You have been told that petroleum is the hydrocarbon fossil
product of ancient vegetation that has been buried in sediments before it
can be destroyed by oxidation, then heated and transformed by slow chemical
reactions, then trapped for preservation by folding or faulting -- it is
a story the oil companies want you to keep believing.
-------------------------------
Greasing the Palms of the Oil Barons
by L. Fletcher Prouty
In the first place what is oil? Is it 85% carbon, 13% hydrogen and 0.5%
oxygen with traces of sulfur and nitrogen. Most geochemists ( in the pay of
oil companies) believe that the oil originates from the decomposition of
organic matter. They would have us believe that because organic matter -
that is, formerly living organisms - is quantifiably a very limited source,
the supply of oil itself must be limited.
It is not.
Oil is often called a "fossil" fuel; the idea being that it comes from
formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells
were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great
quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level
of any fossils. How could then could oil have come from fossils, or
decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below
layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not
come from living matter at all!
Furthermore, if all the plants, insects and animals that ever lived were all
squeezed into a massive ooze, there is no way they could have amounted to
the volume of oil that has been found to date. They just would not make that
much juice. On top of this, oil geochemists will admit, if pressed, that if
all the oil wells ever drilled by their so - called scientific methods of
divining had been drilled totally at random, they would have found as much
oil with random drilling as by " educated " drilling. In other words, there
is a lot of oil down there.....most everywhere. Just drill for it - and if
you don't strike it, drill a little deeper.
There can only be one answer to the misinformation we have about oil. The
oil men have always wanted a monopoly control, and with it, they want to
charge as much money as they can for every gallon of gasoline. With this,
they gross hundreds of billions of dollars per - year. They want us to
believe that our present rate of oil consumption, we have possibly 20 to 30
years before we run out. They make this sound credible with their "
decomposed organic matter" fable.
By bursting this bubble and pulling the plug on this scenario, we discover
that petroleum is a natural organic product that is rising, in enormous
quantities , from deep within the earth; with deeper drilling, as
wildcatters are already doing, there will adequate oil for a long, long
time, even at the present rate of consumption.
>From 1956 to 1971, the number of giant oil fields more than doubled as
drills go deep into the Paleozoic strata and below. Today, there is a glut
on the market, and those who control oil are doing all they can to limit
production in order to keep the prices very high. To do this, they get a lot
of government help.
Shortly before William J. Casey became the head of the CIA, he made a speech
before the American Bar Association during which he advocated "
international agreements to establish commodity reserves and maintain
prices". This is the kind of policy oil men like. At the same conference,
Hans Heymann, one of Casey's deputies at the CIA, talked about the "enormous
oil inventory building that we've had", and that " we (CIA) developed a
system of institutions and codes of conduct that make it far easier for
those who influence the international marketplace to exercise that
influence". It is " those who influence the marketplace" who are the oil
barons, and they are taking us for hundreds of billions of dollars every
year - with the aid of almost all Western governments.
L. Fletcher Prouty
http://astridmm.com/prouty/coment13.html
----------------------------------------------
Water
by L. Fletcher Prouty
" Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink". In this day and age
doesn't it sound absolutely ridiculous for the people of any of our large
cities to fear a water shortage? As your good writer (Robert D. Adams,
Letters, June 17) has said, " Most large cities are seacoast metropolis
locations". All they have to do is have the brains, the guts and the
political purpose to use it. Let me recount a brief story.
In November 1963, when I was Chief of Special Operations with the Joint
Staff in the Pentagon. I was sent to Antarctica with a large group of VIPs
industrialists, newsmen, and others. We went there to witness a most
important event. A small nuclear plant was going to be activated at the Navy
Base of the shore of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica; and from that moment on all
water, all heat, and all electricity for that huge scientific establishment
was going to provided by that tiny, inconspicuous nuclear plant.
The marvel of it was that we saw this unit activated. We saw the electricity
come on, we felt the heat and in short time we bathed in and drank pure
water from the ocean that had been desalinated by this plant. Meanwhile, on
the foothills above the base a field of oil tanks were shut off; and for 10
years that base did not draw on those tanks for another barrel of petroleum.
Ten years, that was from 1963 to 1973. We all recall that 1973 was the year
of the "Gas Lines" the "Oil Shortage", the "Energy Crisis", and all of the
dire predictions that were certain to befall this great consumer nation as
soon as that "last barrel" of petroleum had been pumped from the sand domes.
So: In 1973 someone was sent to McMurdo Sound to that scientific base and he
shut off that wonderful little nuclear plant and took it away. The oil
barons were afraid that the penguins might talk.
For half of every year, Antarctica is cut off from the rest of the world.
The Navy's job of supporting that base and its vast scientific programs
becomes bigger. Petroleum for diesel is shipped across thousands of miles of
glacial terrain, and inland stations must be resupplied by air. Since a
two-year fuel supply for that nuclear plant, a Martin Marietta PM-3A, is no
larger than a single oil drum, the logistical advantage was obvious. That
single PM-3A core replaced millions of gallons of diesel fuel. The PM 3-A's
electrical output was five times the normal load which was being carried by
diesel generators before its installation. It was most efficient.
