Tanks and "Subs": Sexual Freedom Reflects Bondage

June 27, 2012

"The very same week that armored vehicles were seen treading the streets of St. Louis, the city held its annual "Pridefest" sexual libertine parade. As we are being conditioned to fight for our "sexual rights," we are increasingly losing our real rights." 
by Alex (henrymakow.com)
 I can't help but be reminded of what Aldous Huxley called, "the love of servitude" and its effect on society.
I am seeing more and more of this passion for slavery as the weeks go by, but it really "hits home" so to speak when I saw my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri being haunted by the specter of armored vehicles and all of the other trappings that go with martial law.
Of course, the citizens by and large refuse to acknowledge these threats and therefore are unable to resist.
(left. St. Louis gay pride parade normalizes decadence. "Sub" is the bondage term for sexually dominated .)
I think it is important to bring up another Huxley quote: "As economic and political freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends to increase as compensation. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom." 
I mention this quote because on the very same week that armored vehicles were seen treading the streets of St. Louis, the city held its annual "Pridefest" sexual libertine parade.
As we are being conditioned to fight for our "sexual rights" we are increasingly losing our real rights. How many mainstream news outlets does one see these days actively promoting the sexual libertine agenda? In comparison, how many give so much as a brief mention of the numerous breaches of our constitutional rights and privacy, as well as the significance of these daily trespasses?Why is it that men are permitted lead each other in the streets with leathers and leashes in the full view of children but when a citizen stands up for their 4th amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure (and government-sanctioned sexual molestation) they are stamped out by the iron hammer of the establishment?
It is no wonder that sadism is going mainstream. Take, for instance, the enormously popular pornographic book series, "Fifty Shades of Grey"- a lurid tale of a woman submitting herself sexually to a billionaire.
Due to the popularity of the series, the market for women interested in sadomasochism has expanded significantly. But this series cannot be identified simply as a treatise on perversion.
It is important to look at the social and economic theme as well, which is symbolic of an ignorant and debt-ridden society dependent on the super-elite for all of our cares and needs. This submission is taking place without any care or thought to the cost to our freedoms, dignity or human identity.In the forward for his novel, "Brave New World", Huxley would go on to write that the Marquis de Sade "regarded himself as the apostle of the truly revolutionary revolution beyond mere politics and economics- the revolution in individual men, women and children, whose bodies were henceforward to become the common sexual property of all and whose minds were to be purged of all the natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of traditional civilization."
In other words, the revolution against our foundation of society is happening on many levels, not just on one sphere of our established existence.
Not unlike the female protagonist, we are to submit ourselves to the elite controllers of our society.
--
Note from Alex: I have to give credit to the hardcore leftist St. Louis publication "Riverfront Times" for being my inspiration. It was they who juxtaposed the cognitive dissonance of the presence of the armored vehicles with "Pridefest" on their website (they host a photo gallery of the event on their site: http://www.riverfronttimes.com/slideshow/pridefest-2012-st-louis-part-2-37132532/

Makow comment: A reader informs me she just returned from Walmart where she saw stacks and sacks of "Fifty Shades of Grey"  for sale. So it has come to this. Porn for sale at Walmart.
Proof of what Alex  and Aldous Huxley say.  

Comments for "Tanks and "Subs": Sexual Freedom Reflects Bondage"

Irish Dan said (June 28, 2012):
".........It's an obvious reference to MI6 torture, that 99% of Brits don't believe their beloved Intelligence agency is capable of......." I do not think that the 'believers' and the 'concerned' in English society are confined to just '1%' I know far too many decent, highly moral English people to accept that.
I am in fact currently grieving the loss of one such friend, John Miller of The Sauniere Society who died some days ago. Some years back John invited a former British Army Major in the Medical Core, now a leading surgeon to give one of the weekend lectures at a Sauniere conference.
This Surgeon has made a lifetime study of pederasty and it's covert and overt interfaces with State agencies and The British Establishment. In the course of his lecture he gave an overview of this activity and concentrated on the contemporary scene. Blare, Brown etc in fact a whole sward of the political and other establishments were named with available 'on the record' evidence that was ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media.
Of the fifty present, thirty-five were 'Middle-England' : when he concluded there was an outburst of total outrage in that room from these people in particular and they did not dispute the facts as presented. Despite that over a dozen leading figures in British public life were 'named and shamed' in what if not factual, would have have been a most libelous defamation of all in a public forum leading to MP's etc being bombarded with protests, there was no 'official', overt response.
This was the same man who as a serving Army Medical Core Major in British Occupied Six-County Ireland, stopped the 'Interrogation in depth' otherwise known as torture of Republican Prisoners during the detention without charge or trial 'Internment' period in the early seventies.

