Winter Patriot Community Blog

I came across this excellent article from Joe Bageant last night and thought it very appropos to what we have been talking about here. And it now seems appropriate to copy it here in full.
Joe asks an important question, "Not to be a smart ass or snide, but let me ask: How much do you love your fellow man? Or do you merely want to save your own ass? "

To see the original, go here to Joe Bageant's excellent site (Italics below are mine for clarity in reading, james)

There ain't no escape from collapse

Joe,

In response to a letter from a reader (Joe, why did you crap out on us?), you wrote: "Places like Ecuador, northern California -- all sorts of places -- creating little spots of sustainability as best as possible."

Since the US is the nexus of all the fraud, empire, control, and will thus be the center of the pain in the upcoming financial collapse (AND contains a huge percentage of "useless eaters", i.e. superfluous workers) have you given any thought as to where the best places/countries in the world will be to "hang out" while the Collective Madness and Economic Collapse take over?

Thanks,
Kevin

------

Kevin,

Well, I don't think it's possible to "hang out" until the collapse is over. For starters, it could take 50 years. Or it could take five years. If we knew, more people would probably get off their asses, even in America. But I don't think it will be all at once, or even recognizable at any given moment to techno-hybridized Americans on the ground. For example, most Americans STILL do not recognize the irreversible ecological collapse so well underway. More aware thinkers are calling this "denial," but it is not. They are simply experiencing the world they see before them, as honestly as their senses and experience permit. And that ain't much.

Thanks to technology and layers upon layers of mediation by TV, movies, the Internet, etc., gadgets and manufactured imagery, we all live many steps removed from reality. Collapse is symbolized to each of us in different ways. To some it would be the sustained malfunction and lack of access of the Internet, which is surely coming.

Incidentally, this will be capitalized upon by privatizing the net and selling access at a much higher price, just as with oil. Of course they will experience it as "the consumers" they have been reduced to. So they will see it as bad guys charging money for things that used to be free. Given that their consciousness is a product of technology and its false promise of solutions and endless plentitude, they can never understand that everything is a finite resource and that technology itself can reach such a point of complexity as to be unsustainable. Even your laptop and router is made of petroleum and both eat oil or coal.

Others might perceive collapse as banking failure, given their absolute belief that money is the blood of society -- a capitalist hallucination if ever there was one. My point is that many will not even understand that collapse is going on because capitalism will provide excuses and more fake solutions at ever higher prices -- mainly at the expense of the world's poor and defenseless of course -- until it can no longer extract from them through banking, military force, or other means. This slows down the inevitable and helps the western world maintain its disastrous belief systems. None of which answers your question, but I just had to say it.

There is really no "safe place" to run. For instance, the banking system may utterly fail; actually, it already has, yet no one is calling for an entirely new system. This shows you both the thoroughness of indoctrination of the American people, and the astuteness of the overlords who profit from the masses. Gasoline for cars can become nearly unavailable, and energy prices can become exorbitant, as they are becoming in the UK. And again, people will slowly learn to suck it up, and the system will roll on for a while longer. The more perceptive among them will dream, and are now dreaming, of escape.

Escape as they conceive it does not exist. The ongoing collapse manifests itself in the least developed world too, and even harsher terms: hunger, lack of water, warfare, government corruption, infrastructure collapse, crime. It's a planetary problem and no one escapes that. They just experience it in different ways.

The question is not so much where to do it as how to do it. The question is not "Where can I run to to escape?" It is "What sorts of problems can I best deal with?" To my mind, you cannot deal with them alone, despite the romantic imagery of being "off the grid" on some homestead growing your own food. Yes, there are people doing that successfully. But it has been my experience that they are people who've wanted to do that for a long time, and that they are the kind of people suited to deal with the problems that come with that life. I've done it and believe me, it's not for the average American, who is, quite frankly speaking, incompetent in the ways of the earth. It's a very long learning curve, even if you grew up on a farm. You don't just stick seeds in the ground and wait for your food. Every spot on the earth is unique and you have to come to understand the place you are, which takes time, error and dedication.

Not to be a smart ass or snide, but let me ask: How much do you love your fellow man? Or do you merely want to save your own ass? By now you must know the answer. From what I've seen, a person can be honest with himself on this matter, then pursue either route more effectively.

If you have the temperament and character to readily love other people around you, and the willingness to labor solely for sustenance, community and friendship, then there are countless options. Because that's what most of the rest of world's people do every day, if allowed to. So you could do that in any number of places on the planet, especially here in the New World south of the US. You can do it in literally thousands of places, some of which are in the US. I get emails from all over. But I don't give out contacts anymore because I learned the hard way in Belize that human chemistry is a complex thing. And most Americans do not come into approximately sustainable situations with either the social skills or the willingness to sacrifice for the group. Hell, some Americans starting up such communities don't have those qualities.

Yet, believe me, just being in a place where life is more fundamental and simple, if hard, goes a long way toward peace of mind and discovering human normalcy. It's the learning ground. And usually one learns that people who escape at least some of the ravages of our slow collapse, always seem to do it in cooperation with a community of some sort. Either an already existing one, or an intentional one they create between themselves.

There's nothing new in this, of course. Latin America and the world have countless communities hundreds of year old. Governments come and go, rivers dry up, but the people always have tortillas, one way or another. Americans and Europeans usually see these people as poor, thanks to our heavy social conditioning, industrialization and commoditized consciousness -- not to mention the denial of the effects of colonialism by Euro-American culture. We see no connection between our iPods, high speed wireless, and, say, the present condition of the Haitian or Dominican people.

Anyway, to me, this is the bottom line:

There is no escape in the sense Americans and European culture thinks of escape. Which is mainly running away to a place where you will get something for nothing in a new and different way -- in this case, security and safety from the storm -- and also keep some or most of the stuff and gadgetry and ease that has come to represent "quality of life."

Unless you are rich, this is impossible. And rich these days, including here in Mexico, means so fucking well heeled that even a 90% devaluation cannot hurt you. Oh, there are retirees still living down here on the last shreds of the glory days of the empire. They will tell you there is nothing wrong up there, because they are still getting their checks. But I'm not seeing many newcomers join their ranks. Not at that level. Beyond that, the empire never goes away. It always claims you as its "citizen," which is to say its property. And lately the empire has been extending its tentacles toward expats, in order to extract new money for its failed system.

The rest of us, the non-rich who would prefer to take a shot at some different life -- and just about anything will do in the dark of the night when it is gnawing at your guts -- must choose another way to cross the border (the "gringo wetbacks"). But always we run up against the same barrier, the same closed gateway to what we suspect is greater satisfaction and peace of mind, but increasingly cannot afford the price of admission, if we play the same old brainwashed money game.

I have come to think the price of admission anywhere in the world, (except in America and Europe, where enough dough will get your ass kissed in any circles) is service to others. We have been indoctrinated by an earth devouring capitalist system to believe otherwise. Believe that giving only depletes. And that mankind and civilization came about through kings and warriors and "great men." But the essential glue of man the social animal has always been on cooperation and sharing. That an endless stream of elite thieves have always managed to steal the fruits of that cooperation does not matter. And the best that is in man still rests on the same fundamentals -- cooperation for the greater good of all.

So I would suggest that in planning for the future, you first spend many days pondering the question: How can I best go about giving up the world as I have known it -- which, after all, is the root of our pain and of our catastrophe -- and serve others every day and in as many ways large and small as possible. In other words, sacrifice. In truth, the sacrifice will not be sacrifice, but liberation, because Americans are buried under so much material shit and petty notions as to entitlement, that shedding such things is a blessing. A gift.

From that vantage point you can "watch the collapse" while you help put up a pole barn in Oregon or make love in a Patagonian mountain shack after a hard day of well digging, or smoke a joint in utter relaxation after rescuing orphans from the streets of Guadalajara. And chances are that the collapse of the empire will not much cross your mind.

There is no escape, but there is freedom. And if our fellow Americans long ago forgot that, well, one can still get there alone.

