The Great Culling has begun: Will your genetic lineage survive?

By Mike Adams | August 10, 2012 | Infowars.Com

The “Great Culling” of the human population has quietly begun. Covertly, insidiously, mercilessly, a global depopulation agenda has been launched. As this plays out, the vast majority of the human race will be removed from the gene pool. Genetically annihilated. Will you and your genetic lineage survive?

That’s what this article explores: WHAT are the real threats to your life, your offspring and your genetic integrity? HOW can you protect yourself from those threats? WHY is a global depopulation agenda being pursued? The more you understand these answers, the greater your odds of surviving the great culling.

First, let’s dismiss any idea that the great culling is some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory. World power brokers like Bill Gates and Ted Turner openly discuss reducing the world population by 90%. Bill Gates, in particular, happily funds infertility technologies, vaccines and GMOs, all of which are purposely designed to cause infertility and halt new baby births, thereby sharply contracting the human population.

[Read more…]

Carbon Agenda Sets Stage for Rolling Blackouts in California [Video]

By Kurt Nimmo | August 10, 2012 | Infowars.Com

It is said that as California goes, so goes the nation. The Golden State is about to experience what the rest of the nation will experience after the globalists phase in their carbon-free agenda under the demonstrably bogus global climate change scam.

“California’s electricity grid operator issued a rare statewide alert on Thursday warning residents to curb power usage in coming days as a heat wave threatens to strain its already taxed network,”Reuters reported on Monday.

The alert instructs residents and businesses to “curb use” during the peak consumption hours of 11:00 AM to 6 PM. The “alert” will last through Sunday.

California Independent System Operation (CAISO) is said to be bracing for a heat wave that is moving toward the state. It will struggle to compensate for the loss of 2,150-megawatts produced by the San Onofre nuclear plant. The plant will remain down through the rest of the summer due to a small radiation leak detected earlier this year.

[Read more…]

Obama’s Plan to Eliminate Suburbs

By Rush Limbaugh | August 02, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.Com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Stanley Kurtz has an article adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.  And he’s very blunt about this.  I have the book as a powerful, influential member of the media.  My book is right over there, Spreading the Wealth.  I have a copy.  “President Obama is not a fan of America’s suburbs. Indeed, he intends to abolish them.” Now, Kurtz believes that this is an excellent way to campaign against Obama, that you don’t need to be Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. You just need to tell people that live in the suburbs that no matter what they are, Obama’s coming for ’em, that he has been raised to believe that it was flight from the cities that led to all of the horrible economic conditions, the rotten schools and all of this that plague America’s cities.

It’s all about people fleeing, wanting a better life, and leaving behind their poor neighbors about whom they cared nothing. How basically the suburbs are made up of a bunch of selfish, greedy people who don’t care about their fellow man.  That’s how Obama was raised.  And, indeed, it is what many leftists believe.  And I have to tell you, folks, the constant push by Democrats to get us into mass transit is all about destroying the cities.  Let’s take a look.  In California, Moonbeam Brown, the governor, is intent — what are they, $16 billion in debt?  $16 billion state deficit, right?  Maybe even higher. And what are they focusing on?  What is one of Governor Brown’s primary objectives?  This bullet train, a speed train from nowhere to nowhere.

[Read more…]

Burn Down the Suburbs?

By Stanley Kurtz | August 1, 2012 | National Review

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Citiesby Stanley Kurtzfrom Sentinel HC.

President Obama is not a fan of America’s suburbs. Indeed, he intends to abolish them. With suburban voters set to be the swing constituency of the 2012 election, the administration’s plans for this segment of the electorate deserve scrutiny. Obama is a longtime supporter of “regionalism,” the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. To this end, the president has already put programs in place designed to push the country toward a sweeping social transformation in a possible second term. The goal: income equalization via a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities.

Obama’s plans to undercut the political and economic independence of America’s suburbs reach back decades. The community organizers who trained him in the mid-1980s blamed the plight of cities on taxpayer “flight” to suburbia. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Obama’s mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation (a community-organizing network Obama helped found) formally dedicated their efforts to the budding fight against suburban “sprawl.” From his positions on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama channeled substantial financial support to these efforts. On entering politics, he served as a dedicated ally of his mentors’ anti-suburban activism.

The alliance endures. One of Obama’s original trainers, Mike Kruglik, has hived off a new organization called Building One America, which continues Gamaliel’s anti-suburban crusade under another name. Kruglik and his close allies, David Rusk and Myron Orfield, intellectual leaders of the “anti-sprawl” movement, have been quietly working with the Obama administration for years on an ambitious program of social reform.

[Read more…]

A Brief History and Description of Agenda 21

By Kelly OConnell | August 1, 2012 | Canada Free Press

“Sustainable Development”–The New Code-Word for Stealth Marxism

Whether there is such a thing as a world plan for socialist domination must be answered by individuals pondering recent, sometimes strange confluences of world events. But if there were such a plan, would it appear in any clearer form that the United Nations Agenda 21 program?

Agenda 21 is a plank of UN policy encouraging the globe to embrace Sustainable Development, which conservatives understand as a code word for global Marxism:

Agenda 21 remains to many, classic Marxism which must be rejected—as the Alabama legislature did recently.Sustainable development sounds like a nice idea, right? It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and sustainable development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of social justice/socialism on the world. At risk from Agenda 21; Private property ownership; Single-family homes; Private car ownership and individual travel choices; and Privately owned farms.

I. Evolution of Agenda 21: Journey to Sustainable Development

A. Ramsar Convention (1971)The following is a brief evolution of Agenda 21, the UN program designed to help save the planet.

According to the site for ANPED, the Northern Alliance for Sustainability, there were a number of International Environmental Agreements (IEA’s) which came before Agenda 21. Of the 1131 listed Agreements and Modifications, ANPED singles out a handful as significant before Agenda 21, starting with the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat). Another site, Texans Against Agenda 21, also states that the seed agreement for Agenda 21 was Ramsar: [Read more…]

Agenda 21 Eco-Cities Built for Permanent Population Control

By  | July 17, 2012 | Occupy Corporatism

SOM-Beijing-CBD-3

At the 2012 UN Earth Summit for Sustainable Development Rio+20 there was an initiative to offer “many great opportunities for people from all over the world to come together, build bridges, and draft a common path upon which all residents of this breathtakingly beautiful planet we call home can journey towards a sustainable and equitable future.” This ideal would be brought to life in the plans of Agenda 21 Ecocities.

The blueprint for “a prosperous, secure and sustainable future for people and planet” where Agenda 21 comes to life under the directives of the UN and with the cooperation of the world’s governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private-sector corporations.

The Ecocity Builders is a non-profit organization which is a collaboration of international networks of associates that influence and actively participate in local city planning projects all across the US. Through training courses, they advocate the ecocity approach as the only way to continue in civilized society.

[Read more…]

The Global Eco-Constitution of the UN Explained

By Susanne Posel | July 13, 2012 | Activist Post

The idea behind global governance is that “there does not exist any serious environmental problem which cannot be solved through minimizing of energy and material consumption.”

Choosing “the creation of a global society with global democracy” will “improve the function of global financial markets” and “environmental quality.”

George Soros suggests in The Crisis of Global Capitalism that a “worldwide alliance will operate in promoting principles of international law.” However, there is little concern in the globalist Elite’s view of local markets.

Soros goes on to explain the globalist perspective: [Read more…]

Agenda 21 Micro-Apartment Scheme Being Beta-Tested in NYC [Video]

By  July 12, 2012 | Occupy Corporatism

The globalist design for micro-apartments is being championed by New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg. These “studio and one-bedroom apartments” will be no bigger than 275 to 300 sq ft. These tiny living spaces are smaller than currently allowed by building regulations, according to a statement by Bloomberg’s office; however the zoning regulations will be waived in over to construct the first of many compact pack ‘em and stack ‘em housing model in the city-owned area of Kips Bay.

