By Antonio Bernal
Price under capitalism  is the expression in money terms of the value of goods and services.  Prices can rise or fall through the change in value. Price does not have to coincide with value, but depends on supply and demand. The sum total of the price of goods is equal to the sum total of the value of goods. Price  is another instrument  to exploit workers and underdeveloped countries with, through competition and the desire for higher profits. Capital goods are made up of variable capital, price and profit (surplus value), which comprise relations of exploitation.This expresses production relations between members of a class society. Societies based on capitalist wealth (profit) share three components; state property, social property and private property.
Value represents the measurable  investment of socially necessary work materialized in the time spent on making a product. Use value is created by concrete work. It is equivalent to all other values. All are the result of measurable abstract labor, that is, brain, nervous and muscular energy, and the time spent in production. Abstract work results in the value of goods. When price and value are the same, this guarantees a just and equal distribution of the national (or international) wealth.
Capitalism. Traditional education has always been based on metaphysics (in Asia) Monotheism (in the Middle East) and the Enlightenment of the burgeoisie (beginning with the Siècle des Lumières).  It is not a coincidence that in northern Europe and Britain the middle class was to become the principal bulwark of the Protestant opposition to Roman Catholicism. The traditional Roman Catholic prohibitionof any lending of money at interest as  usury, the monastic glorification of poverty as an ascetic ideal, and the Roman Catholic system of holidays as times when no work was to be done were all seen by the rising merchant class as obstacles to financial development  Catholics say salvation comes through good work and obedience Protestants  say salvation can come solely through Jesus by faith and scripture alone. This  makes the cult of the individual paramount.  If salvation comes through belief and faith alone, there is little basis for ethical behavior among men.  This sets the moral basis for cutthroat competition under capitalism, where the emphasis has always been on individual advancement.  If  individuals are simply the recipients of individual wealth, there is no social wealth. Capitalism takes profits (surplus value) and uses them to accumulate capital. This allows the capitalist to have control of the political system. The capitalist  dictates  the value of goods and services. Capitalism  integrates production, distribution and consumption, by means of cybernetic feedback. For the capitalist, price is the end all and be all, it is the cybernetic center of the national or global economy that directs the flow of merchandise, services and capital.  It is the main means of appropriation of the surplus product, of profits.
There are three ways of measuring the market flow of a company; price (money), value (time) and volume (tons, litres, etc.)  All these factors are controlled and at the service of the exploitative system. All market economies are gangster-driven, the larger they are, such as the transnationals of the bourgeois states, the more vicious they are.Under capitalism the owner may tell the worker; “youll have to make 100 pieces a day or you will not get paid.”  In spite  the modern changes and refinements brought about by capitalist planners, the development of many owners, the splitting into corporate managers, administrators, bosses of all kinds in a cualitative new way, (Adam Smith) and further industrial developments in mass production, the worker  retains his/her original status; an iron discipline tied to the rate of profit, following orders in work days which alienate him/her without the means of escape or relief.  The capitalist will pile on two and three times the amount of work with the same pay without considering if the worker can withstand that abuse physically and psychologically.
State property and socialism. The USSR was successful in that it had a market economy not based on personal profit. The state controlled most productive property, and the intention was to build socialism. This was a step forward, but historical socialism  failed because the top-down style of planning  remained, to one degree or another, and sooner or later  they fell into deregulation and privatization. The new human failed to materialize. An economy can call itself socialist, but if it does not reach the level of equivalencies, sooner or later it will revert to capitalism. If nationalization is done for other reasons (ie., ideological ones) and if it violates supply and demand, it generates a black market and corruption.When the USSR nationalized private property it also nationalized prices. While it succeeded in neutralizing surplus value and capitalist control over politics, it was unable to control the cybernetic use of value, that is, price based on supply and demand remained, but with a combination of administrative costs and world market prices that were unable to optimize the macroeconomic distribution of resources. The obstacles posed by capitalist competition, such as complex and simple work, the brain drain, the national and international division of labor, the privileges of white collar and intellectual workers over manual laborers, and the unequal terms of trade, worked to frustrate attempts at socialism. Worker’s democracy was not enough to influence price, quality of service or international quality control, for if another country could offer a better and cheaper product, democracy had little to do with its production and sale. In the same way, income distribution is necessary for social justice, but it does not, by itself, lead to socialism. Historically, the socialist countries achieved  some parity by taking away the means of production from the businessmen, with the state taking on the function of price-setting. This blocked the accumulation of capital in private hands, but failed in its cybernetic function, that is, in optimizng the economic flow. While the class nature of price was neutralized, its systemic function was not. What was lacking was a cualitatively different institution; an efficient, optimal economy, free of the exploitation of others. This institution is expressed as value. In the USSR the state  appeared as direct owner (or indirectly in the cooperatives) of productive property. This form of property did not resolve the problem of the worker’s efforts  in brain, nervous and muscular energy, because the intensity of labor was tied to the administrative monopoly that was now in state hands. Workers continued to obey manager’s orders, with unions that were not there to defend worker’s rights, but which were there rather as a means of transmission of the socialist will decided by the party in power. In contemporary systems there exist vertical lines  of command, with a director general giving the orders. There was no discussion, no democracy, nor citizen or worker’s participation, so there was no identification with or stake in the property. This was shown by the ease in which the USSR and the DDR fell, without the workers, who did not feel they had a stake in the system, lifting a finger to prevent it.
The new economy. How can this cycle of alienation be broken? How to achieve economic justice, without exploitation? Democracy is not only political, cultural and military; above all, it is economic The failure lay in historical socialism’s inability to develop 1.-participatory democracy (as opposed to top down management), 2.-the lack of technological development, 3.-the failure to base itself on  value instead of on price, (the economy of equivalencies), and 4.-the cybernetic mechanisms that could take over cost feedback. Scientific planning. Science  has now reached a stage where the economy can submit itself to scientifically formulated laws.  Julius von Mayer developed an exact measurement for heat. In physics there is a connection between mass and energy, in astronomy it is between mass and radiation, in economics it is the equivalency between the medium labor effort and its compensation. Similarly, in an equivalent economy, there is no difference between price and value, because price simply express the time input in the production of a product. Price disappears because it loses its function as the (illegitimate) appropriation of profit.  There already exist, developed by Carsten Stahmer, monetary measurements of production and profit (cost and price), the measurements of objective value (time inputs) and physical measurements (tons, litres, etc) that are equivalent among each other. Education. The first step in building the new man and woman can only be brought about through initial education. Educators must understand the dialectics of the cultural hardware and software of homo sapiens, in order to bring about a new education. The material basis of  humans must also be considered. The exchange of products is done on the basis of equal values. The accounting and operation of the new economy is decided on the basis of value (accumulated  time credits) and not on the market price. As long as  products have the characteristic of merchandise, that is, are made for sale and profit expropriated from the worker, and while price is determined by the market and its actors, there will exist the legalized exploitation of those who are least able to defend themselves The new economy  anchors social justice at the production level, and not in the area of distribution. One begins by establishing a parallel accounting of all  the internal and external transactions of value (time inputs or time credits), alongside the existing accounting of price.  Out of the old, comes the new. The cybernetic needs of the capitalist economy directly serve the logistical  needs of of the equivalent economy, and of participatory democracy. This will avoid unnecessary conflict with an existing private company. The next step lies in the gradual substitution of the market price system by the equivalent exchange of values. It is not a revolution with flags flying and drums beating, but instead the prosaic matching of (socialist) value with (capitalist) price. The new economy takes away the power of price. To reach this new level of socialism, the economy has to evaluate labor in terms of time credits.  Socialist practices are introduced in the daily life of the people, where merchandise is put on sale with all three measures on the label; price (money), value (time) and volume (tons, litres, etc.). A   litre of milk, for example, may cost two dollars, and have a value of ten minutes spent on its production. However, something else might have a value of ten minutes and cost twelve  dollars. People can see that the price is an exploitative one if the same effort and time was spent on both. There is no logical reason why one would be worth more than the other. At a local production  level it can be felt directly; for example, if there are three types of pants being sold, and “A” sells 20, “B” sells 3 and “C” sells none All this is registered instantly via computer and the supply is  rectified accordingly. This adjustment can be made by the workers in the factory, without any need of consultation with anyone. This relative decentralization coupled with the new technology does away with bureaucracy. Democratizing the point of production. On a local level (factory) the workers themselves  will decide the rate of surplus labor, and the rate of investment. In the new economy,  if the workers in a company or factory want to produce 80 pieces, and the manager wants them to produce 100, they will produce 80. This will establish real democracy in the economic sphere, because the enterprise will be in the hands of those who make the production, and it will allow the worker to be the subject of his own economic existence. If workers decide to produce less, because they want to spend more time with their families, to study, or for  recreation, their renumeration will be below the social  mean, but that will be their decision. The key is in the relation between socially necessary work and excess work. Those who traditionally have controlled the means of production have decided over both of the aspects, and consequently established economic dictatorships not much different from military organizations. With economic democracy the next step is taken where the decision-making power of the owners, managers, administrators political commissars and foremen become the jurisdiction of individual and collectives producers; the workers themselves.  Worker’s committees will hand out and establish the norms for social work, the number of hours, and its intensity, with an eye toward greater leisure, greater production and the liberation from work slavery. Economic democracy is the basis for political democracy. Only in the economy of equivalencies under democratic control can there be economic justice. This is concomitant with the political sphere of participatory democracy.  In the political sphere, the people, the workers,  will decide on municipal issues, and in their economic planning. All citizens have the right to make decisions in their community, on the participatory budget through the local councils, public policies, and community councils. Nationalization.   Once the economy is indeed nationalized,  the stage is set  for the nation to accelerate its  development on a greater scale. Nationalization allows the government to finance welfare and social programs. Nationalization is the most efficient form of national security. Even as fallow lands must be nationalized, corporations, banks, housing projects that lie “fallow”, that are undersued or non profitable, must be nationalized and given to the people. Corporations that violate laws or make illegal, unethical or immoral profits need to be nationalized. Nationalized large industry (petroleum companies, electricty, banks, communications, agriculture, etc.)  allows  for the practice of equivalencies to work. The formation of thousands of cooperatives will also speed the process for a post-capitalist economy. What is needed in those conditions is realism and flexibility to nurture the transition to socialism. A highly technified, nationalized  state enterprise can begin by evaluating the time-credit parameters, and thus the practice can be extended to other enterprises. Nationalized state property and social property (cooperatives) are key to further the process. The macroeconomy. Workers have the right to influence and make decisions in both the marco and micro economies. The mean of these commensurate productive inputs in time units, money and physical volume make the new economy possible not only nationally, but internationally.  The economic interests of the people in a macroeconomy are  taken into account, so that they interact with and have substantial influence over worldwide economic planning.  The people will make the macroeconomic decisions on the national budget, and additionally, cybernetics has made it possible to establish the new economy on a worldwide scale. There are many socialist countries in existence that would embrace such a practice, and would form the center of gravity of the economy in a phase of dying capitalism. . The new economy is inevitable. Work will become less intense and less stressful, a lower monetary profit will result in a better quality of life for the population, whether working, not yet working, or retired.  The rate of intensity of work will be decided directly by the workers, in conjunction with the institution, as being the only guarantor of their self-determination. This arrangement is comparable to the transition from feudalism to capitalism, with  the privatization of fedual lands by the peasants, where their fences and walls  guaranteed the consolidation  of individual private property in the bourgeois revolutions. Economic democracy at the level of production will likewise guarantee a bastion of the post-capitalist society, an institution and holding of socialized property that the workers will be bound to defend as their own. These subsystems of post-capitalism will grow bit by bit within the national economies until they become the dominant feature, and will bring the long and bloody thousand year old money cycle to and end.
Attacks on the economy of equivalencies. Capitalism has set up an ideological defense to prevent these new ideas from being known.  The first line of defense is to treat them as “inappropriate”,  a taboo, something that should not be talked about. Failing that, there are two opposing currents, something like bad cop-good cop; the fascist capitalist current and the liberal social-democratic one. They  lie about it to confuse people, distort and slander what it is.  The fascists attack these ideas as “the new communism”, and to them the cold war continues unabated. The liberals agree that capitalism must be reformed, and try to channel it in a social-democratic direction. These attitudes are simply class attitudes and no match for the desires and needs of the majority, who, when made conscious, will appropriate 100% of the value of work, minus investment and social program budgets, which will give them a high standard of living and do away with poverty forever in the world by exchanging equivalencies and by participatory democratic practices. This economy is not reformist- it is radical, it is not the traditional socialist economy which was still based on prices, and it is not a sectarian “left” proposal. These new sciences serve to dig the grave of capitalism. The new economy is the logical outgrowth of a thousand years of preparation, and a human teasure that no one will be able to detain. The struggle is between those who want to continue things as they are, or bring them back to a state of functionality, and those who want to break with those outmoded and broken practices and work toward a classless society.

