- After my brief seven month training stint then considered
as "active duty," I spent the next several years sweating deployment
to Vietnam. The draft saved my "NG-weekend warrior" butt. I
once voiced the alternative interpretation of "NG" [no-good]
to the late COL. David Hackworth for whom I had written some commentary,
and he, pardon the military jargon, jumped all over my ass. Today, the
National Guard and the Reserves are the very core of America's defenses.
-
- When I came back from active, my rock band was still
playing the shot-and-beer circuit. They were also seriously botching things
up with my replacement lead guitar player. Unlike me, the guy could read
music he just couldn't feel it. I was sure that the number one hit
back in 1965 from the "Stones" employed a sax, but it was called
back then a "fuzz box," or simply a "fuzz tone." You
plugged your ax into this Les Paul gadget, and you got that distorted,
smokin' lead sound. The first time I learned to use it, well, we blew
the place up. Even the cops took notice, and screamed at us to cease and
desist. Man, I'll never forget that gig! And yeah, I DID get satisfaction!
-
- The more oppressive government becomes, the more this
signifies its paranoia and desperation. The American people are indeed
extremely ignorant, made so by the dedicated mission of its school system
and mass media. By now, anyone who doesn't realize that our government
and our mass media are one and the same is either intellectually seriously
compromised or just a fool. Regrettably, such individuals comprise, in
all likelihood, the majority in America today. But such was the case as
well during the period of time just preceding our armed rebellion against
England and King George III.
-
- Ignorance is curable, and it would be an advantage knowing
not only the growing number of people relying upon the Internet for their
news and information, but knowing as well how many of those advantaged
individuals are switching to really informative websites devoid of political
party overtones and bias. I admit to starting off my daily inquiry as
regards news and information with the Drudge Report. I know it is politically
biased and that Drudge leans to GOP right wing fascism, as does another
well-known site that shall remain nameless. The latter was so fraught
with GOP bias and pro-Israel/pro-Zionist Christian Fundamentalism that
my continued reliance upon it conjured up within me what I felt as cognitive
suffocation. I use Drudge only as a light overview of events, in spite
of the fact that it panders to non-news such as Paris Hilton and that other
ditz that shaves her head.
-
- Reliance upon Internet news sources that make clear their
progressive left-wing views or their right wing interpretations of events
precludes vital recognition, evaluation, and predictive impacts and nuances
relative to such events. But they do provide a political perspective,
restrictive as that may be, that offers a choice that is no longer available
in the mass media. The American mass media promotes current events with
only one standardized and accepted view, and that view is precisely the
same as that of our government's rulers and controllers. And just as the
mass media in America has been centralized to a number of incredibly wealthy
individuals, a number less than the fingers of one hand, our centralized
and tightly knit government is probably controlled by roughly the same
number. "Separation of powers" and "three branches of government"
are myths.
-
- These myths have been introduced and have been inculcated
by the government school system as historical "fact" and continuously
reinforced psychologically by the government-mass media complex. And the
Constitution itself is a pure, unadulterated fraud and a dismal failure.
Proof? Just look and see what is happening around the world and in our
own country today. Do we really have freedom of speech and thought? Do
we still enjoy trial by jury, or the right to be safe and secure in our
homes? Do we have the right to consult with a lawyer if we are charged
with a crime? Can the government put US in jail if they want to, even
without any charges? If so, then what is to prevent the politicians in
high levels of government from jailing members of the political opposition?
And where is the political opposition? Does Congress declare war? How
can ignorant fools in our society miss freedoms they never knew they had
in the first place?
-
- A little background in real American history as a starting
point would be extremely helpful. Kingpins of our "American Revolution,"
the "Founding Brothers" as Professor Joseph Ellis would call
them, didn't immediately and beneficently determine that "all men
are created equal." This only struck them after King George III didn't
give them UNEQUAL advantage. Washington was desirous of receiving
huge land grants from the king for having served the British so admirably
as a militia colonel during the French and Indian War. And Benjamin Franklin
started an organization, a "trust" if you will, to also acquire
favorable land deals from the king for himself and his associates. And
Jefferson sought the same real estate advantages. But both Washington
and Jefferson also had slaves.