The intention is to construct an area in NY that accommodates restricted housing space, eliminates car use in favor for walking and bicycling and promotes mass transit. Herding the expanding population into dense areas will smaller living spaces will instill the new class of poor and obligate their psychological transition toward accepting the Agenda 21 megacity concept. [Read more…]

Charlie Daniels Explains New Film, Behold A Pale Horse [Video]

[Read more…]

Covert Government Data Mining Operation Discovered [Video]

Utah Garden Challenge for Suckers

By Cassandra Anderson | July 5, 2012 | Morphcity.com

UDAFThe Utah Department of Agriculture and Food is promoting the Utah Garden Challenge in order to collect information about independent food production for the USDA.

The Utah Garden Challenge is a voluntary contest to register 10,000 gardens.  The data mining project has a broad interest in any “resource” who is growing food:

“Whether you grow a tomato in a pot, a row in a community garden, have backyard gardens, a CSA or working fruit and vegetable farm, we want to hear from you because you are an important resource as a food producer.”

While the contest paints a proud face on independent food production, it is important to remember that registering with the government sets up a system to track, tax, permit or confiscate the registered item.  Gun ownership is a good example of this scheme.

[Read more…]

UN Plans to Expand the Phony Water Crisis … ‘Smart Water Meters’ on the Way

By Anthony Wile | June 16, 2012 | The Daily Bell

UN-Water Survey Examines Water Law Reform … Twenty years ago this June world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro for an Earth Summit to develop an action plan for sustainable development. They discussed a wide variety of topics including climate change, alternative sources of energy to replace fossil fuel and the growing scarcity of water. This June, world leaders will gather once again for the Rio+20 Conference to examine the progress that has been made. – WaterWorld

Here we go again!

Leading proponents of “leveling” are preparing to descend on Brazil for the upcoming Rio+20 Earth Summit, hosted by the United Nations, and one of the items on the menu will be a re-valuation of the UN’s muddled Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) initiative.

The results will doubtless be a further weakening of property rights around the world under the guise of communitarianism and outright socialism.

[Read more…]

Global Governance Utopianism and the Threats to Freedom

By Avi Davis | June 10, 2012 | Breitbart News

It does not take much to trace the lineage of the global governance movement.  Beginning with the very first work on international law, written by Herman Grotius in 1623, down through the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant and Karl Krause and to the mid- 20th century novels of H.G. Wells, a line can be drawn threading together advocacy of intellectuals and political leaders for the establishment of some kind of global authority to be placed in charge of governing mankind’s work and activities.

Has the Communist Manifesto replaced the Constitution?

By George Hawley | June 9, 2012 | Young Americans for Liberty

When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded two years later, Americans sighed a breath of relief. Seemingly overnight, our debilitating fear that a horde of T-72’s would blitz through the Fulda Gap evaporated; the world realized a nuclear holocaust would not be the Cold War’s coup de grace. What’s more, the Cold War’s conclusion freed millions of souls from Soviet oppression. We were right to be relieved. American conservatives, who were eager to take credit for USSR’s demise, were feeling particularly triumphant at that time. We had finally reached the “end of history,” and “democratic capitalism” reigned supreme. It remains to be seen, however, whether post-Cold War conservative chest thumping was truly justified.

Although all freedom lovers should celebrate the downfall of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the peaceful death of the Soviet Empire did not necessarily indicate the demise of Marxism as a force in the world. In fact, a strong case can be made that the United States is more Marxist now than ever before. It is true that a socialist revolution did not occur, as Marx predicted, via an apocalyptic struggle between workers and the bourgeoisie, but a socialist revolution of sorts nonetheless occurred. To those who believe Marxism has been relegated to “the dustbin of history,” I can only point to the words of Marx himself. The world we inhabit is not so different from the one Marx envisioned.

[Read more…]

The U.N. Deception [Video]

The Evolution of Socialist Strategies to Rescue Socialism from Failure [Infograph]

Source: Ideowar.com

Communitarianism: This is Your Future

From the Post Sustainability Institute:

Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural and suburban areas. Roads not being maintained to those areas, schools not being supported in those areas, law enforcement/fire/social services not being supported in those areas means a gradual movement into the denser city centers.  Add to that the increased cost of gasoline (manipulated), and the higher cost of energy (manipulated) to heat and cool statistically larger homes, and you have more pressure to leave rural and suburban areas. Reduction of energy usage is key.  Smart Growth/New Urbanism in Redevelopment Areas is the supposed answer: smaller units, attached condos, little or no parking, few private cars.  More eyes on the street.  Redevelopment projects are the implementation arm of the UN plan, and include rezoning of huge sections of your cities to Smart Growth zones. This physical manifestation of UN Agenda 21 is social engineering paid for with your property tax dollars.    These areas then have their property taxes diverted away from your services and into the pockets of a few developers and bond brokers for 30-45 years.  Result?  Bankrupt cities and counties.

[Read more…]

Turn Out The Lights – The Largest U.S. Cities Are Becoming Cesspools Of Filth, Decay And Wretchedness

Staff Report | May 24, 2012 | The Economic Collapse Blog

Once upon a time, the largest U.S. cities were the envy of the entire world.  Sadly, that is no longer the case.  Sure, there are areas of New York City, Boston, Washington and Los Angeles that are still absolutely beautiful but for the most part our major cities are rapidly rotting and decaying.  Cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Memphis, New Orleans, St. Louis and Oakland were all once places where middle class American workers thrived and raised their families.  Today, all of those cities are rapidly being transformed into cesspools of filth, decay and wretchedness.  Millions of good jobs have left our major cities in recent decades and poverty has absolutely exploded.    Basically, you can turn out the lights because the party is over.  In fact, some major U.S. cities are literally turning out the lights.  In Detroit, about 40 percent of the streetlights are already broken and the city cannot afford to repair them.  So Mayor Bing has come up with a plan to cut the number of operating streetlights almost in half and leave vast sections of the city totally in the dark at night.  I wonder what that will do to the crime rate in the city.  But don’t look down on Detroit too much, because what is happening in Detroit will be happening where you live soon enough.

[Read more…]

The World Wildlife Fund Targets Humanity

By Robert Zubrin | May 23, 2012 | National Review

To save the Earth, the WWF urges us to adopt the living standards of Chad or Sudan.

The World Wildlife Fund, the posh flagship of the global environmentalist movement, has just released its biennial publication assessing “the state of the planet.” Entitled “Living Planet Report 2012,” the publication bemoans alleged catastrophic effects that humanity is inflicting upon the Earth, and calls for drastic curbs on civilization as a necessary corrective measure.

According to the WWF, the human race is currently consuming at a rate that would be sustainable only if we had 1.5 Earths. Since we do not, overall human activity needs to be reduced by 33 percent to put mankind “in balance with the Earth’s biocapacity.”

[Read more…]

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat

By Tom DeWeese | May 12, 2012 | American Policy Center

The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones as citizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to the UN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with the answers.

The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that:

  • Local planning is a local idea.
  • Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
  • The UN has no enforcement capability.
  • There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
  • Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
  • The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
  • There is no hidden agenda.
  • “I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
  • And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”

And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”

Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.

[Read more…]

A New Declaration of Independence

By Eileen F. Toplansky | April 28, 2012 | American Thinker

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary to ensure that a President, who has led the country to near ruin and who is working to discard the basic principles upon which this Great Country rests, be peaceably removed it is incumbent upon us that we submit the reasons to the people.

Without any in-depth research or vetting about his background, Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States.  There were voices of caution who early on exposed Obama’s connections to former terrorist Bill Ayers, anti-American vilifier Reverend Wright, crook Tony Rezko, and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi, but they were laughed at as the people allowed themselves to be demagogued on hope and change.  Evidence continues to suggest that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate is, indeed, a forgery.  This would make his presidential eligibility suspect.

Thus, the American people are at a critical watershed moment in our history.  The facts are in; Obama’s ideology and core principles are now public and exist for all to see.  We can no longer claim ignorance; we can no longer be naïve; we can no longer deny what is patently before us.  The record of this current president is a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Mr. Obama has “given himself the powers to declare martial law[.]  It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American.”  Thus, “Barack Obama is very dangerous, the apotheosis of an insidious strain of authoritarianism that destroys from within.”  In a statement published on December 31, 2011, Mr. Obama states that “[t]oday I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.”  Though he claims that he has “signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” it was Mr. Obama who “demanded the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents.”