Report: UN to demand Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in reparations

Report: UN to demand Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in reparations

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

The United Nations will require Israel to pay Lebanon nearly $1 billion for environmental damages caused during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported on Saturday.

The paper said that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will submit the motion to the Security Council later this month.

The indicated amount is based on a World Bank damage assessment. Among other issues, it included the cost of pumping oil from the Mediterranean coast after Israel bombed a large refinery, which was covered by UN agencies. The oil spill also inflicted extensive damage to local flora and fauna, which has yet to be fully repaired.



By: Peter Chamberlin

Cheney’s special brand of insanity seeks to return the world to 1991, where he left it, while serving under the first bloodthirsty Bush as Sec. Defense. He commissioned the new Defense Planning Guidance package from Wolfowitz when George Bush I refused to move on Saddam Hussein and to take military advantage of the broken Soviet empire. This is the moment he has been planning for since then, taking over the entire Middle Eastern region.

The criminal insanity of these continuous attempts to bring American dominance to the region by force should be apparent to anyone who cares to look. Americans, who call themselves patriots, should be outraged by these ongoing plans. If we do not rise-up en masse to oppose these retrograde policies to take our country back in time to a more dangerous age then we will prove to the world that they have all been right about us, that we will not get off our lazy fat asses for any reason. They are right to hate us because of what we have allowed to be done to our fellow man, while we watched tv in luxury, sated on the meager existence we managed to obtain, all financed with borrowed money.

We have a small window open before us, to use our Constitutional rights to block the American war upon the world from escalating to the next stage. If we cannot make an effort to create our own “revolution” named for some flower, then war and martial law will be our new reality, wherein only real revolution will stand a chance to stop the war machine.

We have the obvious timeframe of the national elections we have to work in, but we also have another equally important window open, to stop the passage of the “Iran War Resolution,” where 265 Congressmen and 49 Senators are co-sponsoring a bill which calls for a military blockade of Iran and a no-fly zone over Iran, both acts of war. Even though the Senate version now claims that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran,” it calls for actions that can only be taken by military force.

This disclaimer that Congress is calling for “non-violent” violence was added after the American people began to make Congressmen feel the heat for authorizing war against Iran. Congressmen began to waver once signs began to appear that the people might hold them accountable for their support of the AIPAC-written war bill. The bill was slowed-down from the fast track to passage it was on when the people reminded their Congressmen that legally, they were supposed to answer to us, not Israel. Now is the time to increase that heat, before it can be rushed through both houses.

Senate Resolution 580 is the refined version of the AIPAC-written war bill. I have attempted to dissect some of the greasier pieces of crap contained within it for you below. Following my criticism of the war bill is a list of all co-sponsors of both bills and the names of the people running against them on November 4, written in red. Every patriot should help those running against these traitors.

In addition, I refer to my “Protest Plan PDF Form” for contact information for the home offices of these Congressmen, as well as the Israeli embassies in the US and the world, for organizing protests against Israel’s war plan for America. If you can’t take to the streets, then send a letter or an email, or make a couple of phone calls to these jerks and tell them that you hold them responsible for all that Bush has done and is doing to protect Israel from the world it has angered. Let them know how you feel.

SRES 580 is the same B.S. written down in House Res. 362.

Whereas for nearly 20 years Iran had a covert nuclear program, until the program was revealed by an opposition group in Iran in 2002;

All available evidence on Iranian nuclear intentions is unreliable, as it comes directly from the Israeli Mossad, who pass it on to the Iranian terrorist organization MEK (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq), who then pass it on to Israel’s neocon friends in America. This terrorist organization (which the Iraqi government is expelling from its sanctuary) uses “intelligence” produced by an American-compromised puppet secret service to prove what Israel thinks that Iran thinks.

The next “evidence” cited by the Senate neocons to prove that the Iranians are working on a nuclear bomb is a list of components in any elemental atomic industry or research:

importation of uranium hexafluoride, the construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, the importation of centrifuge technology and the construction of centrifuges

At the end of that list is a reference to a CIA-doctored bomb design which they introduced into the Middle East to discredit Islamic nations:

the importation of the design to convert highly enriched uranium gas into a metal and to shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon

SRES 580 claims that Iran cannot produce enough bomb-grade uranium before the end of 2009, yet this resolution seeks to authorize a military blockade, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran, among other measures. (Probably including the proposed no-fly zone over Iran called for in H. RES. 362), even though they added the disclaimer that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran (even though military force is the only possible way to embargo gasoline).

Whereas allowing the Government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security. The fear is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its nuclear threat to intimidate its neighbors, much the same as nuclear-armed Israel does today.

Whereas allowing the Government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would fundamentally alter and destabilize the strategic balance of power in the Middle East. The Middle East is already destabilized by American and Israeli aggression in the region. The fear is that neither Israel nor the US would be able to continue their rape of weaker Middle Eastern nations.

Whereas allowing the Government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability would severely undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime that, for more than 4 decades, has contained the spread of nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies are most responsible for the spread of nuclear technology throughout the world. The US gave Iran its first reactor. Nuclear weapons spread from the US to its most important allies. All nukes are based on American “know-how.”

Whereas the Government of Iran has repeatedly called for the elimination of our ally, Israel. Iran has never called for the elimination of Israel, even though many Israeli officials have openly called for the “Shoah” (destruction) of Iran.

Whereas the Government of Iran has advocated that the United States withdraw its presence from the Middle East. I also whole-heartedly endorse the idea of the United States withdrawing all of its forces from the Middle East.

SRES 580 Last Action:Jun 2, 2008: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Aug 30, 2008]

H. RES. 362 Last Action: May 22, 2008: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Aug 29, 2008]


“Protest Plan PDF Form”



THE FOLLOWING LIST GIVES THE NAMES OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF THE “IRAN WAR RESOLUTION” (BOTH THE HOUSE [362] AND SENATE [580] BILLS), INCLUDING THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES (IN RED) CHALLENGING THEM FOR OFFICE. All concerned Americans should do anything in their power to help those who are challenging these Congressional “trough-feeders.”

The following list of co-sponsors of the Iran War Resolution which includes their AIPAC donations (from a list compiled by Janet McMahon)


___________ 2007 donations

___________ 2008 donations

___________ Lifetime donations

Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] Jo Bonner (R)* Thomas E. Fuller (D)

Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] 1,000 81,067

Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] 3,075 13,325 Joshua Steven Segall (D)


Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL] Vivian Davis Figures (D)

Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] Joshua Drake (3)

Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] Abel Noah Tomlinson (3)

Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1]

Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] Bob Lord (D)

Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] John Thrasher (D)

Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] David Schweikert (R)

Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] Joe Cobb (L) Rebecca DeWitt (3) Don Karg (R)

Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1]

(Israeli Embassies in Los Angeles and San Francisco)

Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] 1,000 1,000

Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] Nicholas Alexander Leibham (D)

Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] Steve Young (D)

Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] James Lopez (R)

Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] Russell Warner (D)

Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] 2,000 99,271

Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] Robert Hamilton (D)

Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] Edwin Chau (D)

Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] Lawrence Tufts Johnson (D)

Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19]

Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] Debbie Cook (D)

Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] Christina Avalos (D)

Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] 2,000 47,700 Rosie Avila (R)

Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] 6,000 54,917 Charles Jin Hahn (R)

Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] 1,000 54,930 Navraj Singh (R)

Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] Zane Starkewolf (R)

Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] 1,000 37,832

Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] Dan Litwin (L) David Lee Joy (R)

Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] Harold Wilford Bidlack (D)

Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] Betsy Markey (D)

Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6]


Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] 2,500 13,750 Bob Schaffer (R)

Sen. Ken Salazar [D-CO]

Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] Jim Himes (D)

(Embassy In Miami)

Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] John Dicks (D)

Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] Mark Mulligan (R) Eddie Hendry (R) Robert Ortiz (R)

Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2]

Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] 2,500 21,000 Raul L. Martinez (D)

Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] 500 11,000 Joe Garcia (D)

Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] Suzanne Kosmas (D)

Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] 5,000 54,350 Marion Thorpe (R) Ray Torres Sanchez (D)

Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] 16,150 16,150 26,374

Rep Mahoney, Tim [FL-16] 4,000 6,000 Hal Valeche (R) Tom Rooney (R) Gayle B. Harrell (R)

Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] 500 16,500 Fernando Steven Neira (3)

Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] 1,000 7,500 Douglas David Tudor (D)

Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] 7,500 133,490 Annette Taddeo (D)

Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] 4,500 16,000 Marc Luzietti (3)

Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] 7,000 20,750 Ben Graber (D) Edward J. Lynch (R)

Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]

Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] Jim King (R) Carol Castagnero (D)

Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11]

Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] Timothy M. Cunha (D)


Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]

Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]

(Atlanta Embassy)

Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] 1,000 30,200

Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]

Rep Linder, John [GA-7] Douglas Scott Heckman (D)

Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] 500 20,650 Rick Goddard (R)

Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] William Michael Jones (D)

Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] Stephen Camp (D)

Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] 3,250 34,574 John Stone (R)

Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] Lee Ferrell (R)

Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] James Paul Mason (I)

Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] Bud Gammon (D)

Rep Scott, David [GA-13] Deborah Travis Honeycutt (R)


Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA] James Francis Martin (D)

Sen. John Isakson [R-GA]

Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4]

Rep King, Steve [IA-5]

(Chicago Embassy)

Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] 13,000 23,500 Steve Cox (D)

Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] 27,000 27,000 156,882 Dan Seals (D)

Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] 2,000 4,750 Robert Abboud (D)

Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] Jill Morgenthaler (D)

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] 1,000 22,250 Michael Benjamin Younan (R) Morris Shanfield (3)

Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] Rodger W. Jennings (3) Timmy Jay Richardson (R)

Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] Steve Miller (R)

Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] 3,500 22,500 Tom Hanson (R) Alan Augustson (3)

Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] 1,000 6,650

Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] Anthony W. Williams (R)

Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] Jerome Pohlen (3) Michael Hawkins (R)

Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] Daniel Paul Davis (D) Vic Roberts (3)

Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] 500 37,650

Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] 7,000 94,000 Mary Etta Ruley (D)

Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] 30,000 30,000 55,250 Barry Welsh (D)

Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] Michael Anthony Montagano (D)

Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] Mark J. Leyva (R)

SENATE Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]

Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] James Bordonaro (D)


Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]

Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS] Jim Slattery (D)

Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] Andrew Clack (R)

Rep Cazayoux, Donald J., Jr. [LA-6] Woody Jenkins (R) Laurinda L. Calongne (R) William Cassidy (R) Michael Jackson (D)

Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] James Kenneth Harlan (D) Gilda Reed (D)


Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA] Richard M. Fontanesi (L) Robert Stewart (I) J. Jacques Boudreaux (R) Jay Patel (I)

Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]

(Boston Embassy)

Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]

Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1]

Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] John Newton Frary (R)


Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]

Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME] Tom Allen (D)

Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] Christopher S. Sander (R)

Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] Robb E. Cunningham (L)

Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] Jacob Turk (R)

Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] Kay Barnes (D)

SENATE Sen. Christopher Bond [R-MO]

Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] John Driscoll (D) Mike Fellows (L)

Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] Richard Pryce Matthews (R)

Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] Thomas E. Harris (R)

Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] Jennifer P. Dougherty (D)

Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] 32,500 32,500 171,775 Collins Bailey (R)


Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]

Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] 1,000 11,500 Theodore Camron McAvoy (I) Joseph Larkin (D)

Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] Robert Denison (D)

Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] Fred Johnson (D) Ronald E. Graeser (3)

Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] Bob Alexander (D)

Rep Knollenberg, Joe [MI-9] Gary Peters (D)


Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]

Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI] Jack Hoogendyk Jr (R)

Rep Kline, John [MN-2] Steve Sarvi (D)

Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3]


Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN] Al Franken (D)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]

Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] Max Yashirin (D)

(Consulate General In New York) THE MAIN VIPER’S NEST

Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY] Gonzalo Manalo Policarpio (R) Elizabeth Berney (R) Evergreen C. Chou (3)

Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] 2,150 8,150 Richard L. Hanna (R)

Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] Lee M. Zeldin (R)

Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] 15,745 15,745 91,902 William E. Britt (R)

Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]

Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13]

Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] 5,250 9,250 Sandy Treadwell (R) Richard C. Wager (R) Michael R. Rocque (R)

Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] Daniel J. Humiston (R)

Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2]

Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] Graham E. Long (D)

Rep Kuhl, John R. “Randy”, Jr. [NY-29] Eric Massa (D)

Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] 12,000 130,738

Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] Robert G. Heim (R)

Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] Jack M. Martins (R)

Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] Michael P. Oot (D)
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21]

Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-26]

Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] 3,000 68,503 Vincent Micco (R)

Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] Robert E. McLeod (R)

Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] 1,000 11,000

Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] Tom Wyka (D)

Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] Dennis G. Shulman (D)

Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] 4,000 15,250 David Carl Streich Kurkowski (D)

SENATE Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]

Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] 34,700 $34,700 283,405 Ken Wegner (R) Caren Alexander (3) Jim Duensing (L)

Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] 4,000 5,000 Dina Titus (D)

Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] Jill T. Derby (D)

Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] Teresa Sue Bratton (D)

Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] Roy Carter (D)

Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] Larry Kissell (D)

Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] 3,000 31,000 Daniel Johnson (D)

Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] William James Breazeale (R)

Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] Hugh Webster (R)

SENATE Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] Kay R. Hagan (D)

Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] Steven Leo Driehaus (D)

Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11]
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] Mike Carroll (D)

Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] William M. O’Neill (D)

Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] Duane Virgil Grassell (R)

SENATE Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]

Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] Raymond Wickson (R)

Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] Frankie Lee Robbins (D) Forrest Michael (I)

Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] Steven L. Perry (D)


Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]

Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] Andrew Rice (D)

(Philadelphia Embassy)

Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] 5,250 7,250 Melissa Hart (R)

Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] Mike Muhammad (R)

Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] Christopher Lawrence Hackett (R)

Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]

Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR]

Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] Robert Roggio (D)

Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] Antoinette “Toni” M. Gilhooley (R)

Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] Stephen Paul Odonnell (D)

Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] Philip J. Avillo, Jr (D)

SENATE Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]

Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] 3,000 20,000 Mark S. Zaccaria (R)

Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] Joe Zuccolo (R) Kenneth A. Capalbo (I)

Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] Paul H. Corden (D) Faye Walters (3)

Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] Jane Ballard Dyer (D)


Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]

Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] Robert M. Conley (D) Mark Strothers McBride (I)

(Houston Embassy)

Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] Ken Ashby (L) Michael Sprinkle (L)

Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] 1,000 35,506 Peter Graham Olson (R)

Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] Thomas Perry Love (D) David A. Casey (L)

Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] Larry Joe Doherty (D)

Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] Craig Wolfe (L)

Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] 2,000 6,000 Lyle Larson (R)

Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] Fred Anderson Wood (R) Jarrett Woods (L)
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] Thomas James Daley (D) Christopher J. Claytor (L)

Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] Michael Idrogo (L) Robert Litoff (R)
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6]
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] Tracey Smith (D) Shiloh Sidney Shambaugh (L)
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] David Elton Reed, Jr (R) Brad Walters (L)
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] Eric Story (R) Joel Grace (L)
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] Glenn Melancon (D) Fred Annett (L)

Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] 1,000 3,500

Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] Ken Leach (D) Stephanie B. Weiss (L)

Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] John R. Strohm (L)

Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] Michael Peter Skelly (D)


Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX] Rick Noriega (D)

Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]

Rep Davis, David [TN-1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] Monty Joe Lankford (R) Kent Cameron Greenough (R)

Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] Thomas F. Leatherwood (R)
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9]

Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] John Gerard Donovan (R) John P. Miglietta (I)


Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]

Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN] Robert Dudley Tuke (D)

Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] Bill Dew (R)

Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] Morgan Bowen (D) Joseph Geddes Buchman (L) Kirk D. Pearson (3)

Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3]


Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]

Sen. Robert Bennett [R-UT]

Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] Tom Perriello (D)
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] Sam Rasoul (D)

Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] Glenn Nye (D)

Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] 25,500 25,500 156,730 Anita Ruth Hartke (D) Brian Taylor (3) William Griffith (I)

Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] 2,000 4,500 Darcy Burner (D)

Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] 1,000 27,850 Doug Cloud (R)


Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]

Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]

Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] 4,000 9,000 John Gard (R)

Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] Paul Stark (R)

Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY]

Window on Eurasia: Moscow Wins a Major Victory on Pipelines

Window on Eurasia: Moscow Wins a Major Victory on Pipelines

Paul Goble

Vienna, September 5 – With Iran’s declaration that it opposes the construction of any undersea pipelines in the Caspian on “ecological grounds” and thus will block any delimitation of the seabed that allows for them and Baku’s decision not to back the West’s push NABUCCO project, Moscow can claim its first major political victory from its invasion of Georgia.

These actions mean that the Russian government will now have full and uncontested control over pipelines between the Caspian basin and the West which pass through Russian territory and will be able either directly or through its clients like the PKK to disrupt the only routes such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan that bypass the Russian Federation.

That does not mean, of course, that Moscow now has effectively reestablished its control over the states of this region – all of them have other interests besides oil and gas – but it does mean that Russia has won a major victory and the West, which all too often in recent years has focused on oil and gas alone, has suffered a major defeat.

Yesterday, Mehti Safari, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, told journalists that Tehran opposes the construction of any undersea pipelines in the Caspian because “this can bring harm to the ecology of the sea.” He noted that exporting countries can send their gas out via either the Russian Federation or Iran (

Given the existence of “such possibilities,” the Iranian diplomat said, “why harm” the delicate eco-system of the Caspian? But in making this statement, Tehran was underscoring its willingness to destroy any chance for the completion of the NABUCCO gas pipeline in the near term that the United States and some Western European countries have been pushing for.

And because Washington opposes the flow of hydrocarbons from the Caspian basin out through Iran, Tehran’s action in fact makes it likely that many of the oil and gas exporting countries in the region will now choose to send more or even all of their gas and oil through the Russian Federation, a longstanding geopolitical goal of Moscow’s.

The geo-economic and geo-political shifts in the Caucasus as a result of Russian actions in Georgia were even more in evidence during US Vice President Dick Cheney’s brief visit to the Azerbaijani capital. According to Russian media reports, it did not go well from either a protocol or a substantive perspective (

First, Cheney was not met at the airport by either President Ilham Aliyev or Prime Minister Artur Rasi-zade. Instead, he was met by the first vice premier and the foreign minister. After that, he was not immediately received by the president but rather had meetings with officials of the BP-Azerbaijan oil company and the American embassy.

Then, officials in the office of the Azerbaijani president told Moscow’s “Kommersant,” Cheney was sufficiently displeased with his conversation with President Aliyev that “as a result he even refused to visit the ceremonial dinner in his honor” that the Azerbaijan leader had organized.

On the one hand, Aliyev indicated that he was not prepared to talk about going ahead with NABUCCO until Baku completes its negotiations with Russia’s Gazprom or indeed do anything else to “support Washington and [thus] get into an argument with Moscow” given what has happened in Georgia.