-
- It wasn't until these eventual power brokers realized
that by having come to the "colonies" that they were completely
outside the political circles that had King George's ear. And it was the
members of the monarch's inner circle for whom all political favors were
reserved. It is my suggestion that this was the precursor to the sequence
of events which were mislabeled as both the causes and justification for
armed rebellion, none the least of which was Benjamin Franklin's effrontery
in printing paper colonial money. Meyer Rothschild, in spite of not being
allowed membership in Parliament at the time, was a rapidly rising star
of international finance, and probably influenced Parliament to quash American
colonial money insisting on the use only of the Bank of England's British
pound. Rothschild also profited directly by financing the Hessians for
Britain during our Revolution.
-
- Fast-forward to 1913, and Paul Warburg, a German banker
and Rothschild associate, wrote our Federal Reserve Act, which was followed
by the Income Tax. These two money-creating and money-taking financing
methods facilitated our participation in World War I, the latter conflict
engineered by the very same bankers to create American indebtedness to
them. Needless to say, this debt and its interest payments continue until
this day. And it was these same bankers who financed the Japanese in their
war with Russia in 1905 to bring down the Christian monarchy of Czar Nicholas
II, and later financed the Bolshevik Revolution that launched and legitimized
communism. And now it appears that the infamous Balfour Declaration originated
in Washington DC as well! For the latter revelation, see Taki's Top Drawer,
"The Death of American Empire" by Patrick Foy, posted June 12th.
[Third paragraph from the bottom.]
-
- http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_death_of_american_empire/
-
- But before Rothschild war-funding schemes were in place
on American soil, our then-elite assembled a ragtag joke of a military,
a band of poltroons and buffoons comprised of town drunks, beggars, tramps,
thieves and a sizeable number of farm boys and runaways that were impressive
only by their reasonable early numbers. Desertions and cowardice were
commonplace. Militia and regulars, especially the former, commonly dropped
their rifles and muskets and ran from battle when pitted against the highly
trained, highly disciplined and well-outfitted British Army. Incredibly,
however, and with the outstanding and absolutely vital help of both the
French Army AND the French fleet [someone please inform Bill O'Reilly]
without whose support we couldn't possibly have prevailed, we won the Battle
of Yorktown and signed the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution
and gaining our freedom.
-
- The Declaration of Independence was signed and established
after the war had already started. It articulates the God-given rights
of human beings, deftly avoiding a discussion of the third right of "property"
in order to avoid the inconvenient reality of slavery. So even in that
most noble and religious document vital to our founding as a nation, a
political concession and expediency was required. But returning to the
original Lockean concepts of "life, liberty and property," the
nobility of this initiating document of our national origin obtains from
the fact that an attempt was made to understand the human purpose. Naysayers
and hostile critics [feminists and media denigrating the "dead white
guys"] falsely malign efforts establishing American independence because
it relies upon and makes reference to a "Creator." And the mention
of "God" is, of course, a no-no in today's context of communist-enforced
"political correctness."
-
- George Washington, especially during his role as leader
of the Continental Army, was deeply offended as well as absolutely furious
with the Continental Congress for their delays in funding the war effort
and for allowing the never-ending funding shortages. He was also infuriated
by the individual colonies' weak response in providing fighting men and
militias for the Revolution. This manifested itself later in his career
by transitioning his once primary political philosophy of individual freedom
and independence and replacing it with a philosophy calling for a strong
centralized federal government run by a strong centralized Congress. This
was the underlying basis for the Founding principle identified as "federalism."
-
- Federalism was a product of a war initiated as the height
of absurdity, let alone the absurdity in the outrageous and totally impossible
expectation that the thirteen colony-states could actually win. As stated
before, without the French and the astonishing luck of Washington's Delaware
crossing and the subsequent savage routing of the Hessians at Trenton,
the war could have been very easily lost. And military funding was not
the least of Washington and the American Revolution's problems. Varying
degrees of loyalty on the part of the original thirteen states, and along
with their scant contributions of money and militias, was indeed another.
Also, there is always the latent contentiousness inherent in a large body
of individuals causing disagreement and the resultant nullifying and/or
ineffectual outcomes redolent of compromise.
-
- The heavy dependence on funding during military conflict
wasn't lost on Rothschild and his sons that eventually morphed into the
internationally powerful House of Rothschild military-banking complex.