And like King George III, Obama has now established the distinct possibility of placing “[s]tanding armies without the Consent of our legislatures” — although sadly, in this case, the Senate passed this unwholesome disgrace.  King George III would be pleased.

In fact, Mr. Obama sees fit to bypass the “pesky” Constitution whenever it suits him, thus ignoring limited-government tenets which were at the core of the Founding Fathers’ belief system.  Thus, the NDAA detention mandate allows indefinite military detention not just to foreigners; now “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

In fact, should Mr. Obama be re-elected to a second term, “our rights to speech, religion and property, and to privacy in our persons and homes, will be transformed.”  Mr. Obama has already “hectored Christianity on matters of conscience.”  Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, Mr. Obama is forcing Catholic institutions to pay for insurance covering contraceptives.  Why, when “religious liberty was weighed against access to birth control, did freedom lose?” — a clear intrusion into the first of the five protections of the First Amendment.  Bishop Daniel Jenky has likened President Obama’s health care policies to the attacks on the Catholic church by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin of yesteryear.  Dare we go down that totalitarian road again?

The onslaught against free speech has been heightened because of the “cooperation between [Mr. Obama] and the OIC or Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”  The “Obama administration stands ‘united’ with the OIC on speech issues,” thus silencing Arab reformers and anyone who makes any allegedly negative remarks about Islam.  The “repressive practices” of the OIC member-nations speak volumes about their restrictions on free speech.  Hence, “the encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas.”  That an American president would threaten this most fundamental right is yet another resounding reason why he needs to be removed from office.

In December of 2009, Nat Hentoff, a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, asserted that “[i]f congressional Democrats succeed in passing their health-care ‘reform’ measure to send to the White House for President Obama’s signature, then they and he are determining your health decisions[.]” Thus, “these functionaries making decisions about your treatment and, in some cases, about the extent of your life span, have never met you[.]  Is this America?”  Hentoff concludes his piece with the revelation “I’m scared and I do mean to scare you.  We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be.”

Thus, we still hold “these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  And “whenever any Form of Government becomes  destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles … as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  We do not declare violent revolution but do demand the secure right to change the government through the ballot box.

But even this fundamental right is being seriously eroded as the Department of Justice openly and arrogantly dismisses genuine cases of voter intimidation with nary a word of concern by Barack Obama.  Although there is visual proof and  evidence of threats to the voting public as well as exhortations of death threats to a man on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder turns a blind eye.

By his selective indifference, Mr. Obama has created a racially divisive atmosphere in America.  He continues to promote this hateful attitude wherein the civil rights progress made in this country for all its citizens is ignored.  Surely, Mr. Obama has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” as he engages in racial divisionclass warfare, and phony gender wars.  If Mr. Obama is, indeed, so interested in the rights of women, then why does he support Islamic sharia law, which demands second-class status for women?  These diversions serve to stir up resentments; unfortunately, they are successful in obfuscating the shameless actions of this 44th president.

Mr. Obama is not content with taking the country down the path to “European socialism.”  His centralized control of the health care industry, his increases in entitlement programs, his redistribution of capital — in fact, his sweeping regulations that give the government new authority to control the entire financial sector — are reminiscent of Karl Marx’s 10-Point Agenda, and although communism was unknown in 1775, the signatories of the Declaration knew of the absolute power of the monarchy and would see through the oligarchic nature of this “ism.”

Amazingly, Mr. Obama has assured Russian leaders (who have gained their power through rigged elections) that American concessions are coming their way, but they [the Russian leaders] must wait because he is seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people of his true intentions.  What credible reason would a loyal American president have for weakening American and allies’ defense systems?  During the open microphone conversation between Obama and Medvedev, a puppet of KGB Putin, the world learned whose interests Obama was truly serving.  Surely, this is “enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.”

Furthermore, Obama has “obstructed the Administration of Justice[,]” instead pitting one group against the other through “waivers.”  If ObamaCare is so laudable, why extend waivers in the first place?  In fact, it is yet another example of how manipulative Mr. Obama is when he tries to make the people “dependent on his will alone.”

Mr. Obama has ignored the laws of our country to impose an arbitrary and capricious rule of law by outside forces.  He finds it more expedient to pit the federal government against an American state which is trying only to enforce federal immigration law.  To this end, Mr. Obama has seen fit to “subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution[,]” which was so clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as reason to reject King George III.   By issuing a Universal Period Review (UPR), the first of its kind, Mr. Obama has given the United Nations the right to dictate to Arizona.  Thus, the “stakes for our national sovereignty have just been raised.”  Despotic countries of the United Nations have now been empowered to dictate how Americans should conduct themselves.  Is this not reminiscent of King George III “waging war against us”?

Moreover, the Obama State Department ordered the “suspension of routine border inspection procedures in order to whisk (Muslim Brotherhood) Islamists into our country.  Thus, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party did not have to go through the normal procedures of inspection.  Recall that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission statement is “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”  Negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood is akin to negotiating with the dictator Hitler.  It is appeasement all the way.  Why does the Obama administration cavort with such people?  Does this not make him unfit to defend the interests of America?

Read the full article here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The New World Order: Paranoia Or Reality?

By Brandon Smith | May 2, 2012 | Alt-Market.com

The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine.  Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward their work.  The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been mentally inoculated against even the whisper of the terminology.  That is to say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such discussion instinctively without even knowing why.

Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony) grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance.  I know this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard fact on the NWO that we happened upon.  After seeing the conspiracy crowd made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.

Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject.  Yes, it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing.  If more people were less afraid to shine a floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more willing to absorb it.  And, if more unaware people were willing to listen to the information with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it.  The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO.  Instead, people refuse to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe are not yet embraced by the majority.

It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the life of the follower, and not of the leader.  Only through great hardship and trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength to break free from the collectivist mindset.

Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of background knowledge.  A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a Department of Defense program designed to import and train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil.  Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/04/27/the-russians-are-coming-patriot-paranoia-run-amok/

The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion.  Without the ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of history…

If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question; what is the New World Order?  What is the foundation of the philosophy that drives it?  What are its origins?  This is something mainstream pundits never explore.  They simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the whole thing up for our own entertainment.  In reality, the phrase New World Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a thing as “conspiracy theorists”.

The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and unaccountable governing body.  The goal; to one day completely dismantle individual, state, and national sovereignty.  However, what I and many others hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough.  We must examine the original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.

I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations.  But, to solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go straight to the horse’s mouth:

Read the full article here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21

By  Alex Newman | April 25, 2012 | The John Birch Society

Tennessee State Capitol - NashvilleEven as the United Nations prepares to massively expand its “sustainable development” agenda at the upcoming sustainability summit in Rio de Janeiro, lawmakers in Tennessee approved joint resolution blasting the global body’s controversial Agenda 21 — adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit — as an “insidious” socialist plot. All across America, opposition to the UN schemes is building quickly.

The popular measure (HJR 587) in Tennessee was passed by a bipartisan 72-to-23 landslide in the state House of Representatives last month. And on Tuesday, it was overwhelmingly approved in the Senate with 19 in favor and 11 against.

A broad coalition of activists from across the political spectrum came together to support the resolution, urging lawmakers to stand firm in the face of attacks to protect the people of Tennessee. And the efforts paid off: Supporters celebrated its passage Wednesday as another small victory for liberty, private-property rights, and national sovereignty.

Despite being non-binding, analysts said legislators in Tennessee sent a powerful message by recognizing the “destructive and insidious nature” of the controversial UN scheme. The resolution, among other points, urges the public and policymakers to reject Agenda 21, which it describes as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control.”

Echoing a similar measure adopted earlier this year by the Republican National Committee (RNC), the resolution approved in Tennessee cites the UN’s own documents to expose the global plan. Agenda 21 policy describes “social justice,” for example, as “the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment,” lawmakers observed.

Such a “radical” vision would have to be accomplished by what the resolution describes as “socialist” and “communist” means — “redistribution of wealth” from U.S. taxpayers to governments around the world. Meanwhile, the legislation points out, Agenda 21 considers national sovereignty to be a “social injustice.”