But it's not for the faint of heart.

In art and labor,

Joe

The Genesis of Genocide

Recently, a light has been shone on a movement called Sabbateanism by the ever tenacious A Peasant (AP) at Twelfthbough Blogspot here and here and by the redoubtable Aangirfan (see here) for the purpose of showing the ultimate cause behind much of the destructive world politics particularly in the last two centuries. It would seem that Sabbateanism is the organising principle behind most of the corruption and destruction taking place in the world today. There are a multitude of conspiracies afoot in the world and many know or feel that most of them are connected somehow. Sabbateanism is that connection together with another organisation with a striking family resemblance, satanism. Satanism has a symbiotic relationship with Christianity and the Catholic Church, in particular. Similarly, Sabbateanism seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Judaism principally but with Islam and Freemasonry as well. This essay will focus on the ground that Sabbateanism grew out of, Judaism, and the concepts therein that were so fertile for its growth.

AP has done a splendid job of introducing the main characters involved in Sabbateanism and their connections and will be continuing to enlarge on it further, I believe. It can all get terribly complicated very quickly, though, leaving the reader new to this area swimming in a sea of facts. This essay is my attempt to start to show the thinking behind Sabbateanism that grew out of Judaism, so as to show the basis for some of the 'reasons why' of the behaviour of groups within and without Judaism that may otherwise appear chaotic or just plain mad.

Before I get into any of the aforementioned 'isms' and their concepts, I think it will be helpful if I write a few words on the nature of God and the nature of humans because you, the reader, will quickly come to the realisation that this is a spiritual war or, at least, has all the trappings of one. You may think spiritual matters are just so much 'hokum' but the protagonists I will talk about speak and act as if it is more than real and this, in turn, forms the basis of their motivation, thinking, speech and behaviour. So it may be helpful for me to explain my philosophical and theological understanding about these natures for you to see the faulty thinking and logic in play when these spiritual matters enter into the political realm; at least from my perspective, anyway.

The nature of God is singular; one nature. God cannot be both creative and destructive as these are two mutually exclusive natures. These two natures are inherently in conflict. They cannot co-exist in the one spirit. To do so would cause that spirit to divide itself. Humans can be divided internally but we have a physical existence to prevent immediate self destruction of the spirit. Never-the-less, it can be readily seen in even a human being that a split mind inevitably causes serious problems. God cannot have internal problems, or a split mind, and still be God. Dualists might argue that this is exactly what happened, though; God divided himself into good and evil. But that presupposes a pre-existing time for God when he had both natures within the one spirit. And, as I argued, that's impossible. Additionally, you can't have two Gods. If that were possible, one would have to be the originator of the other because God is the ultimate source of all and you cannot have two ultimate sources. Therefore that originator has to be God to the exclusion of the other. So having two Gods and both always pre-existing doesn't work either.

Some may point to the Christian Trinity and say there we have an example of three Gods. The concept of the Trinity is based on the words of Jesus but he also maintained many times that he and The Father are one and the same nature. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). He made the same point regarding the Holy Spirit. They are then three aspects of the one nature. There is no possibility for any internal conflicts.

I make this point so that when reading religious scriptures and a divided or conflicting nature is represented as God, such as in many places in the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a. The Old Testament, you can see that this possibility is not feasible. Either one or the other nature may be God, or neither of them, but never both.

The next step is that the destructive spirit cannot be God because destruction is dependent on prior creation. Creation, on the other hand is not dependent on destruction. So clearly, the creative spirit is independent of the destructive spirit and clearly the “source” and therefore God. The destructive one is not, nor can it ever be, God. Though, once created, it moulded its own character or nature, just as we humans do. But unlike us, being spirit, it has to be all or nothing. It cannot be creative to any degree as well. Ultimately, once it is isolated from creativeness, it will have no option but to destroy itself. (a thought worth remembering). Its nature is to destroy and even evil has to be true to its own nature. So if some piece of scripture is presenting God as being destructive, someone is telling 'pork pies'.

The reason for someone telling lies has to do with human nature which unfortunately has very much the potential for splitting and becoming ill or deluded as to what is real. The British Jurist, Lord Acton, uttered the famous saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The wisdom of this is never seriously disputed by anyone yet we construct and tolerate our social systems, particularly religions and governments, as if this weren't true and then marvel at how they mysteriously become corrupt! “Happens every time. How unlucky are we?” There's a second line to that quote of Lord Acton's which reads, “Great men are almost always bad men”

It's not the body that becomes corrupt but rather the mind. A mental pathology sets in and it is remarkably similar to that of any heavy addiction and can readily be seen if looked for. Compassion for others evaporates, priorities are up ended, reversed and destruction ensues for everyone in one form or another. Power creates a lust for ever more power. And power is seen as the antidote for the problems and consequences of using power in the first place. Violence is enacted upon a victim or victims and they, or others on their behalf, return the violence. This state of affairs isn't seen as a problem arising from using violence in the first place but rather a problem from not using enough violence in the first place. So the adherents of power see the answer as ever escalating violence. The affected (or infected) mind cannot see the addictive lunacy of this situation because part of the corruption of the mind is the diminution of the sense of and the importance of what's real, what's true, and also a diminution of conscience and the capacity for compassion.

“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice
Samuels, p. 155).

Lies become more real than truth. Lies are at least useful to someone in this situation whereas truth, if they can recognise it, is a threat. A person given over to power is then blinded to the peril they are in psychologically and spiritually and often physically, too. Playing with powerful forces and therefore perceiving reality in a skewed fashion is like walking through a minefield with an faulty map as a guide. Sooner or later . . . . It has been said often that we are led by madmen. It appears so.

So if this pathology and destruction points out the 'wrongness', in terms of human health and survival, of the pursuit and use of power, what is the 'right' behaviour to aspire to? We are all born with free will and this is the key to the question. Free will is the ability to make choices for ourselves. This directly implies we have authority over ourselves which equally implies that others don't have authority over us and also equally and we, in turn, do not have authority over others. We are not psychologically designed to be slaves. Nor, importantly, are we designed to be masters, either. Free and voluntary co-operation is the sustainable and healthful mode of interaction we were designed for because it allows social systems to be constructed for mutual benefit and still maintain our individual control of ourselves; our free will. Any political or religious leader who assumes authority over anyone else is therefore acting against the human design for both himself and for those he would dominate.

If you believe we were designed by God, then this person claiming to represent God is, at best, totally mistaken and is effectively working for the destructive principle or spirit and will bring harm to everyone involved. If on the other hand, you believe we are the sole product of evolution, then these despots must be seen as acting directly against millennia of evolution and since this evolution has been obviously sustainable (otherwise we wouldn't still be here), they are acting unsustainably (i.e. destructively) towards themselves and the rest of humanity. Jesus paid out on the Pharisees for inserting themselves between the people and God. I see no reason why he might change his mind a mere (to him) two thousand years later. This is all to say that, if you agree with my foregoing logic, whoever was speaking in the Book of Joshua, for instance, and commanded the Jews to commit genocide against every living thing in the land of Canaan and possess it, was absolutely not God; nor anybody representing God's interests or nature. There is no possibility of it in my mind. None.

