Is BitCoin a Bit of a Con?

What is interesting about Bitcoin is it has been a 'proof of concept' and the concept is now fundamentally proven. So what is next? As with the emergence of the WWW there was this 'eye of the storm' period when, for a while, the systems were in place and nothing much occurred. Then came the DOTCOM bubble. From the ashes today's enduring players arose: formed and consolidated. It appeared to me that nothing much was initially happening because nobody wanted to deal with companies and brands they had no historical knowledge of in the bricks-and-mortar world. Once these friendly faces emerged people went on-line and started shopping with them and soon also with a few notable internet born exceptions: Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay.  I recall Amazon was 'the one' - the big newcomer ground breaker.

Bitcoin has been victim of its optimistic supporters in so much as people have speculatively invested in Bitcoins whereas that is not its real purpose. It is first and foremost supposed to be a means of exchange - that is its strength. But as a means of exchange it has not started to be truly useful. I cannot see making my larger payments say from UKP to JPY is really helped by using Bitcoin as the mechanism of transfer. It needs me to hold funds as Bitcoin and sellers to want to do the same and that is a long way off. It is an unknown and subject to sharp value fluctuations.

Now if the IMF came up with a son-of-Bitcoin that was indelibly tethered to their SDR basket of currencies the day of the digital coin would happen immediately. And if every major bank offered access to the same service too: people would start doing business. This I predict is what is going to happen.

Now all that is fine and dandy but the Bitcoin has one more feature that I presume could not be the case with an IMF-SDR digital-coin which is: Bitcoin is not a fiat currency - there is a finite volume of possible Bitcoin algorithms - so Bitcoin will tend to grow in value if and when its uptake becomes more prevalent - be pro-rata deflationary with growing usage.

The people who understand this make the bulk of the speculative investors today and they have at least 'keep the wheels on the wagon' to this point in time. Bitcoin's potential growth in value yet to come is roughly (optimistically) equated to the value of all the fiat money in the world today.

Will it happen. I think not. There may be a limited volume of Bitcoin's possible to produce but there is no limit to the introduction of other technically comparable digital-coins that could share the supposed same deflationary quality (limited volume). So the idea of a limited volume is not really correct.

I predict there is a place for Bitcoin as an early market leader, an established brand, but it will be joined by a plethora of digital-coins backed by known brands and entities, including maybe even digital versions of existing national currencies, a PayPalPunt, an AmazonAmericano, an AppleSeed and the soon to be popular RothschildRenminbi. The water could become very muddy.

The only survivor could be the 'block-chain' which manages the Bitcoin records amongst other tasks too. But since the block chain is the keys to recording every financial transaction conducted I am very doubtful of its continued independence. I think the UN will claim that crown as the corner-stone to its new global tax regime. Then we can start to understand what may lay behind this anonymous experiment as has been similarly suspected of apparent 'new start' IT providers throughout the history of the digital revolution.

See also: Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

The drive toward a centrally issued single global currency appears to be a long desired outcome of the banking elites who substantially own, control and benefit from the central banking network about the world. 

As seen with the incantation of the EU, originally sold to the plebiscite as a trading union, the launch of the EURO single currency was widely understood to be unsustainable without the simultaneous total political and economic integration of the disparate independent nation member states.  This obviously intentional outcome was endlessly scoffed-at and robust derided but the conclusion, now it is upon us, is simple: the creation of the EURO was either implemented by utter ignorant fools or it was a covertly intentional device used to force the amalgamation of the independent European nations into a Greater Europe.

With Europe as the template moves are clearly under-way to enact the same set of circumstances in the forming of a North America political and monetary union and then undoubtedly further regional trade unions will be subjected to similar drives towards their forming political unions too.

It appears that simultaneous to that momentum the SDR mechanism will gain significance apparently with the objective of developing the SRD value into more than a IMF and central bankers device by allowing transactions to be conducted between parties in SDR values without need to exchange into any other of the root currency when making settlement.  No doubt when an SDR currency becomes established the demand will then be for, step two, the currencies included in the 'pot' to peg their individual rate to a given value.

The effect of this SDR based currency will be to draw the major currencies, and the separate sovereign economic states from which they emanate, into the same eventual and inevitable trap as that which the previously independent nation states of Europe were enticed.  So I conclude that it will be greatly as a result of this growing global monetary union from which a growing global economic and subsequently global political union will also be demanded and formed.

When rarely questioned, the political momentum behind this open conspiracy is justified and explained as the ambition to raise-up the poorer economies of nations across the world to parity and to bring about the end of war between separate sovereign nation states.  On the surface that may be so but at what cost?