The entire nuclear plant was installed in three small buildings less than
the size of three ordinary dairy barns, above ground. The nuclear element
was at the bottom of a hole about 180 feet deep where it could not bother or
be dangerous to anyone. It was remote from, but in sight of, the main
station. The plan in 1963 was to install other such facilities all over
Antarctica in remote facilities, including the "under-ice" station at the
South Pole Station itself.
http://astridmm.com/prouty/comment4.html
The next question really is unnecessary. "Why, oh why, when we have seen
such magnificent things done well, productively and safely with nuclear
energy, have these most successful units been withdrawn and hidden from
view"? How ridiculous can things get?
There is no reason why such tiny facilities can not be placed all along the
South California shoreline to produce cheaply and reliably all the pure,
desalinated water needed for all the people and for the irrigation of all
the farms in the area.
I am not talking about something that can be designed such as a Space
Station or a trip to Mars. This was done in 1963, and operated flawlessly
for 10 years. I was at McMurdo when that switch was thrown and that nuclear
plant went into action. I was there with officials from Kennedy White House,
with congressmen and with industrial leaders. We all know what it did then
and what it can do now.
We do not need Mr. McAdams' proposed $10,000,000 to come up with a method of
producing potable water. We know how to do it on a large scale. All we need
is the brains, the courage to fight the oil barons and their political
puppets, and the good old American brand of ingenuity that stops at
nothing....nothing at all.....for the good of man.
L. Fletcher Prouty
-----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
When a man looks at the condition of his countrymen today it is not obvious
how much better the world would have been without the planetary disease of
finance globalism. We can not see the cost that our deviant ruling elites
have inflicted upon the households of this planet.This essay is intended to
partially remedy that blindness.
---------
#3:
YOU SAY THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE STOLEN YOUR FUTURE?
by Dick Eastman
It is a bitter pill for middle-class baby boomers that their parents
are dying without seeing the fabulous future which they once reasonably
expected would emerge, certainly by now, from their years of collective
sacrifice and toil.
No one can deny that some marvels have been developed more or less as
predicted fifty years ago. Consider, for example, the ease, speed and
reliability with which computers gain access to incredibly informative
websites and newsgroups . Nevertheless, one need only peruse a few
old magazines to see how very far today's world falls short of the old
prospective "World of Tomorrow" our parents and grandparents were living to
see.
Pick up a 1968 edition of McCall's magazine and you will find the
entry form for a chance to win a voucher for an all-expense-paid trip to
the moon with first-class lunar hotel accommodations, redeemable in 2001.
Open a 1950ıs copy of Forbes and read John von Neumann predicting that by
1980 all power likely would be virtually costless and that by 2000 the
weather would be scientifically tamed for the benefit of farmers
everywhere--not bothering to consider the use international commodity
speculators might make of such technology if they secretly got it first.
Gaze at the fascinating cover art of an old issue of Popular Mechanics and
read the caption: "Robots will be Waiting on You by 1970." Finally--if the
poignancy is not already too much--peer into a 1966 issue of American Home
and find the following:
"By the turn of the next century only 10 percent
of us will be engaged in 'work.' The computer
and automation will relieve us of drudgery and
allow 90 percent to spend time on whatever pleases
them. The machines will do the work, create the
wealth which will allow every family to follow the
leisure path.
"...the computer-financed economy will provide
families with a guaranteed annual income, with
cash to buy their own computer system.
"...One expert has predicted, ıWith the machines
taking on the tasks that now that now consume all
but a fragment of our days, we will be free to
undertake completely new tasks, most of them
directed to perfecting ourselves, creating beauty,
understanding one another better.ı²
"Certainly opportunities for further education,
development of talents in art, music, design,
writing, will proliferate. The home-centered
skills--gardening, cooking, sewing--will be
approached not as make-work but as great works.
...We will want to create our own art forms
and become artists at home."
How tragic that the average American adult today has 30 percent less
leisure time than the day those words were written; that at this moment
millions of people, too tired and otherwise constrained to enjoy once normal
social lives, fill their spare minutes with autistic sexuality (catch the
euphemism here) fanned by curvacious pattens flashing on cathode-ray tubes
or by hot-button words carried over Alexander Graham Bell's somewhat older
invention, as the controlling few rake in the cash. The mind simply
boggles at this and plentiful other evidence of the gigantic larceny that,
blasting all dreams of futurity, has plunged the worldıs middle classes
into todayıs debt-slavery backwash; the predictably non-utopian result of
trying to tread standard-of-living water in foredoomed labor-service
competition with the throw-away New Coolies of the billionairesı 'global
plantation.'
How is it that we have inherited this world that we never wanted, a
world more resembling C.M. Kornbluth's vision (in his 1953 novel, The
Syndic) of a society shaped and directed by organized-crime and aiming only
at affording maximum individual sovereignty to its ³friends?² ('Individual
sovereignty' is Lord Rees-Mogg's honorific term for the liberty of
billionaires no longer bridled by governments of the people, by the
people,... etc.) What happened?
