My Blog List

Thursday, December 30, 2010

The USDA-Monsanto's Partner In Crime

The PPJ Gazette

Anarchists Are Bad People?

The Daily Bell

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 – by  Staff Report

European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated ... A loosely linked movement of European anarchists who want to bring down state and financial institutions is becoming more violent and coordinated after decades out of the spotlight, and may be responding to social tensions spawned by the continent's financial crisis, security experts say. Italian police said Tuesday that letter bombs were sent to three embassies in Rome by Italian anarchists in solidarity with jailed Greek anarchists, who had asked their comrades to organize and coordinate a global "revolutionary war." – AP News

Dominant Social Theme: Anarchists arise to topple democratically elected governments.

Free-Market Analysis: The hoary anarchist meme is being trotted out again. What we can see from the above article excerpt is that a firm link is to be drawn between anarchism and violence. This has happened before. The last time anarchists appeared to savage the West was around the turn of the 20th century – when regulatory democracy was under threat previously. Reading about anarchism, generally, on such sites as Wikipedia is enough to make one's head ache. The untruths are manifest; the manipulation seems obvious. It is a sub-dominant social theme of the power elite: fear those who wish to do without government (at least as it is currently constituted). They are lawless and apt to turn violent.

In fact, anarchism merely stands for absence of government. There is no violence involved, or certainly violence is not a necessary adjunct. Really, it should be easy to define what an anarchist is: But at Wikipedia in particular, one will find a plethora of mysterious definitions. There are libertarian socialists (who may espouse anarchism) and anarcho-syndicalists. Some anarchists, we are informed, believe in peaceful change; others believe in violence.

Yet anarchy is a social environment, one that simply seeks a lifestyle without a distant and non-responsive ruling class. It has nothing to do with violence, which is a strategy not an sociopolitical philosophy. One believes in various forms of social organization: communism, socialism, anarcho-capitalism. But one does not believe (as a communal structure) in violence or peace – or jumping jacks or cartwheels for that matter.

Thus, when the mainstream press writes about anarchism. It should make clear the differences between polity and strategy. The article excerpted above by AP begins "European anarchists grow more violent." The lead should be written as follows in our view: "Some masked individuals whom we claim are 'anarchists' are apparently growing more violent."

Of course, the whole point is to smear those who would live without government or at least make a case that one could do with less. If a tight link can be drawn between anarchy and violence, then those who wish to change certain fundamental elements of modern society – including its governance – can be more easily discredited by the powers-that-be. The argument could even be made that governments are inciting or even helping to instigate such violence through false-flag events. It's happened before.

Can society exist without the current regulatory democracy model of the West? A good case can be made that the current era of Western regulatory democracy is in fact anomalous. In the past, we've pointed out that human societies tended to less bigness in the past, and were in fact organized around clans and tribes, often interlinked. Human beings tend to have the ability to recognize and relate to about 150 people at the most, and this is evidence of a long-term, evolutionary lifestyle within extended families.

Seen in this context, human behavior takes on a different look. The controlling elements of social units, even within larger living arrangements, might be seen to function at a local level. Justice could be resolved between aggrieved parties using rational common law provisions. Business and trade could be conducted between individuals and families with corporate overlays. Even international commerce could be pursued privately using gold and silver as money.

Lacking the controlling force of a coercive or invasive government, such societies (as they existed in the past) were surely organized nonetheless. However, the organizing element of such "anarchistic" societies tended to be religious in nature as people who live in clans or tribes will substitute private enculturation for official control.

In fact, human civilization provides many examples of clans and tribes living in close proximity to one another without an over-arching central government. If local authorities prove too oppressive, people can migrate to other, local regions that speak the same language and continue their lives with little interruption. As such societies coalesce, government behaviors may remain modest because of the restraint exercised during these formative years. We can see the results in the vibrant societies of Rome (with its initial seven hills) Greece and Italy (with their city states) and of course America itself (with its 13 original colonies).

The societies mentioned above tended toward a strict morality to begin with. This can be seen from the lamentations of various Roman philosophers recalling the modesty and republican virtues of men and women before Rome turned into an empire. America had its Puritans; Italy had its Renaissance. In all these cases, it was not government that provided society's structural glue but the culture itself, using the free-market tools of spirituality, private commerce and cultural traditions.

It is no surprise that as the excesses of authority become more pervasive, private solutions yield. In America, the "Shaking Quakers" – Shakers – took in thousands of orphans because the Shaker religion forbade sex. 

But once orphanages became commonplace, the Shakers diminished as a religion and eventually were extinguished. Insurance companies in the West were once more vital too, but as government expands its safety net, private solutions begin to be reduced and those that remained often attempted some sort of government merger. Private watchdog groups are also reduced as government expands its role and function.

We can see from the above points that an argument can be made that private societies are perfectly capable of providing the essential building blocks of society. But as government expands, these private solutions tend to wither away. Anarcho-libertarians may wish to revive them, but how does that make such individuals and groups violent?

It could be said that regulatory democracy itself, with its emphasis on ever-increasing authoritarianism, projects a level of incipient and overt violence that anarchism neither aspires to or retains as part of its fundamental constitution. Again, anarchy is a lack of government; but that does not mean that anarchy involves a lack of ORDER. Nor does it mean that those who believe in private solutions to public problems want to implement them by force.