The cost will be the lack of competition between states.  When each country has to vie in the 'market' against each other to offer the best environment for a flourishing social and economic condition, nations that make bad choices pay the price and learn from nations that do well and thrive.  People and business are drawn to the more liberal and successful nations leaving the tardy nations one simple option: change for the better.

The international central banking establishment is not the property of the nation states or their populous.  The mechanism behind the issue of money is the state-dependent corporate (read neo-feudal) and so clearly, at some level, all actually privately owned.  Issuing money is a vastly profitable enterprise and inflation adds a further cost to the use of money to the people who have it as any-sort of measure or store of wealth.

There is no better means for the enslavement of the people: all encompassing yet covert.  The banker's tribute is gathered by 'the state' by way of taxation to pay interest on debt and by way of the perpetuation of the system of 'the state' for their continued control and gain. Whilst money is monopolised in any way by 'the state' there will always be the propensity for this ultimate and fundamental tool to be usurped and used to profit against the interests of the population and for dictatorial control.

Naked Capitalism and a more Natural World Order

The idea of 'privatisation of public services' rather infers that these services are still 'public services' just run on the behalf of the public by private enterprise.  There are anticipated merits in that approach, reducing waste, improving cost efficiency, cutting-out 'job entitlement', etc.  There are also disadvantages to privatisation such as excessive profit making and the need for continuous government supervision.  The real problem of state operated public services being privatised is not addressed just by privatising the operation but fundamentally still retaining the states monopoly over the service.  And that is not what is proposed by Rothbard.

What the "The Libertarian Manifesto" calls for is naked capitalism - unregulated by any form of state mechanism; because there is no state!  So any service the public generally wants to purchase is totally open to be offered by any business that wishes to tackle that market.  If the service provider provides a poor service/price equation people soon vote with their feet and that company goes out of business.  If a company offer a good package, insurance that includes a certain proportion of charitable contribution for example, people will buy their service if the offer is compatible with what they value.

Every example (I can think of) of capitalism taking unfair advantage of and manipulating the marketplace can be drilled-down to find eventually it is actually dependent on the existence of 'the state' and taking advantage of the authority and regulation of the state.

Monopolistic business practices in themselves are not actually a problem, a company that offers an unbeatable price/service in a free market deserves to, and will by default, gain a monopoly.  The problem comes when the monopoly is gained by means other than just an unbeatable price/service mix within a free market.  For example Standard Oil 'took' the market because it found a way to circumnavigate legislation designed to prevent such monopolistic practices.  Had the legislation not existed they would have been exposed to a market where every one of their competitors were also able to compete on a level field - including all attempting to work towards capturing a monopoly of the oil market.  By having prohibitive legislation the state effectively caused the unfair advantage.

That the state, or elements within the state, deliberately causes disarray so to force change or to make the change they provided appear successful (a strategy Common Purpose is accused of) is not an argument for keeping services within the state.  It is an illustration of why the state is not a suitable mechanism for operating such activities because the authority of the state can be, and often is, abused.

The state needs to justify its existence and does so by means of appearing to meet and by manipulating public perception.  Clearly a government that just taxes and builds fabulous palaces for an aristocratic class will not be well supported for long.  A government that is considered to provide 'law and order, economy and welfare, education and health, defence and diplomacy' may conversely look like they are providing not only a useful range of services in an optimal way but services imposable to fulfil without the involvement of a state.  Bernays was years behind the curve.

A relatively small proportion of taxes gathered is actually spent on providing this succor to the masses but it is an investment, of the people's money, well spent on behalf of the state; for it provides the state's government with a 'democratic majority' and therefore apparent legitimacy.  Democracy is a gift to those who would control the people since their willing compliance, in ignorance of the true situation, is a less costly and more productive form of enslavement than old-fashioned brutality and force.  All that needs to be done is to control the political parties, their candidates and have influence over of the bulk of the media.

Belief in the legitimacy and necessity of the state is the most prevalent delusion suffered by humanity.  The state is no more than a system of manipulation and control, quasi-religious in nature.   The world has a wealth of resources to provide an abundance for human society but distribution of wealth has always been hampered by our innate competitiveness.

The primary method for diverting wealth to the few has been social power, power of pack leader, tribal leader, priest, monarch, the state.  It is the oldest form of establishment - older than humanity itself.  This power establishment has been evolving into ever deepening consolidation and is reaching a point where nations are being melded into continental unions and those unions responding to a single central global governance. 