Ironically enough, it was H.G. Wells, the twentieth century's leading
apostle of Mankind's potential for a limitless future, who 50 years ago
fully answered that question. During the first half of this century he
assiduously championed the idea of 'putting things in order' for the speedy
attainment of a highly desirable worldwide scientific utopia. But Wells was
also a well-connected and astute more-populist-than-Fabian social critic and
the first popularizer of nonchauvinistic history from a species perspective,
a vantage point from which he eventually came to see the
darker fate overtaking his civilization. His last two books, are,
unfortunately, his most prophetic.
In his 1939 book, The Future of Man (in the USA; it is The Future of
Homo Sapiens elsewhere), Wells explained how the Anglo-American elites had
recently grabbed the reigns of the collapsing liberalized world order of his
time--that great, good, but never-fully perfected achievement of
nineteenth-century optimism and good will-- and did so for their own
self-serving-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else ends:
"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to
recognize, a system of government almost completely
out of popular control. Practically it has undergone
a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and a
loose-knit combination of court, church, army and
wealth, intensely class conscience, intensely
self-protective, has resumed control of affairs. It
is an oligarchy skillful in assimilation of useful
or formidable individuals but without the slightest
disposition to amalgamate with anything else on
earth. Its ruling motive is fear of dispossession.
Decisions of peace and war are made without
consulting any surviving popular will, and the
whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio
and indeed all possible means of influencing
opinion, concentrate upon the assertion of the
rightness and inevitableness of these decisions.
Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking,
and any inconvenient facts are kept from the
public by requests for suppression that are in
effect commands."
Such a development, spells death to any hope of the majority of mankind
to live any kind of rewarding personal-achievement oriented middle-class
life. In his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether (1945), Wells 'signs
off' with these words:
"Homo Sapiens in his present form is played out. The
stars in their courses have turned against him and he
has to give place to some other animal better adopted
to face the fate that closes in more swiftly upon
mankind. ...The cinema sheet (i.e., screen --DE) stares
us in the face... Our loves, our hates, our wars and
battles are no more than phantasmagoria dancing on
that fabric, themselves as unsubstantiated as a dream.
...There is no way through the impasse. It will be
the Dark Ages over again, a planetary instead of a
European Dark Ages. ...Mankind, which began in a
cave and behind a windbreak, will end in the
disease-soaked ruins of a slum."
The point of the present essay is not, as Well's final words might
suggest, that we give up and trust fabled space aliens to genetically
engineer mankind's more-promising replacement. Nor is it that we must
avenge our betrayed parents by killing off the billionaires, as not a few
today doubtless privately contemplate. Rather, we must attack the root of
why our future was lost and do what must be done to get it back again. To
that end I conclude with these words, written at about the same time as
those of Wellıs above, the creed of a little man who excelled even Wells as
a true friend of mankindıs future:
"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by
effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but
by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching
them to non-cooperate with their exploiters.²
"The moment the slave resolves that he will no
longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees
himself and shows the way to others. Freedom
and slavery are mental states. Therefore the
first thing is to say to yourself, ıI shall no
longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not
obey orders as such but shall disobey when they
are in conflict with my conscience.O The
so-called master may lash you and try to force
you to serve him. You may say, ³No, I will not
serve you for your money or under threat.² This
may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will
light the torch of freedom which will never be put
out."
Certainly there is unfailing hope for a future in that.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
United States
Dick Eastman
From: "Dave Posegate" <dave.p...@calpaksystems.com>
Subject: RE: Why Kissinger-Brzezinski Invented Green (3 sufficient
quotations)
> So what is your solution?
I suggest that we replace the fraud with the very thing the establishment is
trying to steal from us -- democratic representation and objective
science. None of is is a Sonlon, but Solons have gone before us and left
some useful helps.
> So what is your solution?
How to restore science and the common good to their rightful positions?
How to expose and eliminate the "virus" of an entrenched scam, of an
attempted hijacking of both science and the political process?
How to reopen the debates that have been closed for the wrong reasons?
How to start giving weight to the quality of science and not to the size of
the bankroll behind it?
How to reconcile ever-tentative science with hard-and-fast
political-platform dogma needed to rally the troops?
> So what is your solution?
I trust democratic processes, where debate is always happening and people
are free to change their minds and free to be absolutely convinced contrary
to the convinced discussant his is cooperating with in gathering information
etc. as the
reigning paradigms are tested and retested within developing science.
Science is a Republic in one sense, a Democracy in another, but
Establishment PC science is crowd manipulation, it is fraud, it is an
anti-democratic political leveraging at its worst.