And on the other, immediately after the Aliyev-Cheney meeting, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev telephoned the Azerbaijani president, an action which Kremlin sources told the Moscow paper provided Medvedev with the opportunity to explain Russia’s policies and to discuss the possibilities for the Russian and Azerbaijani presidents to meet “in the near future.

At one level, of course, all this reflects the continuation of President Aliyev’s commitment to what he and his government call “a balanced foreign policy,” one that seeks to navigate between Moscow and the West by avoiding offending either and seeking to develop strong ties with both.
But at another, the way in which the media have covered Vice President Cheney’s visit suggests that if Baku’s policy remains a balanced one, the balance is rather different than it was before Moscow demonstrated with its invasion of Georgia and its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that the game has changed.

Indeed, in reporting this visit, one Baku newspaper used as its headline today words that show just how much has changed over the last month. “It is not accidental,” the paper pointed out that just after the American vice president left Aliyev’s office the Russian president called (
Posted by Paul Goble at 8:26 AM

Russia accuses West of provocation in Georgia

Russia accuses West of provocation in Georgia

By Oleg Shchedrov and Aidar Buribayev

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused the United States on Saturday of provoking Moscow by using warships to deliver relief aid to its ally Georgia, with which Russia fought a brief war last month.

“I wonder how they would feel if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean, suffering from a hurricane, using our navy,” Medvedev said, adding that a whole U.S. fleet had been dispatched to deliver the aid.

Russia has also accused U.S. warships of rearming Tbilisi’s defeated army, a charge dismissed as “ridiculous” by Washington.

NATO in turn has rejected talk of a buildup of its warships in the Black Sea, saying their recent presence in the region was part of routine exercises.

Medvedev, speaking at a meeting of his advisory state council, said he had summoned the council to discuss changes in Russia’s foreign and security policy after the war.

The biggest U.S. ship to arrive so far, the USS Mount Whitney, dropped anchor on Friday off the Russian-patrolled Georgian port of Poti.

Tension between Moscow and the West eased on Saturday when the OSCE security body said Russia was allowing its observers to circulate freely throughout Georgia, but the breakaway Georgian region Abkhazia later said it was forging military cooperation with Moscow.

The OSCE report comes days before French President Nicolas Sarkozy travels to Moscow for talks with Medvedev to assess Russian compliance with a French-brokered peace plan.

“We’ve had very good access. I think we’re working at it and the Russians are, I’d argue, opening up,” said Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb in Avignon, chairman in office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The European Union agreed on Saturday to send an “autonomous mission” to Georgia to monitor Russia’s withdrawal from occupied territory, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said, accusing Moscow of failing to respect several points in the peace plan.

Russia and Georgia fought a brief but intense war after Tbilisi sent in troops to try to seize back the rebel region of South Ossetia, provoking massive retaliation by Moscow.

The conflict has dented confidence in the Caucasus as an energy transit route — Georgia is at the heart of two crucial oil and gas pipelines which bring high-quality crude and gas from booming oil state Azerbaijan to Europe via Turkey.

Analysts have also questioned the feasibility of the ambitious Nabucco gas pipeline project, which would bring Caspian Sea gas to Europe via Georgia, reducing reliance on Russia.

Russian stocks and the rouble have been hurt as foreign investors pull money out because of increased political risk.


The West has stepped up its backing for Georgia to join NATO — a move Moscow opposes on the ground that Georgia is in its sphere of influence — since Russia recognized the Georgian breakaway rebel regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

So far only Nicaragua has followed Russia’s lead in recognizing the two provinces as independent. In a setback for Russia, its ex-Soviet security allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization stopped short of doing so late last week.

Tbilisi and Western states have accused Russia of annexation, a claim Moscow sharply denies.

On Saturday self-styled Abkhaz president Sergei Bagapsh said he expected to reach agreement with Moscow soon on military cooperation.

“We’re insisting (on military cooperation) and we will ask the Russian Federation to leave Russian troops in Abkhazia,” Bagapsh told reporters in the Russian capital, adding that the agreement should be signed within the next few days in Moscow.

Bagapsh has asked that Russian vessels and troops remain on Abkhazia’s lush Black Sea coast and in the coastal cities of Guadata and Ochamchira.

“(The Russian military) will also probably be in front of the security zone,” he said, referring to a zone set up along the Abkhaz boundary in the early 1990s, when the province fought off Georgian rule. Russian peacekeepers have been based there since.

In late August the Kremlin said it was preparing to sign alliance agreements with both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but declined to say when it would do so.


Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a landmark visit to neighboring long-time foe Armenia on Saturday to attend a soccer match he said could help end a century of mutual hostility and aid security in the broader Caucasus region.

“We saw a month ago how unresolved issues in the Caucasus threaten peace in the region,” Gul told a news conference. Making this trip at such a time makes it especially important,” said Gul, the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia.

The Georgia conflict has convinced many that it is time for Ankara and Yerevan to put their differences aside.

The Ghost in the Machine: The Forced Chemical Evolution of Man

The Ghost in the Machine:

The Forced Chemical Evolution of Man

Brent Jessop, Knowledge Driven Revolution
December 04, 2006

Below are a couple of passages quoted by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine published in 1967:

“Here at our disposal, to be used wisely or unwisely, is an increasing array of agents that manipulate human beings… It is now possible to act directly on the individual to modify his behaviour instead of, as in the past, indirectly through modification of the environment.” — Dean Saunders, of the San Francisco Medical School, at the Control of the Mind symposium (1961).*

The next quote was preceded by a discussion about the potential use of tricyano-aminopropene to cause an “increased suggestibility in man”.

“The author is [referring] to any substance inducing changes of biologically important molecules in the neurons and the glia and affecting the mental state in a negative direction. It is not difficult to imagine the possible uses to which a government in a police-controlled state could put this substance. For a time they would subject the population to hard conditions. Suddenly the hardship would be removed, and at the same time, the substance would be added to the tap water and the mass-communications media turned on. This method would be much cheaper, and would create more intriguing possibilities then [voluntary introduction methods]” — Hyden at the Control of the Mind symposium (1961).**

Where did all of this come from and why was a celebrated (he was made a Commander in the Order of the British Empire in the 1970s) author, journalist and polymath like Arthur Koestler writing positively about such disturbing ideas?

The Ghost in the Machine is a discussion of Koestler’s theory that all of nature — from the genetic code to governmental structures – is composed of hierarchy based systems. The majority of the book is focused on disproving Pavlovian/Skinnerian behaviorism and Darwinian evolution (which is not too difficult to do) and to replace these ideas with his hierarchy based theory.

Every aspect of man and the society that he lives in are also hierarchy based according to Koestler. But man has been unable to act as an integrated part of a larger hierarchy and has only been able to identify with that hierarchy. To quote Koestler from page 246:

“the essential difference between primitive identification, resulting in a homogeneous flock, and mature forms of integration in a social hierarchy. In a well-balanced hierarchy, the individual retains his character as a social holon [self aware sub-assembly], a part-whole, who qua whole, enjoys autonomy within the limits of the restraints imposed by the interests of the community.” [emphasis in original]

This emotional identification with a social hierarchy caused the millions of Germans and Russians to help in the holocaust and Stalinist Purges. The emotional following of an ideal without the intellectual evaluation of the reality (which can be completely opposite to the original ideal) was caused by this identification with the social structure. He blames the quick evolutionary development of the upper cortex on top of the older primitive portions of the brain as the cause of this “schizophrenic” state of man. That is, a struggle between the emotional primitive sections of the brain and the newer intellectual portions. The only way to fix this perceived evolutionary error and restore the natural hierarchy within man and society leads us back to the original quotes.
google_ad_client = “pub-3923740223021058″;
google_alternate_ad_url = “;;
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
google_ad_format = “300x250_as”;
google_ad_type = “text_image”;
google_ad_channel =”7731124324″;
google_color_border = “FFFFFF”;
google_color_bg = “FFFFFF”;
google_color_link = “3d6299″;
google_color_url = “333333″;
google_color_text = “333333″;

According to Koestler and his ilk, the solution to this problem is to force the further evolution of man using chemicals to reduce the effects of the primitive or emotional portions of the brain. A kind of chemical lobotomy / fixer-upper. This, of course, would also have the added benefit of destroying the individuality of the people exposed to this “increased suggestibility”. To Koestler’s credit he does disagree with the implementation recommended in the quote by Hyden. He believes that it will be accepted with open arms by the public like “the pill”, anti-depressants and other such drugs.

Keep in mind this book was written in the 1960′s. What new chemicals have been discovered and tested since? What is stopping them from using similar chemicals today? Would we even notice?

Welcome to the world of the elitist “thinkers” and control freaks. We are their lab rats.

Living in a Lying Nation

Living in a Lying Nation

History had gone down the memory hole, as it so often must do if monstrous lies are to be maintained. Therefore, in the case of the Georgian conflict, Georgia’s aggressive assault on South Ossetia must be wiped out of existence by wiping the fact – if it ever reached us – from our individual and collective memory, through constant repetition of the lie, both explicit and implicit. We’ve all heard the explicit. What follows is an example of the implicit, and therefore perhaps even more insidious, lie. – Sean Madden

September 3, 2008
by Sean Madden

The following lead from Monday’s BBC Radio 4 Today program says it all, well, sort of:

Leaders of the European Union are meeting to decide what can be done about Russia in the wake of its invasion of Georgia. The leader of the opposition, David Cameron, went to Georgia in the aftermath of the conflict – and says that Russia must be shown what is unacceptable behaviour and that the UK must continue to stand by Georgia.

If one were to rely on the mainstream propaganda machine anywhere in the West, this statement would perhaps make sense. But when, instead, one actively seeks out news from beyond the mind-bending media machine, Cameron’s lie – like those told by the West’s other leading liars – is criminal in its assertion that Russia was the aggressor. A lie because despite it being known by all concerned, and by NATO leaders in particular, that Russia was responding to Georgia’s assault on South Ossetia, this fact is simply omitted by those who seem hell-bent on starting Cold War II, and who might spark, and even wish to spark, World War III. A criminal lie in that it is being exploited as yet one more in a long, perpetually growing list of casus belli to mask the West’s own “unacceptable behaviour,” its own criminal aggression.

But the Western media always reserves the right to choose its starting point in history. Those who retain a semblance of individual thought after seven years of being brainwashed by our brave truth-telling journalists may recall that all of history collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001. The public was, therefore, denied a frank national discussion concerning U.S. foreign policy actions which may have led to the attacks.