This is a dangerous time for human society - the risk is the nature and motives of the money-power that has sponsored the drive towards single world governance and the vulnerability of such a single system for tyrannical authoritarianism (multiplicity provides multiple fail-safes).  We stand at a crossroad where the choice is simply between accepting the drive towards this greater global state as essential and inevitable or smashing the paradigm and allowing humanity to operate in a more natural order without centralised control of any sort.

Outline of the Plans for Global Governance

Global Union is the mandate of the UN - or to give it the UN's parlance: 'global governance'.

The future power structure the UN requires forming a series of ever-consolidating pan-continental regions.  The EU is the early template and test-bed.  The North American Union should be next.

Every geopolitical step can be recognised as a step towards this resolution, the ambition of which is occulted from the plain view of the uninquisitive, the incurious and the general standard: the outright gullible.

Within these unions the old nation states will be divided into regions.  Some small regions could reflect existing national borders, like Scotland.  Generally the old nation states will be split-up into regions who will report directly to the Union.  There will be no national governments, no need for that level of authority, but there will be geographical 'mega-regions' defined to help with development and such.

The justification is to allow for the scientific management of the world which, they believe, is precluded greatly by the present nation state type of system. 

The second major justification is the preclusion of war.  Instead of war between one nation and another the whole of humanity will be in the grasp of an soviet socialist authoritarian tyranny, which will be fascist as there will be an elite who operate and own the whole enterprise  - which will be nice.

The Dark Heart of the Union

I frankly, genuinely, do not doubt the sincerity of some, many, the majority even, of those involved within the European project.

There is bound to be corruption and ineptness when a new order is devised and implemented so quickly. This is typical of all governments, all public offices, all forms of authority. There will be abuse. Cookies will get stolen. It happens.

What people do not understand, including this gaggle of well intention and committed friends, is there is a covert darkness behind the whole enterprise and all are caused to be just playing right into it hands.

Too often the meaning of 'darkness' and of especially 'the occult' are completely misunderstood. This is not unintentional. 'To occult' means simply to hide and this is the clue to understanding what the occult is really about. Clearly it is the same inference with darkness.

Truth, clarity, openness. These are the sort of words one does not readily associate with darkness and the occult.

I think the truth of the EU has been hidden in darkness, occulted, from the minds of all but those who work to seek-out the hidden truth and actual meaning.

This is how states, of all forms, have conducted themselves to control and manipulate the people from time immemorial. And this, the oldest established legacy of prehistoric-mankind to still remain, the state and its utter dependency upon deception to function, needs to be seen for what it is and cast-out, got rid-off, ended for ever.

Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia - the PNAC World View

The 'Disputed Territories' of Orwell's 1984 and the Ottoman Empire have many similarities - but not so many as those that exist between the 1984 world map and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) War Plan Map! No, no!

How to Detect a Political Conspiracy - Open Eyes!

To think there are no conspiracies in politics!

From my perspective politics is nothing but a writhing web of conspiracy, encompassing all human endeavour, from the beginnings of mankind to every humanly conceivable aspect of the future.

Politics does not exist without a shared agenda and a shared political agenda is a conspiracy - maybe an open conspiracy but a conspiracy nonetheless.

And trotting-out the jaded 'conspiracy theories' meme is really just a bit of group-think 1984 Newspeak which has been indoctrinated into the minds of the mainstream media consuming masses via a campaign of propaganda to keep them from thinking it is OK to think for themselves and joining together to point and laugh at the people still capable of doing so.

The Origin of the EU - by means of natural selection or, The Preservation of Races in the Struggle for Life

Robert Schuman drew up the Schuman Plan - an initiative to control the production steel and so prevent future arms production.  Published on the 9th of May 1950  this date is now regarded as the birth of the European Union.  Schuman, it is now clear, was funded, supported and encouraged by an OSS (early CIA) operation: The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948.

At this stage the UK was considered too anti-federalist as it appears to partially remain.  But in terms of being a useful device for the 'The Anglo-American Establishment' to continue to influence and monitor the EU, no better device than the UK has been found.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Committee_on_United_Europe

Telegraph: Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe
1948-60
Richard J. Aldrich
 University of Nottingham,
See: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf

EU Brainwashing; Explained.

The fact is that everybody has been conditioned since the dawn of interaction with other members of the species - including within prehistoric family groups; the dominant wolf in the pack subjugates the others primarily by physiological means and so it is with man.