Okay, with those arguments laid out, let us look into the origins of the Judaism that spawned Sabbateanism that appears to be at the centre of world power and world destruction today. (For more information on Sabbateanism, itself btw, I refer you back to AP at Twelfthbough.) Both Sabbateanism and Zionism grew out of Judaism and the most informative writing I have read on this subject comes from Douglas Reed, former War (WW2) and European Correspondent for The Times. His exhaustive book “The Controversy of Zion” is available now for free download from a website maintained by Knut Eriksen. Mr Eriksen wrote a very handy summary of Douglas Reed's book and I will quote from it extensively. Mr Eriksen wrote elsewhere of Reed,
“In the cause of his work he has felt the evil as an almost physical presence in the plans, he reveals.”
He quoted Reed as describing this evil as, “forces from some dinosaur-lair projected into the twentieth century.” I think we might understand it better as emanating from an ancient dragon's lair and this force present in the world today is founded on an idea recorded for us by people called Levites some two and a half thousand years ago. This idea which was to wreak so much harm over the ensuing period is the idea of specialness, of exclusivity, of superiority, of a 'master race', of choseness; choseness by God. The fact that a people are 'chosen' by God, means that the rest are rejected by God. They are therefore Godless at best and God's enemies at worst. Therefore there is no cultural inhibition in exploiting them; to use their labour and, indeed, everything of theirs including their bodies and even their very lives for whatever purpose they deem fit. This will inevitably lead to the psychological pathology and destruction I mentioned earlier. No loving and creative God would wish this sickness upon any of his created beings as either masters or slaves .

This kind of corrupted thinking leads to sentiments such as these-
"The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure."
--Rabbi David Batzri, head of the Magen David Yeshiva in Jerusalem [Israeli newspaper Haaretz, March 21, 2006]
and, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail” Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

Knut Eriksen explains the beginnings of this thinking in his summary-.

“ The misery began in the year 458 b.C., when a small tribe in the old Judea accepted a creed based on race. The tribe had previously been expelled by the Israelites for such racism. This seemingly unimportant event has probably caused more destruction for Mankind than both the existence of explosives and epidemics. The tribe adapted the creed of the Master Race as nothing less than “The Law”.
The Judeans were a small tribe under the Persian king. The creed of Judaism was not the beginning of monotheism, as has been propagated. Monotheism dates all the way back to The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 2.600 years b.C. and maybe even further. Judaism, on the contrary, was the exact anti-thesis, namely the worship of a racist tribal god.
“The Law” or “The Pact” was – and is – unique in being based on a statement from a tribal god, to the effect that his “chosen people”: “the Israelites” (in reality, the Judeans) would be set above all other peoples and settled in a “promised land”, if only they would stick to all of his rules and judgements. If Jehova, then, was to be worshipped in a certain place, it followed, that when the worshippers were not actually in that place, they were being “persecuted”, in “captivity” and had to “destroy” the “strangers” that “kept them in captivity”. Only in this way was Jehova to be a god for all other peoples – as the punishing god, who punished his own people first – by a “captivity” among the heathens for their “transgressions against the law” and then, as by an exact script, punished the strangers by a predestined extermination, when “the chosen people” had followed all the rules to the letter.
It was probably not even a pact with the Judaeans, for according to “The Holy Scripture”, the pact was made with the Israelites, who had long since mingled with the rest of Mankind, and who have never known this racist creed as far as we know. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, that the Judeans “probably were a non-Israeli tribe”. The Israelites turned away from the racism of the Judeans. The creed has gone down in history as having been created by the Levites from Judea.
What happened before 458 b.C. is mainly mythology, unlike the later, most important events. The written record predates 458 b.C. by a couple of centuries, when the Israelites rejected the Judeans. The history of Moses was taken by the Israelites from the widespread mythology, which goes all the way back to the history of the Babylonean king, Sargon the Elder, 2.000 years earlier. The ten commandments are much like similar commandments from the Egyptians, the Babyloneans and the Assyrians. These common ideas about one god for all mankind, the Levites, the rulers of Judea, then put in reverse, when they wrote down their laws. They founded the permanent counter-movement against all universal religions and identified the names Judea and Jews, with the doctrine of self-made separation from Mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge. Also the personification of treason, a Judas, was included right from the beginning of Judea.
The stories of Moses, leading a mass-exodus from Egypt, can not be true, even according to Dr. Kastein. It was invented, as a necessity, in order to fit into the pattern of “Jehovas revenge”, the destructive basic principle of Judaism.
The Israelites had, as the larger part of a segregated group of people, settled in the northern part of Canaan. In the south, sorrounded by the original canaanites, the tribe of Judah took shape. Thus the name “Judaism” and “Jew”.
This tribe was isolated from-, and did not get along well with, the neighbours, right from the start. There is much mystery concerning it, including its beginnings. It seems more to have been expelled than chosen. And in the following editions of “The Holy Scriptures”, written by their scribes, who wrote whatever suited them arose, in the course of the centuries, and in more and more places, the commands “destroy completely”, “tear down”, “exterminate” etc.
The Israelites had withdrawn, then, from the Judeans’ racist beliefs and had mingled with the rest of Mankind. They “disappeared” in this way as a separate people, while the Judeans kept to themselves by strict racial laws.
In the course of time these were further sharpened and expanded to regulate even the most trivial daily details. The punishments for breaking the laws were severe, and common “Jews” came completely under the control of the scribes. It was this spiritual ghetto, which became the forerunner for the physical ghetto and for the antagonism and exclusion by others, of the Jews, as a retribution.”

There were twelve tribes, ten of which made up the Kingdom of the Israelites and the remaining two, the Kingdom of Judea consisting of the tribe of Judah and the smaller tribe of Benjamin. The Levites were the tribe of priests who inflicted themselves on all the tribes and sustained themselves on tithes from them. The Levites were keen to unite these two kingdoms for power reasons but this was rejected by the Israelites for all but twenty brief years. The bulk of the scriptures that were later compiled after the death of Jesus by the Pharisees (also Judean priests) to make up the Hebrew Bible were written by these Levitical priests from Judah. The books of the Prophets were mostly written by Israelites and often have a distinctly different 'voice' to them by and large reflecting the Israelite approach to life. Hence you have the Levites from Judea making up all these laws concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice and the Israelite prophets channelling God saying that he rejects their burnt offerings and wants instead contrite hearts. See Isaiah ch66: 1-4 and Hosea ch6: 6, for instances.

It was the Judean priests, the Pharisees, that Jesus would call snakes and vipers and the sons of satan. When talking to these priests about the scriptures, he referred to them as “your scriptures”

The “Ten Lost Tribes” are the ten tribes of Israel. They were, no doubt, not lost at all but remained where they were largely joining the rest of humanity and are very likely still there today but called Palestinians now. It is at least ironic, if not outright deceptive, that the Jewish homeland gained by the spiritual descendents of the Judeans should be named by them, “Israel”.

Meanwhile, back at the kibbutz, the Levites/Pharisees are controlling their flock by using that old standby recognised by every Catholic, guilt. And the chief antidote individually was an animal sacrifice performed by the priests (for a very affordable fee, you understand. And if you couldn't afford the modest fee, then there were, luckily for you, moneylenders on hand in the temple to help out).

Sometimes the whole tribe was the target of this guilt. Collective misfortunes were seen as 'punishments' from God for not carrying out his commandments to the letter. Never mind that some of these commandments were calls to dispossess neighbours of their land and to commit genocide against them. Failure to do so resulted in Gods attempts at genocide through proxies against the Judeans and being taken of into captivity and the loss of their homeland.

My mention of “proxies” prompts me to make a little diversion here. Why would an all powerful God need proxies to kill those of his creations he now hates? Why would he wish to visit the resulting dysfunction and the destructiveness of perpetrating violence and the inevitable PTSD and bloodlust on his 'Chosen Ones' for carrying out his agenda? Unless, of course, he hasn't the power to do so or he wanted to destroy 'his Chosen People', too, in the process. Or both. Either way, that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? The Prince of Lies, perhaps? Okay, we'll 'resume transmission', now.