Conclusion: The Internet in particular is revealing these truths to a whole new generation that has grown up with the idea that only through pervasive government can society prosper. The powers-that-be are doubtless uncomfortable with these revelations. But anarchy is not lawless. It is in fact the way humans lived for millennia. And perhaps there are elements that will be adopted as the current system degrades (as it now seems to be doing) – whether or not the elite approves.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Feed Me, Obama, Feed Me: The Plan for Food Dependency

American Thinker

By John Griffing

What does any would-be tyrant need in order to gain control over the lives of citizens?  Three things come to mind: martial law, socialized medicine, and food dependency.

In at least two of these categories, President Obama has already succeeded. 

Martial Law

By way of executive proclamation, President Obama has secured for himself the power to declare martial law in the event of a national "emergency," real or contrived, and without the accountability typically required by the Posse Comitatus Act and the National Emergencies Act of 1976. 

This is the legacy of the "conservative" Bush administration.  National emergencies have now been transformed into power-grabbing devices thanks to the virtually unnoticed National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51. 

NSPD 51 empowers the president to co-opt all state and local government authority in the event that he declares a national emergency.  This is a self-declared power not subjugated to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 as in previous directives.

President Obama quickly went beyond NSPD 51, signing an order creating a "Council of Governors" who would be put in charge of declaring martial law.  The directive is in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act.  This "Council of Governors" answers only to President Obama.

In October of last year, President Obama declared a national emergency in the midst of the much-hyped swine flu crisis.  This declaration was largely overlooked.  By combining his October declaration with the provisions of NSPD 51, President Obama can now be considered virtually uninhibited by Congress and free to flip the switch at any moment. 

Socialized Medicine

Whether or not Republicans achieve repeal, a precedent has been set.  It is unlikely that the full damage of ObamaCare can be completely undone without Republican control of the White House.  The U.S. government can now dictate the coverage and benefits of most Americans -- i.e., those on Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP, which together account for thirty percent of the population.  In addition, government can punish Americans without insurance with unconstitutional fees and fine employers who refuse to provide every single employee with premium health benefits, making economic recovery unlikely. 

In previous articles, I have explained the deadly dimension to ObamaCare as currently construed, demonstrating the serious potential for the mass destruction of human life on the basis of erroneous factors like "hospital readmission."  Who will challenge federal officials with health care at stake?  Who would seriously suggest that health care will not be used as a political weapon?  When the government has all power and no accountability, it has very little reason to use that power responsibly.  Accountability is what makes the American model work.  But accountability is removed with ObamaCare. 

The one area where elites have been so far reluctant to venture is food.  Food is the stuff of life.  Control over food would mean direct control over the political decisions of average Americans.  The elites have slipped the slope, passing legislation that will give federal bureaucrats jurisdiction over food "production" -- i.e., who produces food, what kinds of food are produced, and in what quantities.  However, this is not a debate about food regulation or food inspection.  What is taking place is in fact a coup d'état, with dinner tables as the strategic weapons. 

Food Dependency

The greatest tyrants in history have used food as a method of control.  To state the obvious, people must eat to live.  By controlling the flow of food to people who side with the political intelligentsia, rule is established.  People may challenge tyranny when they have meat on the table.  But who in their right mind would bite the hands of their benefactors (so called)?

Meet the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a new legislative proposal designed to centralize control over food stocks to protect Americans from "terror."

The motive may indeed be to protect the food supply from the actions of terrorists, but what about acts of government terror?  Can centralized control by the government protect the people against the whims of human nature?  This question is not being asked by those so in favor of surrendering control of food to an entity that cannot even manage a budget, much less an oil spill or other natural disaster.  Now we are to believe that this same inefficient, broken entity can guarantee the safety of our food?  Something stinks, and it smells like government cheese.  Usually when people ask for power, it is because they want power, regardless of the stated motive.

What good, for example, can be gained from removing the right of Americans to grow their own food, as several of the provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act do?  The Ninth Amendment arguably guarantees this and other unenumerated rights.  The Ninth Amendment reads: 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To clarify, how can the rights to life, liberty, and property enshrined in the Constitution exist without the ability of citizens to attend to bodily needs -- i.e., sustenance? 

The FSMA doesn't merely wrest control of the food supply from citizens.  Dangerously, the FSMA proceeds to transfer U.S. food sovereignty to the WTO, with one provision reading, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party."  This provision is significant, since the WTO draws all its food safety standards from the controversial Codex Alimentarius, which is thought by some to be a vast postwar scheme to control the world's population by means of food.  The bottom line vis-à-vis food is that Americans lose control, and foreign bureaucrats gain control.

Even if the alleged motive were legitimate, the FDA already inspects food imports, albeit quite poorly.  The federal government already possesses the necessary power to thwart terrorist contamination of the food supply.  This proposal, then, is not really about protecting food, but instead about controlling food -- and by extension, controlling Americans.  We must resist while the fruits of the field are still here for the picking.

President Obama is willing to shut off the water in a small town in the heart of America's agricultural center.  Might he be willing to stop shipments of food to politically opposed states?

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

UFOs and NASA: The Meme Goes On

The Daily Bell

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 – by  Staff Report

Like a bad penny that keeps showing up, UFOs have been around on a regular basis from antiquity through modern day. And as 2010 unfolded, the UFO mythology was alive and well. Famed British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, the pope's astronomer, a high-ranking Italian politician and even the late Winston Churchill (according to recently unearthed documents) helped keep UFOs in the news. And sightings of unexplained flying objects came in from all over the world. – AOL News

Dominant Social Theme: It's all true – the UFOs are coming...even the experts say so.