From simple human tribal leadership, religious indoctrination, the mythology of monarchy to our modern consumer and state lead society; the techniques of indoctrination are now not only all consuming but understood, completely and absolutely deliberate in almost every avenue of life. Even the Greeks wrote of this.

The techniques of brainwashing were understood well by William Sargent who published 'Battle for the Mind' before being hushed-up. His papers are still sealed under wraps at the Welcome Foundation. He contributed to the CIA programs and the Tavistock Institute in the UK. (I recommend the book as vital to understanding this aspect of the human condition). 

Individually our minds can be utterly broken and reprogrammed - brainwashed in the clearest sense - to believe and act in any way required. The strongest minds are actually the most vulnerable as when they break, which all eventually will do so, they are utterly and entirely shattered - destroyed. Less resistant folk are easier to break but the resulting indoctrination is then weaker.

The 'Brainwashing' I allude to in EUbrainwashing is the subliminal one formed from a lifetime of exposure to every-day indoctrination and propaganda. From each-other, from school, from all media and so on. Less dramatic and violent but powerful and all encompassing nonetheless. It is also the one contributed to through mass shocks in the form of outrages such as the 'Dunblane massacre', 7/7, 911, war and the like. Human life is devalued with abortion policy, state advocacy of voluntary euthanasia, avocation for state imposed death sentencing, illicit acts of war remain unchallenged (such as Blair/Iraq) and on and on. All this teaches us lessons - forming how to think. 

The core outcome of this programming of mass indoctrination (brainwashing) is the broad acceptance of such aspects of 'normal' life as: the necessity for a government/state, state controlled schooling, state controlled health services, monarchy, democratic elections, payment of tax, religion, nationalism, war, state authorised use of violent force and so on. Acceptance of the paradigm that we need the state and that human society could not usefully function without it is endemic.

The endless absorption of our independence into EU-mire underlines the feeling of hopelessness and detachment; so that despite all opposition the march, nightmare like, only continues disregarding everything. We must learn from this, subconsciously, we are in truth a powerless herd of human tax slaves and the state a tax farm to which we belong will do with us precisely as it wishes - just with toys, flat-screens and MP3s, to make us feel rewarded. 

The power that was incarnate in the English aristocracy, the East India company, the British Empire and latterly manifests, now more clearly, as a global corporate/banking elite/complex is not dependent on being British any more. And it wants to snuff-out the old authority that was built-up and incumbent within these shores - the power is now a global force and the authority that was a part of that has moved with the money. But the British people remain a threat of being a respected measured properly righteous authority - that is being undone.

That power is in considerable control of the means to steer our society, via all almost all forms of mainstream media, all corporate and all political life along with the means to steer a great deal of global politics, society and economy too.

The EU issue is only but one manifestation of the predicament.

The allure of being a citizen of the world - when you are twelve

I agree that 'nations' are no more than the old paradigm that the population was cajoled into supporting before - rally behind the flag bla bla bla.  And people, when getting all nationalistic, are doing nothing but continuing to feed from that trough of swill because the message was so enduring and in tune with the basic human instinct for family, tribe and race.

So what would you have it replaced by?  Unions of old nations working together in pan-continental cooperatives, the common causes shared, war at an end, the strong and the weak hand in hand, all skipping into the sunset perhaps?

And each continental union a part of a greater wholeness, a global union of unions.  A scientifically measured central planning governance, economy and ecology developed sustainably.  I get it.  I came to the same conclusion when I was about twelve years old.

I came to the same conclusion and remained there enduringly before eventually I broke free from the core illusion, the most dangerous and muddled concept burdening humanity, that the 'state' is utterly essential for the continuation and betterment of humanity.

I now know it is not. It has taken me years to come to that understating, it was a slow realisation, and years more to realise the truth of the conclusion - to overcome my multi-layered learnt denial.  I can see clearly now: the state is only to enslave humanity and nations are nothing more than giant tax-farms where the livestock is the human tax-slave herd.

Unions of old nations will be just bigger tax-farms and a global union will be just one big farm.

So who are the farmers.  Work it out for yourself because that I cannot explain.  The didactic route is the only path to enduring clarity I know of.  When I tell people they get it and then they forget it; in one ear and out' the other.  Fascinating to behold.

And if you think a one world union will be the end of war you are no brighter than I was - at the age of twelve.  Because, this I will explain, the war will be the state against all humanity.  And that war has been under-way for a long time already.  Dummy.

I would replace the state with nothing but the right to property and your only property is your life and that which you work upon.

An English Baccalaureate - have you any questions?