We were similarly denied a frank national discussion concerning the attacks themselves, who may have perpetrated them, what their motives may have been, who may have benefitted from the attacks, and what evidence existed which might point – beyond a shadow of a doubt – to the true culprits. Instead, what could have been a maturation moment for our adolescent republic, led, on the contrary, to a blatant attempt to keep “we the people” infantile in our response.

Living then in Massachusetts, I had been on the computer a couple hours before the terrorist strikes. I had noted with a certain sense of justice that a Reuters top headline had reported that the family of General René Schneider had filed a lawsuit on September 10 accusing Henry Kissinger of orchestrating a CIA operation which led to the 1970 assassination of Schneider, then commander-in-chief of the Chilean army. Immediately after learning of the terrorist attacks, I checked the Reuters headlines again – and searched the Reuters news database – to find that the story was no longer available.

History had gone down the memory hole, as it so often must do if monstrous lies are to be maintained.

Therefore, in the case of the Georgian conflict, Georgia’s aggressive assault on South Ossetia must be wiped out of existence by wiping the fact – if it ever reached us – from our individual and collective memory, through constant repetition of the lie, both explicit and implicit. We’ve all heard the explicit. What follows is an example of the implicit, and therefore perhaps even more insidious, lie.

John Humphrys, the supposedly hard-headed host of the Today program, set up Monday’s program with a false dichotomy, both sides of which assume the axiomatic lie of Russian aggression. Noticing when this false dichotomizing occurs is crucial, as one can thereby often see that even when a journalist appears to be critical he might very well be blindsiding us with propaganda:

To sceptical observers there is something vaguely absurd about the leaders of the European Union being summoned for an emergency summit meeting to decide what should be done about Russia in the wake of its invasion of Georgia. Because, they point out, there is nothing that can be done. If a military response is ruled out – and it is – what is left is sanctions, and how do you enforce sanctions against a country with so much oil and gas that we need them rather more than they need us. Well, the sceptics may yet be confounded, and, indeed, we’re hearing pretty bellicose statements coming from the Russians themselves.

So, the question – as the BBC presents it, even by a journalist famous for his tenacity in interviewing politicians – is “to decide what should be done about Russia in the wake of its invasion of Georgia,” not reporting that this very statement is a lie, a lie told by the politicians and bellowed by their journalists.

The first article I wrote about the Georgia conflict was in response to the New York Times bellowing of August 14. It is perhaps right, then, that as an American living in Britain I point out that journalists on this side of the Atlantic are just as guilty as their American colleagues of hammering the lies into our noggins so as to form, or forge, public opinion – that is, to shape and mold our every thought, our every consideration, our every conviction – such that we blindly support our criminal leaders’ criminal actions.

The Today program, I should note, is BBC Radio 4′s most popular show, reported on its own website to reach over six million listeners each week. Radio 4 itself is a sort of British equivalent of National Public Radio in the U.S., and is similarly influential in its reach. Its programming in general, and the Today program in particular, often includes leading British politicians and other prominent opinion makers as guests, as in the case of opposition leader David Cameron being interviewed for today’s program.

In closing, I had hoped when I moved to Britain three years ago – for my wife to return to her native home after living in the U.S. with me for twelve years – that the world-renowned British press would prove to be more critical of, less beholden to, the criminal powers that be.

Worse, they are every bit as criminally complicit as their American counterparts.

And, so, whether I live in the United States or in the United Kingdom, I shall, regrettably, be living in a lying nation, a nation I call home.

Pakistan cuts supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan

Pakistan cuts supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan

Jason Ditz,
Pakistani activists watch a burning US flag during a protest in Lahore

September 5, 2008

In a move seen as the latest fallout from Wednesday morning’s US attack on South Waziristan, the Pakistani government has ordered that supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan be immediately severed for an indefinite period of time.The move comes as thousands of protesters marched through South Waziristan’s capital of Wana chanting “death to America”. Officials cited repeated attacks which had made it difficult to provide security for transportation across the only border crossing, but Pakistani media cited other sources who said the move came as the government feared retaliation from South Waziristan tribesmen if they didn’t respond to the US attack.

The strike, which was the first confirmed use of US ground forces in Pakistan since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, killed 20 civilians and received widespread condemnation in Pakistan’s government. American officials have suggested that the attack is just the first of many cross-border missions to be expected in the coming months, as the US has expressed growing discontent with Pakistan’s inability to control its long and mountainous border with Afghanistan. The Defense Minister of key NATO ally Germany was also critical of the US attack during his visit to Pakistan, and warned that “Pakistan’s territorial integrity has to be respected”.

With Pakistan’s sole ground link to Afghanistan now closed to them, NATO may be more reliant than ever on Russia for the transportation of non-military supplies to the war-torn country at a time when US-Russian relations are at a post-Cold War low. And while Russia has promised not to block NATO’s overland transport, President Bush’s threat to “punish” Moscow over the recent war with Georgia may put the route in further jeopardy.

The Continuity in Government Project

The Continuity in Government Project

Bruce Tanner

Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford and Dick Cheney

The Real Truth Blog

The political infrastructure for martial law in the U.S. is already in place. Apparently unsure that the USAPATRIOT Act(s) and the Military Commissions Act weren’t strong enough, on May 9, 2007, Bush issued a document doubly titled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51″ and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.” This document supposedly outlines the federal government’s plan for maintaining continuity in the face of a “catastrophic emergency.”

“Catastrophic emergency” is defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.” So, pretty much anything…

In the event of this improbable catastrophe, this unconstitutional legislation by the executive grants itself supreme power to ensure the continuity of Constitutional government. Good one.

In other words, NSPD 51/HSPD-20 would impose martial law under the authority of the White House through DHS. It would suspend constitutional government under the provisions of Continuity in Government (COG).

Since 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, Homeland Security (DHS) has contemplated time and again the possibility of a so-called code red alert “scenario” — using a potential or possible Al Qaeda terrorist attack on American soil — as a pretext for implementing martial law. At one time, Tommy Thompson Former Health and Human Services Secretary said that if we “went to” Code Red the entire civilian government would “shut down.” There are no known provisions for returning America from Code Red status, once it is invoked.

Michel Chosudovsky in “Bush Directive for a “Catastrophic Emergency” in America” writes:

“This Combined Directive NSPD /51 HSPD 20 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. NSPD 51 allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement:

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination. (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20, emphasis added)

NSPD 51 grants extraordinary Police State powers to the White House and Homeland Security (DHS), in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”. The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism (APHS/CT), who is slated to play a key role in the eventuality of Martial law, is a key White House adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend.”

Of course, preparations for emergency management of the U.S. Government has by this time become a tradition here in the Homeland.

According to William M. Arkin in “Shadow Government” in the Case of a “Second 9/11:”

“Continuity programs began in the early 1950s, when the threat of nuclear war moved the administration of President Harry S. Truman to begin planning for emergency government functions and civil defense. Evacuation bunkers were built, and an incredibly complex and secretive shadow government program was created.

At its height, the grand era of continuity boasted the fully operational Mount Weather, a civilian bunker built along the crest of Virginia’s Blue Ridge, to which most agency heads would evacuate; the Greenbrier hotel complex and bunker in West Virginia, where Congress would shelter; and Raven Rock, or Site R, a national security bunker bored into granite along the Pennsylvania-Maryland border near Camp David, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff would command a protracted nuclear war. Special communications networks were built, and evacuation and succession procedures were practiced continually.

When the Soviet Union crumbled, the program became a Cold War curiosity: Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney ordered Raven Rock into caretaker status in 1991. The Greenbrier bunker was shuttered and a 30-year-old special access program was declassified three years later.

Then came the terrorist attacks of the mid-1990s and the looming Y2K rollover, and suddenly continuity wasn’t only for nuclear war anymore. On Oct. 21, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 67, “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.” No longer would only the very few elite leaders responsible for national security be covered. Instead, every single government department and agency was directed to see to it that they could resume critical functions within 12 hours of a warning, and keep their operations running at emergency facilities for up to 30 days. FEMA was put in charge of this broad new program.

On 9/11, the program was put to the test — and failed. Not on the national security side: Vice President Cheney and others in the national security leadership were smoothly whisked away from the capital following procedures overseen by the Pentagon and the White House Military Office. But like the mass of Washingtonians, officials from other agencies found themselves virtually on their own, unsure of where to go or what to do, or whom to contact for the answers.”

Continuity in Government programs have been one edge of the wedge to wrest control of the U.S. government away from Constitutional authority and put it in the hands of the secret teams under the direction of hidden interests. The elite decision-makers behind this crypto-fascist coup obviously include big finance, military corporations, elements of intelligence, and interlocking corporations, and also have curious deep ties to the creation and sustenance of the State of Israel.

It’s commonplace humor to refer to Dick Cheney’s being in a “secure location,” but he and Donald Rumsfeld have been intimately involved in Continuity in Government (COG) since their days in Congress. I’ve read several articles on this connection, but was interested to find that I could find no reference to this, or to much at all about the ongoing development of COG programs since the onset of the cold war.

It’s also interesting to note that in Arkin’s excerpt above he notes that for most of Official Washington the COG measures in place failed to take account for them, serving instead only some short list of insiders. This begins to make obvious just who this government serves.

Then They Came For Christians…

Then They Came For Christians…

By Ram Puniyani

05 September, 2008

Orissa is witnessing unprecedented violence against the tiny Christian minority. On August 23, 2008, Swami Laxmananand along with his four followers was killed, probably by a group of Maoists. Immediately, anti-Christian violence began on big scale. The way it began it seemed as if preparations for it were well afoot. It was systematic and widespread. It sounded as if preparation was already there, just the pretext was being waited for. So far many innocent Christians have been killed, wounded and rendered homeless apart from many Churches having been torched. The RSS combine, VHP-Adivasi Kalyan Ashram-Bajarang Dal, allege that Swami was killed by Christians, or there is collusion between Maoists and Christians. It is unlikely that there is any such alliance between the two. Any way, what is important is that the crime of murder of Swami must be properly investigated and guilty must be punished as per the law of the land.

Just to recall anti Christian tirade was also launched in December 2007, around Christmas time. That time also the pretext was that Christians have beaten up Swami and so this ‘revenge’. For RSS combine launching such bouts of violence by now is becoming a child’s play. Search for a pretext, launch your well oiled machinery for the communal agenda, communalize the society along religious lines and strengthen your political base seems to be its trajectory. The similar phenomenon was observed in Gujarat, after the burning of Sabarmati coach S 6 at Godhra. Modi announced that it has been done by local Muslims. There was no need to wait for the proper investigation, no need to follow the norm of railway board that every such event must be investigated, and tirade was launched with full vigor, and split in the society along religious lines was brought in ensuring BJP coming back to power. This victory of BJP was despite the decline of popularity of BJP.
Anti incumbency was nullified and Modi returned to power to further his agenda. Power of polarizing the society by communal violence was at display at its worst.