One method to atone for these sins was the use of scapegoats. In each ceremony, two goats were used; one was sacrificed through being slaughtered to appease their God's desire for sacrificial death and the other 'set free' by being sent into the wilderness to carry their sins and guilt and blame away from the Jews and thus redeem themselves at the cost to two 'beasts'. One bears the punishment; the other bears the blame. The Talmud refers to non-Jews (Goyim) as being no higher than beasts. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.". For more quotes from the Talmud see this post at the Church of Nobody

The ideas of God's Chosen, dispossession of others' land, a later loss of the Jews' 'Homeland' through being expelled or made captive, genocide and scapegoating to get it back all go together and appear repeatedly throughout Jewish history. Two acts of genocide in recent history have been called “holocausts” (holocausts are burnt offerings to God to win favour, expunge guilt and win redemption). The first involved Armenian Christians as victims and the second involved European Jews the as victims. However, in both cases Jews or people calling themselves Jews but were Zionists, Donmeh (crypto-Jews) and/or Sabbateans have been alledged to have been behind the actions of the perpetrators in both cases and by so doing have enacted the traditional scapegoat sacrifice. The millions of victims in these cases were obviously representing the slaughtered goat/the offering and the manipulated perpetrators, Germans and Turks respectively, though hardly blameless, were set up as the scapegoats that were sent into the wilderness of universal approbation and carried the guilt of the 'priests' and their circle who were the prime movers of it all. This was done, so it is said, for the purpose of appeasing their God in the hope of regaining their homeland as a result. Whether or not that was the intention, history bears out its efficacy and Jewish leaders be they Hasidics, Zionists, Donmeh or even Sabbateans masquerading as Jews could not be unaware of this.

Would they deliberately enact a genocidal holocaust in the future?
Since these two holocausts, a homeland has been established for the Jews as the State of Israel, so the motivation is lacking now. Or is it? The present government of Israel refuses to publish its national borders and that may be because the 'homeland' desired by many Jews, known as Eretz-Israel(map), is described as stretching east to west from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers and north to the Litani river in Lebanon. Land as yet unconquered; but not for want of trying.

Knut Eriksen again from his summary of The Controversy of Zion,
“ It was only the few who knew the background of talmudic Zionism and Communism, who had a chance to understand such decisive events as the so-called “Six-days-war” and the later massive invasion of Lebanon i 1982. The invasion was supposed to do away with the PLO, it was said, but in reality it was simply a part of the old Great-Israel-plan (Eretz-Israel). Just as is todays invasion of Iraq”.

After this invasion many innocent Palestinians and Lebanese were killed (the slaughter/offering) and the Palestinian fighters were blamed for the Israelis' military invasion and their slaughter. The Palestinian fighters were guaranteed safe passage out of Lebanon if they disarmed (the scapegoat carrying the guilt into the wilderness). Subsequently, with no men under arms to protect them, the Palestinian women, children and the old in the Palestinian camps were massacred. The 'slaughtered goat/offering' in this case might be said to have been again the innocent Palestinians and this time the 'scapegoat carrying the guilt' was the blameworthy Christian Maronite militia who did the actual killing but were directed behind the scenes by the Israelis, and in particular, in the person of none other than Ariel Sharon (the officiating priest?) as found by an official Israeli inquiry.

We have this continuing pattern of genocides or mass murders perpetrated by a variety of people and with the end result always benefiting of the quest for, first, a Jewish State and, then, an expanding land and control. The continuing assault against the Gazans has been characterised as a slow genocide. Both World Wars have been characterised as ritual blood sacrifices and all these catastrophes have been helpful, in their way, to the Jews being granted their ever expanding homeland.

The Jews have religious teachings of burnt offerings and genocide being demanded of them throughout their religious scriptures to win this sometimes pathologically violent God's favour for the purposes of gaining, in the first place, their desired homeland and in the end, dominion over the whole world. This is their reward for obedience to this God's commands and proof of their redemption. To answer the question of whether any of this is premeditated we have this report from the Israeli paper Haaretz, (the Amalek were a people that God commanded the Jews to exterminate)-

“The first to draw publicly the analogy between modern times and bygone days was Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, at the funeral of the murder victims. Then there was the resounding article published by the head of the Tzomet Institute, Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, who clarified, "Amalek as a concept and as the object of our battle and our hostility exists in each and every generation," and that "this does not refer to the ethnic Amalek, but to all those in whom there burns a deep and abiding hatred of Israel on a national or religious basis. "The Holy One, Blessed Be He Himself, noted the rabbi, "with his own hands" confirmed the eternity of Amalek's hatred and the commandment to wage war against Amalek: "'Because the Lord has sworn by His throne.'" The hand of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, was raised in an oath on his throne that he will battle and be hostile to Amalek all over the world. We cannot, according to the rabbi, "flee from this Divine commandment even if we hide under the wings of 'the family of nations' and even if the commandment is difficult for us to bear and we have been discouraged." . . . . .
. . The rabbi of Safed, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, also "has no moral problem with quashing the wicked - destroying Amalek from beginning to end," and Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba also makes it clear that "whoever wants to overpower and destroy the Jewish people, the law of Amalek applies to him, with all that that entails." (i.e. genocide as retaliation)

I think it is fairly safe to say that the idea is not lost on them. These ancient scriptures that the Israelis appeal to so often to justify their occupation of the land of Palestine and attacking their neighbours also promise them mastery of the whole world (Ps. 110). Do they intend to gain it the same way they seem to have gained their current (and ever expanding) State of Israel?

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

And to quote Maurice Samuel again-
"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own."

Do they intend to defy a bloodthirsty being they believe is God by not doing it the same way? "Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; and but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"(ISamuel15:3)
The whole chapter 15 is worth reading. It demonstrates the principle of obedience being higher than whatever you might else choose such as saving life that you were commanded to kill. And do you think devout adherents to the Hebrew Bible and believers in the efficacy of blood sacrifice are going to lightly disobey this God?

Just in case the lesson is not crystal for any mentally meandering adherents, there's always this from Leviticus ch10 (CEV)-
“1Nadab and Abihu were two of Aaron's sons, but they disobeyed the LORD by burning incense to him on a fire pan, when they were not supposed to.
2Suddenly the LORD sent fiery flames and burned them to death.
3Then Moses told Aaron that this was exactly what the LORD had meant when he said: " I demand respect from my priests and I will be praised by everyone"!
Aaron was speechless."

Me too!

UPDATE:
Here is a just published commentary which takes up from the posts I linked at the top of my essay from TwelfthBough and Aangirfan.

Saving the good Israelis from the bad Sabbateans from The Church Of Nobody which will add to AP's comments for y'all. 'Nobody' has a sardonic humour in which you can almost smell the gumleaves. So to any ex-pat Ozzies out there, "breathe deep, mate"!

And here are some links which I pondered about including at first and didn't. But here they are, after all, folks.

The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians
This is particularly for McJ and anyone else interested in an in depth treatment (575pages!) of this genocide. The author is Jewish.

The Talmud Unmasked
This is written by a Russian Catholic Priest in 1892

Babylonian Talmud
This link will take you to the Talmud itself plus Commentaries where you can check any quote.

I will refrain from commenting on these books. Nothing I could say will come close to what you will find therein.

This article is borrowed in its entirety from "The Canadian" (a new Canadian national newspaper. You can support it if you like what you see by clicking on this link and scroling down to the bottom of the page. I can't endorse the author's enthusiasm for Ron Paul as I don't know enough about him but everything else he says I whole heartedly agree with. ed.)

Twilight of the Psychopaths by Dr. Kevin Barrett

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” – John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman

When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.

Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.

Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.

The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:

1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers;

2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits);

3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.

Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.
Political Satire

Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)

Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
Political Satire

The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.

How could that be? In Political Ponerology, Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths.

So-called conspiracy theorists, some of whom deserve the pejorative connotation of that much-abused term, often imagine that secret societies of Jews, Jesuits, bankers, communists, Bilderbergers, Muslim extremists, papists, and so on, are secretly controlling history, doing dastardly deeds, and/or threatening to take over the world. As a leading “conspiracy theorist” according to Wikipedia, I feel eminently qualified to offer an alternative conspiracy theory which, like the alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11, is both simpler and more accurate than the prevailing wisdom: The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.
Political Satire

Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as that power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld—the criminal syndicate or overlapping set of syndicates that lurks above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it. In 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, we are seeing the final desperate power-grab or “endgame” (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men, economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops experts and PR specialists—in short, the whole sick crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared. It was their terror of losing control that they projected onto the rest of us by blowing up the Twin Towers and inciting temporary psychopathic terror-rage in the American public.