---

Red Ox said (June 28, 2012):
From Red Ox:
The MI6 view on sex is that you can sexualise "anything", including torture. Indeed the worse a situation becomes, the more a human mind seeks to derive pleasure from pain. Victims of MI6 torture are encouraged under electroshock to then gain pleasure from sado-masochistic pornography in the future, because it will remind them.
Certain famous pornographic websites were mentioned to me in the 1990s that didn't even exist, suggesting a CIA/MI6 involverment in their construction.
Devices such as calling people "Daddy" and being submissive is exactly what an MK'd victim is supposed to do to their oppressor, for real. e.g to Thomas Hurd or Dick Cheney.
Victims are made to say "I want it" continually and wear rabbit ears, both important conditioning, the latter upheld by Hugh Heffner. Just like watching porn. Think how many young women go about voluntarily with these symbols of MK.
Butterfly tattoos just above the ass. How many young women 'independently' came up with that? (Butterfly = Monarch). Mind you, fashion and unncessary clothing could be seen as MK or 'high level lower level' social conditioning.
MI6 also conducted gay weddings before they existed: once again showing the influence of this collective - to be able to implement something 15 years later - and it's active and successful attempts to make a degenerate society.
In a pro-social society they'd probably be enough love to go around, without inducing these perversions. Not too difficult to imagine. We're instead glorifying the vacuum (celebrity), have glamor models as authors and emptying one's mind (drinking alcohol) as culture!
We've long since gone past the point of challenging the view that empty vessel young men and women who strut around displaying the voluntary symptoms of MK are to be questioned and re-educated (bit of a Communist term there!), not idolized.
The MI6 view is they don't just want to torture/rape/control/murder someone (once)... they want to (psychologically) do it again and again. This is explained in the film Salo by Pier Paolo Pasolini (fascist diplomats perform torture/sexual experiments on young boys and girls, looking for perfect control).
Unfortunately for MI6 someone butchered a member of their staff and witnesses claim "Pierre Paolo" let them in. It's an obvious reference to MI6 torture, that 99% of Brits don't believe their beloved Intelligence agency is capable of. Then the lead and very senior Police Officer (a woman called Jackie) went looking for a chap called Mr Paolo for 2 years. She didn't find him.

---

Dan said (June 27, 2012):
Martial law exercises juxtaposing queer parades is psychological warfare. Such surreal incogruities trigger cognitive dissonance.

The silence of the American public is deafening. Media taunts have abounded during 'Pride 2012' locally and nationally.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/homecoming-photo-of-gay-marine-kissing-boyfriend-goes-viral/

Not a peep from families of US Marines. Silence doesn't mean approval. When people see resistance seems to be futile they seem to go selectively blind. 

Romancing the drone…

Romancing the drone…

Drone Wars UK

Pretty in Pink: public to be reassured by painted drones? February 5, 2012 Anyone with even a passing interest in the military soon discovers the peculiar phenomenon of 'military speak’, in which a spade can never quite be called a spade. Bombs and bullets are called ’ordnance consumables’, a missile strike or bombing raid is known as a 'kinetic event’, and despite its offensive purpose, the industry and its business must always be described as 'defence’.  Military speak is essentially about maintaining a psychological distance between the day-to-day sanitized business of planning, preparing (and profiting) from armed conflicts and the awful brutal reality of warfare.  The same coyness over language applies of course to drones.  Over the past few years I've lost count of the number of times I been told not to call drones 'drones’.  The current preferred term in the military is 'Remotely Piloted Air System’ (RPAS) after they rejected 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicle’ (UAV) as being 'off message’ ("such a generic term can be unhelpful, particularly when working with an uninformed audience" said the MoD last year). The term 'drone’, though widely used and understood by the public and media alike, is snubbed both by the military and those wanting to get a civil drone industry of the ground.  Not only is it seen as too dull a name for such a 'sophisticated piece of kit’ but its association with death and destruction is of course problematic. This week the Guardian revealed that the Unmanned Aerial Systems Association, a UK lobby group, is planning a public relations offensive to counter the negative image of drones.  This website (Drone Wars UK) was cited by the lobby group as part of the problem to be overcome.   They recommend  that drones deployed in the UK "be decorated with humanitarian-related advertisements, and be painted bright colours to distance them from those used in warzones"  As the guardian reports: "John Moreland, the general secretary of UAVSA, said the industry was uncomfortable with the word "drones" and wanted to find new terminology. "If they’re brightly coloured, and people know why they’re there, it makes them a lot more comfortable," he said. The idea that the public could be persuaded to accept drones by painting them bright colours has rightly been mocked across the blogosphere. A more serious strategy in the attempt to rebrand drones is for advocates to play up their potential to be used by green or human rights groups. Last week the New York Times carried a think piece arguing that drones should be used to monitor human rights abuses. Like many drones themselves however, the idea has come crashing down to earth after being comprehensively rubbished by human rights advocates (see the excellent post from Laurenist and also from Mark Kersten).  Even one noted supporter of drones, @drunkenpredator,  ridiculed the idea on twitter. Drones do not have a negative image because of the work of Drones Wars UK, but because of the awful impact that they have in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, and because of the serious concern that remote warfare will mean more warfare. The public will not be reassured by any renaming or rebranding exercise.  What is needed is for the legitimate concerns about drones in warfare and their impact on civil liberties to be taken seriously.