In other words, if the UN has its way, Americans would be forced to submit to global authorities as opposed to governing themselves under the framework established by the Constitution. And everything would have to change — education, the economy, policies, taxes, consumption, production, and more.

“This United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms all as destructive to the environment,” the resolution explains. “We hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it.”

While the 20-year-old global plan has never been formally adopted by the U.S. Senate — which must ratify all treaties — it is still being implemented across the nation by stealth. “The United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America,” the measure notes.

Aside from the federal executive branch, one of the main forces working to foist the scheme on Americans is a global organization named ICLEI (formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives). And it uses a variety of innocent-sounding terms — “Smart Growth” and “Green,” for example — to advance the controversial agenda, the resolution states. As such, the legislature of Tennessee resolved to warn America about the “dangerous intent” of the plan.

Facing a tidal wave of anti-Agenda 21 activism, an assortment of extremist pro-UN groups and tax-funded propagandists have attempted to downplay the significance of the global agenda, portraying it as a harmless environmental initiative. But experts and lawmakers were not convinced, and opposition to the schemes continues to grow.

Read the full article here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21

By   | May 3, 2012 | The New American

EPA's Plans for Implementing UN's Agenda 21One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven’t heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.

Of course, there were President Bill Clinton’s establishment of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order in 1993 and President Obama’s “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have been incorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21 grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.

The establishment of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN’s ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21.

We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make the PCSD appear to be completely separate from the UN’s Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, said the following in 1998:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society…. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

This helps explain why virtually all federal activities in pursuit of sustainability rarely make any reference to the UN or the UN’s Agenda 21, even though these federal activities are very much in sync with the UN’s Agenda 21.

Nonetheless, there have been very significant developments regarding sustainability at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning with its 40th anniversary in late 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated: “Today I am formally requesting President Cicerone and the National Academies convene a committee of experts to provide to the U.S. EPA an operational framework for sustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions.”

Jackson added: “Today we have a new opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to focus on how environmentally protective and sustainable we can be. You see, it’s the difference between treating disease and pursuing wellness.”

The National Academies of Science (NAS) responded with a detailed study, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (aka the “Green Book”), which cost the EPA $700,000, and which was published in August 2011. The NAS also produced a five-minute video (see video also below) about this project.

Here are some excerpts from the 286-page “Green Book”:

Read the full article here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama Ban on Youth Farm Chores Part of Larger Power Grab [Updated]

By Kurt Nimmo | April 25, 2012 | Infowars.com

Dredging up Dickensian horrors of child labor, the Obama administration has ordered the Labor Department to apply child labor laws to family farms. The new rules would make it illegal for children to perform a large number of labor tasks that have been performed by farm families for centuries. Traditionally, adults and children alike helped with planting and harvesting in the spring and fall, but the federal government is now determined not only to make this a historical footnote, but a criminal offense.

Under the rules, children under 18 would be prevented by the federal government from working “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials” and prohibited “places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

In addition to making it far more difficult for families to work their farms, the new rules will revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA and replace them with a 90-hour federal government training course, the Daily Caller reports.

In other words, the federal government will forcibly insert itself in the business of teaching animal husbandry and crop management, disciplines traditionally passed on by families and local communities.

Government apparatchiks will now oversee the business of local farming the same way Stalin did when he collectivized farms and “socialized” production at gunpoint in the Soviet Union. Resistance by farmers and peasants to Stalin’s efforts resulted in the government cutting off food rations, which resulted in widespread famine (the “terror-famine in Ukraine” killed around 12 million people) and millions were sent to forced labor camps.

The Labor Department’s effort to further erode the family farm falls on the heels of an unconstitutional executive order Obama issued last year establishing so-called rural councils.

“According to this new executive order, the Obama administration plans to stick its itchy little fingers into just about every aspect of rural life,” the Economic Collapse Blog noted at the time. “One of the stated goals of the White House Rural Council is to do the following….”

Coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.

Obama’s plan to make life miserable for family farmers coincides with an effort by the United Nations under Agenda 21. Section one of the executive order mentions “sustainable rural communities,” language right out of Agenda 21. (For more on the draconian aspects of Agenda 21 and the plan to roll back modern civilization under the aegis of “sustainability,” see Rosa Koire’s Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.)

The federal government has recently moved to clamp down on family farms. For instance, last year the Department of Transportation proposed new burdensome rules for farmers. Incidentally, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council.

In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business,” writes Mike Opelka. “The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).”

Late last year, House Republicans moved to prevent the EPA from further burdening farmers with a rule that would ban “farm dust.” Outrage in response to the proposed regulation came fast and furious and EPA boss Lisa Jackson was forced to back down as Democrats complained that the government was not targeting small family farms with the proposed regulation.

A concerted effort by the federal government to attack small family farms cannot be denied. Infowars.com has covered dozens of efforts, including the attack on Rawesome Foods in California, numerous efforts by the feds to attack raw milk and dairy farmers (including attacks by the FDA on Amish farmers), and a recent effort by the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan to destroy open-range pig farms.

In addition to attempting to micromanage – and run out of business – family farms through federal labor regulations, the government is trying to insert itself in the relationship between parents and their children.

The ongoing attacks on family farming are not merely misguided efforts by control freak bureaucrats. They are part of a larger “comprehensive plan of action” to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations to institute “sustainable development,” a philosophy designed to bring humanity under tight control of the global elite.

As George H. W. Bush said on September 11, 1990, the plan is “based entirely on social control mechanisms.” For the elite, controlling food – especially healthy and natural food produced by family farms – is a primary objective in their plan for global conquest.

Update:

Govt backs off new limits on child labor on farms

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under heavy pressure from farm groups, the Obama administration said Thursday it would drop an unpopular plan to prevent children from doing hazardous work on farms owned by anyone other than their parents.

The Labor Department said it is withdrawing proposed rules that would ban children younger than 16 from using most power-driven farm equipment, including tractors. The rules also would prevent those younger than 18 from working in feed lots, grain bins and stockyards.

While labor officials said their goal was to reduce the fatality rate for child farm workers, the proposal had become a popular political target for Republicans who called it an impractical, heavy-handed regulation that ignored the reality of small farms.

Agenda 21: The End of Western Civilization (Part One)

By Kathleen Marquardt | January 21, 2012 | NewsWithViews.com

Wake-up call, Part 1

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” -Professor Maurice King

Birth of an abomination

In simple terms Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it. It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the global elite, it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution. And, it is the reduction of 85% of the world’s population.

In 1992, twenty years ago this summer, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development was unveiled to the world at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. (While Agenda 21 was introduced in June, 1992, it was already installed as public policy in communities across the country as early as 1987.)

In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” If this is true, then he and his cohorts must be even more against individual sovereignty. Keep this quote in mind as you read about Agenda 21.

George H.W. Bush was in Rio for the ceremonies and graciously signed on for America so that our Congress did not have to spend the time reviewing the treaty and learning then what dastardly deeds were in store for us — that protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.

Definitions of Sustainable Development

U.N. definition of Sustainable Development:

“meeting today’s needs without compromising future generations to meet their own needs.”

In actuality, Sustainable Development is not sustainable unless the population actually is reduced by the 85% called for by the globalists. The true purpose of Sustainable Development and all of its policies is the control of all aspects of human life — economic, social and environmental (see 3 Es of Sustainable Development further into article).

Here is how the UN described Agenda 21 in one of its own publications in a 1993 article entitled “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet:” “Agenda 21proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

So George H.W. Bush signed the Rio Accord and a year later Clinton established his President’s Council for Sustainable Development which would render the guidelines of Agenda 21 into public policy to be administered by the federal government via all departments. In doing this, Bush and Clinton set up Agenda 21 as ruling authority, i.e, implementing a U.N. plan to become U.S. policy across the whole nation and into every county and town. And every succeeding president has fully endorsed and implemented Agenda 21 through every department of the federal government.

If one were to research the source of U.S. policy, one would find that much of our policy of the last few decades is the outcome of agreements we have entered into via treaties with the U.N. And that policy has trickled, no gushed, down into every state and into almost every other jurisdiction — county, city, town — in the nation; Sustainable Development is the official policy of our country even though many citizens are yet ignorant of its existence. And this policy encompasses an entire economic and social agenda.