Why does the pathocracy fear it is losing control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, “If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” Given that Bush is reported to have participated in parties where child prostitutes were sodomized and otherwise abused, among his many other crimes, his statement to McClendon should be taken seriously.

Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others’ emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.

Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the normal human being — a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish — militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely as possible.

Above all, we need to inform the public about how psychopaths co-opt and corrupt normal human beings. One way they do this, is by manipulating shame and denial — emotions foreign to psychopaths but common and easily-induced among normals.

Consider how gangs and secret societies (psychopaths’ guilds in disguise) recruit new members. Some criminal gangs and satanist covens demand that candidates for admission commit a murder to “earn their stripes.” Skull and Bones, the Yale-based secret society that supplies the CIA with drug-runners, mind-rapists, child abusers and professional killers, requires neophytes to lie naked in a coffin and masturbate in front of older members while reciting the candidate’s entire sexual history. By forcing the neophyte to engage in ritualized behaviour that would be horrendously shameful in normal society, the psychopaths’ guild destroys the candidate’s normal personality, assuming he had one in the first place, and turns the individual into a co-opted, corrupt, degraded shadow of his former self — a manufactured psychopath or psychopath’s apprentice.

This manipulation of shame has the added benefit of making psychopathic organizations effectively invisible to normal society. Despite easily available media reports, American voters in 2004 simply refused to see that the two major-party presidential candidates had lain naked in a coffin masturbating in front of older Bonesmen in order to gain admission to Skull and Bones and thus become members of the criminal overworld. Likewise, many Americans have long refused to see that hawkish elements of the overworld, operating through the CIA, had obviously been the murderers of JFK, MLK, RFK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X, ChÈ, AllendÈ, Wellstone, Lumumba, Aguilera, Diem, and countless other relatively non-psychopathic leaders. They refuse to see the continuing murders of millions of people around the world in what amounts to an American holocaust. They refuse to see the evidence that the psychopaths’ guilds running America’s most powerful institutions use the most horrific forms of sexualized abuse imaginable to induce multiple-personality-disorder in child victims, then use the resulting mind-control slaves as disposable drug-runners, prostitutes, Manchurian candidates, and even diplomatic envoys. And of course they refuse to see that 9/11 was a transparently obvious inside job, and that their own psychopath-dominated military-intelligence apparatus is behind almost every major terrorist outrage of recent decades.

All of this psychopathic behaviour at the top of the social hierarchy is simply too shameful for ordinary people to see, so they avert their gaze, just as wives of husbands who are sexually abusing their children sometimes refuse to see what is happening in plain view. If deep, deep denial were a river in Egypt, American citizens’ wilful blindness would be more like the Marianas Trench.

But thanks to the power of the internet, people everywhere are waking up. The only obvious non-psychopath among Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul, also happens to be the only candidate in either party with significant grassroots support.

If “love” is embedded in the Revolution Ron Paul heralds, that is because Dr. Paul — a kindly, soft-spoken physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies — implicitly recognizes that government is the invention and tool of psychopaths, and therefore must be strictly limited in scope and subjected to a rigorous system of checks and balances, lest the psychopath’s tools, fear and hatred, replace love as the glue that binds society together.

The decline in militarism since World War II in advanced countries, the spread of literacy and communications technology, and the people’s growing demands for a better life, together represent a gathering force that terrifies the pathocracy, (those alternately competing-then-cooperating gangs of psychopaths who have ruled through lies, fear and intimidation since the dawn of so-called civilization).

Since nuclear weapons have made war obsolete, the pathocracy is terrified that its favourite social control mechanism — ritualized mass slaughter — is increasingly unavailable. And if war was the great human tragedy, the pathocrats’ pathetic attempt at a war-substitute — the transparently phoney “war on terror” — is repeating it as sheerest farce.

Truly, we are witnessing the twilight of the psychopaths. Whether in their death throes they succeed in pulling down the curtain of eternal night on all of us, or whether we resist them and survive to see the dawn of a civilization worthy of the name, is the great decision in which all of us others, however humbly, are now participating.

About the writer:

Dr. Kevin Barrett, co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth, LINK, has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. Barrett became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and conducting follow-up research that convinced him Griffin had accurately summarized evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job.

In the summer of 2006, Republican state legislators and Fox newscasters demanded that Barrett be fired from his job teaching an introductory Islam class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but the University refused to buckle, and Barrett got high marks from his students. He has appeared in several documentary films, lectures widely on 9/11 and hosts three radio programs on three different patriot networks.
Click to make a donation-pledge herein

(Foreword - In the following, the words “stocks” and “shares” mean the same thing and are interchangeable. Similarly, “share scrip” and “share certificates” are interchangeable. I have assumed, too, that you, the reader, are familiar with Credit Creation or the way money comes into existence through banking practice. If you are not familiar with this foundational piece of corruption in Western society, you can read about it here – Warring Worlds pt4b )

If I were to tell you that you had been 'shorted' in a deal you made, most people would ordinarily take that to mean you had been cheated. Being shorted is being dudded. So 'shorting the market' or 'short selling' is a very aptly named practice because basically it is cheating the market, i.e. it's fraud. Too many years ago, I worked for the Melbourne Stock Exchange in Australia and 'short selling' was banned there then for this reason because it involves selling something you don't have and that's illegal most places I know. It's really, really simple. (What the situation is now at the MSE I don't know). Back then when delivery of scrip was a lengthy process it was my understanding, and also of everyone I knew, that the short sellers simply took advantage of this lengthy delay. I heard no one talking about 'borrowing' share scrip (certificates) to deliver and replacing them at a later date. The 'borrowing scrip' idea is a relatively new explanation to my ears, at least, and this explanation is, no doubt, necessary now because of the much faster electronic settlement times. But, it still leaves many questions.

So how and why does it operate and how is it all explained away by the industry? The explanation goes like this: a trader considers a stock to be overvalued and expects the price to fall in the near future. So to profit from the situation, the trader borrows shares from someone to sell into the market. When the stock falls in price, the trader buys back the shares to give back to the compliant lender and everybody is happy. That's the story and I don't believe it. I have never believed it because it never made sense; and it still doesn't! Who's going to lend the trader his shares to do this especially when it is perfectly obvious that selling the 'borrowed' shares on the market is going to help depress the price? Why would anyone lend a trader their shares so this 'borrower' could devalue them? It's nuts, of course.

So how do they actually pull it off? Until fairly recently, I didn't know. But then I came across the following articles on the net and all was revealed. The conclusions that I will state presently are not stated in the articles but their reality is undeniable once they are highlighted.

Here are the articles in question and to save my fingers from Repetitive Strain Injury, would you, gentle reader, go have a Bo Peep at them before reading on?

Links-
You don't really own the shares you think you own

The unknown 20 trillion dollar company

WSJ: Blame the 'Stock Vault'?

Okay, so now you know that most stockholders never get their name on their stock certificates. Indeed, they never even sight their share certificates. They instead have an account with their broker that says they are the 'beneficial owners' of the stock. It's remarkably like the situation of having money in the bank; you have an account in their computer and that's all. The name that is actually on the stock certificates is “Cede & Co” (or similar) as in you cede ownership to Cede & Co. Ironic, no? Cynical, more likely. The similarity with a bank doesn't end there. It seems from all the preceding information that it is reasonable, even unavoidable, to conclude that the short sellers 'borrow' shares in exactly the same way a person 'borrows' money from a bank and both come from the same source; thin air. These borrowed shares are invented and exist temporarily in a double entry type bookeeping system until the short sellers buy back shares to cancel these 'virtual' shares. It is essentially the same method whereby banks lend money that doesn't exist and this extra money has a life until the loan is paid back and the extra virtual money disappears again. This seemingly fraudulent practice has been legitimised through the passing of laws allowing this banking practice. It is called 'Fractional Reserve Banking' overseen in the US by the Federal Reserve Board. The same practice involving shares, stock brokers, the New York Stock Exchange in particular and the Depository Trust Company, is not likewise legal as far as I know.