What is an 'English Baccalaureate'  - is it a Baccalaureate studied for using the English language or is it one just related to the regions presently known as England.

I see the English Baccalaureate is referred to as an 'EBacc' which is useful since that helps distinguish it from a 'European Baccalaureate' which is known as a 'Bac'. 
Call me cynical (because I am) - I wonder how long it will be before there is a blending of the EBacc and the Bac which presently is used only in the private establishments operated to school European Official's own offspring. www.eursc.org/index.php?id=138

It is fortunate that since next year the government has to keep so many more children occupied for an extra year of state enforced indoctrination that this examination conundrum has 'appeared' on the horizon.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) is different again!  Formerly the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), the IB is independent perhaps of  'nations' but I argue it is not independent of government.  It was conceived at the International School of Geneva, a school that had been created to serve the children of employees of the League of Nations.  The League of Nations was succeeded by the United Nations.  The United Nations has a clear objective for being the instrument for Global Governance.

See: http://truthaboutib.com/whatca...

6) IB is a non-governmental organization (NGO) of United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) the United Nations (UN).
http://www.ibo.org/partnership...

IBO and UNESCO work out of the same building in Switzerland (toward the bottom of the page):
http://www.ibo.org/partnership...

If you do not agree the UN's ideology it is probably best to avoid IB.
http://myinclinevillage.com/20...

Here is an article where Mr. Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yai, Chair of UNESCO’s executive board, said: "UNESCO'S role is to think global governance.  That is why the Organization was founded."
http://www.infowars.com/unesco...

Here is a link to more articles and a video on the IB/global governance connection,
http://myinclinevillage.com/20...

IB organisation does not go out of their way to say IB is an NGO of UNESCO; in fact, some IB proponents will attempt to deny this fact. 

So the IB is about as 'political' as it could be: conditioning and training the future leaders and personnel to function within the UN's Fabian objective of establishing themselves as the world government.

Nigel Farage and Ron Paul are but symptoms of the failed statist political process

Don't you just love Nigel Farage.  He stands up there and just rips it all to bits.  Its all so true and all so darn well needs to be said.  And our Nigel does it with such aplomb, such wit, so much feisty sardonic rhetoric.

UKIP is so Faragetastic that it is easy to forget this is still a one trick phoney, like all the other political parties but with just one big funny trick instead of a plethora of insipid little ones.

UKIP does not answer the question of how things should be, it just shouts about how one specific element clearly should not be.  That may just help save this one battle but it will not win the war.  It does not breakdown how the hell we have a political system that is so disgustingly out of the people's control that we can have our our nation dissolved and keep bombing the hell out of others with impunity.

UKIP does not question the whole series of events that  commenced on 9/11.  It does not question why banks have the means of production of money that should just profit the people's state apparatus.It does not question the flow towards the global unification of the old nation states, new order and old order, or question the motivations that lay behind this unrelenting force of which the EU is no more than a part.

And when I did take the trouble to thoroughly read a UKIP manifesto (instead of just enjoying videos of Farage's political stand-up rants) I realised that UKIP is mad enough to call for the death penalty to be reinstated and that put the mockers on the job for me right there and then.  Big error; but worse: this shows UKIP's true colours.

I have lost all confidence in the concept of a state controlled political system.  It is a farce.  It is an illusion.  It is a pat to the deluded.

We will either all end-up in a global super-state, perhaps in a generation or two, or the whole sham will collapse before it can be built, as if a film-set, all about us.

If it collapses perhaps people will (hopefully) have long enough memories to realise that belief in the institution of an idea called 'the state' is as muddle-headed as belief in any one of the many omnipotent supernatural beings is now broadly understood to be.

If the global super state is assembled I fear it will remain for a very long time; tyrannical control of the human herd being fundamental to its precept.

The Illusion Of Hate - Ivan Waters 19 Oct 2011.

When we see great tragedy in the world, we see war, we see hunger, we see destruction of our biosphere, and we say to ourselves, “People are really just terrible, aren't they? We are killing this planet and we are killing each other, we are going to destroy ourselves one day.”

Whether we all feel deeply that this is true or not, (I have certainly heard the suggestion tabled in a wide variety of forums over the years) this notion however, is part of an illusion.