So what is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity (the 3Es of sustainability). They insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Look at these words, they are part of the new vocabulary:

Free trade, open space, smart growth, smart food, smart buildings, regional planning, walkable, bikeable, foodsheds, viewsheds, consensus, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, social justice, heritage, carbon footprints, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, community service, regional planning.

All of these words are part of the Newspeak, the altering of the English language as a tool to promote a global government through a diabolical agenda called Agenda 21. In fact, the world will be retooled from top to bottom through this agenda and using the new vocabulary. This is not just policy but a complete restructuring of life as we know it. We not only will be taught how we must live, but where we are allowed to live; taught how to think and what is acceptable thinking; told what job we will be allowed to have; taught how we can worship and what we will be allowed to worship; and we will be brainwashed into believing that the individual must cede all to the collective.

Private property will be a sin that will be eradicated as will be free-market economics which will be replaced by public private partnerships and a planned central economy. Individualism will be rooted out and social justice will rule the land. Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” – in other words, the redistribution of wealth. This will be achieved through an organizational structure of land use controls; control of energy and energy production; control of transportation; control of industry; control of food production; control of development; control of water availability; and control of population size and growth. And all of this will be decreed under the guise of environmental protection.

Read the full article here.

Click here for part —–> 1234,

How Did Dinosaurs Get Miles Under the Earth?

By Bob Unruh | April 25, 2012 | WND

author-imageBob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.

Book deflates traditional theories about ‘fossil fuels’

oilwell32

The Bakken formation in North Dakota, Montana and Canada now is estimated to hold up to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil, only it’s available primarily when the price of oil is above a bargain rate – as the oil is located miles deep and drilling costs are substantial.

So a new book about oil, “The Great Oil Conspiracy: How the U.S. Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American People” by New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi, asks how did the dinosaurs that died and became part of those “fossil fuels” get to be tens of thousands of feet under the surface?

That’s just one of the many questions addressed in the book that takes many traditional beliefs about oil – it’s finite, it’s made through the process of various life forms dying and decaying, and others – and explains that they are just wrong.

How do we know? From government documents.

Corsi explains that at the end of World War II, U.S. intelligence agents confiscated thousands of Nazi documents on what was known as the “Fischer-Tropsch Process” – a series of equations developed by German chemists unlocking the secrets of how oil is formed.

He reports when the Nazis took power, Germany had resolved to develop enough synthetic oil to wage war successfully, even without abundant national oil reserves.

After the war, while the Russians saw through the technical equations and realized that the process for making synthetic oil is the same process that nature uses to make oil deep inside the earth, U.S. scientists buried the documents and hid them from the public.

For decades, the confiscated German documents remained largely ignored in a United States where petro-geologists and petro-chemists were convinced that oil was a “fossil fuel” created by ancient decaying biological debris.

Not without reason, Corsi explains, since big U.S. oil companies had no financial interest in explaining to the American people that oil was a natural product made on a continual basis deep within the earth. If there were only so many fossils in geological time, there could only be so much oil. Big oil could then charge more for a finite, rapidly disappearing resource than for a natural, renewable and probably inexhaustible one, he writes.

Corsi took to the airwaves last night, on “Coast to Coast AM,” which airs on more than 560 stations in the U.S. and others in Canada, Mexico and Guam, to explain the evidence he has uncovered.

His interview has been posted on the show’s website.

The Bakken Formation, which was found in the 1980s and 1990s, initially was thought to have only a minor quantity of oil between layers of shale and sandstone.

“The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 1995 that the Bakken Formation had only about 151 million barrels of recoverable oil,” Corsi reports. “Then, with advances in drilling technology, the U.S. Geological Survey reassessed the quantity. … A USGS assessment released in April 2008 concluded the Bakken Formation may have an estimated 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.”

The issue, he said, is not that the National Archives in Washington contain documentation on the Nazi Fischer-Tropsch process for making synthetic oil from coal, as well as suggestions that oil is a renewing resource that could power the world far into coming generations, but that the U.S government has known about the information for years and has kept it concealed.

“The … ‘conspiracy’ at the heart of the book is not that the Nazis learned how to make synthetic fuel, but that the Fischer-Tropsch equations (that the Nazis developed to produce synthetic oil) unlocked the secret of abiotic oil and explain how the earth produces oil naturally, without organic material, at deep earth levels on a basis that is continuous, even today,” Corsi said.

“The Nazis understood that oil is a renewable resource, and the U.S. government and Big Oil hid that from the U.S. public – fostering on an uneducated U.S. population the idea that oil is fossil fuel that eventually will be gone — the ‘peak oil’ theory,” he said.

A series of recordings of Dr. Corsi’s interview with George Noory:

Read the full article here.

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

By  | July 2010 – August 2010 Issue | American Spectator

The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary. Our special Summer Issue cover story.

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

The Political Divide

Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg’s tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences “undecided,” “none of the above,” or “tea party,” these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace’s taunt “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans’ conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.

While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people’s realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers — easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.

Far from speculating how the political confrontation might develop between America’s regime class — relatively few people supported by no more than one-third of Americans — and a country class comprising two-thirds of the country, our task here is to understand the divisions that underlie that confrontation’s unpredictable future. More on politics below.

The Ruling Class

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers — by such as the Times‘s Thomas Friedman and David Brooks — are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg’s notion that America is now ruled by a “newocracy”: a “new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization — including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.” In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities’ priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston’s Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate — just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative “nonprofit” and “philanthropic” sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America’s Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter’s grievances.

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment’s parts.

If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can “write” your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was “inadvertent,” and you can count on the Law School’s dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that “closes” the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about “global warming” to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France’s ruling class are bright people — certifiably. Not ours. But didn’t ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn’t most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d’Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France’s ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America’s “top schools” is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that “the best” colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.

The Faith

Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that “we” are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation’s paradigm that “all men are created equal”?

The notion of human equality was always a hard sell, because experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways, and because making one’s self superior is so tempting that Lincoln called it “the old serpent, you work I’ll eat.” But human equality made sense to our Founding generation because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law, or because they had read John Locke.

It did not take long for their paradigm to be challenged by interest and by “science.” By the 1820s, as J. C. Calhoun was reading in the best London journals that different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results, slave owners were citing the Negroes’ deficiencies to argue that they should remain slaves indefinitely. Lots of others were reading Ludwig Feuerbach’s rendition of Hegelian philosophy, according to which biblical injunctions reflect the fantasies of alienated human beings or, in the young Karl Marx’s formulation, that ethical thought is “superstructural” to material reality. By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called “all men are created equal” “a self-evident lie,” much of America’s educated class had already absorbed the “scientific” notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class’s religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

Thus began the Progressive Era. When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked “can’t you let anything alone?” he answered with, “I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill.” Wilson spoke for the thousands of well-off Americans who patronized the spas at places like Chautauqua and Lake Mohonk. By such upper-middle-class waters, progressives who imagined themselves the world’s examples and the world’s reformers dreamt big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad. Neither were they shy about their desire for power. Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to “teach [them] to elect good men.”

World War I and the chaos at home and abroad that followed it discredited the Progressives in the American people’s eyes. Their international schemes had brought blood and promised more. Their domestic management had not improved Americans’ lives, but given them a taste of arbitrary government, including Prohibition. The Progressives, for their part, found it fulfilling to attribute the failure of their schemes to the American people’s backwardness, to something deeply wrong with America. The American people had failed them because democracy in its American form perpetuated the worst in humanity. Thus Progressives began to look down on the masses, to look on themselves as the vanguard, and to look abroad for examples to emulate.