Cede and Co (the registered name on almost all stock) is the nominee company used and owned by the Depository Trust Company (DTC) otherwise known as the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC).
Who owns DTC?
Answer, the New York Stock Exchange.
Who owns the New York Stock Exchange?
Answer, the same Federal Reserve Board mentioned above.
Who owns the Federal Reserve Board?
Answer, American and European banks.
Who owns these banks?
Answer, a very good question!

What is known for sure, though, is that they are not your friends.

So the shares remain in the name of Cede & Co no matter who buys and who sells thus making it impossible to trace particular share certificates through transactions and which shares in the total are pre-existing shares and which ones are the extra 'virtual' ones and which shares disappeared when the short sellers bought back shares to cover those they sold and even the fact that there were extra 'virtual' shares at all. Facilitating this further is the fact that there are no certificates for the shares thus held. They are merely book entries or, more accurately, computer entries.

The only thing that changes are the broker's accounts and brokers, as you would have read at the links, are allowed to fudge things in the name of prompt settlement i.e. behave as if they have them in one of their accounts when they don't at all – fraud, in other words; shares created out of thin air. If this were not the case, then shareholders would notice that shares would disappear from their accounts and be replaced at a later date. This doesn't happen, of course, just as money doesn't disappear from your (or anyone else's) banking account when the bank lends someone money. The banks create new 'virtual' money whenever they lend and stock brokers and the DTC must, by all appearances, do exactly the same thing with shares to cover short positions.

Getting back to our 'borrowed' stocks and their accommodating owners, we can now see that they can not be borrowed at all but must be newly created. Who can do this? Who are they. They have to be none other the stock brokers who are allowed to do so to a limited degree under the NYSE rules but also the DTC and Cede & Co which is its nominee company that owns most of the real shares on behalf of the 'beneficial' or real owners, the ones that put up the money to buy them. The stocks are sort of held in trust, if you like. Except the trustee is acting against the interests of the rightful owners and without their knowledge whenever they conspire with large short sellers by creating fictitious shares and selling them to deliberately drive down the value of that stock. They can go on creating and selling these fictitious shares until they achieve their desired result; a low share price and driving legitimate owners of stocks that find themselves in financial straits to sell their shares on to a falling market and lose money. These shares are then purchased by the short sellers to cover their sale of fictitious shares at the previous higher prices and the loss suffered by the legitimate owners forced to sell becomes the profit of the short sellers. How is this not theft on a grand scale?

As I noted previously, an individual broker can cover for an individual short seller but this individual trader is unlikely to have the clout to crash the market under a wave of selling all by himself. To do that you need numbers and volume and co-ordination. And to cover the stock and share certificates for that necessarily involves the DTC itself because they are the ones that can 'supply' (actually, invent) that amount of scrip to cover the accounts that allows it all to happen. So the owners of DTC, the NYSE and the Fed have to be involved in, if not directly directing, any crash involving substantial short selling into the market. And they can do it any time they like and there's no one to blow the whistle on them. There's no one to say, “Oi, you pinched my share certificates to sell into the market without my permission!” More to the point, there's no one to say, “Oi, there seems to be a whole lot more “Ajax Hot Air Balloons” shares on issue today than there was yesterday!” If anyone on Wall Street wants to maintain that share scrip is really borrowed from existing shareholders, let them name them and show documentation to prove it.

Yes, folks, shares are created out of thin air when they are 'lent' just like money is created out of thin air when it is lent into existence. Because no shareholder's account at his brokers is suddenly missing shares to cover the short selling before they are bought back, extra shares have to come into existence for the bridging period. When the shorted shares are bought back (at lower prices), the extra ones, the virtual ones, the thin air ones, disappear into the ether from whence they came leaving no trace for investigators to find (assuming they would ever be appointed and also assuming they would be granted access to the DTC's or Cede & Co's books). Neat, huh? It's just like the banks and your money which they issue and control.

So next time there is a major stock market crash, you will know what is going on, who is doing it, how they're doing it and why they're doing it. This leaves the question of what to do about it? Given that these 'wise and honourable men' are the experts followed by the regulators, not much can be expected in the way of reform of these institutions and certainly not of their owners. Public education is the only recourse really, that I can see.

So spread the word and tell anyone who will listen that 'short selling' is fraud and why. And if you have shares (and/or have friends who have), insist on receiving your stock certificates in your hand and registered in your name or the name of your own nominee company. If this is not possible, consider selling those shares and buying others where you can be the 'registered owner' and hold actual share certificates instead of being the 'beneficial owner' as suggested in one of the above links.
The sooner the practice of short selling is eliminated the sooner the economy, which means everybody including non share holders, will be better off.

ON CHARGING AT WINDMILLS (and other things that might whack you)

The other day, McJ put up a link to a story of a New Zealand journalist, Clare Swinney, who was incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital against her will for 11 days. She had written about the truth of 9/11 and had sent DVDs to television station personnel showing this truth. She also accused these people of lying about this truth. I felt very disturbed after reading this story because it brought to mind experiences of my own and of friends of mine who have fought for justice for themselves and others. These experiences don't match exactly Clare Swinney's, of course, but they are similar in that the weight of the State/Medical/Judicial/Police/Criminal complex has been brought down on me and my friends who are victims, supporters and/or whistle blowers. The results to varying degrees have included severe psychological stress and burnout; severe physical assaults and injuries and the loss of careers, health, money and freedom.

I mention the above experiences because I will be making some recommendations to people who are challenging the system (or may in the future) and some of these recommendations may sound risky or even dangerous. But I want to show that I am aware of the consequences of these actions and I don't recommend them lightly. They come from experience and I believe them to be, in fact, the safest way to handle “unwanted attention from the authorities”. These encounters are always scary. Don't kid yourself otherwise. But by preparing a strategy beforehand and adopting the attitude that in the immortal words of Jason Bourne, “this isn't just some story in a newspaper. This is real”, you will give yourself the best chance of maintaining the maximum level of power over your circumstances possible.

Clare Swinney repeated some of the mistakes that I have made and some that my friends have made in other situations. So I will use her story to illustrate what I am talking about. Of course, it would make it easier to follow my arguments and recommendations if you have read Clare's story beforehand. It, too, is rather long I'm afraid, so take a cut lunch with you but save a sandwich for when you get back here!

I am going to use Clare's testimony of her reactions and behaviours as examples of what not to do. There will be a few “shoulds” in my advice. I do not mean this in any way as a criticism of Clare. We all learn the hard way most of the time. I certainly have. Clare has published this account of hers, so I assume she wants others to use it and benefit. And full marks to her for doing so! This takes courage. Though this scenario deals with a psychiatric committal, the tactics and advice can be generalised to many other threatening situations. Whether you agree with my points or not, I hope you will have benefited from thinking through this situation in advance.
So on to Clare's story then:-

Two social workers lobbed on Clare's front door step unannounced and wanted her to accompany them to a psychiatric hospital for assessment. She went with them: this is her first mistake. Instead of going with them, she should have asked to see the committal order. If none is forthcoming she should have gone back inside, closed the door and called a lawyer to get his/her arse down there asap. Never go with anyone against your will unless you have been arrested.

Secondly, never let anyone into your home unless they are a friend or they have a search warrant. It doesn't matter what your neighbours might think about 'white coats' or police standing outside your door! From this point onward, it is much more important what you think of yourself rather than what the neighbours might think of you. Non co-operation would have saved the day for Clare.

If and when you get a lawyer to turn up, you do not ask for advice so much as give him/her instructions. You tell them to go out there and get rid of the cops (or social workers) by asking to see the court order authorising your arrest, should you not have asked for this already and/ or not been shown it. They either have it or they don't. If they don't have it and your lawyer wants to negotiate with whomever is harassing you, ring for another lawyer. I'm serious. Lawyers, for the most part in my experience, are incompetent or have interests opposed to yours, or both. I'll come back to lawyers later.