Strangely enough, you could travel the world over and over in your lifetime and never stop meeting compassionate, calm, loving people. They are literally everywhere – people with respect, dignity and intelligence. Not all of us get it right all the time, but instinctively we help, or are helped, by others in our time of need.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that there are no people who wish to hurt others, either by crime or control or violence, who live in our streets, in our cities, maybe in our homes. A very few behave like this because they like it and don’t see it as wrong. The greater majority does so because they are desperate, alone, ill, lost, lonely and left on the exterior of a world they do not understand or wish to join. Are these then the people who shall be our ruin? The multitudes of good? Or the wounded? Are they the cause for this inevitable self-annihilation? Are they the source of this magical evil and wrong doing? I would suggest they are not.

It is clear now, due in part to the increased availability of information, that there is a very real and separate history that occurred apart from the one that we have been taught. And an intricate and deliberate plan to control and suppress humanity as a whole, uncovered. We know now that the wars we and our families fought, the depressions, the millions of dead around the world, the constant state of animosity we are kept in with our fellow man; the bad food or the no food, this is a direct result of a few families, with beds made long ago, squabbling over control of wealth and power and us, who they control absolutely through money. This betrayal strikes deep at the human heart because it means the way of honour we have been shown, that which allows us to feel as if we are the on the good guys’ side is suddenly and transparently devoid of any real honour, and the sacrifices made by our brave and dutiful are a glory only to our enslavement.

Previously shrouded in mystery, these people have been demystified, only recently called the illuminati or such other things, we now know some of them by name and it has become impossible for the instigators of this lie, to conceal it any longer. The unveiling of this deep-rooted and potent façade adds up to nothing short of a global human awakening, in a very real, cosmic sense.

Many, people throughout history have been aware of this illusion, some may have just glimpsed it, but thought it too fantastic a lie to be true; Some may have seen it more clearly than others, or seek the poets and minstrels, philosophers and painters. It’s all there! The fact is that we share the legacy of an ancient device of control that we are growing out of.

We know that money, banks, armies and religions with churches are the tools of this device. The battle for the upper hand on the stick of this mechanism has become increasingly complex and more and more destructive. The resources needed to power it are getting harder to come by and the cost of sustaining it is weighing heavily on this planet. Cracks are starting to form in the façade, and as the impossibility of keeping it intact grows, so to the number of people who see the deception will grow. This is happening now, we can all feel it; in fact it needs no real description, but more and more of us are starting to stare aghast at the trickery and illusion, and at how starkly different life could be, once we can begin to see again.

No longer is it the eccentric or the mad or the mystic talking of secret societies and conspiracy theories. Today, in middle America somewhere, two guys, neighbours, are sweeping the front drive together, scratching their heads saying, “You know Bob, I think the government did that 9/11 job. And they didn’t really even try to hide it that well, and if they’re doing that, then – hang on a minute – what else is going on around here?”

This is the start of a journey to discovering not only what has been done in our name, but to questioning what we will do now. To imagining what we could do on our own, free from this framework’s purpose to subdue and extract.

In North Africa, the Middle East – all over the world, there are people facing a separate lie, but the same one. There are different circumstances and different standards to achieve everywhere, but It has become clear that an overall reform of how we treat each other is necessary. It has also become clear that the first point on that agenda has got to be to end the cycle of violence and destruction and abuse which is created by allowing those who control all the wealth to control the government. This has been said many times before in history and may sound trite, but circumstances are allowing this idea to resonate on a never-before seen scale. At this point there is a calm urgency for it to take place. We will need courage and compassion as our guides for the coming transition. We are not going to kill ourselves or destroy the world, because we are the 99%.

Ivan Waters
19 Oct 2011.

Mirrors and Smoke: DSK reflections and a gentle roasting

The mirror is the story that DSK raped a chamber maid; a mirror because his sexual habits are clearly his known, predisposed, weakness. (No doubt all those in such positions of power have dark secrets, known before their appointments, which then can be used to control and ruin them should they start to trample upon the labyrinth).

The smoke is, once the likelihood of a set-up looked probable, a diversion must be presented for why. Certainly Sarkozy would be happy to kiss DSK adieu and even help to put him down for reasons of his own political motivation. But it goes deeper than that. After all the French knows well that Sarkozy is more pro-Americal than the Statue of Liberty.

DSK did not ‘forget’ his phone. He left his phone because he was told intelligence services were planning to arrest him and were tracking him via this phone. He subsequently called the hotel from the aircraft to ask for the phone to be sent-on and was so then found and arrested.

DSK’s sins may be many but that for which he is paying the price is more likely to do with the threat to the hegemony of US dollar he posed than spoiling Sarkozy’s election prospects.