The cultural divide between the “educated class” and the rest of the country opened in the interwar years. Some Progressives joined the “vanguard of the proletariat,” the Communist Party. Many more were deeply sympathetic to Soviet Russia, as they were to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Not just the Nation, but also the New York Timesand National Geographic found much to be imitated in these regimes because they promised energetically to transcend their peoples’ ways and to build “the new man.” Above all, our educated class was bitter about America. In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that required teaching the biblical account of creation. The ensuing trial, radio broadcast nationally, as well as the subsequent hit movie Inherit the Wind, were the occasion for what one might have called the Chautauqua class to drive home the point that Americans who believed in the Bible were willful ignoramuses. As World War II approached, some American Progressives supported the Soviet Union (and its ally, Nazi Germany) and others Great Britain and France. But Progressives agreed on one thing: the approaching war should be blamed on the majority of Americans, because they had refused to lead the League of Nations. Darryl Zanuck produced the critically acclaimed movie [Woodrow] Wilson featuring Cedric Hardwicke as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who allegedly brought on the war by appealing to American narrow-mindedness against Wilson’s benevolent genius.

Franklin Roosevelt brought the Chautauqua class into his administration and began the process that turned them into rulers. FDR described America’s problems in technocratic terms. America’s problems would be fixed by a “brain trust” (picked by him). His New Deal’s solutions — the alphabet-soup “independent” agencies that have run America ever since — turned many Progressives into powerful bureaucrats and then into lobbyists. As the saying goes, they came to Washington to do good, and stayed to do well.

As their number and sense of importance grew, so did their distaste for common Americans. Believing itself “scientific,” this Progressive class sought to explain its differences from its neighbors in “scientific” terms. The most elaborate of these attempts was Theodor Adorno’s widely acclaimed The Authoritarian Personality (1948). It invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the “F scale” (F for fascist), interviewed hundreds of Americans, and concluded that most who were not liberal Democrats were latent fascists. This way of thinking about non-Progressives filtered down to college curricula. In 1963-64 for example, I was assigned Herbert McCloskey’s Conservatism and Personality (1958) at Rutgers’s Eagleton Institute of Politics as a paradigm of methodological correctness. The author had defined conservatism in terms of answers to certain questions, had defined a number of personality disorders in terms of other questions, and run a survey that proved “scientifically” that conservatives were maladjusted ne’er-do-well ignoramuses. (My class project, titled “Liberalism and Personality,” following the same methodology, proved just as scientifically that liberals suffered from the very same social diseases, and even more amusing ones.)

The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today’s bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are “epiphenomenal” products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people’s words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second — or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents’ clinging to “God and guns” as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said “whateverybody knows is true.” Confident “knowledge” that “some of us, the ones who matter,” have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.

The Agenda: Power

Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a “machine,” that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels’ wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges — civic as well as economic — to the party’s clients, directly or indirectly. This, incidentally, is close to Aristotle’s view of democracy. Hence our ruling class’s standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government — meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Hence more power for the ruling class has been our ruling class’s solution not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming. A priori, one might wonder whether enriching and empowering individuals of a certain kind can make Americans kinder and gentler, much less control the weather. But there can be no doubt that such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it. Let us now look at what this means in our time.

Dependence Economics

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices — even to buy in the first place — modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency’s value for all.

Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don’t have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the bottom and at the top were bailed out. Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing “alternative energy,” our ruling class created arguably the world’s biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. The ethanol industry and its ensuing diversions of wealth exist exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a “green agenda,” because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in “climate change.” At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. Any “green jobs” thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies — that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on “global warming” is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class, and teaches Americans that satisfying that class is a surer way of making a living than producing goods and services that people want to buy.

Beyond patronage, picking economic winners and losers redirects the American people’s energies to tasks that the political class deems more worthy than what Americans choose for themselves. John Kenneth Galbraith’s characterization of America as “private wealth amidst public squalor” (The Affluent Society, 1958) has ever encapsulated our best and brightest’s complaint: left to themselves, Americans use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it justice to spend the money they earn to satisfy their private desires even though the ruling class knows that justice lies in improving the community and the planet. The ruling class knows that Americans must learn to live more densely and close to work, that they must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, that their dietary habits must improve, that they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, that they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the ruling class deems worthier. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the main wrenches by which the American people can be improved (and, yes, by which the ruling class feeds and grows).

The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class’s economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. In exchange for the money, the government promises to provide care through its “system.” But then all the boards, commissions, guidelines, procedures, and “best practices” that constitute “the system” become the arbiters of what any citizen ends up getting. The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what “the system” offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on all the boards and commissions that his money also pays for and that raise the cost of care. Similarly, in 2008 the House Ways and Means Committee began considering a plan to force citizens who own Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to transfer those funds into government-run “guaranteed retirement accounts.” If the government may force citizens to buy health insurance, by what logic can it not force them to trade private ownership and control of retirement money for a guarantee as sound as the government itself? Is it not clear that the government knows more about managing retirement income than individuals?

Who Depends on Whom?

In Congressional Government (1885) Woodrow Wilson left no doubt: the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically.) Our electoral system, based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives, enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans, and to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights” — meaning charters of government power.

Consider representation. Following Wilson, American Progressives have always wanted to turn the U.S. Congress from the role defined by James Madison’s Federalist #10, “refine and enlarge the public’s view,” to something like the British Parliament, which ratifies government actions. Although Britain’s electoral system — like ours, single members elected in historic districts by plurality vote — had made members of Parliament responsive to their constituents in ancient times, by Wilson’s time the growing importance of parties made MPs beholden to party leaders. Hence whoever controls the majority party controls both Parliament and the government.

In America, the process by which party has become (almost) as important began with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr which, by setting the single standard “one man, one vote” for congressional districts, ended up legalizing the practice of “gerrymandering,” concentrating the opposition party’s voters into as few districts as possible while placing one’s own voters into as many as possible likely to yield victories. Republican and Democratic state legislatures have gerrymandered for a half century. That is why today’s Congress consists more and more of persons who represent their respective party establishments — not nearly as much as in Britain, but heading in that direction. Once districts are gerrymandered “safe” for one party or another, the voters therein count less because party leaders can count more on elected legislators to toe the party line.

To the extent party leaders do not have to worry about voters, they can choose privileged interlocutors, representing those in society whom they find most amenable. In America ever more since the 1930s — elsewhere in the world this practice is ubiquitous and long-standing — government has designated certain individuals, companies, and organizations within each of society’s sectors as (junior) partners in elaborating laws and administrative rules for those sectors. The government empowers the persons it has chosen over those not chosen, deems them the sector’s true representatives, and rewards them. They become part of the ruling class.

Read the full article here.

Do You Know Why Earth Day is April 22?

By Kevin DeAnna | April 19, 2012 | WND

Clue: It didn’t start as celebration of butterflies, recycling and solar energy

School children, businesses, clergy, politicians and even the United States military soon will honor the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union.

Of course, they will call it Earth Day.

Brian Sussman points out in his explosive new book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” that the first nationwide Earth Day was held April 22, 1970, the 100th anniversary of the birth of the communist Bolshevik leader.

The “nationwide teach in” was spearheaded by Democratic Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin and college professor Paul Ehrlich.

Ehrlich had just written the “Population Bomb” in 1968, which famously – and falsely – predicted, “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Building on the idea, Ehrlich went on to advocate “brutal and heartless decisions” to solve the “problem” of overpopulation.

Comparing humanity to a cancer, he stated, “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. … We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

Ehrlich went on to add, “We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”

Inspired by the book, Nelson met with Ehrlich and came up with the idea of the “nationwide teach in” with the purpose of tapping the “environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause.”

Nelson selected campus anti-war and left-wing activist Denis Hayes to coordinate efforts for the first “Earth Day.” Hayes later would brag to the New York Times how he fled overseas because “he had to get away from America” and refused to print bumper stickers for the event because “they go on automobiles.”

Organized by radical student activists, built on the model of left-wing “teach-ins” at American universities, and created with the objective of furthering progressive activism, Sussman notes that the movement for Earth Day took to heart Lenin’s adage, “Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

However, Sussman exposes in “Eco-Tyranny” that the Bolshevik influence goes beyond tactics. After implementing his tyrannical rule over Russia in the October Revolution, Lenin issued a Decree on Land within his first year as Communist Party chairman. The decree declared that all forests, waters and minerals were property of the state.

Lenin also issued the decree “On Hunting Seasons and the Right to Possess Hunting Weapons,” which banned hunting moose and wild goats and ended open seasons for a variety of other animals.