Free-Market Analysis: This is a good UFO article. The idea, generally, in our view, is to sow confusion and provide elite authoritarian institutions with the opportunity to further emphasize their global roles. The fear factor, as AOL itself notes (without offering a larger explanation) was provided satisfactorily in 2010 by astrophysicist Stephen Hawking of England, who warned that extraterrestrial contact might not be satisfying or awe-inspiring but terribly dangerous.

Perhaps as a result, the AOL article continues the Czech Republic created "new guidelines" for dealing with potential alien contacts. Meanwhile, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, governor of Russia's Buddhist republic, Kalmykia, went public with the news he had been subject to an alien abduction but had later becomes pals. Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno spoke of baptizing them. Italy's Mario Borghezio has lobbied the European Union to publish hitherto hidden UFO documents.

Former Air Force Capt. Robert Salas revealed in press conferences that UFOs had somehow interacted with nuclear missiles. Former Air Force Col. Charles Halt related similar stories. These reports where then buttressed by predictions that UFOs would show up in the skies of New York, which they duly did on the predicted day – though some claimed they were merely a flock of helium balloons. UFO sightings were also made that same day in Texas, Virginia and China.

Britain was not immune to UFO fever. "UFO drills" educated young pupils on how to deal with a potential UFO crash-landing. Meanwhile, the publication of certain post-World War II, hush-hush documents explain that Prime Minister Churchill was reluctant to release certain UFO files so as not to frighten the public.

The Unarius Academy of Science "reached out" to the Interplanetary Conclave of Light, "a holiday purportedly celebrated on 33 planets," according to AOL. And New Zealand officials released 2,000 pages of UFO documents going back 60 years. The UN made waves when it was reported that the powers-that-be were considering announcing an alien ambassador to coordinate earth's response to any visitation.

At the same time as the UFO meme was gathering steam, America's NASA space agency was embarked on what we saw as public relationships campaign designed to counteract the ever-swelling chorus of doubters who argue that NASA never landed men on the moon but only provided faked footage of the event. These doubters mustered an increasingly large array of arguments in 2010, everything from the impossibility of traveling through the Van Allen radiation belt to the difficulty generally of traveling 500,000 miles at a clip when the previous distance travelled amounted to nearer to 500 miles, pre-Apollo.

The Bell has written about the issue numerous times (once discovering it) because the anomalies are certainly startling. Begin with the oddness of NASA announcing it had lost the original footage of the Apollo moon landings – and then subsequently discovering it had not lost all the footage after all and releasing said footage in a digitally remastered version. Then there was the widely reported piece of petrified wood found among the "moon rocks" that spacemen had returned from the surface of the moon. NASA had no comment, nor any explanation.

There were issues raised once again about the amazing frequency of the photos taken by the astronauts – perhaps one picture every 30 seconds; and further arguments over whether the cameras themselves were capable of the feats ascribed to them. Youtube itself continues to fill up with videos purporting to analyze a variety of questionable issues regarding the moon walks, everything from false shadows to false photo angles. And as noted at the Bell, the initial press conference after the first moon landing featured Neil Armstrong surely ranks as one of the most bizarre spectacles ever committed to film.

For the Bell, the presentations of the aliens-among-us meme contrasted well with NASA's increasingly fervent rebuttals of man-on-the-moon skeptics. (Rebuttal-of-the-rebuttals now seemingly number a thousand items or more, a massive amount of point-by-point controversy for those following the debate.) While both of these issues might be considered frivolous to sober-minded people, they do tend to show how the Internet itself has changed the context of reporting on such events.

It is the Internet that allows us to put together 100 years of expanding reporting about UFOs. Much of it, as we have reported previously, seems to smack of orchestration. Could it be that the Anglo-American power elite, which uses fear-based promotions to generate increased global governance, intends to put alien contacts into the service of the New World Order?

On the flip-side, NASA's increasingly shrill insistence that the moon-landings took place is in keeping with larger government memes regarding the competence of government programs in general. Big science is heralded as the wave of the future and NASA – which apparently managed to put a man on the moon only a decade after John Kennedy enunciated the goal – is a prime example of a bureaucracy that exhibits the can-do spirit near and dear to American hearts.

Conclusion: It is perhaps ironic that the Internet has cast both these issues – NASA's moon landings and UFO contacts – in a new light. UFOs may never be scientifically proven (or not in this era); NASA's moon landings were supposed to have been science's ultimate 20th century success-story; yet in our view it is the Internet (never predicted by science fiction) that may prove to be the most profound achievement.

2011: A Brave New Dystopia

COTO Report

By Chris Hedges

The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.

Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” Orwell wrote in “1984.” “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” in his book “Democracy Incorporated” to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”

The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like “Oprah,” promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is “the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face.” We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by “continuous technological advances” that “encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.”

Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.

Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley’s pliant characters in “Brave New World.” The book’s protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:

“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?” he asks.
“I don’t know that you mean. I am free, free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”

He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We have been giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”

“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated.

The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley’s “Brave New World” to Orwell’s “1984.” The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called “near poverty,” coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.

We increasingly live in Orwell’s Oceania, not Huxley’s The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in “1984.” Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein’s image appears each day on Oceania’s television screens as part of the nation’s “Two Minutes of Hate” daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.

The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning—who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime—mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.” Manning is being held as a “maximum custody detainee” in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These “special administrative measures” are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass—African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.