Being a Green should mean to all that the person is a scientist and a
questioner and an open mind -- and he should support processes and
institutions that reflect that. He should be a questioner and a sceptic and
honest about his ignorance and about when one is guessing, but a man (or
like scientist Governor Dixy Lee Ray, a woman) who has considered the
important questions from the right motive
regardless of his conclusion. If the ethics of science are followed the
interpretations of processes and events in the universe of physics will tend
toward accuracy. The PC hireling shills have conducted witchhunts (even
they
accuse others of this sin of uncertain dimension) against men who seek to
put themselves under the control of the data and the full armamentarium of
scientific tools both soft and hard. A Green should always remember that
their science stops being science as soon as it becomes a politically
managed platform and litmus test.
> So what is your solution?
I have discovered systematic looting of a bank -- that does not qualify me
to be a bank president or to replace David Rockerfeller (or whomever) as
chief string puller. I am a clerk at Blockbuster video -- and as soon as I
become something more the "magic" will be gone. Still I can suggest this:
Those who would enslave you want you --I know very well and have confirmed
again and again -- they want you to abandon cornerstones of this
civilizations greatness
1. The principles of parliamentary procedure (once you know them formerly,
then they condition your informal interchanges with the liberal ethic and
mores that make for fair peaceful resolution of differences and true
scientific endeavor).
2. The taking of individual responsibility for what you yourself advocate --
rather than following the leader who can say the scientifically right thing
to attract you support while deliberately hiding the facts that disprove
that whole position -- and doing so because he is a groomed and trained
politico shill etc.
stop here a wee small voice has told me : "Who the hell are you?"
Let me end with a proposal for reform that I have really studied and
believe in -- merely to cap off these answers to your question with an
example of the kind of "reform" that I think will do the trick in restoring
control of the nation state to the people.
I advocate a return to the pre-1913 system of having U.S. Senators chosen by
the State legislators rather than by popular state vote on election day.
When the billionaires who "want it all" happen to control the media and
own the unregulated polling services it is no problem for them to fool, not
"all of the people all the time," but a majority of the people on the
precisely targeted polling day or election day etc. And no reform by John
McCain or anyone is going to fix that - McCain's problem, in fact, merely
strips away all possibility of countervailing information power against this
establishment monopoly. But if the state legislatures do the selecting --
these are intelligent men who know the real issues and the way things really
work -- and they are elected by locals locals locals locals -- so that it
would be impossible for the billionaires to buy all of them. The Founding
Father's wanted to remove the Senate from the pressure of politicing for the
mass vote- knowing that the masses could be led astray, even as it still
empowered the masses through the powerful house of representatives. ANd so
you see that this letter change would break the power of the Establishment
at once -- that is why the Morgan interests etc. had the constitution
changed in 1913 in the first place (the same year that the same people
pushed through the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax).
I have never thought of before, until now: but maybe we also should look
at going back to the system where the citizens elect their smartest people
(college presidents, Jay Fenello etc.) to be electors -- and give them free
reign and secret ballots etc. to choose the President themselves without
parties or "locked commitments" etc.
Perhaps, it occurs to me, under a system like this, Greens would
automaticall resort to more rational leadership, since they would be
appealing to more rational popular representative governance as the Fouding
Fathers intended etc.
Dick
Leftovers from a discarded draft:
And when hired shills try to infiltrate in order to hijack the party for
alien ends, the scientific standards, ethics and mores should be so
well-founded that the deceit cannot succeed.
But there is no solution that escapes the necessity that -- who said it? --
the price of freedom is eternal viligance.
DegussaDan
people who follow this group are educated experienced people who will not be
swayed by your paranoid (and horribly lengthy) postings. This group is
dedicated to a specific industry - your postings are welcome in that context.
Remove Qnojunk from my email address to reach me.
Dick Eastman
to any buyer. Why sanctions now?
During the cold war China sanctions were too difficult to enforce;
inappropriate given the unresolved Korean War armistice; and
likely to cause British Hong Kong to suffer most.
North Korea got sanctions in 1988, after 140 Western banks
declared her in default on $770 m. in outstanding debt. The
excuse: NK's weapons sales to other "rogue" countries (the only
way perpetual war-economies earn cash.)
In June 1972, a month after Nixon-Kissinger "opened China," David
Rockefeller for Chase Manhattan and Zhou Enlai agreed that Chase
would act as correspondent bank for the Bank of China in the US,
but more important, also arranged close ties between the Council
on Foreign Relations, of which Rockefeller was chairman, and the
People's Institute on Foreign Relations in Beijing -- economic
cordiality among economic elites who afterwards brooked no
unpleasantries while executing the greatest transfer of
information and industrial capital from one nation to another in
history. But with Clinton's overdone "kow tow," the stolen
defense secrets, easy off-the-shelf US Commercial technology, and
Russian "firesale" bargains China's military gained
superiority over the US in critical areas.
Sanctions declare a new day.
Dick Eastman
"The Chinese economy,appears to be in the early stages of what could be a
very potent boom." But remember that booms are made by money manipulators
and capital shifters.
It is wonderful that retail sales are 9% to 10% above year-earlier levels in
real terms: interest rates are low, wages rising.
But then we get this mumbo jumbo: "rising stock prices have pushed consumer
confidence to record highs" as industrial production climbs 20 percent with
giant surges in profit.