Another resolution adopted by the Soviet government titled “On the Protection of Nature, Gardens, and Parks” established zapovedniki, or human-free nature preserves.

Despite the poverty of the people under Soviet rule, Lenin decided that it better served the national interest to place the rich natural resources of the area beyond human reach.

Sussman summarizes, “During Lenin’s reign, Russia initiated the most audacious nature conservancy program in the twentieth century. Starting with a vision created by Marx 50 years prior, Lenin had successfully implemented version one of the green agenda. His accomplishments would eventually … [be] celebrated the world over each April.”

Today, Earth Day is the most widely celebrated secular holiday in the world, with almost every major American institution paying it some sort of recognition in spite of its extreme origins. Despite the mainstreaming of Lenin’s anniversary celebration, left-wing activists honor the true history of the holiday by attacking property rights and human economic activity.

Read full article here.

The Church of Malthus [Video]

By Tony Cartalucci | April 14, 2012 | Land Destroyer Report

Hating humanity is their creed, corporate-fascists its patriarchs, pseudo-scientists its priest-class, brain-addled cultists its practitioners.

Video: Church of Malthus evangelist, Paul Gilding in his “the Earth is Full” talk, tells us one million years of human progress has “finally” reached its limits. This is a tale that has been fallaciously told for at least the last 200 years since crackpot economist Thomas Malthus warned of imminent societal collapse based on a growing population – a prediction, like those of a suicidal doomsday cult, that has been demonstratively and repeatedly proven wrong. Gilding also attempts to link “climate change” in as a manifestation of our reached limits.

….

April 14, 2012 – Paul Gilding describes himself as an “independent writer, advisor and advocate for action on climate change.” He is not a scientist, nor does he appear to participate in any sort of productive industry. He is a modern day Malthusian evangelist – preaching the limits of population growth as hysterically as Thomas Malthus did over 200 years ago, warning of imminent societal collapse. Gilding’s contemporaries include John P. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who in 1977 ludicrously concluded that the United States would collapse when its population reached “280 million in 2040.”

America’s population stands well over 300 million today, and the only collapse it faces is due to a maniacal government attempting to carry out global imperial conquest through trillion dollar decade-spanning wars, and mega-trillion dollar banker bailouts paid to the order of institutionalized degenerate gamblers.

Clearly, whatever “science” men like Gilding and Holdren are basing their system of beliefs on is divorced from the science that gives us technology and progress. It is analytical, theoretical, and compiled by men who have little experiential knowledge of how the world actually functions. They are priests and evangelists perched in ivory towers and behind podiums shouting out their patently false conclusions to the crowds before them. Their resumes are devoid of accomplishments in applied science and technology, and instead filled with ridiculous predictions and “academia” that have humiliatingly and repeatedly been proven false.

Worst of all, their work is carried out on behalf of a “Green Vatican” of sorts – not based in Rome, Italy, but on Wall Street and in the financier capital of London – who in reality are the greatest purveyors of environmental catastrophe. Like many cults and organized religions before them, they shift the burden of reconciling “sin” onto its growing flock of followers instead of taking responsibility for its own actions, resultant from perpetual greed.

For instance, Gilding in his TED Talk, claims that humanity has exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity by 1.5 times – a number drawn from the “Global Footprint Network” funded by a myriad of corporate-financier funded foundations, not the least of which is Biotech GMO giant, Syngenta (2010 Annual Report, page 26 of the .pdf). A recent report published by investigative journalist Patrick Henningsen titled “Big Green Oil Money: WWF founded and run by Royal Dutch-Shell,” exposes how yet another denomination of the Church of Malthus is indeed funded by Wall Street and London. It should be noted that the WWF is linked directly to the “Global Footprint Network.”

Following this pattern is Deutsche Bank, one of the “leading participants” in the carbon credit market, who had erected a monolithic “Carbon Clock” in New York City to add a sense of moral justification, public urgency, and support to their newly devised pyramid scheme. This is not some sort of new culture of “corporate responsibility” but just the latest in a long line of lies told by banking and industrial cartels to market their products and services to an infinitely exploited and purposefully misled population.

The Fallacy of Anthropogenic-Driven Climate Change Explained.

In order to deconstruct the dogma of the Church of Malthus it helps first to understand that the planet Earth is in a constant state of change. Beneath its surface are geological processes that literally turn the planet inside-out over the ages through tectonic shifts and the volcanism that results. When land is thrust up above sea-level resulting in the creation of an island, it in turn shifts weather patterns. Atmospheric moisture that would otherwise carry on until it reached landfall upon the ever shifting major continents of Earth, would instead condense and fall due to new variations in pressure and temperature.

https://i1.wp.com/www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/Samoamap_550_57111.jpg

File:Steigungsregen.jpg

Image: Islands and landmasses are formed naturally and continuously through tectonic shifts and in many cases volcanic activity pushing submerged land above sea-level (top). Once above sea-level, increased elevation and variations in pressure and temperature collectively affect local weather patterns (bottom). The constant shifting of Earth’s geography in turn perpetually changes global climate.

….

Collectively these geological changes result in new global weather patterns. Weather patterns then directly affect biological adaptation. Species that lived in previously cool regions may adapt significantly to deal with an increase in regional temperatures. Their ecosystem may be so vastly affected in such a short period of time, some species may even go extinct – a process that has been ongoing long before man arrived.

https://i0.wp.com/www2.nau.edu/rcb7/090Marect.jpg

Images: According to Discovery Magazine, this dinosaur (top left) existed in the “rainforests” of Antarctica, which today is a frozen wasteland (top right). The map (below) shows what the world looked like some 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous period. North America is covered with an inland sea, as is Africa’s now arid Sahara Desert. Antarctica is depicted as covered in forests. Climate change is nothing new, nor is the “change” we are experiencing now the most extreme in terms of either temperature or CO2 levels.

….

To illustrate this, we can look at the state of planet Earth in terms of biology, geology, and climatology, approximately 65 million years ago, where the continents we now know today were already taking recognizable shape. CO2 levels were over 10 times what they are now, and sea levels were so high that North America featured an inland sea centered on what is now theLinkMississippi River. Global temperatures were also many times greater than they are today, so much so, that Antarctica despite already shifting to Earth’s southern pole, was covered in temperate forests and was home to a thriving dinosaur population.

Collectively, these changes and shifts in biological diversity across the planet’s surface then feed back into atmospheric conditions which in turn affect the weather. Since at no point in Earth’s history has its geology or biodiversity been the same, it stands to reason that weather driven by these two constantly changing variables would also constantly change. Therefore, the concept of “normality” in Earth’s climate is a ridiculous notion. The best one could do is claim that the indefinitely changing weather and biodiversity of the planet is being altered by human activity before proving how weather would have naturally changed and how it is now artificially changing. Since the ideological doctrine of the Church of Malthus is an irrational climate “status quo” it is clear that their conclusions and the “science” used to arrive at them are significantly flawed. As we will later see, real environmental damage is being done by human activity, but by precisely the sponsors of the charlatans pushing “anthropogenic climate change.”

https://i0.wp.com/www.factmonster.com/images/ESCI168NEBULA002.jpg

Image: The Sun is a star. All stars have a life-cycle during which it exhibits varying characteristics in both physical size and intensity. Between major stages of a star’s life-cycle lie many poorly understood forces that affect a star’s intensity during shorter time spans.

….

Another factor conveniently overlooked by the Church of Malthus’s priest class, is the role the Sun plays in driving not only Earth’s climate, but the climate of extraterrestrial planets such as Mars and the moons of the jovian planets (gas giants), such as Titan of Saturn. The Sun, like all stars, is a fusion reaction that exhibits drastically different characteristics throughout its life-cycle. Additionally, the internal cycles and anomalies that occur within the Sun on a daily basis are just now being examined and understood by stellar astronomers. Variations in the Sun’s intensity, however minute, can have wide-ranging affects on planetary climate throughout the entire solar system.

https://i1.wp.com/geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/io-volcano.jpg

Image: Jupiter’s moon Io has volcanism so extreme, eruptions can be observed from space. Io’s volcanism, unlike the Earth, is not primarily driven by plate tectonics, but rather the powerful tidal forces warping the moon’s geology much the way Earth’s moon warps our oceans. The Earth’s moon may affect Earth geology in a similar, though more subtle manner adding yet another variable to the incomplete and dubious calculus of men like Gilding and Holdren (or Al Gore for that matter).