DSK was a strong advocate of launching an IMF issued Special Drawing Rights (SDR) based currency to replace the US Dollar as the primary global means of exchange. And DSK was highly critical of US economic policy and deeply questions of the resilience behind the Dollar; especially demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve and questioning if indeed any gold actually remains in Fort Knox.

The globalist’s agenda may well include the formation of a single world currency but that does not mean that those who are enjoying the control of the US Dollar are ready for that yet or were sufficiently in control of a new global SDR based currency to be prepared to yield to that just yet.

Conjecture?  Yes.  But then so is the alleged assault and so is the notion this was politicly motivate by French national political adversaries.  So take the pieces and decide for yourself which way do they look to fit together best?

Speech David Cameron, May 2009 - Fixing Broken Politics - As in Fixing: To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means

Speech
Rt Hon David Cameron, Tuesday, May 26 2009

* Fixing Broken Politics *

THE EU AND THE HRA

But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen
Parliament or hold government to account...

...there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely
unaccountable to the people of Britain.

People and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily
lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.

Almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from
the EU.

And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly
making our laws.

The EU and the judges - neither of them accountable to British citizens
- have taken too much power over issues that are contested aspects of
public policy...

...and which should therefore be settled in the realm of democratic
politics.

It's no wonder people feel so disillusioned with politics and Parliament
when they see so many big decisions that affect their lives being made
somewhere else.

So a progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from
the EU to Britain and from judges to the people.

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law
requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the
EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed
scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

http://conservative-speeches.sayit.mysociety.org/speech/601355

Why is there a Northern Ireland

Why did the UK not just let go of the north of Ireland at the establishment of the Republic. Do we really think they did so to spare the loyalists - or did the loyalists exist as protagonists for the very reason separating of Ireland; by preventing Catholicism engulfing the country and then by precluding separatist nationalism.

It is one thing for the English to divide Ireland for ideology or even for whatever tithe it could yield but it is another to prevent the whole nation's economic emergence in competition with Britain. Yet another is about defence.

Northern Ireland contained the heavy industry, specifically shipbuilding: the economic powerhouse. NI contained the deep sea ports that faced Britain and could blockade Liverpool's shipping lanes. Northern Ireland could not be allowed to fall from control. We did not want a Russian port in Belfast.

The endless dispute, and enraging violence that festered, allowed Britain to refuse independence on the grounds of never capitulating to terrorism. It suited the objective well. Conversely, for those who truly desired a united Ireland, the violence prohibited any peaceful process that could have achieved independence in less than ten or twenty years of simple but tireless campaigning.

For those who did not comprehend the true nature of 'the troubles', the snake-oil Blair (spit) had on offer was:
(a) for the republicans: the end of British involvement with Northern Ireland, for ever
(b) for the loyalists: independence from the UK but anonymity and separation from the south.

To understand how this will to occur is to understand how the regionalisation of the UK is to take place as it is progressively absorbed into the EU.

Scotland and Wales are separate regions and will deal directly with the EU (hence the currant independence shenanigans). England will be nine independent regions with a faux national government at the outset.

The UK will exist no more. That is a level of authority the EU has absolutely no need for. National governments will eventually be replaced by individual regional assemblies but for the interim this concept will not be allowed to blip on the public's radar - too difficult to sell.

Ireland (Rep. of) is to be divided into two regions. The south had Cork and Dublin. The north looks like a jigsaw in an Oxfam shop - with a big important chunk missing. That chunk is NI. The logic is very elementary.

The Loyalists cannot cry that they want to be a part of the UK because there will not be any UK - it will be gone - just a dusty twinkle in a museum to housed in the Palace of Westminster remembering the old days of the United Kingdom and British Empire.

The Noble Cause of a Centralised World Super State

A darn good way to end the prospect of war would be end the age old paradigm of the ‘state’ altogether. People don’t wage wars, governments do – normally governments working at the beck and call of interested parties. The ‘people’ are then suckered into it.

The apparent ‘noble cause’ of working towards avoidance of the future possibility for global war continues for those acting with the authority of state. We can now all see the supposed fragility of the EU concept, economically, but the forces concerned with this construct are not stupid. They knew ever deeper political union would be essential once this path was taken; this was planned for, caused even to provide the impetus for the next step. They could see, regardless of the horrors of WWII, people would resist the end of the old paradigm of national sovereignty and so the ‘discarding of the old and formation of the new’ could not be spelt-out publicly.

The idea that war can be avoided by political union, first regionally then globally, is the greatest of the reasoning provided by the force behind both the EU and the broader drive towards an ultimate global political union the same.