We know the secret of Chinese profit -- just look at the "pie" of payments
to factors of production, viz.,
the portion going to rent for use of the land;
the portion going to wages,
the portion going to government in taxes to pay for
(a proxy for) public infrastructure, public utilities, public
environmental management, law enforcement, awarded
monopoly rent privileges, social welfare burdern, public-
sector goods like education, medical care, libraries etc.;
interest to capitalists,
profits to "entrepreneurship" -- but not really entrepreneurship
for big business in China as much as for connections and capital
to build modern factories with slave-coolie labor -- which I call
"Chase Manhattan entrepreneurship;" and
the original bribe payment to the Princeling for the privilege
of avoiding "living wages" (that old reactionary American
term) and internalization of true social courses (proxied by
government above).
We see then that the big profits (and the big interest payments) stem from
the constriction of payments to the other factors as much as from growth
of the pie -- but what about that growth of the pie, where did that come
from?
Is China growing because of greater economic freedom, less restriction of
inventiveness and initiative -- or because China has entered into a
conspiracy with global investment banking to destroy other economies
(especially Japan's, South Korea's, and that of the United States of
America). (See the history of the alliance between the ruling elite Council
on Foreign Relations founded by Rothschild agent David Rockefeller and
People's Institute on Foreign Relations in Beijing founded by Rothschild
agent Zhou Enlai in my last post.) China is merely the victor in ruthless
information-age warfare, more sabotage that competiton to provide better and
less expensive goods and services (i.e., more utility per yuan.)
Major stimulus is coming from foreign direct investment, which has been
galvanized by China's impending entry into the World Trade Organization. It
topped $40 billion last year, and contracts for new investment
projects--which lead actual inflows--are up sharply this year.
Yes, the convict is sleeping at the convent now and selling pictures of his
nightly activities.
But Korhetz betrays his own economic orientiation when he says:
"Some observers fear that the government's incomplete reform of the banking
system will stymie growth. And many wonder about China's vulnerability to
the sharp slowdown in global trade."
This is a veiled threat. Korhetz is warning China that unless it abandons
its government regulated potentially national - interest-serving banking
system in favor of the globalist pattern of unaccountable private plunder
machines (like the U.S. Federal Reserve) -- in effect handing global finance
capitalism the keys to the new candy store -- then "something might
happen", some "vulnerability" my be somehow come into play and a "sharp
slowdown" appear. In other words, we set you up, dear Princelings, no cut
us in all the way or we'll cut you out.
Korhetz reminds Chen that he is only "reasonably confident" that "the worst
bad-debt problems have been dealt with." I wonder if CHen is aware how
President Cleveland was bullied by J.P. Morgan into dealing exclusiviely
with his Rothschild affiliated bank; or how Nixon, forced off the gold
standard and having to resort to wage and price controls to control the
inflation that the Fed was blackmailing him so that he would surrender his
well-founded anti-communist
convictions and send Rockefeller agent Kissinger to plan the "opening of
China" etc. etc. (I won't catalog here all the the murderous wars and
depressions engineered by these global banking elites.)
When Korhetz boasts that China's private sector "is now reliant mainly on
the stock market rather than bank loans as a source of capital" the
implication seems to be that this is a good thing -- but it sure as hell is
not a good thing.
You see the Princelings are the only beneficiaries of this continuing death
of Chinese economic freedom -- but they are not China; more than David
Rockefeller and the rest of the Establishment are the people of the United
States. Korhetz is merely boasting of the wealth gains of pirates who have
conquered a town, not of the town itself!
If China was developing according to humanitarian and, yes, liberal
principles, its new capital would enter the market locally, from small bank
bank loans to little entrepreneurs, to small business, to a petty bourgeois.
But no. The Princelings and the masters of Khazar Korhetz eat the petty
bourgeois alive. What they seek together is the destruction of middle
classes around the world -- and the universal reign of the global pirate
elites on a global plantation or minimum wages, a minimum balanced diet, and
a reasonalbe amount of free veterinary care for the plantation work animals
and debt slaves.
Chen points out that China's exports are still low-end consumer items, but
does he realize that that is part of the tactic. Wal Mart stores full of
plastic monster toys and arcade games are better than atom bombs for
destroying the culture of a mortal enemy.
With labor costs less than 10% of those of Korea and Taiwan, China continues
to gain market share from its neighbors and now runs a larger trade surplus
with the U.S. than Japan does. Yes, and the deceitful CHase Manhattan types
claim that this is the mutual advantage from "free trade" that economist
David Ricardo promised long ago -- BUT THEY FORGET TO TELL YOU THAT RICARDO
ASSUMED THAT CAPITAL WOULD NOT CROSS BOARDERS WITH THE GOODS AND SERVICES
TRADED --BECAUSE IF IT DOES THAN IRRESISTABLY THE NATION WITH ABSOLUTE
ADVANTAGES IN PRODUCTION (i.e. slave wages available to the firm that
locates production in China) THEN THE PRODUCTION AND WELFARE OF THE NATION
WITH ABSOLUTE DISADVANTAGES WILL "MOVE TO THE ORIGIN" --
i.e., will end up absolutely impoverished. In other words, the law of
comparative advantage whereby if everyone produces according to geographical
comparative advantage and if capital stays within each country, then there
will be mutual gains of trade, DOES NOT APPLY IF CONDITIONS OBTAIN LIKE THE
CONDITIONS OBTAINING IN TODAY'S GLOBALIST WONDERLAND.