This, by now is the standard technique, spread canards, myths, biases against minorities, look for pretext and go for the kill under the tolerating eyes of communalized state apparatus. If BJP is in power or is an ally in the seat of power, the job is easier. Anti Christian violence went on higher gear in the same year in which BJP came to power in the Center in 1996. The pretext was that Christian missionaries are converting the gullible Adivasis by force, fraud and allurement. This incitement was skillfully utilized by Adivasis Kalyan Ashram, VHP and Bajrang dal, and the violence started going up in intensity over the years. The most ghastly of this was seen in the burning alive of Pastor Graham Stains along with his two innocent sons, aged 11 and 7 years. This was immediately followed by the murder of Fr. Arul Das. Also Sheikh Rahman was killed on the charges of trading in cows for slaughter.

Anti Christian atmosphere was built up and as this was more
in the remote places where Adivasis do not have easy access to law, police etc, anyway there efficacy in helping minorities from the onslaught of RSS combine is also doubtful by now, the process has been going on and on. The violence kept on simmering and kept taking intense forms around the Christmas times. In a way a new Christmas ritual of burning churches and beating up Christians around Christmas time became a sort of annual event. It is immaterial that the number of Christians is miniscule in Indian society, it is immaterial that Christian missionaries are working in India from first century A.D. itself, it is immaterial that the despite the allegations from RSS combine, the population of Christians as per the census figures has been declining constantly. In the face of these facts the argument proffered was that since the converts to Christianity don’t want to loose their privileges that don’t declare their true religion and are crypto Christians. The simple point is that Adivasis, where the missionary work is maximum, don’t loose such privileges after conversion. Gobbles must be turning in his grave with his followers surpassing him many times over!

In it not a mere coincidence that maximum violence in Adivasi areas has been seen in the poorest regions. Dangs in Gujarat is the poorest district of Gujarat, and Orissa is amongst the poorest states of the country. The main reason for violence against Christians is to ensure that the welfare, educational services offered by them do not reach the Adivasis and that they remain poor and illiterate, that the status quo in these areas prevails so that the democratic space for these wretched of the society is blocked by the religiosity cultivated through Swamis.

We saw two processes of co-option and one political process of intimidation in these regions. Through Swamis, Laxmananad (Orissa), Assemanand (Dangs) and followers of Asaram bapu in Jhabua area, they did the cooption work, Gharvapasi, conversion in to Hinduism. Through mega processes like Shabri Kumbh in Dangs, Hindu Sangams in other Adivasi areas, an intimidating atmosphere has been created to draw them to RSS fold. The other process is the political one. This is the building up of mechanism where by Dara Singh’s, and his clones are ready waiting for pretexts to pounce upon the social fabric of unity. The violence is made to look as spontaneous and is a part of a process of revenge. It is neither, it is well planned un-folding of RSS agenda. Even Wadhva Commission, pointed out that there was no conversion activity by Pastor Stains. The civic rights groups have pointed out that the violence has political foundations and has nothing to do with religion or conversion. A Peoples tribunal headed by retired Justice Usha also warned about the preparedness of the communal organizations for violence,

The case of Orissa was specifically investigated by India Peoples Tribunal, led by Justice K.K.Usha (retired) of Kerala High court in 2006 (Communalism in Orissa). This tribunal forewarns about the shape of things to come. ” The tribunal assessed the spread of communal organizations in Orissa, which has been accompanied by a series of small and large events and some riots…such violations are utilized to generate the threat and reality of greater violence, and build an infrastructure of fear and intimidation.” It further notes that minorities are being grossly ill treated; there is gross inaction of the state Govt to take action. Outlining the mechanism of the communalization, it points out, “The report also describes in considerable detail how the cadre of majoritarian communal organizations is indoctrinated in hatred and violence against other communities it holds to be inherently inferior. If such communalization is undertaken in Orissa, it is
indicative of the future of the nation… the signs are truly ominous for India’s democratic future.” (p 70)

In all the Adivasis areas, a dangerous situation, and occasionally an apparent calm prevail. While swami Laxmananand’s killers deserve the punishment, Swami’s followers are spreading hate in these areas and vitiating the atmosphere. One can also see the communalization of state apparatus and BJP protecting its marauding mobs either by pulling the strings from the seats of power or by spreading the canards against the weaker sections of society. Interestingly as pointed out above, the December 2007 violence was launched on the pretext that Christians have beaten up the Swami! We do need to look back and check the activities of those spreading hate in the name of religion. While the Christian sects are dime a dozen, all are not in the business of proselytization. Few of them must be indulging in wrong practices, but surely law of the land can take care of those not following it. Permitting violence by the state machinery tantamount to violation of the oath taken by those in power, and they should to be suspended form the seats of power. And if they are not able to protect the innocent citizens of their state, why should they continue to rule? The question is which political force is above suspicion and honest enough to abide by the laws of Indian constitution? The question also arises, is the state bureaucracy and police honest enough to protect the minorities? Time to introspect and set the things right at deeper level of governance and politics.

Why We Were Falsely Arrested

Why We Were Falsely Arrested

By Amy Goodman

05 September, 2008

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, “Democracy Now!” producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.

The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements – for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.

It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.

There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.

Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, “Get down on your face.” You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing “Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?” She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole’s screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.

I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.

Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.

The attack on and arrest of me and the “Democracy Now!” producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, “By embedding reporters in our mobile field force.”

On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It’s all in a day’s work.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.

Global Realignment: How Bush Inspired A New World Order

Global Realignment: How Bush Inspired A New

World Order

By Ramzy Baroud

05 September, 2008

The series of unfortunate and costly decisions made during the two terms of the Bush administration, combined with economic decline at home, might devastate the US’s world standing much sooner than most analysts predict. What was difficult to foresee was that the weakening of US global dominance, spurred by erratic and unwise foreign policy under Bush, would re-ignite the Cold War, to a degree, over a largely distant and seemingly ethnically-based conflict — that of Georgia and Russia. Who could have predicted a possible association between Baghdad, Kabul and Tbilisi?

But to date the decline of US global power to the advent of the Bush administration, or even the horrific events of 11 September 2001, is not exactly accurate. The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union and the unravelling of the Warsaw Pact — especially as former members of that pact hurried to joined NATO in later years — empowered a new breed of US elite who boasted of the economic viability and moral supremacy of US-styled “Capitalism and Democracy”. But a unipolar world presented the US leadership with an immense, if not an insurmountable task.

While 9/11 and a gung-ho president presented a convenient opportunity to reassert US global dominance, action was taken the moment the Soviet Union collapsed. Such efforts, however, were not accentuated until 1997, with the establishment of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think tank from which many neo-conservative policy advisors operated. Their aim was “to promote American global leadership… [which] is both good for America and good for the world.” William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC founders, were inspired by the Reaganite policy of “strength and moral clarity”. But that supposedly inspiring model was justified on the basis of the Cold War, which no longer existed. Fashioning an enemy was a time-sensitive and essential task to justify the repositioning of US power to reclaim domains that were left vacant with the disappearance of the bipolar international system, which existed since World War II.

Even the PNAC’s more recent report, Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, published in 2000, appeared of little relevance and urgency. It expressed the “belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of US military forces”. The report would have been another neglected document were it not for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, which turned it into a doctrine defining US foreign policies for nearly a decade.

The wars and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were aimed at strengthening the US hand in protecting its interests and managing its international affairs. Afghanistan’s position was strategic in warding off the growth of the rising powers of Asia — aside from its military and strategic value, it was hoped to become a major energy supply route — while Iraq was to provide a permanent US military presence to guard its oil interests in the whole region and to ensure Israeli supremacy over its weaker, but rebellious Arab foes.

The plan worked well for a few weeks following the declaration of “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. Since then, the US has learned that managing world affairs with a decidedly military approach is a recipe for disaster. Faced with foreign occupation, Iraqis fought back, creating a nightmare scenario and promising US defeat in their country. The US’s original plan to exploit the country’s fractious ethnic and religious groupings also backfired, as shifting alliances made it impossible for the US to single out a permanent enemy or a long-term ally. In Afghanistan, the picture is even more bleak as the country’s unforgivable geography, the corruption of US local allies, resurgence of the Taliban, and the US-led coalition’s brutal response to the Taliban’s emboldened ascension, has rendered Afghanistan a lost cause by any reasonable military standard.

But the trigger-happy mentality that has governed US foreign policy during the Bush years is no longer dominant and has been since challenged by a more sensible, dialogue-based foreign policy approach, as championed, reluctantly, by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. The change of heart is not entirely moralistic, however, but largely pragmatic. According to a survey conducted jointly by Foreign Policy magazine and the Centre for a New American Security, published 19 February 2008, 88 per cent of present and former US military officers believe that the demands of the Iraq war alone have “stretched the US military dangerously thin”. Although not “broken”, 80 per cent believe it is “unreasonable to expect the US military to wage another major war successfully at present”, as reported by CNN. Such estimation is not too different from similar assessments provided by top US military commanders, most of who found their way to early retirement for similar reasons.

The new military limitations faced by the US in the Middle East have also resulted in the weakening of US political sway and standing. More, its regional allies have also suffered one blow after another: Israel in Lebanon, Georgia in South Ossetia, US allies in Venezuela and other South American countries, etc. Indeed, it is a matter of time before a challenger to US global hegemony arises and tests US resolve under new circumstances. While growing US involvement in Eurasia and its missile defence shield was considered part and parcel of the neo-con plan for “rebuilding America’s defences”, it was considered by Russia a threat to its national security.

The Georgian invasion of South Ossetia represented a golden opportunity for Moscow to send an unmistakable message to Washington. By crushing the US-Israeli trained Georgian army, Russia declared itself a contender to unchallenged US global dominance, which had lasted for nearly two decades. Countries such as Iran and Syria are quickly warming up to the new Russia, as the latter seeks to rebuild its own alliances and defences.

The nature and the direction of the US-Russian confrontation are yet to be determined with any reasonable preciseness. Internal and external factors for Russia itself (corruption, the oligarchs, and its ability to court a stable alliance) will all prove consequential in the current confrontation. What is clear, however, is that the upcoming US president will find himself face-to-face with a drastically altered world order, one that is defined by military pandemonium, national and global economic decline, and the rise of new powers, all vying to fill a widening, chaotic power vacuum, provided courtesy of the Bush administration.