A Journey To The End Of Empire

A Journey To The End Of Empire
It is Always Darkest Right Before it Goes Completely Black

Phil Rockstroh

February 1, 2012 When the poet stands at nadir the world must indeed be upside-down. If the poet can no longer speak for society, but only for himself, then we are at the last ditch. — Excerpt from, The Time of the Assassins, a study of Rimbaud, by Henry Miller There is no reality-based argument denying this: The present system, as defined by the neoliberal economic order, is as destructive to the balance of nature as it is to the individual, both body and psyche. One’s body grows obese while Arctic ice and wetlands shrink. Biodiversity decreases as psyches are commodified by ever-proliferating, corporatist/consumer state banality. But the raging soul of the world will not be assaulted without consequence. Mind and body are intertwined and inseparable from nature, and, when nature responds to our assaults, her replies are known to humankind as the stuff of mythic tragedy and natural catastrophe. When the poet lives his hell, it is no longer possible for the common man to escape it. — Excerpt from, The Time of the Assassins, a study of Rimbaud, by Henry Miller But take heart. As the saying goes, it is always darkest right before it goes completely black. Rejoice in this: Seeds of futurity require the darkness within soil to dream. To go into the dark with a light is to know the light. /To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,/ and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,/ and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings. — Wendell Berry, To Know The Dark What "tangible" and "constructive" things can a poetic sensibility contribute to everyday existence? Here’s one: The atomized denizens of neoliberal culture are in dire need of a novel yet durable sensibility, one bearing the creativity and stamina required, for example, to withstand the police state rebuffs inflicted by the ruthless authoritarian keepers of the present order…as is the case when OWS dissidents initiate attempts to retake, inhabit, and re-imagine public space. Yet, while it is all well and good to be politically enlightened, approaching the tumult of human events guided by reason and restraint, if the self is not saturated in poetry, one will inhabit a dismal tower looking over a desiccated wasteland. The crackpot realist’s notion that poetry has no value other than what can be quantified in practical terms emerges from the same mindset that deems nature to be merely worth what it can be rendered down to as a commodity. The trees of a rain forest can be pulped to paper cups. A human being is only the content of his resume. The underlying meaning of this sentiment: The value of one’s existence is derived by the act of being an asset of the 1%. Resultantly, the tattered remnants of the neoliberal imagination (embodied in lofty but content-devoid Obama speechifying and the clown car demolition derby of Republican politics) spends its days in a broken tower of the mind, insulated from this reality: The exponentially increasing consequences (e.g., economic collapse, perpetual war, ecocide) created by the excesses of the present paradigm will shake those insular towers to theirs foundations, and, will inevitably caused the structures to totter and collapse. The bells, I say, the bells break down their tower; And swing I know not where. Their tongues engrave Membrane through marrow, my long-scattered score Of broken intervals…And I, their sexton slave! – Hart Crane , excerpt from The Broken Tower We have been "sexton slave" to this destructive order long enough; its lodestar is a death star. In polar opposition, a poetic view of existence insists that one embrace the sorrow that comes at the end of things. The times have bestowed on us a shuffle to the graveside of our culture, and, we, like members of a New Orleans-style, second line, funeral procession, must allow our hearts to be saturated by sorrowful songs. Yet when the service is complete, the march away from the boneyard should shake the air with the ebullient noise borne of insistent brass. Often we’re not so much afraid of our own limitations, as we are of the infinite within us. — Nelson Mandela (from an interview from his prison cell, conducted by the late Irish poet and priest, John O’Donnahey) In this way, we are nourished by the ineffable, whereby unseen components of consciousness provide us the strength to carry the weight of darkness. Therefore, to those who demand this of poets: that all ideas, notions, flights of imagination, revelries, swoons of intuition, Rabelaisian rancor, metaphysical overreach, unnerving apprehensions, and inspired misapprehensions be tamed, rendered practical, and only considered fit to be broached in reputable company when these things bring "concrete" answers to polite dialog–I ask you this, if the defining aspects of our existence were constructed of concrete, would not the world be made of the material of a prison? Moreover, is this not the building material and psychic