Take Jewish Hollywood -- compare old 1930's Errol Flynn in movies like Captain Blood with Jonny Depp in the latest Pirates of the Carribbean. Aside from the fact that Depp walks like a woman (my daughter's comment) his primary characteristic is that he models a total lack of initiative. Compare "Davy Crockett" of the real Walt Disney (a very populist mid-westerner small-town values guy) with the dumb-down trash of the Nu Disney corporation. Compare Clayton Moore as the Lone Ranger in the old TV show -- a very political program about individual initiative in protecting peoples freedoms -- shows had important social messages showing bad mean stealing or shutting down the printing press of a town for example and the Lone Ranger getting freedom back for them -- compare Kemosabe and Tonto with anything on TV today. You will note that in all action movies the heroes merely react to fantastically ambitious and assertive evil when evil makes its move. (And the bad guys always move with such terrific force that everyone realizes that it is by shearest luck and impossible martial arts skills of the hero that he wins. Gone is the hero. Gone is the fellow citizen who can initiate anything. Gone is the ordinary man who becomes a hero by what he stands up against -- not with kung foo fighting, but with his mind serving his heart for what is right and just and best for people. Instead we have magic and fanstasy and gore and sociopathic mass killing to which we are all desensitized -- and make no mistake, research shows such films make people docile and numb and incapable of thinking clearly beyond terror -- fear and despair is what you walk away with.
There are a million ways to drain a people of initiative -- massive debt, drugs, pornography, monopoly talk radio, food additives, anti-social opinion censoring negative and PC-conformed newspapers, entertainment based on horror, gore, despair, zombies, deviant sex, super large scale disasters, serial killers, endless organised crime, anti-heroes -- broken by the occasion hero movie centering on the holocaust -- for the only event we see movie after movie -- always at least two or three on the shelves at Blockbuster -- are movies about the Holocaust. All preoccupied with death. No one every starts a business on TV. No one every gets neighbors together to fight something -- however there were some documentaries on Wal Mart and Corporations that have been good -- but they are not major Hollywood productions -- there was one Wal Mart documentary in Blockbuster in Yakima, -- unfortunately it has not stopped Wal Mart from building a second store here -- two blocks from my house, and the corporation has done every trick against our city that is shown in the film.
It's easy to be an internet activist. Internet activism is addictive just like internet pornography or video games. But it has zero effect -- because the enemies are masters of reality while you are master only of cyber autistic talking in your sleep.
We need torch parades -- instead we are wearing ourselves out arguing with professional dis-organizers, professional disrupters, professional hecklers, professional discouragers, professional confusers.
What is needed is a George Washington.
What did George Washington write?
What did George Washington say that was famous?
What grand concept of freedom did George Washington promulgate?
Then what good was George Washington?
George Washington was the initiative that transfomed the subject colonies into a free nation -- he fought, he led, he personally confronted, he did not give up on his purpose (maybe because he knew that death awaited him if he should lose -- but what is wrong with that? -- isn't that exactly the position that the committed must put themselves in (burning their bridges behind them) in order to engage the enemy and stay engaged and stay committed to the final outcome.
That is why we honor him above Jefferson, Paine and Madison who framed our political ideals -- Washington was the man whose initiative attained what we were able to attain of them. We honor his not as a "hero" in the sense of a man who does impossible things that no one else would dream of attempting -- but as a model of action and persistence in action in the face of hardship and unfavorable odds for ourselves to emulate.
Initiative to go against people -- against the (false) public opinion shaped by the media monopolists -- against the opinions of your neighbors who you know are filled with lies (you have to go against them in order to save them).
It's easy to be a hero on the internet. Internet activism -- video games -- its all the same -- until you take what you have learned and start inviting people to your house to show them the evidence on your computer - until you get people to pool together and rent a building and put out some advertizing and get hold of some powerpoint projectors etc.
Five years ago I wanted to get in front of people and show them the evidence about the Pentagon attack that the media has kept from them - wanted to give the entire story of the 9-11 event, who did it and what they are obtaining from it.