Clare went on to say, “ I asked if my flatmate, Brian Kennedy could come with us and attest that I was fine and most certainly not suicidal.
I picked up my bag and appropriate evidence for the meeting.”

You don't have to prove you are not suicidal. They have to show you the authority to take you into custody. If they have that authority and you go with them, then it is the 'authorities' that have to prove they are justified in their treatment of you. Taking her magazine, Clare thought this would show she is not mistaken in her assertions re 9/11, therefore not insane and therefore not suicidal (all incorrect connections there i.e. mistakeness does not equate with insanity and insanity does not equate with suicidality). This worked against her because it distracted her from the issue of whether she was suicidal or not and allowed her oppressors later to avoid it, too.

It is important to establish what the issue is and keep this foremost in your mind.

Clare in taking the magazine is focusing on defending herself rather than demanding the social workers defend what they are doing i.e. the legality of the situation. Understandable enough, of course, if you are caught totally by surprise and haven't thought this possibility through beforehand. Never-the-less, it is her second mistake. The point, again, is to not co-operate with these people. It is in their interests to surprise you and rush you through their “process”. Never co-operate no matter what they threaten you with. These people are not on your side and never will be. They are paid by the State and you have to assume they will always do what they are told. That is what they are trained to do, after all. If they are rushing you or threatening you, count on whatever they want you to do as being totally against your interests, at the very least, and most probably illegal.

Two police turned up hot on the heels of the social workers. Police presence always implies the threat of arrest. People naturally want to avoid that and so tend to comply with whatever else the police might want to avoid being thought of as, or being treated as, a criminal. But you've already gone past that point. Never talk to the police under any circumstances. This is nicely reinforced by this law professor's talk via Distant Ocean (thanks for the link, Winter) giving many more reasons than I had ever thought of. Be sure to watch part 2 as well.

In Australia and the US, and I would assume in New Zealand, too, you do not have to talk to the police, period. They can threaten arrest, of course. Here's where you do something different. You say, “What's the charge?” You've called them on their threat. They will either back down and then have to leave or they will arrest you at which point you do not have to talk with them, anyway. If the police arrest you, you can be sure they were going to do it all along despite whatever else they might say. They have a license to lie, and they do. Some of them wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up out of their soup. Never rely on anything the police say. Check everything if and when you can.

The story continues,-
“At Whangarei Hospital, Brian and I were transferred into Ward 7, which is a secure, locked up area, and then herded into a meeting room, where we waited for several nail-biting minutes before the middle-aged psychiatric registrar, Dr Mothafar Abass entered and introduced himself. In a rather detached fashion, he advised that he would be conducting my suicide risk assessment, and then hurried through it, as if he was pressed for time.
Mindful that this was to determine whether I was to be committed under the Mental Health Act, I found his manner disturbing to say the very least. He didn’t appear to fully understand me, nor did he give me sufficient time to explain myself to a level appropriate for this kind of evaluation, and in one instance, he even spoke over me in a rush to get to the next question.”

What's wrong here? Clare is talking again. She is co-operating with the doctor: This is the third mistake. Clare doesn't realize she is slipping the noose over her own head here. She doesn't realize that the pompous fart interviewing her can't put the noose over her head himself. He needs her to do it for him. To that end, he's rushing her and not allowing her to think- “nor did he give me sufficient time to explain myself to a level appropriate for this kind of evaluation, and in one instance, he even spoke over me in a rush to get to the next question.”

To get a committal order, you need a doctors signature. Ordinarily the doctor signing the order is the treating doctor known to the 'patient'. What is going on here is this tool is establishing himself as the treating doctor. He can't do that without her co-operation. He subsequently detained her using her own words (after twisting them) as the justification. It is clear now that the social workers arrived on Clare's doorstep without a committal order. Again, non co-operation would have saved the day for Clare.

Clare describes sending 9/11 DVDs to teevee personnel and that this brought on the unwanted attention. Well, this is what is going to happen. Not only was she appealing to the wrong people (they are on the other side's team) but she was making a highly visible target of herself. I can only assume she thought the troubles were with a few “rogue elements” in the system not the whole system in its totality. Understanding the complete corruption of the whole system is vital to your longevity if you want to fight it. Automatically trusting police, lawyers, the legal system, media, psychologists and psychiatrists has led to a lot of grief for myself and friends. Believe me, it is all connected at the top and pressure can be brought down on anyone within the system. And the system includes all government departments and organisations, all corporations, most religious organisations and many community organisations and anyone dependent on any of them. Doesn't leave a lot, does it?

Clare then goes on to describe threatening emails and the threatening presence and behaviour of someone she believed (probably correctly) to be a member of the the government's 'intelligence' agency (SIS). The thing with threats of the nature that Clare describes is that if you were of enough trouble to them, you would just wake up dead one morning! Killing people is a hassle, though, even for the SIS, and there is always risk involved. Killing people also tends to make martyrs 'for the cause,' which is a cost to the system which needs to be weighed against the benefits. Killing people also tells many others surrounding the victim that there is an alternative world going on that is very different to the one on teevee and in the newspapers and to the one they were taught in school. The PTB do not want to break this spell. Their real purpose in intimidating people is to cause panic, to stop the activist doing whatever they were doing, or to continue on but in a fearful manner and upsetting their own judgement so much that they then aid in their own downfall.

If you are an activist and you are being threatened, and if you find yourself extremely fearful as a result, but you still feel committed to carrying on, I would advise you to beat a strategic retreat instead. At least until you feel confident in your ability to handle stressful encounters and think straight. If in doubt, take a break if you can, anyway. You don't want to be your own worst enemy. It's no disgrace. It's stupid to fight when you can't win and have a lot to lose when you have the option of walking away and saving your fight for another day.

Clare said further on:-
“Although I tried to get Dr Abass to listen to me about the context my statement was made in, my hopes sunk like a submarine when his body language indicated he’d stopped listening to me and his resolve to commit me was rapidly gathering momentum. . . .

. . . Nonetheless, to my horror, at my assessment’s completion, Dr Abass told me I would be held in the secure unit under the Mental Health Act for 5 days for further assessment. And as if this news wasn’t bad enough, he told me I hadn’t been threatened, I had misinterpreted the messages and that was because I was suffering from a delusional disorder. He said he was prescribing antipsychotic medication to combat this problem and as I was depressed, he told me I should go on a course of antidepressants also.”

If Clare had not talked to the doctor nor shown him the threatening emails, how would he be able to declare her delusional? If he can't determine she is delusional, how can he prescribe anti psychotic drugs? Without the anti psychotic drugs, it is much harder to manipulate Clare, which is the whole point of the exercise, after all.

Not understanding the all pervasiveness of the corruption of the system, Clare still expected common sense to prevail: the fourth mistake. She did not understand that this was all planned and that the personnel she would be dealing with would have been worded up as to what to do in advance. It's all a piece of theatre . . . . and she played her part on cue, as anyone would without prior knowledge of what is going on. If you ever find yourself being 'railroaded', expect everybody with authority that you think might help you to be “in on the gig”. Never co-operate. Don't play your part because they need you to play your part for it to work. If it were me in this situation, I'd hope I'd be stating simply and as calmly as I could manage that I will not be co-operating as I believe I am being held illegally and I will be seeking redress. If Clare had had enough alertness to the real situation, she might have asked, “have you been threatened over your residency status here in New Zealand by anyone, doctor?”, and sat back and enjoyed the 'stunned rabbit in the headlights' look! Who knows, she might have also given him that little look that says, “the gig's up, sport. I'm gonna tan your hide and hang it on the fence!”

At a minimum, you try and look like you are in control of yourself. They rely on you not being in control your emotions and therefore not in control of your thinking.