….

Additionally, observations of the gravitational effects gas giant Jupiter has on its moons’ geology also hold profound implications regarding Earth’s geology, and subsequently the climate affected by that geology. Jupiter’s pull on it’s moons is so great that it literally causes tidal shifts of their mantles in the same way the sea is affected by tidal forces of Earth’s moon. These forces are so great, the friction caused by the moons’ flexing mantle so extreme, it creates volcanism on a scale that dwarfs any volcanic display seen on Earth.

How the Earth’s moon has affected Earth’s plate tectonics is also now only beginning to be understood. The moon’s distance from Earth is constantly changing, thus its effect on Earth’s geology is also in constant flux – and adds yet another variable to the very incomplete calculus used by “environmentalists” and “climatologists” who insist CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary drivers of an otherwise “static climate.”

Like priest-classes throughout history, the Church of Malthus abuses the ignorance of the general population regarding the basic forces of nature, oversimplifying planetary climatology that otherwise involves factors including geology, biology, meteorology, Newtonian physics, and stellar astronomy. Not only do they do this in order to sell their version of “indulgences” in the form of ineffectual “carbon credits,”and to assert their control over society in what they themselves call a planetary regime (Ecoscience, pages 942-943, 1977), but they are ignoring naturally driven climate change and the consequences that may indeed jeopardize human civilization. This priest class and their political and monetary “solutions” leaves civilization with no plans or contingencies in the event that the conditions seen during the Cretaceous period revisit us once again.

Climate change is indeed real – it occurs with or without humans, and can drastically change the face of the planet giving rise to great masses of biodiversity or killing off great numbers of species in what are called “mass extinction events.” Carbon credits, carbon taxes, forced sterilizations, destroying the family, piling humanity into micro-managed cities, and instituting a “planetary regime” to administer “global governance” will do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, but it is a great way for an elitist oligarchy to exercise megalomanical domination over humanity, as dreamed of by all tyrants since the dawn of human civilization.

The Church of Malthus is Regressive, not Progressive.

Without a doubt – the planet Earth, humanity’s sole refuge amongst the vastness of the universe, is being destroyed. It is not being destroyed, as we would be led to believe, by people having children, consuming natural resources, or expelling carbon dioxide (CO2). Instead, it is demonstratively being destroyed by reckless genetic engineering by big-agricultural corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta. It is being demonstratively destroyed by immense, ludicrously centralized supply chains like those of Pepsi and Coca-Cola supplying the world with poisoned sugar water.

Read the full article here.

Peak Civilization: MIT Research Team Predicts Global Economic Collapse and Precipitous Population Decline

By Mac Slavo | April 5, 2012 | SHTF Plan

Researchers at one of the world’s leading think tanks have developed a computing model that predicts serious implications for our way of life as a result of our incessant need to consume resources like oil, food, and fresh water. According to a team of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the breaking point will come no later than 2030, and when it does, we can expect a paradigm shift unlike any we have seen before in human history – one that will not only collapse the economies of the world, but will cause food and energy production to decrease so significantly that it will lead to the deaths of  hundreds of millions of people in the process.

The recent study, completed on behalf of The Club of Rome, an organization which issued it’s own findings on ‘peak everything’ back in the 1970′s in a controversial environmental report dubbed The Limits to Growth (video), takes into account the relations between various global developments and produces computer simulations for alternative scenarios.

Via Smithsonian Magazine:

Recent research supports the conclusions of a controversial environmental study released 40 years ago: The world is on track for disaster. So says Australian physicist Graham Turner, who revisited perhaps the most groundbreaking academic work of the 1970s, The Limits to Growth.

Written by MIT researchers for an international think tank, the Club of Rome, the study used computers to model several possible future scenarios. The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030.

Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,” he says. “We are not on a sustainable trajectory.”

There is no doubt that the study carries with it its own agenda, as the Club of Rome includes members of the upper echelons of government and business from around the world. Many have suspected that the organization exists as a mechanism to move forward with environmental, and thus social, governance of the world’s resources and population through U.N. initiatives like Agenda 21 and the carbon credit system of taxation, both of which do nothing but shift the wealth of the world into the hands of the elite few at the top of the literal food chain.

But, despite the ulterior motives of those involved in The Club of Rome, they’re not the only ones who have warned of catastrophe stemming from high population levels and unsustainable consumption. In the History Channel’s Prophets Of Doom, Collapsenet’s Michael Ruppert warned of a similar scenario and one which suggests that, while oil may still be available in the future, the costs will be so prohibitive that it will be impossible for human civilization to maintain its current levels of consumption. According to Ruppert, the last great bubble to pop will be the human population bubble.

Other resource issues that have come to light in recent years include the availability of fresh water, as well as the productive capacity of our current agricultural system. Since all of our natural resources are interdependent, a break down in one, like for example the globe’s oil production system, would make it impossible for farmers to grow food, or for trucks to transport it. The same holds true for fresh water, which is essential not only to human life, but for oil exploration, refining operations, food production and a host of other industries essential to human civilization.

By all accounts, we have developed a system of consumption that truly is unsustainable in the long-term. While the Club of Rome and similar organizations purport to act in the best interests of humanity, nearly fifty years of solutions have yielded nothing but more problems and have brought us ever closer to the ultimate breaking point, one which promises to wipe out potentially billions of people in its wake.

An additional consideration which the MIT research study may have touched on but does not look to as a direct potential cause for global calamity is the breakdown of society as a result of unsustainable political, financial, and monetary machinations – something which benevolent members of organizations like The Club of Rome may have been complicit in creating.

There is a strong case to be made that the issuance of trillions of dollars in debt over the course of the last several decades, much like oil, will become impossible to sustain. Since the entire system of consumption is essentially based on this debt, if confidence in this system is lost, it may very well have the same initial effect as a peak oil breaking point. Debt, even when fabricated out of thin air, is essentially a promise tied to some sort of resource. It is based on the idea that something will eventually be created by someone in order to make good on the debt. By all accounts,we the people are the collateral for all of this debt floating around in the system. But, it has gotten to the point that the debt – somewhere in the range of $200 trillion in the United States alone –  far outweighs our ability to harness enough time and energy to repay the principal with interest.

Thus, this ‘peak debt’ created to save us from the unsustainable resource practices we face should be just as big of a concern as peak oil or water. Because when we finally reach the limit of our debt, and it becomes clear that the collateral backing that debt is unable to produce enough yield to pay it back, we’ll have a whole new meaning for the term ‘collateral damage.’

With seven billion people on the planet, the system as it is currently managed can’t possibility continue to support the daily needs of the world’s population indefinitely. The solutions that have been presented over the course of the last half century fall far short of providing any meaningful results, despite the treasure spent and liberty stripped.

Slowly but surely we are approaching Peak Civilization, and when that bubble pops we’ll see the ‘crash’ manifest in the form of famine, disease and global conflict.

Via SHTFplan

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: April 5th, 2012
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to http://www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Of Dust & Kings

Empowering Faith. Transforming Culture.

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Blasted Fools

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

A TowDog

Conservative ramblings from a two-job workin' Navy Reservist Seabee (now Ret)

Oyia Brown

A WordPress site to share a smile; then an anthology showing how things really are.

Village of the Banned

A Voting American Site

The Grey Enigma

Help is not coming. Neither is permisson. - https://twitter.com/Grey_Enigma

The Daily Cheese.

news politics conspiracy world affairs

twitchy.com

Who Said What

A Design for Life

Scribblings of a twenty-something politically and socially-minded nomad

SOVEREIGN to SERF

Sovereign Serf Sayles

The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

danmillerinpanama

Dan Miller's blog

TrueblueNZ

By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.

Secular Morality

Taking Pride in Humanity

WEB OF DEBT BLOG

ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS

DumpDC

It's Secession Or Slavery. Choose One. There Is No Third Choice.

Video Rebel's Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

%d bloggers like this: