Depopulation

"Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." ~ Dr. Henry Kissinger

World population is, by all intents and purposes, completely out of control.

Plans are underway now, implemented by the Corporate Capitalist Elite, to depopulate the planet's 6-7 billion people to a manageable level of between 500 million and 2 billion.

There are many means and methods of depopulation that are being employed today, the three primary ones include: 

1. unsustainable/exploitative international development, which leads to massive hunger, starvation and famine worldwide (at least 40 million deaths annually); 
2. the fomentation of war, hatred and military procurements throughout the nations leading to millions of deaths worldwide; 
3. and finally, the creation and spread of infectious diseases leading to global pandemic, plague and pestilence on an unprecedented scale.

Other methods used include; the build-up and use of nuclear, chemical and biological agents, weapons and warfare, the poisoning and contamination of the planet's food and water supplies, the introduction and use of deadly pharmaceutical drugs in society, weather modification and the triggering of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis through electromagnetic psycho-tronic weapons both on Earth and in space, the promotion of homosexuality to limit population growth and spread the deadly AIDS virus, forced sterilization in countries such as China, forced vaccinations, abortion, euthanasia etc...

Death, and the management of who lives and who dies, has become the central organizing principle of the 21st century.

The previous century has been, by far, the bloodiest in human history. Hunger, famine and disease took billions of innocent lives. World Wars I and II, along with the despotic regimes of Mao Tsetung, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and others, took hundreds of millions of lives. The 21st century is shaping up to accelerate this dismal trend where hunger, famine and disease are reaping record levels of death (the equivalent of seven Jewish holocaust annually). Contemporary wars continue to rage on and proliferate. In the nation of Iraq, the killing fields have taken the lives of more than 2 million men, women and children (mostly children) this past decade from foreign and economic intervention. Vastly unreported is the genocide occurring in the Congo, where more than 4 million people have been slaughtered, mutilated and massacred recently with only scant world attention given. Add to this the unrestrained and very profitable build-up of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical and biological, in the world, particularly in the volatile Middle East region, with the expressed desire and willingness to actually use them, and you have an Apocalypse of World War III becoming a virtual inevitability. The death toll of THIS war is sure to surpass all previous in scale and in magnitude, as has been planned.

The international campaign to eliminate the "useless eaters," on behalf of the planet's privileged ruling elite, is surely to take a more voracious toll as global population levels continue to rise.

To implement their "final solution" to depopulate 4-5 billion people from the Earth, the world's Corporate Capitalist elite will undoubtedly harness the newly emerging bio-tech and nanotechnology industries to create a super 'bioweapon' virus creating a global 'kill-off' pandemic through which only they will have the cure.

The smart thing to do is to stop Corporate Capitalism before it kills most of the people off and enslaves the rest....

The State of the Union: 21st Century

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

– Frederic Bastiat, (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author

I pay attention to the fat content of my food, so I was pleased to find a can of Pam canola oil cooking spray that had 0 grams fat per serving. Great, can’t do better than zero fat, can you? I used it often for a few months … until one day I took a closer look at the “Nutrition Facts” … Yes, it said 0 grams fat per serving. A serving. How big was that? Let’s see … “Serving Size about 1/4 second spray” … Hmm, how does one press down on a button for 1/4 second? Is it humanly possible? Even the manufacturer had to say “about”. I had been taken. My hat is off to you Capitalist Robber Barons — You’re good!

The Dow Jones industrial average of blue-chip stocks fell 635 points on Monday August 8.

On Tuesday it rose by 430 points.

Wednesday, the market, in its infinite wisdom, decided to fall again; this time by 520 points.

And on Thursday … yes, it rose once again, by 423 points.

The Dow changed directions for eight consecutive trading sessions.

Upon such marvels of mankind countless people build careers, others wager their life savings, philanthropic foundations and universities risk much of their endowments, and conservative sages deliver sermons to the world on the wisdom and sacredness of the free market.

Do the economic fundamentals really change dramatically overnight? Or is our economic system as psycho as our foreign policy? The Washington Post’s senior economic columnist, Steven Pearlstein, wrote on August 14th of the four days described above: “I suppose there are some schnooks who actually believe that those wild swings in stock prices last week represented sober and serious concerns by thoughtful, sophisticated investors about the Treasury debt downgrade or European sovereign debt or a slowdown in global growth. But surely such perceptions don’t radically change each afternoon between 2 and 4:30, when the market averages last week were gyrating out of control.”

Last month “Pope Benedict XVI denounced the profit-at-all-cost mentality that he says is behind Europe’s economic crisis” as he arrived in hard-hit Spain. “The economy doesn’t function with market self-regulation but needs an ethical reason to work for mankind,” he declared. “Man must be at the center of the economy, and the economy cannot be measured only by maximization of profit but rather according to the common good.”

“I am a Marxist,” said the Dalai Lama last year. Marxism has “moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.”

“I don’t believe in anything,” said Barack Obama. “At least not really strongly.” (No, I made that one up.)

Perhaps the worst outcome of the United States “winning the Cold War” is that countless progressive people think there’s no alternative to the capitalist system. Seventy years of anti-communist education and media stamped in people’s minds a lasting association between socialism and what the Soviet Union called communism. Socialism meant a dictatorship, it meant Stalinist repression, a suffocating “command economy”, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to change jobs, few avenues for personal expression, and other similar truths and untruths. This is a set of beliefs clung to even amongst many Americans opposed to US foreign policy. No matter how bad the economy is, Americans think, the only alternative available is something called “communism”, and they know how awful that is.

Meanwhile, the Communist Party USA has endorsed Barack Obama for re-election.

Agribusiness: Corporate Control of Food

The agribusiness sector is composed of a diverse group of corporate interests -- crop producers, livestock and meat producers, poultry and egg companies, dairy farmers, timber producers, tobacco companies and food manufacturers and stores.

Individuals and political action committees associated with the agribusiness sector contributed $65 million at the federal level during the 2008 election cycle and leaned Republican -- giving the GOP 62 percent of its contributions. In years past, the sector has been even more supportive of Republicans, giving as much as three-quarters of its contributions to the party. However, the sector marginally increased its contributions to Democrats after they regained Congress in 2006 – a trend that has persisted going into the 2012 presidential elections.

The agribusiness sector has contributed $480.5 million to federal candidates during the past two decades, with two-thirds going to Republicans.

The sector’s top contributors for the past three election cycles have been the Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris) and American Crystal Sugar. Altria contributed $1.2 million in 2008, split evenly between the two parties. American Crystal Sugar gave 63 percent of its $1.9 million in contributions to Democrats during the 2008 cycle. The sugar cane and sugar beets industry -- as opposed to the sector as a whole -- has consistently leaned Democratic during the last two decades.

On the lobbying front, the sector spent $133 million in 2009, with the agriculture services, food processing and tobacco industries accounting for the majority of the expenditures. While the tobacco lobby has always had a major presence on Capitol Hill, the other two industries have steadily increased lobbying expenditures during the last few years as Congress has considered placing new food safety regulations and disclosure requirements on their products.

Issues of importance to the sector include agriculture subsidies, environmental and safety regulations and trade policy that favors agriculture. Increasingly, immigration reform has also become an issue, as many industries in the sector are highly dependent on immigrants and seasonal workers for labor.

The United States has the best Government that Corporate Capitalism can buy....

Corporate Capitalism Rules the World

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

~ Abraham Lincoln

Today we know that corporations, for good or bad, are major influences on our lives. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries. In this era of globalization, marginalized people are becoming especially angry at the motives of multinational corporations, and corporate-led globalization is being met with increasing protest and resistance. 

[A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Thus corporations were given the same “rights” to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can “donate” millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as “persons,” were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of “free speech.”

From this ability to influence, “corporate libertarianism” emerged, which placed the rights and freedoms of corporations above that of individuals. This influence also led to cultural and economic ideologies known by numerous names such as neoliberal, libertarian economics, market capitalism, market liberalism etc.

Some of the guiding principles of this ideology included:

    * Sustained economic growth as the way to human progress

    * Free markets without government “interference” would be the most efficient and socially optimal allocation of resources

    * Economic globalization would be beneficial to everyone

    * Privatization removes inefficiencies of public sector

    * Governments should mainly function to provide the infrastructure to advance the rule of law with respect to property rights and contracts.

However, the assumptions behind these principles are questionable as much as the principles themselves.

The influence and power of large corporations has increased and is an undeniable facet of the 'global village' and corporate globalization. Of course, the influence of various groups and entities is nothing new. But today, the increasing size and wealth of corporations point to more concentration of wealth and of political and economic power and influence than before. Indeed, today as mentioned above, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries.

Now there is a real 'conspiracy theory'.... 

What Is a Man?

A man carries cash. A man looks out for those around him — woman, friend, stranger. A man can cook eggs. A man can always find something good to watch on television. A man makes things — a rock wall, a table, the tuition money. Or he rebuilds — engines, watches, fortunes. He passes along expertise, one man to the next. Know-how survives him. This is immortality. A man can speak to dogs. A man fantasizes that kung fu lives deep inside him somewhere. A man knows how to sneak a look at cleavage and doesn't care if he gets busted once in a while. A man is good at his job. Not his work, not his avocation, not his hobby. Not his career. His job. It doesn't matter what his job is, because if a man doesn't like his job, he gets a new one.

A man can look you up and down and figure some things out. Before you say a word, he makes you. From your suitcase, from your watch, from your posture. A man infers.

A man owns up. That's why those who think they are perfect are not men. A man grasps his mistakes. He lays claim to who he is, and what he was, whether he likes them or not.

Some mistakes, though, he lets pass if no one notices. Like dropping the steak in the dirt.

A man loves the human body, the revelation of nakedness. He loves the sight of the pale breast, the physics of the human skeleton, the alternating current of the flesh. He is thrilled by the snatch, by the wrist, the sight of a bare shoulder. He likes the crease of a bent knee. When his woman bends to pick up her underwear, he feels that thrum that only a man can feel.

A man doesn't point out that he did the dishes.

A man looks out for children. Makes them stand behind him.

A man knows how to bust balls.

A man has had liquor enough in his life that he can order a drink without sounding breathless, clueless, or obtuse. When he doesn't want to think, he orders bourbon or something on tap.

Never the sauvignon blanc.

A man welcomes the coming of age. It frees him. It allows him to assume the upper hand and teaches him when to step aside.

Maybe he never has, and maybe he never will, but a man figures he can knock someone, somewhere, on his ass.

He does not rely on rationalizations or explanations. He doesn't winnow, winnow, winnow until truths can be humbly categorized, or intellectualized, until behavior can be written off with an explanation. He doesn't see himself lost in some great maw of humanity, some grand sweep. That's the liberal thread; it's why men won't line up as liberals.

A man gets the door. Without thinking.

He stops traffic when he must.

A man resists formulations, questions belief, embraces ambiguity without making a fetish out of it. A man revisits his beliefs. Continually. That's why men won't forever line up with conservatives, either.

A man knows his tools and how to use them — just the ones he needs. Knows which saw is for what, how to find the stud, when to use galvanized nails.

A miter saw, incidentally, is the kind that sits on a table, has a circular blade, and is used for cutting at precise angles. Very satisfying saw.

A man knows how to lose an afternoon. Drinking, playing Grand Theft Auto, driving aimlessly, shooting pool.

He knows how to lose a month, also.

A man listens, and that's how he argues. He crafts opinions. He can pound the table, take the floor. It's not that he must. It's that he can.

A man is comfortable being alone. Loves being alone, actually. He sleeps.

Or he stands watch. He interrupts trouble. This is the state policeman. This is the poet. Men, both of them.

A man loves driving alone most of all.

Style — a man has that. No matter how eccentric that style is, it is uncontrived. It's a set of rules.

He understands the basic mechanics of the planet. Or he can close one eye, look up at the sun, and tell you what time of day it is. Or where north is. He can tell you where you might find something to eat or where the fish run. He understands electricity or the internal-combustion engine, the mechanics of flight or how to figure a pitcher's ERA.

A man does not know everything. He doesn't try. He likes what other men know.

A man can tell you he was wrong. That he did wrong. That he planned to. He can tell you when he is lost. He can apologize, even if sometimes it's just to put an end to the bickering.

A man does not wither at the thought of dancing. But it is generally to be avoided.

A man watches. Sometimes he goes and sits at an auction knowing he won't spend a dime, witnessing the temptation and the maneuvering of others. Sometimes he stands on the street corner watching stuff. This is not about quietude so much as collection. It is not about meditation so much as considering. A man refracts his vision and gains acuity. This serves him in every way. No one taught him this — to be quiet, to cipher, to watch. In this way, in these moments, the man is like a zoo animal: both captive and free. You cannot take your eyes off a man when he is like that. You shouldn't. The hell if you know what he is thinking, who he is, or what he will do next.

Regulating Free Speech

Many have blamed heated political rhetoric in the wake of the recent tragedies, in which armed lunatics opened fire, killing several people and wounding many others. If heated political rhetoric can create a climate that encourages mentally unstable people to harm others, then I say it's time we start regulating speech the same way we regulate toys. After all, to protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic communications industry?

All forms of communication, including but not limited to speech and writing, should be regulated just as much as toys. Or guns.

But wait! Doesn't our cherished Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) guarantee our right to free expression, unhindered by government interference?

Perhaps once upon a time, but let's face facts: those antiquated documents were written at a time when communication technologies were far less dangerous than they are today. They were drafted at a time when the power to spread dangerous ideas and words was strictly limited, when only a select few wielded the power of the press. The founders can not have foreseen the dizzying pace of technological advance, which today allows any nut with a blog or A.M. talk show to spread his or her dangerous, heated political rhetoric. So it's safe to say we can brush aside those outdated guarantees for public safety's, and expediency's sake.