Dick Eastman
----- Original Message -----
From: "carmel cosgrove " <ccos...@telus.net>
To: "Dick Eastman" <eas...@wolfenet.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Your petty bourgeois guidebook for crushing globalism
> Get lost. To others in this newsgroup if you have Outlook Express -On
> toolbar go to message and click on block sender You have been zapped out
> from my computer.
That's OK, Ms. Carmel, as long as you don't zap out your husbands
and unborn children the same way.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dick Eastman" <eas...@wolfenet.com>
Attention puny Japanese and American middle classes
(and everybody else sick of stinking globalism.):
Tired of Ivy League mouthpieces blowing smoke in your eyes,
while their second cousins on Wall Street clean your clock?
Here, take my free one-post crash course on international
banking fraud, below and start kicking ass.
Dick Universe
Mr. Yakima, 2001
-----------------------------------
How China's Princelings and Globalist Financiers took Everything
(and we cheered them on)
Letter #1:
Dick Eastman
Yakima
---
Letter #2:
Globalist Gene Koretz quotes Chen Zhao:
interest to capitalists,
The US and Japan are stuck to Asia's giant "tar baby" and they are not
about to get away.
Dick Eastman
country enjoyed before 1913, is reappearing in the world -- as I have just
discovered.
Nothing succeeds like success, therefore those who understand how the
Federal Reserve has throttled the American middle classes for the benefit of
the bond-holding elite should take careful note of this this. (My own
questions for the author appear at the bottom -- what further questions
should I have asked?)
------------------------------------
Received from the FixGovt List:
----
Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Papua, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela get LETS
JCT: The number of nations with LETS just jumped from 45 to over
50! I've added six new nations to the list of countries that have LETS
at my http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm site. I found the
information at http://concentric.itgo.com/index2.html
It has a great map of the world showing nations where there are
LETS timecurrency branches in Green and those nations without
interest-free currency sources in white. They should have used black.
Check it out. Most articles in Spanish since South America has
seen the biggest explosion of interest in LETS yet. Argentina, the
nation that had its first taste of large LETS when the 6 provinces
issued their own interest-free provincial bond currencies has also
experienced the development of the world's largest LETS with half-a-
million members.
The site also has an "interest-free" currency museum where you
can see examples of interest-free currencies throughout history.
http://concentric.itgo.com/cerealbank.html has a great story
explaining how farmers use their cereal crops to buy in for their
poker chips and trade the chips to the community. Once again, proof
that interest-free currencies are never more than simple poker chips.
They could have oil banks for those South American nations with
oil. Bet the guys with cereal would take oil chips for their cereals.
Could be coal chips, tomato chips, all kinds of different tokens. And
all tokens always relate to how much time you will work to have that
tomato, oil or cereal warehouse receipt.
Though they have all sorts of documentation and informed opinion,
unfortunately they do not link to the only advanced engineering
mathematical analysis of the LETS system blueprint in existence which
explains best why their interest-free 1/s currencies are so stable and
inflation-free.
Interest-free currencies are on the way and they'll soon be all
linking up into the simple but big one world-wide one that is to soon
prevail. After all, no one has ever exlained why the Hours I earned in
my neighborhood shouldn't be valid throughout the big one.
Many thanks to Rolf Schroeder of the Hannover LETS in Germany for
bringing the site to our attention:
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:32:40 +0200
From: RolfSch...@T-ONLINE.DE (Rolf Schrvder)
Subject: Ecuador
Hello, recently the development of local currency systems in some
Latin American countries has attracted attention. Last week
(26.06.01), Mauricio and Rebeca Wild gave a lecture here in Hannover
(Northern Germany) about such systems in Ecuador.
Mauricio was born in Ecuador, his wife is of German origin but
lives in the country for about forty years. In the mid-nineties they
founded the first local currency system around their school project
("Pesta").
This was a LETS type system; Mauricio mentioned LETS Manchester
as a model. The original experiment was copied at various times in
recent years, and by now far more than 100 groups exist all over the
country.
They are associated in the network "RENASINTRAL". This "success"
is due to the extremely difficult economic situation in Ecuador.
After the abolition of the national currency the US Dollar was
introduced as medium of exchange - for the very many poor people of
the country an absolutely insufficient means to mediate trade among
themselves.
Mauricio described the sometimes extremely difficult but always
worthwile efforts to develop these systems in a very impressive way.
Further information:
With regard to English (and Spanish) sources I can just refer to
http://concentric.itgo.com/index2.html (not by M. or R. Wild) For
those of you who can read German (or Spanish) I can make available
additional material on request.