“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling,” Winston Smith’s torturer tells him in “1984.” “Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”

The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.

Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message—DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI’s targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state’s official Newspeak. The agents—our Thought Police—seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.

“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?” Orwell wrote. “It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”

Monday, December 27, 2010

AIPAC: 'Thou shalt not recognize Palestine State'

Palestine Cry


Here is the latest case of the power of Israel Lobby (AIPAC). Last week the US lawmakers passed ‘unanimously’ Resolution 1765 – condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state. Incidently, the democratically elected Hamas government has not declared an ‘Islamic State of Palestine’, but Bolivia along with Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Venezuela has recognized Palestine as a “free and independent state within its pre-war (1967) geographical status”.

According to former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and intelligence adviser, Philip Giraldi PhD, Resolution 1765 was drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and sponsored by Congressman Howard Berman, currently Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. There were 53 co-sponsors.

Benji Netanyahu government is notorious in rubbing Ben Obama administration, from insulting Zionist Vice-presiden Joe Biden to telling Obama to shove-off his 20 F-35 stealth military planes and plus – in return for stopping illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank for 90 days. Obama’s top Middle East adviser, half-Jewish Dennis Ross, and certainly AIPAC and the Democratic campaign committee must be behind this new bribe or “pretty please, with a cherry on top” as MJ Rosenberg called.

“Why would the Palestinians agree to negotiations under these conditions? They can’t. Or maybe they would for $3.5 billion, which they can sure use but would never be offered. Thanks to the Anthony Weiners, Steny Hoyers, Ileana Ros-Lehtinens, Eliot Engels and Brad Shermans of the world, what we invariably offer the Palestinians is not $3.5 billion but, to use a wonderful Yiddish term, bupkes — absolutely nothing or so little as to be an insult,” says MJ Rosenberg, senior foreign policy fellow at Media Matter Actions.

“Israelis and Palestinians need an “honest broker,” but that is not the role the Obama administration has decided to play. (Check out any speech on the Middle East by Vice President Joseph Biden, who always says, over and over, that there must be “no daylight, no daylight” between US and Israeli positions. Some honest broker!)”, wrote Rosenberg.

“If Obama is Israel’s friend, he’ll tell AIPAC and its cutouts in Congress that he will do what’s right for Israel, which, not so incidentally, is what is right for the United States,” says Rosenberg. However, what’s right for the future generations of the Jews, Muslims and Christians living in the Middle East And United States, would be a single democratic State of Palestine.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Awaiting the Storm



December 17, 2010    
by Fred Reed

Flags. These are always a bad sign. Hardly a politician appears on television who doesn’t stand in front of an American flag, sometimes three American flags. A venomous nationalism now poisons the air, and grows.   We are off and rolling.

The trappings of fascism spread. General David Petraeus, commander of the Eastern Front, poses with the President in the White House in combat fatigues.  The country is now the Homeland, reminiscent of the  Nazi Fatherland and the Soviet Motherland. We hear of American Exceptionalism, the ritual self-idolizaton beloved of pathological nationalism. Blood and Soil. The American Dream. Ubermenschen. All we need is a short Austrian.

We may get one. The times ripen for a man on a horse. (Or perhaps a woman: Twitler of Alaska looms.) An ignorant population, unread, unfamiliar with the outside world, focuses its anxieties on troubling dark things lurking abroad, the brown hordes from the south, the rising Chinese, inexplicable Moslems who want to kill all Christians.  Sooner rather than later such a mob finds solace in an angry unity. From an unhappy lower middle-class spring Brown Shirts. Wait.

Things come together: Falling standards of living across a country in irremediable decline, diminishing expectations, growing anger in search of focus, a sense of a birthright being stolen as preeminence drifts across the Pacific. Here is fertile soil for some strange crop not yet clearly seen.

It will play out against a backdrop of totalitarian watchfulness all too imaginable. A digital world lends itself to tyranny, making it, I think, inescapable. For practical purposes, the capacity to store data is infinite, to network it across the world, to track, to scan, to watch. This is not the place for a disquisition on the technology of surveillance. Just note that the machinery exists for a totalitarian watchfulness beyond Stalin’s wettest dreams.

The government wants this, pushes for it daily, and gets it. You can’t spend a dollar, take a flight, or send an email without a federal federal office watching.  It  is getting worse and cannot be stopped. Surveillance is too easy.

We will be told, are being told, that to be safe we must submit, that enemies within and without are upon us, that terrorists spawn plots everywhere. Where communists once hid in every closet and the House Unamerican Activities Committee, HUAC, hunted them, now we have Islamo-terrorists hunted by Homeland Security.

What matter civil rights when the Moslem is at our throats? The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and the vigilance ends liberty.

Hysteria darkly flowers. Homeland Security now wants to train us in how to react to a nuclear attack, a la 1950. Scare’m, keep’em scared, tell them you are protecting them, and they will kiss your boots. An Australian publishes embarrassing cable traffic from American embassies, and politicians call for him to be killed by the CIA. The agency is revered as a sort of clandestine Batman and Robin, defending America secretly where evil swirls in the coming night. Kill, kill. On subways we are told to watch each other, to report curious behavior to the authorities. Nothing can stop this.

Constitutionality becomes a fading memory. Random searches in train stations, genital examinations in airports, the decline of habeas corpus, the evasion of the duty of Congress to declare wars, on and on. The government does what it wants. There is no recourse. We are told that it is to make us safe. I haven’t asked to be made safe.