But when no one invited me to speak and no one gave me space on website to lay out all of the Pentagon evidence -- what did I do? -- I kept arguing with hecklers day in and day out -- like an autistic kid spinning bottle lids
You are not used to talking to people. You lack polish -- because of the time on the computer you have lost the ability to be sociable face to face, much less to take the initiative and state what has happened and what must be done and to bring people into groups that are ready to learn the evidence that makes the case, to learn what is at stake -- what it means if we lose and what it can mean if we really win -- to come together to come against controlled opinion in their town -- to picket newspapers and television and radio stations -- to be on intersections with big pieces of construction paper with words written big and clear with extra large felt markers -- and a sheaf of papers to hand out with URLs where people can learn more etc. -- followed my meetings, followed my meetings with pre-meeting marches and leaflet distributions etc.
It should have happened five years ago.
Instead we had "conferences" with Ruppert Murdoch and Nico Haput -- that focused on contributions to Ruppert Murdoch and sold deception dollars for Carol Brouillet -- even as Murdoch and Haput worked as gate keepers -- while they built organizations that had the goal of absorbing donations and hope -- even as they acted as gatekeepers -- not only gatekeepers of those who know the best evidence to convince people -- but as gatekeepers against people with the right stuff in terms of initiative.
If you are young and getting into 9-11 -- look for the best evidence -- make your own case as if you yourself are the lawyer who is going to conduct the prosecution before the grand jury -- and then go out and prosecute in real-world public and prosecute person-to-person before the jury of public opinion -- and take the radio mouthpieces Hannity, Savage (a.k.a. Weiner), Ingram, Limbaugh and prove them to be the gatekeeping liar mouthpieces they are -- 9-11 was a false-flag attack, only one network of power is sufficient to pull of such a deception -- the people who controlled the pentagon and the media and the white house and the financial and defense-industry institutions and the intelligence agencies (which also "stood down") that were responsible -- and then ask -- if they did this to us, what else have they done to us? what else are they doing to us no? what do they plan to do to us in the future.?
Yes, this is lousy essay -- I can't believe I mentioned Johnny Depp -- but the message is true -- initiative of the kind I am talking about is really our only hope
Not my initiative -- YOURS -- not your initiative to pass this on -- more autistic bottle-cap spinning -- but to turn off the monitor and go out and form your own anti-conspiracy cell -- your own anti-conspiracy movment that you watch over like a hawk to keep from being infiltrated or bribed or otherwise sabotaged. Go out. There will be those who have been waiting for you (for your initiative) to appear so they could get behind it. (There are also those waiting to fight you with a thousand tricks -- just like on the internet). If people want to bring Fetzer to speak -- you know they are infiltrators. If they want Dr. Griffin or Dr. Jones you know they are real. If they speak of ray-guns or holograms -- it is up to you to throw them out on their ass. Zero tolerance for sabotage. That is also what initiative is about.
My how I ramble.
My plan is to write a letter to the editor of the local paper -- saying as much as I can without being censored again -- and see who contacts me -- then go out for coffee and plan a little counter-treason.
Sociologist Max Weber on "Jewish Adventure Capitalism:"
"To the English Puritans, the Jews of their time were representatives
of that type of capitalism which was involved in war, Government
contracts, State monopolies, speculative promotions, and the
construction of financial projects of princes, which the Puritans
condemned. In fact the difference may, in general, with the
necessary qualifications be formulated: that the Jewish capitalism
was speculative pariah-capitalism, while the Puritan was bourgeois
orgranisation of labour."
-- Max Weber, The Protsttant Ethic and the Spritit of Capitalism n. 58, chap.V
"The idea that success reveals the blessing of God is of course not
unknown to Judaism. But the fundamental difference in religious
and ethical significance which it took on for Judaism on account of
the double ethic prevented the appearance of similar results at just
the most important point. Acts towards the stranger were allowed
which were forbidden toward a fellow Jew."
John Hobson, Imperialism
C H Douglas: The Causes of War
Perhaps the first necessity, if we wish to arrive at the truth of this matter, is to be clear on what we mean by "war". The technical definition of war is "any action taken to impose your will upon an enemy, or to prevent him from imposing his will upon you". It will be recognised at once that this definition of war makes the motive rather than the method the important matter to consider. More energy is devoted at the present time to the endeavour to modify the methods of war than to removing the motive for war. If we recognise this, we shall be in a better position to realise that we are never at peace - that only the form of war changes.