The event was organized by the "Talente Tauschring Hannover" -
http://www.tauschring-hannover.de
Best regards Rolf Schroeder Talente Tauschring Hannover
---
JCT: What's interesting about Ecuador was that I used them in my
poem to Bill Gates pointing that while the Jubilee 2000 movememnt was
lobbying for debt relief for the poorest 41 countries, Ecuador was
not poor enough to qualify for Jubilee 2000's attention. My major
criticism of that now-failed movement.
I wanted to end debt-growth, usury, for the whole world before
worrying about the debt mountain on only some debtors.
After two years, here's my poem to the Richest Man in the World
who could have used his riches to save our planet that much faster.
At least, if I had had his bankroll, I'd have saved the planet
two years ago.
Richest Pauper's Prayer To The Richest Man
------------------------------------------
For a Microsoft Email L.E.T.S. Timedollar checking account by Y2K
October 15 1999.
To ask...@microsoft.com: World's Richest Man
>From john c. tur...@freenet.carleton.ca: World's Richest Pauper
Gates Poem audio <http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/praybill.ram>
Hello, Bill Gates, "World's Richest Man," a Guinness claim to fame.
I'm John Turmel, "World's Richest Pauper" politics my game.[1]
"The Engineer," "The Gambler" 48 elections clear,[2]
As "Abolitionist," L.E.T.S. "Banking Systems Engineer."[3] [4]
"Blackjack King;" "Casino Czar;" "Robin Hood;" "Millionaire;"[5][6]
"Guerrilla Lawyer;" best "Bank Fighter Extraordinaire."[7]
"The Great Canadian Character Anthology says best,[8]
The motive for my Pauper's twenty-year persistent quest.
As Dr. Walter Schneider, "Math of Gambling" Prof. can swear:
"He went from apolitical to running everywhere;
One day his interest in interest existed not.
Next day, its abolition was his motivating thought."
The Pauper's seen some high-school buddies choose to quit the game,
You too, "The Man," have buddies I would bet checked out the same.
No loanshark, "Richest Man," earned gains were making tools I use.
You should concur with Richest Pauper's engineering views.[9]
In Nehemiah 5, he says: "You must do as we do.
So "Stop exacting interest!" It is the Big Taboo."
St. Thomas 95 is verse where Jesus said it best:
"If you have money, do not lend it out at interest."
Another prophet great, Mohammed known in Muslim lands,
Decreed that it was "sinful if one interest demands."[10]
No "Mort-Gage" interest and they'd have shouldered life with ease,
But their "Death-Gamble" poverty was fatal, their disease.[11]
Ralph Nader's found the banks today "unsafe at any speed,"
And has endorsed Timedollar L.E.T.S. banks "safe for every need."[12]
I penned some verses on how L.E.T.S. could end Queen's poverty,[13]
But palace staff were little help. No high tech whiz had she.
Yet L.E.T.S. in British Parliament hears M.P.s voicing "Yes."[14]
"No tax for trading time with neighbors." U.S. I.R.S.[15]
Australia says "lifeboat" L.E.T.S. cushions community.[16][17]
Great Britain's politicians hail L.E.T.S. "anti-poverty."[18][19]
I've marched with Jubilee 2000, though they are ill-aimed,[20]
Forgiving poorest's debt is alms, no panacea claimed.
But White House, I.M.F., World Bank saw Pauper's placard best,
That "Banks Starve Third-World Babies," so "Abolish Interest."[21]
With interest switched off in banker's debt machinery,
Those former "chains" of debt become mere "straps" borne easily.
So Pope, reformers, Jubilee 2000's date is near,
Yet Ecuador's "not poor enough" to qualify this year.[22]
"Debt Cancellation," "Tobin Tax," they're splashing in the pool,
The problem's in the money pumphouse. "Interest" the tool.
The vast solution takes all errant money-pumps in hand,
It's not a half-vast splashing in the money pool that's planned.
Relief could reach the whole wide world to ancient strife placate.
Imagine Earth as Eden with no feedback causing hate.
The Christians and the Muslims and the Nazis and the Jews,
Are in agreement L.E.T.S. conforms to everybody's views.
The Richest Man must also tire of a game gone mad,
But you have power to switch off the feedback that is bad.
An Online L.E.T.S. by Microsoft to shop with "Hours" we trade,
With global lifelines reaching all and money local made.
We'll gladly pay our service charges, cash or Green amounts,
If you'll be veins and arteries to link our L.E.T.S. accounts.
Millennium! L.E.T.S. Jubilee! Give "World-Class Gift!" you can,
If you grant Richest Pauper's Prayer To The Richest Man.
In Matthew chapter 6 verse 9, Christ taught us how to pray:
So every day till Year Two Thousand, here is what I'll say:
"Our Father, who in Heaven art, hallowed be thy name,
Thy Kingdom come when L.E.T.S. be done on Earth as Heaven, the same.
Give us now our daily bread, forgive us all our debts,
As we forgive our debtors all their debts with this new L.E.T.S.
And to temptation, lead us not. No debt which suffocates.