The genius of American politics is to espouse democracy while keeping political power from the people. The trick is to have barely distinguishable candidates for the presidency who carefully avoid mention of substance—the wars, for example, or affirmative action, guns, abortion. These elections, if so they be, allow people to wave placards, roar invective about throwing the rascals out and returning to traditional American etc. The dust settles and things remain as they were.

Governance does not rest with the people. Today, decree replaces legislation, and must, for our safety. If Homeland Security says you must go through a CAT scan, naked, and singing the Star Spangled Banner, then you have to do it. There is no recourse. You can unelect an elected official, but there is no way to get at a bureaucrat. If you do not submit, you go to jail.
Shortly we will hear the death rattle of free expression. No government sees an advantage to itself in a free press, though countries with decent governments feel much less threatened. Our government fears nothing more.

America has a carefully controlled press that appears free because it is not explicitly controlled by the government. But the real power in America rests with the big corporations and their lobbies, with Wall Street, whose personnel move in and out of the formal government at will. All of the traditional media, radio, newspapers, and television, are owned by large corporations. How curious that they do not question large corporations.

The only free press in America is the internet, and the government does not like it. Washington now moves to “regulate” it. To promote fairness, you see, to prevent piracy, and to maintain national security. Then it will be found necessary to suppress “hate sites.” Just now you are reading a site that has been blocked on many federal installations for promoting hate. There is no recourse.

How will this play out? America retreats behind its emotional borders, gazes over the ramparts, frightened and  hostile. In those outlets of the media than pander to The Heartland, to the manipulable unlettered, the nationalist drumbeat grows apace. That America’s bankruptcy results from America’s economic policies, that the country is everywhere hated because of willfully chosen behavior—this does not occur to people who do not read, who do not so much as know the dates of World War II. They will find someone else to blame. Liberals. Mohammedans. Mexicans.

A danger is that the country will lash out abroad, ever more feebly as the economy declines, at nations that no will longer pay attention to it. Washington says that it “will not tolerate a nuclear Iran,” and Iran ignores the admonition. You cannot not tolerate what you can’t prevent. The Pentagon sends the carriers to steam ferally in circles off North Korea, which ignores them. The consequences of wounded vanity are not trivial in world affairs, as anyone knows who has a familiarity with the Treaty of Versailles. But who does?

It serves nothing to raise alarums, to pen Philippics, to gnash hands and wring teeth. Minor political currents can be diverted by protest, but this one is the torrent subsequent to a broken dam.  It will go where it will, as the Thirties went where they would.

Hold on tight.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Congress Has Effectively Outsourced Farming

Natural News
Mike Adams

The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2751 yesterday with a 216 to 144 vote (yes, many members of the House did not even vote). The so-called Food Safety Modernization Act now heads to the President to be signed into law.

When witnessing such a moment in history when the federal government greatly expands its power over an entire industry, it's important to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences. Virtually everything bad that happens after a bill gets passed is due to this Law of Unintended Consequences.

On the surface, the intention behind the food safety bill seems innocent enough: Let's all protect the food supply and prevent people from getting sick due to e.coli and salmonella exposure. But the reality of the result that emerges from the law is quite different.

Get ready for more dangerous, pesticide-ridden food from south of the border

Because the S.510 / HR 2751 food safety bill places an enormous new burden on U.S. farmers -- yes, even small farms that are supposedly "exempt" -- it's going to drive many farmers out of business.

It will also erect new barriers to farmers entering the food production business, and this is especially true for the small local farmers who grow food for local co-ops, farmers' markets and CSA organizations (Community Supported Agriculture). What we're going to see from all this, then, is the following:

• A reduction in the available SUPPLY of fresh local produce.
• A loss of local farming know-how and food sustainability.
• The financial failure of CSAs, food co-ops and small local markets.
• The loss of countless jobs that were related to local food production.
• An INCREASE in the price of local food, especially organic food.

Food safety bill does nothing to address food imports

At the same time these huge regulatory burdens are thrust upon U.S. farmers, there are no new regulations required for food grown outside the United States.

This means that food coming into the USA from Mexico, Chile, Peru or anywhere else does not have to meet S.510 food safety regulations at all. The FDA, after all, doesn't inspect greenhouses in Mexico or grape farms in Chile which export their products to the United States.

Furthermore, many dangerous chemical pesticides that have been banned in the USA are legal to use elsewhere, and foods treated with those pesticides are perfectly legal to import into the United States. So instead of buying food grown in the United States on small, organic farms, more U.S. consumers are going to be buying food grown elsewhere that's treated with extremely toxic pesticides.

Here are some of the unintended consequences of all this:

• An INCREASE in the importation of fresh produce from other countries.

• A worsening of the agricultural trade imbalance between the U.S. and other nations.

• An INCREASE in the pesticide contamination of fresh produce sold at U.S. grocery stores.

• An INCREASE in agriculture jobs in Mexico, Chile, Peru and elsewhere, even while agriculture jobs are lost in the USA.

• A DECREASE in the overall safety of the food supply because now the proportion of foods imported from foreign countries with little or no regulatory oversight will greatly expand compared to U.S. grown foods.

In effect, then, what Congress has done is impaired the competitiveness of U.S. farms, shifted farming jobs out of the country, increased the pesticide residues in fresh produce sold in U.S. grocery stores and harmed local food security and sustainability by driving small, local farmers out of business.