The next phase went like this-
“As a polite way of telling the staff to “piss off and leave me alone,” shortly after arriving I stuck a notice above my bed: ‘WHILE MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BEING COMPROMISED LIKE THIS, PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT ME TO PARTAKE IN ANY SO-CALLED “TREATMENT”.’ Of course, it didn’t work. At night-time, I was forced to take Risperidone, a mind-altering medication administered to treat schizophrenia.”

Clare made a threat she did not enforce: the fifth mistake. Never make a threat you are not prepared to, or not able to, go through with. If you don't follow through then you lose respect in others' eyes and worse, you lose respect in your own eyes. Self respect is vital for survival in situations like this. It's far better to not make any specific threats; just do it if you are going to. What Clare did was warn the medical staff so they could prepare for the encounter in advance.

If you put the pills in your mouth and swallow them, it is much harder to convince a jury later that you were forced to take them than if you were held and injected with the 'medication'. The staff will know this. If anybody makes an overt threat to you, you have to “call 'em” on it. In this case, Clare should have called their threat to inject her by not co-operating. You cannot lose. Either they will inject you forcibly or they will not. If they don't, you have had a major win. If they do you will be forcing the staff to face squarely what they are doing. One or more may crumble in the face of this. You will also be in a better position later if you are able to sue them, as I have said. Even if you don't sue in the future, you will be better off in the present because you haven't “ratted out ” on yourself. By putting the pills in your mouth, you are agreeing to their abuse. That makes you complicit in it. You are telling them that it is okay. It consequently undoes your self respect. Better to resist and keep your self respect than to not resist at all and lose your self respect. Without self respect, you are weaker and much more vulnerable.

This whole scenario is about dominating your mind. Don't co-operate in it. State again as firmly but as calmly as you can that you do not agree with the treatment and you believe it is illegal and you will be seeking redress. (Don't say how. Though this is a threat, it is non specific. Leave it open and don't be drawn into discussing it. It's purpose is to sow doubt. Being non specific, it will better play on the fears of those not committed to the system. These will be the lowest ranks and if anybody is going to help you it will be the lower ranks, not the supervisors who have more to lose by bucking the orders from on high. It may be humiliating to be held down and injected but it won't be as humiliating as taking the pills yourself (voluntarily) and then looking back later and seeing how you caved in mentally.
The more Clare co-operates the more control she loses.

The next day, Clare is talking to the head psychiatrist, the medication is having its desired (by the doctors and those behind them) effect-
“In a beleaguered manner, as the Risperidone was making me drowsy, I tried to describe my frightening ordeal and show him my e-mails and my article, Why Does TVNZ Lie to Us About 9/11? but he wouldn’t even spare 10 seconds to lean over and look at them. He said he didn’t want to hear about them and told me I was “delusional” because I believed 9/11 was an inside job."

Because Clare had started out defending herself instead of demanding her assailants defend their actions, she is off on the wrong foot in tackling the psychiatrist. The issue is about her suicidality not delusional thinking. She has let him control the discourse. This is a repeat of the third mistake; co-operating with the doctor and his narrative/agenda. She is reacting all the time and on the backfoot. You can't win from there. If you let your opponent control the narrative, you lose. By not co-operating, by not talking except to say you are being held illegally, you control the narrative and the interaction, though it may not seem like it at first. Again, she would have been much better off simply stating that she believes she has been detained illegally and that she will be seeking redress. And that's it.

You get what you want by posing the possibility that it will be more painful for them to continue to hold you than to release you. Raising the illegality issue puts him on notice. You have to assume that all 'authorities' in this situation have been leaned on, i.e. there will be penalties for them if they don't work against your interests. Appealing to their supposed good natures is not a winning strategy. Appealing to their sense of self preservation is.

All the apparatchiks in these hierarchies know that if the shit hits the fan people like them will be the first to be fed into this same fan if it all gets too hard to protect the higher ups. It's worth remembering that what they are doing is illegal and they know it. You don't have to get their agreement to anything you say. Don't get into a conversation. You just need to put it out there. You just need to hear yourself say it. You just need him to hear it. You are asserting the truth of the situation, your own mental strength and sanity. After this point, the less you say the better and by doing so the more you are in charge of not only yourself but anyone who tries to interact with you.

The story then progresses to a legal hearing. It is notable that the issue for the doctors at the hearing (and unfortunately for Clare, her own father, too) is delusional thinking and only towards the end does Clare introduce the fact that the issue is suicidality. What she finds out later (and not from her lawyer) is that she was, indeed, being held illegally.

Also notable is that the junior doctor reneged on his support for Clare when it was show time. And so did her own lawyer. This is worth repeating – and so did her own lawyer! This is not uncommon. People forget that even though you pay your lawyer, you, as a client, will be gone very soon but the lawyer needs to live on within the system for years to come. This is the sixth mistake. Many (if not most) lawyers will defer to the system and those in charge rather than do what they are payed for – defend you and your interests to the bitter end. There's also straight out incompetence, of course. Lawyers know that most clients haven't a clue what their lawyer should be doing for them and therefore have no way to assess their performance except for reflecting back on that sickening feeling the client gets walking out of the hearing or the court afterwards of, “WTF happened in there!!"

So, to sum up:-
Don't let anyone other than friends into your house without a warrant.
Never talk to the police or anybody attempting to function with that power under any circumstances.
Never go with anybody against your will unless you have been arrested
and then-
Never co-operate in your own hanging. Force them to use force.
Always call them on their threats towards you.
Never make threats in return unless they are vague, lawful and down the line time wise.
Save everything you have till you get to court. Assume that is where you are going.
If you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, defend yourself. Pay lawyers for advice (and check it) but never let them talk for you at a hearing or in court.

Oh, and never sign anything!

Your greatest ally in circumstances like Clare Swinney's is your own sense of worth. You preserve it best by resisting their mental domination. And the best and ultimately safest way to do that is through non co-operation with your oppressors and making sure some sensible ally of yours knows of your situation.

Or the Readers Digest version, - KKK:-
Keep breathing,
Keep thinking and
Keep your mouth shut!

There's a couple of counter intuitive statements in the foregoing I know and I haven't explained everything because of space, so questions are welcome.

there's this great article up on ZNet called "World Can't Be Changed Without Fighting Western Propaganda" By Andre Vltchek. (I came across it via Palestinian Think Tank).

"In a way, control of information is now much more complete in the United States or UK or Australia than it was in the 1980s in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland. There is no "hunger for truth"".. . . .

"In the meantime, while our intellectuals are collaborating with power and getting rewarded for their efforts, great parts of the world are bathed in blood, starving, or both. Collaboration and the silence of those who know or should know is partially to blame for the present state of the world.' . . . .

"I think about all successful revolutions of the past - they all have one common pre-condition: education and information. In order to change things, people have to know the truth. They have to know their past." . . . .

The comments are interesting, too. They get sidetracked into discusing Orwell's attitudes until Keith Harmon Snow brings things back to the topic and reality with a thump in his comment entitled, "Consuming Propaganda, Creating Mental Illness".
From his comment-
"What is most stunning is the extent to which people who otherwise should or could know better are influenced by propaganda and, therefore, lost, but who believe falsely that they are not influenced, and found. This can be equated with imperialism but more precisely with white supremacy."

Both the article's author, Andre Vltchek and Keith Harmon Snow touch on the insidious nature of propoganda in its ability to infect our thinking without our becoming aware of it.
I have read of studies that have shown that even after victims of mind control have become aware of the exact nature of the abusive treatment they have undergone, often still think the implanted thoughts are their own. (I have found this to be true in my own experience.)

A common example of this can be had when listening to people regurgitate the nightly news as if they understood the history, facts and logic that led to the 'headline' or 'bottom line' that they saw and heard last night. They just repeat what they heard and never giving a thought to the fact that they have never given a thought to what they heard or what they are now saying.

Robotic thinking. Mind control is an everyday experience.

Ummm . . . ah, have I ever mentioned that throwing out the teevee would be good for your mental health?