Military wars are waged by nations, a statement which is the basis for the somewhat naïve and, I think, certainly erroneous idea that you would abolish war if you abolished nations. This is much like saying that you would abolish rate-paying if you abolished Urban District Councils. You do not dispose of a problem by enlarging its boundaries, and, if I am not mistaken, the seeds of war are in every village.
We can get a glimpse of the main causes of war if we consider the problems of statesmen, who are expected to guide the destinies of nations. I suppose most statesmen at the present time would agree that their primary problem is to increase employment, and to induce trade prosperity for their own nationals, and there are few of them who would not add that the shortest way to achieve this would be to capture foreign markets. Once this, the common theory of international trade, is assumed, we have set our feet upon a road whose only end is war. The use of the word "capture" indicates the desire to take away from some other country, something with which it being unable, also, to be prosperous without general employment, does not desire to part. That is endeavouring to impose your will upon an adversary, and is economic war, and economic war has always resulted in military war, and probably always will.
The so-called psychological causes of war are the response of human nature to irritations which can be traced to this cause either directly or indirectly. To say that all men will fight if sufficiently irritated seems to me to be an argument against irritating them , rather than against human nature. It is not the irritation which causes the economic war, it is the economic war which causes the irritation. Military war is an intensification of economic war, and differs only in method and not in principle. The armaments industry, for instance, provides employment and high wages to at least the same extent that it provides profits to employers, and I cannot see any difference between the culpability of the employee and that of the employer. I have no interest, direct or indirect, in the armaments industry, but I am fairly familiar with Big Business, and I do not believe that the bribery and corruption, of which we have heard so much in connection with armaments, is any worse in that trade than in any other.
So long, then, as we are prepared to agree, firstly, that the removal of industrial unemployment is the primary object of statesmanship, and, secondly, that the capture of foreign markets is the shortest path to the attainment of this objective, we have the primary economic irritant to military war always with us, and, moreover, we have it in an accelerating rate of growth, because production is expanding through the use of power machinery, and undeveloped markets are contracting. Any village which has two grocery shops, each competing for an insufficient, and decreasing, amount of business, while continually enlarging its premises, is a working demonstration of the economic causes of war - is, in fact, itself at war by economic methods.
I do not believe that it is sensible to lecture the public of any or all of the nations on either the wickedness or the horrors of war, or to ask for goodwill to abolish military war or the trade in armaments, so long as it remains true that, if one of the village grocers captures the whole of the other grocer's business, the second grocer and his employees will suffer. Or if it remains true that if one nation captures the whole of another nation's trade the population of the second nation will be unemployed, and, being unemployed, they will suffer also. It is poverty and economic insecurity which submits human nature to the greatest strain, a statement which is easily provable by comparing suicide statistics with bankruptcy statistics and business depression. Suicides are less in numbers during wars, not because people like wars, but because there is more money about. Suicides are less in number during trade booms for the same reason. To know, therefore, whether war is inevitable, we have to know whether, firstly, there is enough real wealth available to keep the whole population in comfort without the whole of the population being employed, and, secondly, if this is so, what is it that prevents this wealth from being distributed. In regard to the first question, I believe there can be no doubt as to the answer. We are all beginning to be familiar with the phrase "poverty amidst plenty", and it is generally admitted that the crisis of the past decade has been a crisis of glut and not a crisis of scarcity. Yet during that crisis, poverty has been widely extended, because unemployment has been widely extended. So that we have experimental evidence that full employment is not necessary to produce the wealth that we require - it is only necessary to the end that we may be able to distribute wages - quite a different matter. In regard to the second question, therefore, we know it is lack of money in the hands of individuals to enable them to buy the wealth which is available, and not the lack of available goods, which makes men poor. As our arrangements are at the present time, money is primarily distributed in respect of employment, which, as the glut has shown, is in many cases not necessary, or even desirable. So that it is not too much to say that the causes of war and the causes of poverty amidst plenty are the same, and they may be found in the monetary and wage system, and that broadly speaking, the cure for poverty and the beginnings of the cure for war can be found in a simple rectification of the money system. This rectification must, I think, take the form of a National Dividend, either in a simple or more complex form, so that while there is real wealth to be distributed, nobody shall lack for want of money with which to buy. It has already been shown that money is actually made by the banking system, and not by agriculture or industry. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" states the matter clearly in its article on banking in the words: "Banks lend money by creating the means of payment out of nothing."