Global Starvation Ignored by American Policy Elites

Global Starvation Ignored by American Policy Elites

A new report (9/2/08) from The World Bank admits that in 2005 three billion one hundred and forty million people live on less that $2.50 a day and about 44% of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas. Simple items like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people. logs the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (85% children under 5) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The numbers of unnecessary deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years.
These are the people who David Rothkopf in his book Superclass calls the unlucky. “If you happen to be born in the wrong place, like sub-Saharan Africa, …that is bad luck,” Rothkopf writes. Rothkopf goes on to describe how the top 10% of the adults worldwide own 84% of the wealth and the bottom half owns barely 1%. Included in the top 10% of wealth holders are the one thousand global billionaires. But is such a contrast of wealth inequality really the result of luck, or are there policies, supported by political elites, that protect the few at the expense of the many?
Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4% from the year before, yet, billions of people go hungry every day. describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent article “Making a Killing from Hunger.” It turns out that while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control the global food prices and distribution. Starvation is profitable for corporations when demands for food push the prices up. Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were 86% above 2007. World food prices grew 22% from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. The result is wild food price spirals, both up and down, with food insecurity remaining widespread.
For a family on the bottom rung of poverty a small price increase is the difference between life and death, yet neither US presidential candidate has declared a war on starvation. Instead both candidates talk about national security and the continuation of the war on terror as if this were the primary election issue. Where is the Manhattan project for global hunger? Where is the commitment to national security though unilateral starvation relief? Where is the outrage in the corporate media with pictures of dying children and an analysis of who benefits from hunger?
American people cringe at the though of starving children, often thinking that there is little they can do about it, save sending in a donation to their favorite charity for a little guilt relief. Yet giving is not enough, we must demand hunger relief as a national policy inside the next presidency. It is a moral imperative for us as the richest nation in the world nation to prioritize a political movement of human betterment and starvation relief for the billions in need. Global hunger and massive wealth inequality is based on political policies that can be changed. There will be no national security in the US without the basic food needs of the world being realized.

US attack inside Pakistan threatens dangerous new war

US attack inside Pakistan threatens

dangerous new war

By Peter Symonds

05/09/08 “WSW” – – A ground assault by US Special Forces troops on a Pakistani village on Wednesday threatens to expand the escalating Afghanistan war into its neighbour. Pakistan is already confronting a virtual civil war in its tribal border regions as the country’s military, under pressure from Washington, seeks to crush Islamist militias supporting the anti-occupation insurgency inside Afghanistan.

The attack, which left up to 20 civilians dead, marks a definite escalation of US operations inside Pakistan. While US Predator drones and war planes have been used previously to bomb targets, Wednesday’s raid was the first clear case of an assault by American ground troops inside Pakistani territory. The White House and Pentagon have refused to comment on the incident but various unnamed US officials have acknowledged to the media that the raid took place and indicated that there could be more to come.

The attack was unprovoked. US troops landed by helicopter in the village of Jalal Khei in South Waziristan at around 3 a.m. and immediately targetted three houses. The engagement lasted for about 30 minutes and left between 15 and 20 people dead, including women and children.

A US official acknowledged to CNN that there may have been women and children in the immediate vicinity but when the mission began “everyone came out firing from the compound”. Even this flimsy justification for a naked act of aggression is probably a lie. “It was very terrible as all of the residents were killed while asleep,” a villager Din Mohammad told the Pakistan-based International News.

The newspaper provided details of the dead and injured: nine family members of Faujan Wazir, including four women, two children and three men; Faiz Mohammad Wazir, his wife and two other family members; and Nazar Jan and his mother. Two other members of Nazar Jan’s family were seriously wounded.

The US and international media have described the Angoor Adda area around the village as “a known stronghold of the Taliban and Al Qaeda” but offered no evidence to support the claim. A villager, Jabbar Wazir, told the International News: “All of those killed were poor farmers and had nothing to do with the Taliban.”

In comments to the International Herald Tribune, a senior Pakistani official branded the raid a “cowboy action” that had failed to capture or kill any senior Al Qaeda or Taliban leader. “If they had gotten anyone big, they would be bragging about it,” he commented.

The attack has provoked outrage in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement branding the attack as “a gross violation of Pakistan territory” and summoned US ambassador Anne Patterson to provide an explanation. North West Frontier Province (NWFP) governor Owais Ahmed Ghani declared that “the people expect that the armed forces of Pakistan would rise to defend the sovereignty of the country”. He put the number killed at 20.

Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the raid was “completely counterproductive” and risked provoking an uprising even among those tribesmen who have previously supported the army’s operations in the border areas.

The International News reported: “Angry villagers later blocked the main road between Pakistan and Afghanistan in Angoor Adda by placing the bodies of their slain tribesmen on the road. They chanted slogans against the US and NATO military authorities for crossing the border without any provocation and killing innocent people.”

The US raid has compounded the political crisis inside Pakistan, where the selection of a new president is due to take place tomorrow. The ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has been engaged in a delicate balancing act—continuing to support US demands for a crackdown by the Pakistani military along the border with Afghanistan, while trying to defuse widespread anger and fend off accusations that it is a US puppet.

Reaffirming his support for the Bush administration’s bogus “war on terror”, PPP presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari declared in a column in yesterday’s Washington Post: “We stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been attacked.” Zardari went on to promise that he would ensure that Pakistani territory would not be used to launch raids on US and NATO forces inside Afghanistan.

However, as PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar explained, the US attack was politically compromising. “We have been very clear that any action on this side of the border must be taken by Pakistani forces themselves,” he told the Associated Press. “It is very embarrassing for the government. The people will start blaming the government of Pakistan.”

An expanded war

The decision to launch Wednesday’s attack was undoubtedly taken at the top levels of the White House and Pentagon. As the New York Times reported in articles earlier this year, a high-level debate has been taking place in Washington over the use of US Special Forces inside Pakistan as well as the intensification of existing CIA operations, which include Predator missile strikes.

A meeting in early January involved Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and top national security and intelligence officials advisers. According to the New York Times on January 6, options discussed included “loosening restrictions on the CIA to strike selected targets in Pakistan” and operations involving US Special Operations forces, such as the Navy Seals.

The Times reported on January 27 that then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf rejected proposals put by US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden for an expanded American combat presence in Pakistan, either through covert CIA missions or joint operations with Pakistani security forces. While apparently accepting the refusal, the US intensified pressure on Pakistan to bring its border areas under control.

As the anti-occupation insurgency has expanded in Afghanistan, claiming a growing number of US and NATO casualties, Pakistan has become a convenient scapegoat. Washington has repeatedly accused the Pakistani military of failing to suppress Islamist militia and alleged that Pakistani military intelligence is actively supporting anti-US guerrillas inside Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen has held five meetings since February with his Pakistani counterpart, army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to press for tougher action. The most recent took place last weekend aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, stationed in the Arabian Sea. In comments to CNN, a US official “declined to say” whether there were any new agreements for US troops to operate inside Pakistani airspace or on the ground to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Whether the Pakistani military quietly approved Wednesday’s attack or not, the Bush administration is making clear that it intends to extend the war into Pakistan. Citing top American officials, the New York Times reported on Wednesday that the raid “could be the opening salvo in a much broader campaign by Special Operations forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, a secret plan that Defence Secretary Robert Gates has been advocating for months within President George W. Bush’s war council”.

This utterly reckless policy, which risks the eruption of a US war against Pakistan, is bipartisan in character. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has repeatedly declared his support for broadening the “war on terror” through unilateral US attacks on insurgents based inside Pakistan. His candidacy has been strongly backed by sections of the US establishment that have been critical of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq for undermining US interests. Far from opposing aggressive US military action, Obama has become the political vehicle for shifting its focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan as the means of advancing US strategic interests in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

The US attack on the village of Jalal Khei is another demonstration that the shift in policy, with all its potentially catastrophic consequences, is already underway.

Copyright 1998-2008 – World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved.

The United States of America digging grave for itself in Pakistan

The United States of America digging grave for itself in Pakistan

The Zionists and the neo-cons plans for Pakistan are bad for Pakistan, but it will doom the US forever as well. It will never recover from the loss and Israel will be set to replace it as the world ruling state. This in simple words doesn’t sound horrible but the bloodshed that will take place in during the fall of the United States and Israel’s ascending to the level of world ruling state will sham all brutalities, barbarism and human suffering of the past. See page 206 and 213 here. Undermining Pakistan is the biggest ever blunder the US leaders are committing for the state of Israel. It will become one of the reasons for the doom of its dominance.

General Kiyani secretly meeting and planning attacks on Pakistan is one thing. Coming on the ground in the next phases of the war on Pakistan is totally another. The few sell-outs, from Haqqani, Rehman Malik and Zardari, will hardly be able to stem the tide of 170 million people responding to the war of terrorism of the “super” “power.”

It is naive to assume that millions will be butchered and the Zionists will be pushing the war into Iran, yet Russia and Iran would be sitting their on the sidelines watching the bloodiest war and unprecedented crimes taking place in their backyard.

Shame! Always Shame !!!!

Shame! Always Shame !!!!

If U send us This


We will present u this


Even if u search

Our Kitchens


We will still Serve

u delicious food


Even if u Destroy our homes

Don’t worry


We will still invite U

in our homes !!!


U Search Our Children


U even arrest

our children


Be HAPPY!!!!

Our Kids will still entertain U


U undress our innocent children


U even Kill their families,

in front of them


We will still entertain u,



U leave our mother crying


Our women will receive u

with dignity


U leave our

Families in Sea of tears


We are Secular


women will

Kiss U


U put our brothers under ur shoes


We will stand shoulder to shoulder

with U…..


U even keep an eye on our kids,

this shows ur bravery


And then u kill our innocent,

unarmed children


Our men will play along with u



See how liberal we are…

Please Don’t tag us


Moscow-Tehran keep military ties

Moscow-Tehran keep military ties
Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:51:04 GMT

Iran and Russia keep cooperation

Russia’s leading military exporter says the country cooperates with Iran in all technical, military and energy fields, despite US opposition.

A Russian state news agency has quoted Mikhail Savali, the Director of the Special Orders Department of Rosoboronexport, as saying “we have invested a lot in the country and there exists a good outlook for Russian presence in Iran.”

Zavali made the statement while visiting an international aero-space exhibition in the Russian city of Glendjik on Friday.

He made it clear that Moscow does not care about other countries view on the issue.

Zavali stressed that the Russian policy regarding Iran is opposed by the US because the Americans only follow their own interests in the region.

Rosoboronexport is the sole state intermediary for Russian imports and exports of defense-related products, technologies and services. It is responsible for implementing Russian state policy relating to military cooperation between Russia and foreign countries.