The bankers eventually participated directly in initiating wars and international
conflicts through their total control of the world's media, and almost
always financed both sides. Debt repayment and its interest, paid to the
bankers and insured by the personal income tax imposed by the governments
whose chief lifeblood and source of power is war, was the primary international
objective of the bankers.
-
- If war is the lifeblood of the state, and the state and
its wars are the source of wealth and power to the international bankers,
then why would the international bankers be so vigorously and aggressively
supportive of the elimination of the concept of state sovereignty? Said
another way, why would the international bankers and their publicly visible
organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Council
on Foreign Relations, IMF, World Bank, etc., and all under the control
of Rothschild-Rockefeller, want to eliminate competing national sovereignties?
Why would they wish to eliminate the source of their wealth and power?
-
- The answer is both straightforward and simple. But before
we consider it, ask yourself: what would it take to make me feel really
economically comfortable and "set" for life? How much wealth
would you need to feel you are truly independent and also extremely powerful?
And why would you even need power if you had wealth? So what would it
take? A million bucks? Two million? Ten million? Maybe a billion?
How about a trillion?!
-
- Guess what?! The international bankers have all this
wealth, jointly, severally and individually! And it is the many individual
national sovereignties, all the world's nation-states, that provide this
wealth and power. Independent nation-states and their governments have
demonstrated all throughout history THAT THEY JUST CANNOT GET ALONG WITH
ONE ANOTHER! And that is both fact and truth. Perhaps we might just try
to find out why this is. But the larger question looms: why would the
international bankers want to give up all their wealth and power when financing
both sides of international wars and conflict has always been so profitable?
-
- Let's be concise; the bankers may have horrific criminal
intentions, even if not defined as such by any national or international
laws, in assisting in or initiating directly the pretexts for nation-state
wars. Wars allow them to enrich themselves thereby increasing their global
power. They may be criminal, but they certainly aren't stupid. They could
not have acquired their staggering, phenomenal and immeasurable wealth
by either ignorance or its self-imposed equivalent, stupidity.
-
- Ask any American what he or she believes as being the
most important role of the state, and I predict the most frequent answer
is protection from attack by the armed forces of another hostile nation.
And all throughout history, we have been taught and have therefore had
ingrained upon our psyche and our very existence the need for our state's
protective beneficence. But why cannot all nations simply come together,
realize the absolute and horrific waste of life, wealth and property caused
by wars and military incursions? Aren't wars the exact opposite of Locke
and the Founders' vision: the DESTRUCTION of life, liberty and property?
-
- Let's digress for a moment and recall the situation in
Lebanon. Israel invaded that country based upon some meaningless pretext
totally and horrifically out of proportion to their reaction in response
to that pretext. Does it really matter who kidnapped whom, or whether
they should have or should not have been classified as POWs? So what if
someone in a different uniform and from a different nation steps upon the
soil of another nation? How many such similar incursions were perpetrated
by Mexican police and military upon our soil? How many incidents in reverse?
And I understand shots were sometimes fired!
-
- Even in the event that someone was badly hurt, or for
that matter even killed, would that be sufficient reason to carpet bomb
Mexican cities with napalm, white phosphorus and blockbuster bombs? Would
it make sense to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent and unsuspecting
civilians who not only had nothing to do with the infamous pretext, but
victims who didn't even know that it happened? Think of that fabulous
and marvelous bridge the government of Italy built for Lebanon; it took
years and millions upon millions of dollars to build. Think of all that
positive human effort, destroyed in a matter of seconds by a moron following
orders in an American built fighter plane built and paid for with American
taxpayer money. And yet today, our government argues that weapons made
in Iran are being found in Iraq? Sorry, but I'm not buying that hokum.
The United States has put more weapons in the world than probably all
the other nations on Earth combined!
-
- Pretexts for war NEVER even come close to the high level
of lives and property lost in retaliation; never! The reasons for wars
are exactly the same as those for the lost art of the duel; namely, to
allow for "satisfaction" for the purportedly injured party.
And actually, that makes sense! Read it here first, and read it now: DUELS
MAKE SENSE! Wars NEVER make sense for the reasons just articulated concerning
Lebanon and Israel. Think of these pretexts: Archduke Ferdinand, Lusitania,
Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc. How many of these pretexts could easily have
been avoided, and how many have been perpetrated by the very nation-state
state claiming to be offended [false flag], and how many could simply have
been ignored? The point intended: war is a duel between the governments
of nations wherein one plays the role of offender and the other the role
of the offended. The offended nation-state demands satisfaction!