It seems difficult to make it clear that the proposal for a National Dividend, which would enable the products of our industrial system to be bought by our own population, has nothing to do with Socialism, as that is commonly understood. The main idea of Socialism appears to be the nationalisation of productive undertakings and their administration by Government departments. Whatever merits such a proposal may have, it does not touch the difficulty we have been considering.
The provision of a National Dividend is merely to place in the hand of each one of the population, in the form of dividend-paying shares, a share of what is now known as the National Debt, without, however, confiscating that which is already in private hands, since the National Credit, is, in fact immensely greater than the portion of the National Debt which now provides incomes to individuals.
The practical effect of a National Dividend would be, firstly, to provide a secure source of income to individuals which, though it might be desirable to augment it by work, when obtainable, would, nevertheless, provide all the necessary purchasing power to maintain self-respect and health. By providing a steady demand upon our producing system, it would go a long way towards stabilising business conditions, and would assure producers of a constant home market for their goods. We already have the beginnings of such a system in our various pension schemes and unemployment insurance, but the defect for the moment of these is that they are put forward in conjunction with schemes of taxation which go a long way towards neutralising their beneficial effect. While this is inevitable under our present monetary system, it is far from being inevitable when the essentially public nature of the monetary system receives the recognition which is its due, but is not yet admitted by our bankers.
It may be asked, with reason, why the provision of a National Dividend, even if effective in removing the prime motive for aggressive war on the part of Great Britain, would so affect the motives of other nations as to prevent them from making war upon us. I think the answer to this is twofold. In the first place, I believe it to be, while the present financial system persists, merely sentimental to suppose that a weak nation, particularly if it be also a rich nation, is a factor making for peace. Quite the contrary. It is as sensible to say that a bank would never be robbed if it had paper walls.
International bankers are, almost to a man, strong advocates of national disarmament, but their bank clerks, alone among civilian employees in this country, are armed with revolvers, and the strength of bank premises compares with that of modern fortresses. Strength, unaccompanied by a motive for aggression, is a factor making for peace. A radical modification of the existing financial system will make it possible to build up a strong and united nation free from economic dissension, which would, by its strength, offer a powerful deterrent to aggressive war. And, secondly the spectacle of a contented and prosperous Britain, willing to trade but not forced by unemployment to fight for trade, would provide an irresistible object-lesson in genuine progress and would be imitated everywhere.
Why should these modifications not be made? For an answer to that question I must refer you to the Bank of England, which is all-powerful in these matters. Mr Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, which is a private company, described the relations of the Bank of England and the Treasury as those of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
It is not suggested that bankers have a wish to precipitate war. Far from it. Bankers dislike war only less than they dislike any change in a financial system with which, almost alone amongst other sections of the community, they appear to be completely satisfied.
It was while he was reorganising the work of RAF Farnborough during World War I that Douglas noticed that the weekly total costs incurred were greater than the sums paid out for wages, salaries and dividends. This seemed to contradict the theory put forth by classic Ricardian economics, that all costs are distributed simultaneously as purchasing power.
Douglas collected data from over a hundred large British businesses and found that in every case except that of companies heading for bankruptcy, the sums paid out in salaries, wages and dividends were always less than the total costs incurred each week.
He published his observations and conclusions in an article in the English Review where he suggested: "That we are living under a system of accountancy which renders the delivery of the nation's goods and services to itself a technical impossibility."
Social Credit is an economic theory and a social movement which started in the early 1920s, inspiring the Canadian social credit movement and New Zealand's Social Credit Political League. Douglas also travelled and lectured on Social Credit in Japan and Norway.