criteria comprising the neoliberal paradigm? Is it any wonder that the concept of freedom is under siege? Carl Jung averred, when a disconnect occurs between the inner life of the individual and the outward exigencies of daily life that "the Gods […] become diseases." One way, this assertion can be taken is: There are multiple forces, tangible and intangible, in play in our lives and the trajectory of events; e.g., the personal, in the form of the ghosts of trauma that haunt individual memory, but there exist, as well, extant and within, the collective spirit of an age. Tragically, in our own time, within the precincts of power, our national house of spirits has become a madhouse. Yet beneath the gibbering cacophony of the insane asylums of past eras, beneath the haze of pharmacologically induced stupors of the institutions of the present, there exists much pain. This is the toll taken by a manic flight from honest suffering. At present, this is what we’re given in our age of cultural and political disconnect and its attendant sense of nebulous dread. Paradoxically, while the forces of nature are impersonal, the dilemma feels very personal. Therefore, on this journey to the end of empire, when impersonal elements are in play, one can become alienated from the dehumanizing trajectory of the times. Likewise, as exemplified by the U.S. political system, what process is more impersonal than the process of decay? Apropos, the air is permeated with a reek of putrefaction. Yet the earth is kind, for one can use putrescent material in the process of renewal. The loam of earth is enriched by the rancid…just don’t swallow it down whole…doing so, will cause you to become ill. Importantly, because a cultural breakdown is occurring, and culture carries the criteria of psyche, the acts of social engagement through dissent, cultural re-imagining and rebuilding can have a propitious effect upon individual consciousness, an endeavor James Hillman termed "soul-making". Remember to disguise yourself as yourself when approached by ghosts of calcified habit and gods of tumultuous change. This is essential: Because what takes hold and brings about the collapse of an empire…is a loss of collective soul; e.g., the type of loss of meaning and purpose evinced when only a meaningless, zombie-like drive remains, because, even though, the culture is dead, it refuses to accept the shroud of the earth’s enveloping soil…to have its decomposing remains broken down and returned to the cycle of all things. As circumstances stand, at present, for the 1%, their refusal to accept the inevitable has yielded grave ramifications for the people, fauna, and flora of the planet. Although, due to their seemingly vacuum-sealed insularity, ensured by vast wealth, the economic and political elite have yet to be touched by the consequences of their actions, much less forced down to earth. Of course, this behavior defies logic, is in breach of the law, and is an affront to any workable code of ethics–as well as stands in defiance to the laws of nature, including the force of gravity. But you can count on this, "the unseen hand of the market" (actually the buckling backs of the 1%) can’t hold up the 99%’s swaying tower of hubris for much longer, and when it comes down, stand clear, for there are no bystanders when an empire crumbles. "That’s just the way it is." As exhibited by the often bland, "normal" outward appearance of a serial killer, when the apologists and operatives of an exploitive, destructive system appear to be reasonable, they can go about their business without creating general alarm. By the same token, while many present day Republicans are zealots–barnburners raving into the flames of the conflagrations created by the militarist/national security/police/prison industrial state–Barack Obama and the Democratic Party serve as normalizers of the pathologies of late empire. In this manner, atrocious acts can be committed by the state, with increasing frequency, because, over the passage of time, such outrages will have been allowed to pass into the realm of the mundane, and are thus bestowed with a patina of acceptability. In nineteenth century Britain, the sugar that sweetened the tea of oh-so civilized, afternoon teatime was harvested by brutalized, Caribbean slaves, who rarely lived past the age of thirty, as, for example, in our time, in our blood-wrought moments of normalcy, we trudge about in sweatshop sewn clothing, brandishing i-Phones manufactured by factory enslaved teenage girls who are forced to work 14 hour plus shifts. "That’s just the way it is" might be one of the most soul-defying phrases in the human lexicon. Contrast this with the OSW slogan, "The beginning is near." Hold both sentiments in your mind and discover which one allows your own heart to beat in sync with the heart of the world, and which will grant the imagination and stamina required to remake the world anew. Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at phil@philrockstroh.com and FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000711907499 .