And the supposed advantages are not just to end war. Through the scientific management of every aspect of human endeavour, from education, health, population control, terrorism, energy, pollution to all that of concern to a state, the root of authority will be centralised for apparent greater efficiencies and parities.

I have no doubt there are many who see this goal of world union as desirable for the future of humanity. I also have no doubt that this pup has been broadly sold for at least the last 100 years by not only the hapless well intended but also those entities who have fostered and seek to use this movement to ever consolidate their global interests regardless of any supposed general benefit to mankind.

As long as there have been states, tribal leaders, imperial monarchs and all, there have been the very few winners and the many of the rest. Why on earth would this forthcoming super state, the greatest and most controlling in all history, be any better than any of those that have gone before.

And who is to say that a global state would not wage war. They would say “but who would a one world government wage war against”. The obvious answer is: that war would be against all the people.

First a war to form and control the people by means ranging from education and propaganda to maybe genetic determination of breading stock to ensure a compliant general population type.

Secondly to suppress resistance of any sort to any dictate; from the operation of a police state to the mass extermination of the of non-compliant.

Or we could do away with the idea of a state altogether.

United States of Europe - 1959 statement to the US press

Three European Community Presidents

June 11, 1959

Paul Finet, President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community
Walter Hallstein, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community

National Press Club
Washington DC


PRESIDENT HIRSCH - within his opening statement
... the common market cannot work if there is not a common social policy, if there is not a common monetary policy, and nobody can think of a common monetary policy if it is not calmed by a common political policy. So we feel we are now in a process which with all the difficulties which we will find on our road will lead - nobody can say in how long - but will lead inevitably to the calming of this edifice that is the United States of Europe.

Within questions

QUESTION: These questions are directed to Dr Hallstein. Here is a short sweet one. How long will it be before there is a United States of Europe?

PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: That really is the $64 question, gentlemen.
There will be a United States of Europe, but it's certainly premature to say when and what exactly its structure will be.

QUESTION: Having achieved the United States of Europe they want to know when your going to start taking in Britain and the Scandinavian countries? When will Britain and the Scandinavian countries join the European communities is what the question really is.

PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: It's not only up to the community to decide this. The point we are always making is, that the fact that we have only six member states, it's not due to the six but it's due to those who have not joined us.

http://aei.pitt.edu/14915/1/S80.pdf

Ban Ki-moon - Globalist Puppet

"Waves of change are surging around us," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Assembly. "Now is our moment. Now is the time to create the future we want," he stated.

Who are these people who decide whatever is the future they want is one they have the right to impose on all.

Who are they - did we vote for them.

Do we know how to even make representations to them.

Do we know for sure who's interests they forward under the cloak of their faux liberal mandate.

Do we know anything about them?

Transnational Corporalisation

There may well be those, ideologically lead perhaps, who believe globalisation and a corporatised world governance utilising 'scientific control' is the best, or perhaps only, solution for mankind; they are drawn to this conclusion through a variety of means. Those who recognise, and act against, the falsehood of this Machiavellian momentum to global union are doomed to be sidelined, ridiculed, ignored or eradicated.

This 'business plan' is an inextricable self-perpetuating monster, the head of which is so obstructed from view it is hard to resoundingly identify with certainty; the elites have patsies, their patsies have their patsies too. But those we take to be the elites may themselves just be patsies, permitted to act in relatively plain view, acting for and on behalf of behalf a entirely concealed ruling oligarchy.

Whichever way it is the goal cares not one jot for humanity; humanity is just the livestock. The nations are just the tax-farms; a system designed just to optimise the yield from the tax-slave herd. The problem is 'rogue' nations. Nations who base their currencies in gold. Nations that have sovereign central banks. Nations who oppose the ambitions of the global corporations, the elites and their prospective master. 

Humanity can be allowed suffer. To the motives of this monster it matters not. Only suffering which causes resistance to their ambitions will be moderated. The in excess of one million innocent civilians of Iraq who, according to the well founded Lancet report, died as a result of the Bush/Blair/NeoCon illegal war against their nation understand what this means. But their voice will not be heard. They will not be recognised in the propaganda system we can broadly identify as 'mainstream media'. 

Why should the Iraqis count any less than the people of (so called) western democracies. They do not. We are spared only so long as our governments keep moving in the prescribed direction. All resistance and threat, one way or another, ends-up 'dead in the woods'.

And whilst this system is allowed to progress its Fabian agenda it is only to become more dangerous, more oppressive more controlling. It will progress until we are all under the cosh and till we do not understand or recognise what has become of Humanity.