Rosoboronexport is one of the world’s largest players in the defense and military industries.

Zionist Warmonger Says Israel Prepared To Commit “Error” of Nuking Iran

Peres: Israel prepared for war with Iran
Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:36:05 GMT

The Israeli president says exercising a military option against Iran’s nuclear program would be ‘an error’, but Tel Aviv is prepared for one.

President Shimon Peres made the remarks a day after his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, accused Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and claimed that Israel would not be questioned if it attacks Iran.

“Iran is taking a major risk by continuing the process of seeking nuclear technology for military ends,” Sarkozy said in Syria.

Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, has long threatened to strike nuclear installations in Iran under the pretext that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is developing nuclear weapons.

This is while the UN nuclear watchdog, which has extensively monitored Iran’s nuclear activities and has been inspecting the country’s nuclear installations since 2003, has verified the ‘non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran’.

Despite the agency’s declaration that Tehran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent, a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant, the UN Security Council has intervened in Iran’s nuclear case and has imposed three rounds of sanctions against the country.

“So long as there is a possibility of acting politically and economically, it is much better,” said Peres, echoing Israeli threats that should diplomacy – ‘political and economical sanctions’ – fail, it would not hesitate to wage war on Iran.

According to Pentagon officials, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in early June in preparation for a war with Iran.

Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise, which spanned some 900 miles, roughly the distance between their airfields and a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz.

US: We must interfere in Bolivian affairs

US: We must interfere in Bolivian affairs
Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:42:41 GMT

US envoy in Bolivia, Phillip Goldberg

The US ambassador in Bolivia meets the rebel governor of Chuquisaca saying Washington should interfere in the country’s internal affairs.

Throwing his weight behind the rebel governor of Chuquisaca state Sabina Cuellar on Friday, Phillip Goldberg called on the Bolivian government of President Evo Morales to pay attention to the demands of the opposition.

Goldberg claimed that since Bolivia is presently in a state of political instability, the US institutions should interfere in Bolivia’s internal affairs.

This is not the first time that the US officials are evidently interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.

Nonetheless, Morales denounced Goldberg’s support of the right-wing “autonomy” movement that is promoting the secession of five Bolivian provinces.

Goldberg was summoned to Bolivia’s Foreign Ministry last week for his meeting with governor of the state of Santa Cruz who is also an opponent of President Morales.

Morales became the first indigenous leader of Bolivia after winning more than 53 percent of votes in the 2006 presidential election – a rare absolute majority victory in the country.

Goldberg’s remarks about the internal affairs of an independent country comes days after the visiting Bolivian President in Tehran said the White House has warned Bolivia against developing ties with Iran, “something Bolivia will not abide by”.

“Iranians and Bolivians would like to see how their leaders defend the interests of their countries and fight Imperialism,” Morales said.

Cool reception for Cheney in Azerbaijan

Cool reception for Cheney in Azerbaijan

American Vice President Dick Cheney’s visit to the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, appears to be have been unsuccessful for Washington, unlike his visit to Tbilisi. Cheney received a cool welcome and, according to Russia’s Kommersant newspaper, Azerbaijan’s President Ilkham Aliyev has implied that Baku is going to play a waiting game concerning the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is set to bypass Russia.

Neither President Ilkham Aliyev nor the Prime Minister, Artur Rasizade, were there to greet Cheney at Baku airport. Instead, he was met by the country’s First Deputy PM and the Foreign Minister.

The Kommersant newspaper reports that Cheney was very annoyed by the results of the meeting with President Aliyev and even refused to attend a ceremonial supper in his own honour.

Aleksandr Pikaev, an analyst from the Institute for World Economy and International Relations, believes Dick Cheney is hardly the right man for diplomacy in the region.

“The Americans didn’t find anything else to support their failed ally Saakashvili other than sending to the region Mr Cheney who is incredibly unpopular in the world, who is associated with the war in Iraq, with all this conservative black-and-white vision of the world, who was accused of corruption – remember the Halliburton affair in Iraq. If the Bush Administration really wanted to consolidate the international community behind the U.S. in criticising Russia, I think they should have found somebody else, not Mr Cheney,” Pikaev said.

Russian archaeologists find long-lost Jewish capital

Russian archaeologists find long-lost

Jewish capital

MOSCOW (AFP) – Russian archaeologists said Wednesday they had found the long-lost capital of the Khazar kingdom in southern Russia, a breakthrough for research on the ancient Jewish state.

“This is a hugely important discovery,” expedition organiser Dmitry Vasilyev told AFP by telephone from Astrakhan State University after returning from excavations near the village of Samosdelka, just north of the Caspian Sea.

“We can now shed light on one of the most intriguing mysteries of that period — how the Khazars actually lived. We know very little about the Khazars — about their traditions, their funerary rites, their culture,” he said.

The city was the capital of the Khazars, a semi-nomadic Turkic peoples who adopted Judaism as a state religion, from between the 8th and the 10th centuries, when it was captured and sacked by the rulers of ancient Russia.

At its height, the Khazar state and its tributaries controlled much of what is now southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, Azerbaijan and large parts of Russia’s North Caucasus region.

The capital is referred to as Itil in Arab chronicles but Vasilyev said the word may actually have been used to refer to the Volga River on which the city was founded or to the surrounding river delta region.

Itil was said to be a multi-ethnic place with houses of worship and judges for Christians, Jews, Muslims and pagans. Its remains have until now never been identified and were said to have been washed away by the Caspian Sea.

Archaeologists have been excavating in the area if Samosdelka for the past nine years but have only now collected enough material evidence to back their thesis, including the remains of an ancient brick fortress, he added.

“Within the fortress, we have found huts similar to yurts, which are characteristics of Khazar cities…. The fortress had a triangular shape and was made with bricks. It’s another argument that this was no ordinary city.”

Around 10 university archaeologists and some 50 students took part in excavations in the region this summer, which are partly financed by the Jewish University in Moscow and the Russian Jewish Congress.

From the GROUND UP, a New Humane Order

From the GROUND UP

a blueprint for human-scaled

economics, culture & economy

about the project

“My dream is of a place and a time where America will

once again be seen as the last best hope of earth.”

– Abraham Lincoln

The objective of this project is to prompt new (and sometimes old) ways of thinking about the critical – but often hidden – issues that shape our future.  Fateful decisions are being made without our input that have global impact.  For example, we should all know the answers to these questions:

Why are agribiz giants developing and growing Genetically Modified Organisms?  Why do Europeans vehemently reject GMOs while most Americans eat them without even knowing that a debate rages in places that still have independent media?  What will be the long-term effects on our health, biodiversity, and the food chain?1

Increasingly, decisions that impact everyone on the planet are handed down by multi-national corporations that offer a generic, unilateral solution for all the world’s dilemmas: “free-market” globalization, often air-delivered in shiny packages under spurious slogans – “Freedom” – “Democracy” – “Restructuring” – “Development”.  To many observers on either side of the economic, political and military crosshairs, it’s clear that this gun-barrel diplomacy is doing no one any good, except for those doomed souls who make a killing2 from this colossal hoax.

Agenda setters such as the G8, World Trade Organization, World Bank, Federal Reserve3 and so on, derive their powers from outside the normal state channels.  Intentionally or not, these organizations and their “treaties” are destroying national sovereignty through superimposed trade agreements that squash the rights of property owners, workers, small-business owners, and even nation-states.  Backroom deals replace transparent debates because the elites believe that things of such import are beyond the carrying-capacity of the “common” wo/man, thus completely exposing their contempt for democracy and self-determination.  Here’s how David Rockefeller put it in 1991:

“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

On the policies and consequences foisted by these unelected quasi-governments, we now have a considerable body of data to dissect and analyze.  Look at the high crimes and misdemeanors of the day – the global “structured finance” swindle4 fueled by “creative” mortgages; mercury in vaccines; rampant, blatant war-profiteering; the bizarre fact that Americans will soon be eating cloned meat without their knowledge or consent; the mainstream media’s refusal to seriously investigate and report on the same – and you will find one thing in common: these critical industries are largely de-regulated, unaccountable, opaque, and increasingly driven by short-term profit motive.

According to the Chicago School of neo-classic economic theory, this would imply that we should be approaching a nirvana of efficiency, opportunity, and personal freedom.  But in reality, those who control our currency, natural resources, food supply, and information flow are strangling the sovereignty of the individual and nation so that the corporation can enjoy all the rights of personhood without the responsibilities of actually being a person.  These multinational enterprises have economies the size of large countries, but they have no internal conscience to answer to, no morals to check their actions, and no body to lock up.

A paper entity endowed with such enormous wealth – while possessing all the freedoms of an individual – has a level of power that often exceeds that of elected governments.  Hence, “corporate personhood”5 must be abolished, and these faceless constructs must be returned to their original servant status.  Some things are too important to hand over to the Enrons, Halliburtons6, and Monsantos7 as private profit centers; “free market” laws do not apply when there are no alternatives (i.e. a free market).

To grant the globalists’ wish list and make it all “legal”, Capitol Hill is overrun by armies of lobbyists whose employers expect big returns on their investments.  These come in the form of subsidies, no-bid/cost-plus contracts, and most importantly, personalized legislation.  Per the Washington Post:

“The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.” [emphasis mine]

In other words, there are are approximately 65 lobbyists per member of Congress spending around $2,500,000,000 per year ($4.6 million per congressman!) to ensure they get their take of the loot.  In addition to groups like the AARP and Veterans for Peace, most of these deal-makers represent banking conglomerates, big media, agribusiness, pharma giants, and the perennial favorite: “defense” contractors who are arming the same people we are or soon will be fighting in the next phase of the “Global War on Terror.”  And the cycle continues.


“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth

concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

— Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1916-1939


Given the assorted disasters at home and abroad, courtesy of “think tanks” and other self-appointed rogues, it’s imperative that we take the power back (it will not be given) and end the madness.  But before we can begin untangling the web, we must first see it clearly.  Then we’ll begin the work of tearing it down and building anew.

The project’s purpose, then, is three-fold:

Information Clearinghouse – providing resources and information about the good, the bad, and the ugly that are not available through the MSM.

Idea Generator and Propagator – a forum for the insights of brilliant and creative minds around the globe who are imagining and building a saner world.

Network Hub – a channel for us to come together, pool our thoughts, and share what is working and what is not.  Kind of a wiki8 of the new world order that will be created by and for the people.

I hope you find this information useful and inspirational and that it is a source of positive change for the future.  My goal is to build a collaborative network of experts in relevant fields — please email any inquiries or related information to add to the conversation.

To the Future,

Gregg Brazel