P. Buchanan: Remembering Wars and Warriors

Patrick J. Buchanan Archive

May 28, 2010

Remembering Wars and Warriors

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Since America became a nation, four of her greatest generals have served two terms as president: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant and Dwight David Eisenhower.

Not one of these generals led America into a new war.

Washington was heroic in keeping the young republic out of the wars that erupted in Europe after the French Revolution, as were his successors John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Jackson, arguably America's greatest soldier—who won the Battle of New Orleans, which preserved the Union, and virtually annexed Florida—resisted until his final days in office recognizing the Republic of Texas, liberated by his great friend and subaltern Sam Houston.

Jackson wanted no war with Mexico.

Eisenhower came to office determined to end the war in Korea. In six months, he succeeded—and kept America out of the raging war in Indochina.

Of the men who led us into our 19th century wars—the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War—only one, William McKinley, was a soldier who had seen combat.

McKinley had enlisted at 17. In 1862, he was with the Union army at Antietam, the bloodiest battle ever fought on American soil.

Though derided as having "the backbone of a chocolate eclair" by the bellicose Theodore Roosevelt, McKinleyconfided to a friend before going to war with Spain: "I have been through one war. ... I have seen the dead piled up. I do not want to see another."

James Madison, who took us into the War of 1812, which came close to tearing apart the Union; James Polk, who took us to war with Mexico and gave us Texas to the Rio Grande, the Southwest and California; and Abraham Lincoln, who led the nation in its bloodiest war, were politicians. Lincoln had served three months in the Illinois Militia in the Black Hawk War, but he never saw action.

America was led into the world wars by Woodrow Wilson, a professor, and Franklin Roosevelt, a politician. Harry Truman, who took us into Korea, had captained an artillery battery in France in 1918. John F. Kennedy, who led us into Vietnam, had served on a PT boat in the Solomons. George H.W. Bush, who launched Desert Storm, was one of the youngest Navy pilots to fight in the Pacific war.

While Americans this Memorial Day put flags out for all of their war dead, the arguments do not cease over the wisdom of the wars in which they fought and died.

In the grammar and high schools we attended in the 1940s and early 1950s, they were all good wars, all just wars, all necessary wars. Perhaps that is how it should be taught to America's children.

Yet, if the Revolution was a great and good cause, men fighting for freedom and nationhood, the War of 1812, where we were a de facto ally of Napoleon, seems a less noble endeavor. For among our motives was seizing Canada while the Mother Country was diverted.

Though deplored today, the Mexican War was not an unjust war.

Far from stealing Mexican territory after our victory, we paid for it, and the Mexicans, five years later, agreed to the Gadsden Purchase and offered to sell us Baja California. The greed was in Mexico City.

As for America's Civil War, this quarrel will never end. Did not the South have the same right to secede from the Union as the 13 colonies did to secede from England? Did Lincoln have the right to use blockade and invasion to drive Old Dixie down? His predecessor James Buchanan did not think so.

Was the Civil War essential to ending slavery, when many states had already abolished it by legislation and every nation in the hemisphere ended it without a civil war, save for Haiti?

The Spanish-American War, begun over a falsehood—that Spain blew up the USS Maine in Havana harbor—ended with American soldiers and Marines fighting for years to deny Filipinos the freedom for which our fathers fought in the Revolution. Cuba was liberated, but the Philippines, 10,000 miles from Washington, was annexed. That was an imperial war.

In 1917, we declared war on Germany "to make the world safe for democracy." And our major allies were four of the largest empires on earth: the British, French, Russian and Japanese. We deposed the Kaiser, and got Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and World War II.

As a result of these world wars, all the Western empires fell, and Western Civilization began its inexorable advance to the grave. 

Impending bankruptcy aside, not one Western nation has a birth rate that will enable its native-born to survive many more generations. We did it to ourselves.

About Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan—and the presidents who fought those wars, LBJ, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush—the divisions are still deep and emotions raw. Today is not the time to re-fight them, but to honor and pray for the patriots who, throughout our history, did their duty, fought and died in them. Requiescant in pace.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/malinvestments/the-cassandra-of-moscow/

Friday, 28 May 2010

The Cassandra of Moscow

The Collapse of the United States is Just the Beginning

By Nina Kouprianova

A new Orthodox-Catholic model of global development will replace the last 600 years of colonial liberalism -- in the long-term. In the short-term, the U.S. is still about to collapse. This is not another conspiracy theory from the blogging depths of the internet, but the newest interview with Igor Panarin in a recent issue of Economic Strategies (Ekonomicheskie Strategii 4 (2010)).

Igor Nikolaevich is a political scientist, an academician at the Russian Military Academy, and a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He holds PhDs in psychology and political science. Panarin has made a career of long-term geopolitical commentary, much of which has been far less rosy than that by a standard talking head on a major news network. Last year Panarin shocked the North American press: one of his predictions regarding the imminent collapse of the U.S. was widely publicized. That forecast was actually ten years old, but it suddenly made waves in the context of the deepening global economic downturn, in general, and the American bailouts, in particular.

In the interview with Economic Strategies, Panarin suggests that what we are seeing today is the crash of a 600-year cycle of global development. This cycle is based on two major components -- the drug trade and the slave trade -- the foundation of all European colonial empires, especially the British Empire. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union marked the near-exhaustion of this particular geopolitical model.

Let me remind you that since 2006, the Fed has not been providing any information about the number of dollars it prints, even at the request of the Congress. Consequently, ideologically [Americans] are not able to create a new model. Colonial liberalism, which dominated the past 500-600 years, is at the end of its journey. Marxist socialism-colonialism was a part of this colonial liberalism, developed during the information war waged by the British Empire. Marxism, in fact, was an imported project, used to suppress Russia, Germany, and other alternative financial and economic systems. Protestants were the shock force in the construction of colonial liberalism. Whether they liked it or not, the spiritual and economic components were precisely Protestant-Lutheran.

As the U.S.-dollar model of liberal colonialism ceases to exist, Igor Nikolaevich projects that it will be replaced by three key currencies: the rouble, the Euro, and the Asian Monetary Unit (ACU) -- based on the Chinese yuan. When it comes to North America, in particular, the Canadian dollar may become the source of a new regional currency, because the U.S. dollar is likely to disappear as a result of the U.S. collapse. He reminds us that the Canadian dollar is supported by natural resources, and can, therefore, gain strength. However, if the U.S. smartens up and reinstitutes something like the silver dollar, then it might be possible to create a new regional currency on the Can-American basis. This currecy would allow for a relatively painless way out of the economic crisis, “Those people, who have been an influence on the geopolitical and economic situation, of course, do not want to lose power. They fear, say, physical elimination.”

Panarin believes that there is reason to forecast the collapse of the U.S. as early as July, which would be led by California. The collapse of California would trigger a default, which would have a fatal impact on the U.S. economy.

The U.S. has already taken two attempts to overcome the crisis. The first was an alliance with China, where 70% of its problems had to be moved to China. The second was a transition plan for the Amero, i.e. an attempt to redistribute the tension to Canada and Mexico. Nothing happened. Iran, all these Israeli Wars […] -- these are much less convenient options to solve the global crisis.

Currently, as the U.S. continues to struggle, it is also being pushed out of the new financial model. The plan to introduce a common North American currency on March 1, 2010 and save the sinking American financial system failed.

Two years ago, a conference was held with participation by countries in Latin America, North America and the Caribbean, [at which] Mexico proposed to exclude the U.S. from the Amero zone, but not Canada. Only the United States. However, this was a preliminary decision, which had no impact […] And suddenly, when the U.S.-China relations worsened, there was a summit in the Americas, were [they] decided upon the establishment of a new continental economic organization without the United States or Canada. And this occurs a week before the introduction of the Amero...There was an information leak on the subject on the internet, even the printed bills of the new currency.

He credits China with dealing a “knockout blow to the American globalists.” The Chinese apparently offered economic assistance to Mexico, and it suddenly argued against the Amero.

What concerns me is that a few days after this historic conference [about the Amero project], all of Latin America was struck by a series of earthquakes and tsunami. We have not witnessed such seismic activity in a long time in a region, where the [ACU] will be introduced. This makes one wonder…The causes of such natural disasters may have been manmade.

The reason China wields so much influence is the fact that it won an information war with the United States:

[Americans] have already, in effect, "given away" Taiwan; China has made a number of harsh statements; this [was] actually an ultimatum. Americans have asked to visit Beijing themselves, which [was] humiliating for them.