We should demand an immediate government clampdown on all forms of dangerous speech or other communications. Here's why:

• We are awash in unsafe speech. Just listen to anything on conservative talk radio or read right-wing blogs.
• Unsafe speech is a public nuisance, and must be abated.
• Speech can incite people to riot, rebel, or commit crimes against humanity. One person can cause harm to thousands if not millions. Just look at the damage caused by the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler. Or Winston Churchill.
• Porn harms bazillions of lives. Or so I've heard.

Here are a few simple yet effective things our federal government should do immediately to protect the public from harmful words and thoughts. We must not delay, as this will only increase risk to life and limb.

• Establish a Consumer Communications Safety Commission (CCSC) with authority to monitor public communication venues, looking for potentially unsafe communications. It will draft and enforce regulations using administrative proceedings, thus eliminating costly and time-consuming jury trials. This can be done under the auspices of the F.C.C.Require a federal license with a 30-day waiting period and a background check before publishing a new blog or website.
• Limit blog or website authors to one new post a month, and talk show hosts to one talk show a month. This will give federal regulators a chance to monitor and prosecute writers and speakers for their crimes. Licensed 'mainstream' media outlets will be exempt from this restriction, of course.
• Establish a consumer speech "hotline", where concerned citizens can report dangerous or defective communication safely, easily, and most importantly, anonymously.

Jurisdiction

Does our federal government have the authority to do any of these needful things? Surely there must be impediments to such sweeping regulation of thought and word!

Wrong again, bub. Here's why:

It's 'well established' that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate just about anything its great big heart desires.

Any speech (or writing) that travels in, or might have a substantial impact on interstate commerce is subject to federal regulation.

And, since anything that travels on the Internet is by definition traveling in interstate commerce, Congress has the authority to regulate everything there.

Thoughts expressed in the privacy of your own home will remain unregulated. At least until we can show a link between unsafe speech in the home and harmful effects on children. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Why aren't you laughing?

What does a revolution need to succeed?

What our readers think:

"Unity! Not only are we divided, but our entertainment industry has succeeded in distracting us from real problems. Also, considering we're not a dictatorship, there are other plausible methods of attaining power." - Anonymous

"Right-wingers calling for "revolution" don't comprehend what they are saying, LOL! By definition, revolutionaries push politics to the LEFT......politicos pushing to the Right are called "reactionaries"..." - LG

"I am of the opinion that America itself is THE BEST example of what a revolution needs to succeed. A revolution is what created this country. The people who participated in that revolution were smart enough to create the basic Constitution which allows for revolution. Every amendment to that Constitution has been the result of a revolution. If you want to change something, you have the right to do so." - Debbie

"A revolution needs a very smart well-educated as well as charismatic person.

At his side a thug criminal...

Revolutions are not about little people rising up against the rich and powerful. It is a transfer of the positions of power between the leader class. The only revolution is the turbulence during the changing of faces.

Examples:

Lenin - Stalin: Lenin a lawyer and member of the literati Stalin a bank robber.

Hitler - Rhoem: (SA) Although Hitler was not well educated he was charismatic - Rhoem a sadistic murder.

Castro - Che: again a middle class lawyer and a sick demented murder.

It probably was the same in every revolution..." - XX

"The Republicans and Democrats have a plan: Divide and conquer. They keep the voters distracted while they get rich." - ND

"As Jefferson said, "Mankind is more disposed to suffer when evils are sufferable". Be that as it may we live in a democratic Republic. Our government is not imposed on us it is elected by the people. If you feel a revolution is needed, then it is against your fellow citizens, not the government.

But here is my revolutionary thought. Government is no longer elected by the people, it is bought and paid for by moneyed interests. The people will revolt against these interests if they don't back down and work for the good of the nation and not the good of their pocket books." - Jehen

"A revolution needs widespread discontent. As long as people have food, clothing, shelter, and TV sets to keep them entertained, they will not revolt." - L.

"Americans are not pro-revolution because they believe that the System works. They may not like those in office but they still think that the democratic process works." - Zach

"As much as the media would like us to believe that things are really bad in America, it just isn't so. Life is harder than it used to be, but it is not hard enough to make people risk everything." - Josh

"A revolution won't happen in America. The Government is too powerful. Riots may and will. What we really need is for people to get involved in politics and work to get rid of corruption." - Paul

"Revolutions need front-line fighters who are not afraid of death. Most of these fighters will die. Fake revolutionaries do not have the courage to be front-line fighters." - Anonymous

"A revolution needs truth and a strong leader." - Frank H.

"Revolutions need momentum - nothing succeeds like success." - Tyler

What do you think?