-
- In the past when dueling was a gentleman's obligation
in order to defend his honor, the offended would ask for an apology. If
the offender refused to either apologize or retract his offending statement,
the offended could demand satisfaction. The offender could, of course,
refuse, thereby branding himself both a coward and untrustworthy in his
remarks for not having the courage of his convictions. In short, he would
have neither honor nor credibility.
-
- It is for this reason that national sovereignty can indeed
be seen not only as silly, but downright dangerous. The uniformed trespasser
of one state steps on the soil of another state, which may cause absolutely
no real harm, except to the supposed "honor" of the state offended.
And defending one's honor against dishonor only so vaguely suggested is
cause for a deadly duel? But this is not a simple duel between two individuals
-- this deadly duel is called war! And innocent people who either don't
care or who are not even the least bit offended are to be mass murdered
by the horrific weapons of mass murder and destruction of the warring state?
Why?
-
- Here's another key question: Why have nation-states abolished
dueling? Please don't tell me that it is because governments view duels
as uncivilized and barbaric. Duels are uncivilized and barbaric but wars
between nations are not? The proclivity for wars on the part of sovereign
nations using, for the most part, pretexts that never justify the level
of retaliation and military action destroying life and infrastructure is
NOT the least bit civilized at all. It is uncivilized and barbaric, and
always will be! Yet war enriches and empowers the international bankers.
-
- This is not an economic dissertation, yet the economic
and financial motives of the international bankers in now pushing for the
destruction of global national sovereignties begs inquiry as to the motives
of these global elites. Why would they destroy their goose and its talent
for producing golden eggs? And therein lies the answer. The bankers are
no longer satisfied with creating wealth and power via debt. A debt saturation
point is being reached. Look at the burgeoning national debt of the United
States, accelerated all the more by Bush's endless war in Iraq. And soon,
Cheney will order a nuclear attack on Iran. The Bush-Cheney crime machine
can't wait to launch this international nuclear precedent. The result:
more debt, and a rapidly declining dollar.
-
- Money, in ANY form, has absolutely no value! Its intrinsic
value is a matter merely of economic opinion and consensus. It is the
OBTAINABLE HUMAN VALUE that a medium of exchange accepted as legal tender
commands based upon universal agreement and cooperation. If the world
economy agrees that the precious metal gold is legal tender, and is universally
accepted, then gold can be used anywhere on the globe to facilitate trade.
Goods and services can be exchanged for the agreed-upon value of the gold
at an agreed upon price for the value of the goods and services traded.
Goods and services represent real value. Gold represents real value because
it is SUPPORTED by agreement to be a standard medium of exchange. And
due to gold's rarity, and the demand for it in excess of production and
availability, the fluctuation of values is more on the market side as opposed
to the money side.
-
- War produces a horrific destruction of human lives, lives
needed to produce goods and services. War creates a horrific destruction
of needed goods, services and infrastructure. What is one to do with a
tank or howitzer artillery round costing $30,000 to $50,000? What can
one do with an Abrams M1A1 tank? An F-18? Who needs them? Only the warring
governments of the world's nation-states and their financing international
bankers. And who's on the hook for having "loaned" governments
all the "money" needed to fund the Hessians, the Germans, the
British, the United States, and all those sovereignties endlessly demanding
satisfaction?
-
- The international banksters and gangsters are rapidly
depleting the "value" of the money they have so egregiously tainted
and stained with the blood of millions through their debt and misery-based
money systems and loans. They have devalued money with their one bloodstained
hand, and are now reaching for real value with their slimy, sticky other
one. Debt must now be converted to real value, by calling it in and taking
the private property, real estate and wealth of the world's citizens, all
on the hook via the connivance of the bankers, their lawyers, their bought-and-paid
for politicians, their presidents and congroids. Sovereign states are
no longer needed. And that's why they're pushing for global warming, the
global bankruptcies of nations, the poisoning of food and drugs, and other
global calamities that can all be solved just one way: the New World Order!
-
- It is this last measure of satisfaction the bankers seek
that we must endeavor to deprive them of with all our might, heart and
very soul!
-
- © THEODORE E. LANG 6/17/07 All rights reserved
-
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
|