L.E.T.S. Jubilee 2000 from our Santa Billy Gates.
Amen with The Engineers
[1] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ariz97.htm
Arizona Republic" "World's Richest Pauper" 1997-07-19
"Winner at the table can't seem to prevail on election night"
[2] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/w93jjm.htm
Criminal Code Amendment: R. v. Turmel (1996), 109 C.C.C. (3d) 162
(Ont. C.A.)
[3] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/abprogs.htm
Abolitionist Party of Canada Programs.
[4] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
Surf 150 L.E.T.S. websites in over 40 nations
[5] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/prsgame.htm
Turmel Gambling Press Archives
[6] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/prspol83.htm
Turmel Law Politics Archives 1983-01-26
[7] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/topaz.htm
Record "Robin Hood" Raid on Casino Turmel Topaz
[8] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/anthology.htm
Anthology of Great Canadian Characters, Hubert Bauch 1984
"A winner at the table. A loser at the polls."
[9] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm
Banking Systems Engineering Mathematics Analysis
[10] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombible.htm
Turmel Poem on Bible references to money and interest +500 verses
[11] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombank.htm
Turmel Poem of banking system engineering +500 verses
[12] http://www.cfg.com/timedollar/Welcome.html
Timedollars United States, Edgar Cahn
[13] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pomlizas.htm
Poem to Her Majesty explaining how L.E.T.S. could save.
[14] http://www.regeneration.detr.gov.uk/cbri/annexa.htm
U.K. Government endorsement of L.E.T.S. 1997
[15] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/usirs.htm
U.S. I.R.S. tax free status of Timedollars
[16] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/np5.htm
Australia: The Bulletin: Bartered Bride 1990-01-09
[17] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/endeahm.htm
Australia Parliament debates L.E.T.S. Amendment 1995
[18] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/stock96.htm
U.K. Stockport: starts L.E.T.S. "ANTI-POVERTY" strategy 1996
[19] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/enukgvt2.htm
U.K. Government considering Australia L.E.T.S. legislation 1999
[20] http://www.lights.com/jubilee/
Jubilee 2000 Cancel-the-debts-of-the-poorest web site
[21] http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/prspol82.htm
Toronto Star: IMF World Bank meeting: "Immmorality of
interest led man to police station" 1982
[22] http://www.50years.org
Hosts of recent Washington Anti-I.M.F.-World Bank Protest 1999.
If you agree we need Email L.E.T.S. for our planet to survive, also
write to Bill Gates at ask...@microsoft.com and send him your prayer
explaining why you think Email L.E.T.S. could help and yours.
Send a comment to John Turmel tur...@ncf.ca
Home http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
JCT: That was written a couple of years ago but stands still true today.
--
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel, Author of the UNILETS
interest-free time-based currency United Nations C6 recommendation to
Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
Visit http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
----------------------------
DE's questions for Mr. Turmel:
I understand how the current system worse than fails us, so how much of the
Fed Reserve system can be replaced by LETS?
1. Is LETS a create your own medium of exchange by picking your own
non-loan-sourced backing for digital tokens?
2. Can LETS perform the function of a measure of value? Or would each LETS
currency find its own gold price? Or what?
3> Of a store of value?
4. Can LETS money be banked and borrowed?
5. Is there automatic market equilibrating "invisible hand" that would
regulate the supply of LETS or the value of LETS currencies (e.g., the
character of the LETS banker and his desire to stay solvent in the long
run?)
6. I have long ago said that the war on Bill Gates has to do with the fact
that Gates could replace the the big Investment Banks -- so that
entrepreneurs could get capital funding from the internet, and investors
could check character, prospects, market, science, and all "fundamentals"
for a prospective investment through the internet -- raising capital as the
Navy one paid for a battleship by passing around collection boxes in the
schools (or part of a battleship anyway). There is a GIANT SPREAD between
what people who deposit money in their banks get and even the lowest
("prime" rate) in the U.S. -- but when the Big Banks borrow
internationally, the spread they enjoy between borrowing and lending is less
that one point -- genuine market efficiency for the elite -- contrived
gouging for us the milking cows.
I don't know if LETS is the best way to go -- I only just now heard of it --
but if has advanced as far as you indicate and if it is indeed "interest
free money," then as all the varieties of socialist became Leninists after
the RUssian Revolution, so all anti-FED monetary reformers will want to get
behind the reform that has an actual foothold in the world, a real operating
base from which to expand etc. (not created by a bank making a loan
(creating a checking deposit) under a FED that hold our bonds and collects
that interest (which large portion of the national debt would dissappear if
the Federal Reserve Act was repealed and "free banking" restored
Can you tell us enough history of yourself so that we can know you are not a
stooge of chase manhattan giving us a booby-trapped phony alternative to
sour us on reform? I don't think you are, but who are you? Or if that is
putting you on the spot, just answer this: How is you knowledge/invention
of this system linked linked with your desire to reform the one we have?
(In a free banking system the character of the banker is very important, and
of the banking system reformer.)
Thanks in advance.
Dick Eastman
Yakima