Therefore, an alliance between China, a “large factory”, France, representing Europe, and Russia, the center of Eurasia, may turn out to be quite fruitful. Igor Nikolaevich finds Medvedev’s choice to propose the new architecture of international financial relations in Paris, which was subsequently supported by Sarkozy, rather significant. “But France must be the same as under de Gaulle”, he adds. He was first to begin “the war with the Bretton Woods system, demanding to exchange Eurodollars for 2,000 tons of gold.” Essentially, Medvedev-Sarkozy cooperation is an attempt by the global elite to find a way out of the crisis through the rouble and the euro.

Now, at the bifurcation point, France is more important for [Russia] than Germany, which, in fact, is still occupied by the U.S. troops. What are 75 thousand U.S. soldiers doing in Germany, which no one threatens? Soviet tanks left East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and other European countries 20 years ago, while the most powerful group from the United States is still on West German soil. In the 1940s, these two countries signed a secret agreement, which severely limited German national sovereignty -- this is what the former heads of the German secret service describe in their memoirs.

Finally, Panarin believes that Russia is capable of reestablishing those positions that it held prior to the Bolshevik takeover. Stalin’s restoration of the territorial integrity of the Russian empire serves as historic precedent. However, Igor Nikolaevich suggests a fundamentally new model. Currently, there exists the potential of increasing Russia’s influence in Turkey, Mongolia, and Iran. Turkey, for instance, already uses roubles. This influence should be combined with the possibility of pushing the rouble into other areas, such as India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, in addition to the former USSR and Eastern Europe. As a result, Russia would become the true center of Eurasia.

Thus, the ACU-rouble-Euro model makes financial and geopolitical sense as the replacement of the U.S. dollar, according to Panarin. In fact, he proposed a global currency, ACURE, in March of 2009. Igor Nikolaevich also hopes to see the healing of a thousand-year old schism as the cultural replacement of colonial liberalism, “Today, Orthodoxy and Catholicism must interact in the process of building a new model -- a model that is more just, spiritually moral, thereby creating a kind of an ideological structure, a [certain] solidarity.”

Now independent thinkers are considered diseased by psychiatry

 The day may be coming when Western political dissidents will be detained in mental institutions, just as they were in the Soviet Union

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Psychiatrists have been working on the fourth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and, in it, they hope to add a whole slew of new psychiatric disorders. Unfortunately, many of these disorders are merely differences in personality and behavior among people.

The new edition may include "disorders" like "oppositional defiant disorder", which includes people who have a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Some of the "symptoms" of this disorder including losing one's temper, annoying people and being "touchy".

Other "disorders" being considered include personality flaws like antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism or narcissism. There are even categories for people who binge eat and children who have temper tantrums.

Children are already over-diagnosed for allegedly being bipolar or having attention-deficit disorder (ADD), which results in their being prescribed dangerous antipsychotic drugs. To categorize even more childhood behaviors as psychiatric disorders will only further increase the number of children who will be needlessly prescribed antipsychotic drugs.

Each new revision of DSM has included controversial new additions, and this newest version is no exception. In fact, the manual has increased considerably in size over the years. What is most disturbing about the current proposed revisions is the blatantly brave, new way in which so-called medical professionals are viewing individual characteristics.

Children who exhibit unique eccentricities in accordance with their unique personalities, in general, would be categorized as having a mental illness. If this criteria had been used in past centuries to diagnose illness, there may have never been people like Mozart or Einstein who ventured outside the norm and came up with new or unique ideas.

A Washington Post article captured the essence of this concept perfectly in the following quote:

"If seven-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."

The perception that character differences are somehow a psychic illnesses not only absolves individuals of personal responsibility, but it takes away their unique personhood. It reduces people into subjects that cannot think for themselves, but rather have to be controlled through drugs.

Which brings us to perhaps the biggest thrust behind the DSM revisions: the drug companies. Pharmaceutical companies stand to gain a lot for having virtually every person categorized as mentally ill and in need of drugs.

A more accurate approach to the situation is to assess the psychiatrists and drug lords who are contriving such nonsense as being the true possessors of mental illness. Perhaps these people are the ones that need to be institutionalized.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028803_psychiatry_disease.html

PAUL KRUGMAN-Where The Debt Is Coming From

PAUL KRUGMAN


May 3, 2010, 9:38 AM

Where The Debt Is Coming From

One of the small side benefits of the economic crisis has been that the IMF’sWorld Economic Outlook, all too often a somnolent document, has latterly become must-read and really interesting. (Of, course, it’s not just circumstances; Olivier Blanchard, the Fund’s chief economist, has been doing a fine job).

The latest edition isn’t quite as pathbreaking as the last two, but still has a lot of interesting stuff. One thing it does it break down the sources of the actual and projected rise in advanced-country debt due to the crisis, measured as a percentage of GDP:

International Monetary Fund

What’s striking here is that fiscal stimulus is a small player. It would be even smaller if one took into account the fact that stimulus has made economies stronger than they would otherwise have been, leading to higher revenues and smaller unemployment benefits.

What dominates the picture instead is the consequences of the slump, in falling revenues and higher social insurance payments.

And what this tells us is that anyone demanding that countries not run such big deficits is, in effect, calling for higher taxes and slashed spending in the face of a deep recession — Hoovernomics. Is that really what they want? Is that their final answer?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Sunday, 11 April 2010

Dissolving the European People

By Richard Spencer

"The government should dissolve the people and elect another one," quipped the Communist playwright Bertolt Brecht after the East German riots of 1953. For good or ill, the U.S. political elite seems to be acting on his advice.~Peter Brimelow, 1992

As much misery as it caused, the German Democratic Republic never actually tried to displace the German people. The natives of Britain haven't been so lucky:    

Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner
Daily Mail
By James Chapman
8 April, 2010

Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign today as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.

Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.

The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.

{snip}

Mr Brown rejected the idea of an immigration quota, which he said would do 'great damage to British business'. 

This report rhymes with Andrew Nether's revelations from last fall.   

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
The TelegraphBy Tom Whitehead, 
23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

(I discuss this affair in more detail here.)

On the heels of Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC comes this fascinating headline in the Telegraph:

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

In other news, Playboy subscribers have announced that they don’t read the magazine just for the articles.

The story continues: 

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

In Monsieur Neather’s Evening Standard column, he positively revels in the little social experiment he helped concoct:

It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners—although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley—fascist au pair, anyone?

Translation: right-wingers and traditionalists are stupid and disgusting people who are rightly shunned from society. Those Third World migrants, on the other hand…

[T]his wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.

But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.

My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.

London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

If you had only read Neather’s column, and hadn’t, say, visited London, you might think your average refugee was a dashing and genteel flaneur with a famous Austrian Duke as an uncle and a habit of peppering his speech with foreign bon mots, to the delight and cultural enrichment of his hosts. And the rest are “Polish plumbers.” In Neather’s imagination, he and Tony turned London into a dazzling salon that puts old Paris to shame (a city which, by the way, has experienced much the same demographic transformation). Neather doesn’t dwell too long on who the immigrants actually are. (For your information, the vast majority of them come from the Pakistan region, followed closely by Africans and Afro-Caribbeans.) My impression upon visiting London recently was that it’s become a crime-ridden, vulgar, dysfunctional, generally unpleasant counterfeit of its former self. I probably should have stayed away and just read about “diversity” in the Evening Standard. 

Neather also makes no bones about the brazen deception involved in the scheme:

But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. [Tony Blair’s immigration minister Barbara] Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

But Labour ministers elsewhere tend studiously to avoid ever mentioning London. Meanwhile, the capital’s capacity to absorb new immigrants depends in large part on its economic vitality and variety. There’s not a lot of that in, say, south Yorkshire. And so ministers lost their nerve.

And as is so often the case with disastrous government projects, Blair’s immigration policy can be traced back to some highly connected think-tank that’s accountable only to the Prime Minister (the Performance and Innovation Unit) and some unelected “minister” (in this case, the adorable Miss Roche.)

In another outburst of honesty, Neather correctly states that it’s not a case of the London economy needing tons of immigrants in order to be efficient and dynamic; it’s the other way ‘round: only a pre-existing dynamic economy would be able to “absorb” millions of Third World newcomers. I don’t think I’m overstating the matter when I write that Neather is arguing against most everything everyone always tells us about immigration. (We’ve always had the horse in front of the cart here at Takimag, however.)

The line from Neather’s column that will probably go down in anti-racist lore reads,

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

It wasn’t only “the Right” who got their noses rubbed in diversity, and one hopes that the British people will make Blair, Neather, Roche, and the whole crew bewail the unintended consequences of their immigration policies. 

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/euro-centric/dissolving-the-european-people/