Such is the nature of the Law of Unintended Consequences. And such is the nature of just about everything that Big Government tries to do when it threatens to "solve problems" by expanding its regulatory control over almost any industry.

We need food security in America

What Congress fails to understand is that we need food security far more than we need more FDA regulations. The knowledge base of local farmers who know how to grow, harvest and distribute food is far more valuable to the security of our nation than preventing a relatively small number of people from getting sick from e.coli each year (even if such a trade-off were a simplistic equation, which it isn't). Because if we lose food security, then we become slaves to the big corporate food producers who are attempting to centralize food production and place food, seeds and crops under their absolute control.

A cynic might even suggest that was the whole purpose of the food safety bill in the first place: To destroy small farmers and centralize food production power in the hands of a few wealthy corporations. Whether that was the intent or not, it is certainly going to be the effect.

What Congress has done with this food safety bill, in effect, is to cripple America's food production know-how and poison the population with far more dangerous pesticide-ridden produce that will now be imported from other countries instead. This bill should have been called the "Mexico Farming Jobs Act" because it's going to shift countless jobs south of the border as farms in the USA realize they simply can't operate under the immense burden of FDA regulatory tyranny.

What's the definition of insanity?

It all makes you wonder what the members of Congress are really thinking. Don't they ever step back and attempt to consider the real-world ramifications of their actions?

Time and time again, the U.S. government seems to do the opposite of what would reasonably be required to solve problems. Think about it: When the U.S. government wanted to stop Wall Street bankers and investment firms from wasting money, it simply handed them a few trillion dollars in new money so they could waste more.

When the government wanted to end debt spending, it spent more debt money out of the foolish belief that you can somehow end your debt by going deeper into it.

When the government claimed it would reduce your health care costs and cover everyone with health insurance, it passed a sick-care law that has only seen health care costs spiraling out of control while insurers cancel policies and end coverage for many children.

And now, the government claims to be making your food safer even though the real impact of the new law will be to make your food far more dangerous while destroying U.S. farming jobs.

This is why those who really know government also know that they who govern best govern the least. Instead of trying to "fix" all the nation's problems by meddling with the actions of hard-working people trying to make a living (such as organic farmers), the government needs to simply get out of the way and let farmers produce their food without the heavy regulatory burden of the FDA -- an agency that we know is frequently engaged in actions that can only be called criminal in nature (

Get ready for skyrocketing food prices in 2011 - 2013

With the passage of this food safety bill, I am now publicly predicting skyrocketing food prices over the next two years. We will see fresh, local produce become increasingly more expensive and more difficult to acquire. Many local farmers will shutter their businesses, and farming know-how will be lost for perhaps a generation. The damage that will be done to America's food security and agricultural base is incalculable.

Such is the price we shall all pay for allowing our representatives in Washington to once again violate our Natural Right to grow food and exchange it for goods or cash with our neighbors. The reason this Natural Right was never even mentioned in the US Constitution, by the way, is because the right to grow your own food without government interference is such an obvious "Natural Right" (a God-given right, or a right that is self-evident) that our forefathers never imagined such a right would be infringed by the federal government.

Or if a right were ever infringed by the federal government, our forefathers were certain that the citizens of the United States of America would exercise their other Constitutional rights to nullify the attempted overreaching authority of the federal government and thereby restore their freedoms. Sadly, such a solution does not work when the majority of the population is lulled into a false sense of freedom by a government that deliberately lies to them on a daily basis. Freedom does not exist with the vast majority of the population has no interest in defending it.

Vegetable gardeners can learn something from marijuana growers

Better buy yourself some heirloom seeds while you have the chance. Plant your stealth garden and cover it with camouflage so the government can't see it and order you to destroy it. Soon, backyard vegetable gardeners will need to operate like marijuana growers and start hiding their food from government's prying eyes.

No doubt the U.S. federal government will start using spy satellites to identify "unregistered gardens" that will be targeted for termination. Soon, small farmers may even be raided by armed FDA agents who terrorize their operations and seize cabbages. Seriously.

It sounds crazy today, I know. But a decade ago, no one thought the government would ever outlaw raw cow's milk and arrest ranchers for selling milk to their neighbors, and that's now happening on a regular basis.

In five years, FDA farm raids may be routine. That is, if there's anything left of the federal government (as we know it) in five years. I'm not sure how long they can keep up the financial house of cards, frankly. Always remember this enlightening fact: The entire federal government is just one paycheck away from collapse. I wonder how long FDA inspectors will keep harassing farmers if their paychecks stop? Remember, FDA employees have no loyalty to anything other than their paychecks. Once the money from Washington stops, the army of FDA mercenaries collapses virtually overnight.

And the resilient farmers of America will win in the end, I have no doubt. If I had to choose to live on a deserted island with either ten North Carolina farmers or ten FDA bureaucrats, the choice would be a no-brainer. Farmers can keep you alive. FDA bureaucrats will only stab you in the back, steal your coconuts, and refuse to do any actual work on their own.

They are, after all, parasites who feed on taxpayer dollars and lend nothing of value to society. If the FDA actually did anything useful at all, it would have banned mercury fillings to protect the public from mercury toxicity (

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Natural News

Dees Illustration
Mike Adams

In arguing for S.510, the "Food Safety Modernization Act," there are all sorts of attorneys, legislators and internet commentators who keep claiming, "The government won't try to control the food production of small farms." They say, "Your backyard garden is safe" and that the feds won't come knocking on your door to control your seeds or foods.

As usual, these pushers of Big Government are utterly ignorant of the history in their own country. Because as you'll learn right here, not only CAN the U.S. government control and dictate to single-family farms what they can grow in their own backyards; the government has already blatantly done so!

In this article, I'll share with you the full and true story of how Big Government has already run rampant over the rights of individuals to grow their own food -- I'll even cite the US Supreme Court decision that "legalized" this tyranny.

 How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.

The US Supreme Court sided with government tyranny

The US Supreme Court, you see, ruled that Roscoe Filburn's wheat could be regulated and destroyed by the federal government simply because Roscoe's wheat production might reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade.

Now stay with me on this, because this is a really, really important point to understand.

The federal government claimed authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), even though the Commerce Clause was originally written primarily to prevent states from erecting tariffs, not to allow the federal government to control interstate trade. But thanks to the twisted interpretation of the government -- and believe me, the government will twist every interpretation it can in an effort to assert more power over the population -- the feds claimed that Filburn's growing of his own wheat effectively reduced interstate commerce in wheat. Therefore, they reasoned, they could regulate his backyard wheat production (and order him to destroy his wheat).

Because of this US Supreme Court decision in 1942, it now means the federal government can order you to halt food production in your own back yard by arguing that when you grow your own food, the amount of food you purchase from other food providers is reduced, meaning that your food production impacts interstate trade and therefore can be fully controlled by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government claims the authority right now -- even without the Food Safety Modernization Act -- to knock on your door and order you at gunpoint to destroy all the food in your garden, your greenhouse or your farm. They can order you to destroy all seeds in your possession and all food harvested from your own garden. And they can do all this with the full protection of U.S. law by simply citing the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 as ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Why the naysayers will probably starve

Still think you have the right to grow your own food? I've heard all sorts of naysayers claiming that S.510 -- the Food Safety Modernization Act -- is no threat to small growers and family farms. They say the fears about S.510 are overblown and that the government can't possibly shut down your backyard gardens or small, local vegetable farms. They say this with the kind of smug certainty you might typically hear from a doctor who thinks he knows everything about human health (but who actually knows nothing about nutrition).

These naysayers tend to operate out of an assumption that Big Government will never take away their rights and freedoms and that expanding the reach of agencies such as the TSA, FDA, DEA and FTC with even more power and more armed agents is a good thing because the government always takes care of the people. We need more protection from e.coli, they argue, so let's unleash 4,000 armed FDA agents instead to protect us from bacteria. (But who will protect us from the FDA?)

What these ignorant naysayers don't understand is that government is constantly trying to expand its power to the point of tyranny. As a current example of this, look at what just happened with Chavez in Venezuela. He has now been granted what are essentially dictatorial powers over the country ( Chavez is now the King of Venezuela, and whatever he says is now law. Venezuelan citizens are now slaves to his tyranny, and they must follow his orders or be executed.

The United States is moving in precisely the same direction. First, power gets stripped away from the People little by little. Then it gets concentrated in the hands of a few regulatory agencies who write their own laws and who stay in power year after year because none of their officials are elected. (Think the FDA commissioner is elected by the people? Think again…) And then, over time, a few powerful individuals concentrate power from those agencies into their own hands. Before long, the country is run by a handful of power-crazed tyrants who disregard all freedoms and rights of the People.

This is precisely what the FDA is doing with the Food Safety Modernization Act. Backed by yet more funding and a new army of agents, plus the Supreme Court ruling that says the federal government can order you to destroy the food you're growing in your own back yard, the FDA can now pillage the countryside, going from farm to farm and house to house, burning fields and ordering the citizenry to destroy their plants, seeds and crops. This is exactly what they've been doing to raw milk producers and food coops, by the way (

That is no exaggeration. It is a documented "legal" precedent established in Wickard vs Filburn, and it can be used at any moment to destroy the ability of people to grow their own food, thereby making these people totally dependent on dead processed food (which is always FDA approved if it's dead, of course) made in food factories that churn out nutritional deficiencies and death.

What will you eat when the government destroys your local food supply?

You see, under the argument that your backyard garden "impacts interstate commerce," the federal government can order you to simply spray Roundup on your entire garden in order to kill it.

What will you eat then? When the GMO crops suffer a mass catastrophic failure, and the monocultured wheat dies from a global viral infection called ug99 "rust" (, what will you eat?

If the government has its way, you won't eat at all. You'll starve to death under the "protection" of the food safety thugs at the FDA who don't believe any "live" food is safe in the first place (hence their war against raw milk).

Those people who have the foresight to grow their own gardens and protect their food sources from the tyranny of the federal government may actually have a chance at surviving. The rest will simply starve while waiting in government food lines where the feds hand out nutritionally worthless cheese and other depleted processed foods that Sesame Street absurdly thinks are "superfoods" (

Big Government declares war on the local food movement

Make no mistake, folks: the government is attempting to destroy the local food movement. They are trying to wipe out small, organic farms that compete with corporate agribiz in the same way the FDA has long plotted to destroy natural health supplement companies who compete with Big Pharma.

It's all about wiping out the little guys and protecting the monopoly markets of the largest and most influential corporations that are poisoning the earth and destroying your health. As Wickard vs Filburn clearly demonstrated, the government does not believe you have any natural right or Constitutional right to grow your own food. In fact, the government believes it has the right to order you to destroy your food at the time of its choosing.

Don't think this could happen to you? Filburn didn't either. The idea that his own government would show up at his door and order him to burn his field of wheat was simply unimaginable. Similarly, the idea that the FDA would tear across the countryside wiping out small family farms is unimaginable to many Americans today. But that's only because they don't know their own history and they put far too much faith in the flimsy idea that the government somehow, in some way, respects the rights and freedoms of the People.

The obvious falsehood of that idea is evident in the way we are all being treated by the TSA. Who would have thought, just two years ago, that we'd be subjected to government-enforced molestation at the hands of airport security screeners? That idea seems unthinkable at the time, much like the idea that the FDA could seize your garden seeds or order you to destroy your greenhouse crops. Yet such actions are already within the claimed power of the federal government… merely waiting to be invoked at the time of their choosing.

Traitors to freedom

All those who voted for S.510 -- which includes the entire U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike -- are traitors to the freedoms upon which America was founded. They have thrust our food supply into the hands of tyrants who are just waiting to exercise their control and "authority" over as many people as possible.

Five years ago, I joked that people might one day be arrested for smuggling broccoli across state lines. Today, that joke has become a sad reality. The mere act of growing food and selling it to your neighbor without government permission is about to become a criminal act. And no, small farms are not "exempt" from S.510. They must provide financial information and apply to the FDA to be granted exemption status. That sounds a lot like slaves begging for mercy from the king, doesn't it?

Keep the big picture in mind as you consider all this: When teens are poisoned by the aspartame in diet soda, the FDA does nothing. When children are given cancer by the sodium nitrite in hot dogs, the FDA does nothing. When countless thousands of Americans suffer heart attacks and cardiovascular disease each year from the partially-hydrogenated oils used throughout the food supply, the FDA does nothing. But when you grow fresh produce in your own back yard and carry it to your local farmer's market to sell it without government permission, you will be arrested by the FDA as a criminal.

Shame on all those who supported this bill. May history have mercy on their souls for the suffering and injustices they have unleashed upon us all.

Monday, December 20, 2010

White House Gives Go-ahead for Elites to Control DNA

COTO Report

By Michael Edwards
Activist Post

It is official: in the name of “clean energy, pollution control and medicine,” the White House is prepared to let scientists, spearheaded by the J. Craig Venter Institute, “manipulate DNA of organisms to forge new life forms,” according to a recent AFP article.

The Orwellian language used by Barack Obama’s Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues is a study in wordiness, misdirection, and obfuscation that is typical when trying to cover up the true intent.  For example, on one hand the Commission acknowledges that the J. Craig Venter Institute has found the ability to forge new life forms, but also states that Venter’s team didn’t create life, since the work primarily involved altering an already existing life form.

Since we won’t get straight truth from the mainstream media, science, or the government, it is better advised to look at who Craig Venter is, and what public statements have been issued about this agenda that literally could transform the human race from a naturally evolving species into a manipulated computer code.

As far back as 2003, a BBC article titled Warning on Gene ‘ID Cards’ cited Craig Venter as a leading scientist in gene mapping who, at the time, was offering the “very rich” a chance to buy their map for $710,000.  This sets up, in effect, a division of gene class where elites would have access to potentially life-saving information, while the underclass could be discriminated against by insurance companies and employers.  The short article concludes with an even more critical warning by Dr. Helen Wallace of GeneWatch that, “What we could end up with is a massive DNA database by the back door.”  And this was almost 8 years ago.

In the intervening time, the possible misuse of such a database became clear in 2006 when collaboration between the  J. Craig Venter Institute and Google resulted in a ZDNet article titled Google Accused of Bio-Piracy.  Plans were revealed to “create a searchable online database of all the genes on the planet.”  The source of this story came from a Pulitzer Prize winner, David Vise, but to this day it seems that neither the J. Craig Venter Institute, nor Google have acknowledged any ongoing partnership.

The Institute announced in May of this year that it finally had created the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cell, dubbed Synthia by the media.  Most people probably concluded that this was a rather innocuous, self-promoting announcement designed to receive funding.  However, if one looks deeper into this press release, one should notice the words “synthetic genome.”  This is an admission that goes beyond simply altering an existing life form, as the Institute asserts, but illustrates the ability to replicate the entirety of an organism’s hereditary information.

The technical breakdown of this initiative is exceedingly important, but is better left to experts in the field.  Regardless, the assertions of the J. Craig Venter Institute have found the “software of life” are being taken seriously by the White House at a time when revelations about how computing, medicine, technology, and the police state are converging on an almost daily basis.  In just the past month, the following stories made headlines:
  • Lawsuits have been filed in Austin, TX by parents who have discovered that DNA had been secretly taken from babies and sold to pharmaceutical companies and/or the Armed Forces for genetic research as far back as 2002.
  • Unions have started to implement biometric ID “threat assessment” cards at the behest of Homeland Security in a “cooperative effort between public and private authorities.”
  • Iris scan technology is being used by NYC law enforcement to create a biometric database in homage to Minority Report.
  • GM Mosquitoes have been released in the Cayman Islands to combat Dengue fever, while noted depopulation advocate, Bill Gates, has been funding the initiative.
  • Connections have been made between the above-mentioned Dengue fever mosquito release to the history of CIA bioweapons research, as well as various NGOs and Globalist think tanks that will apply the funding of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation toward “flying vaccines” as a solution to the “problem” of viruses.
It is worth adding that part of the stated purpose of the first artificial cell, Synthia, is “faster vaccine production.”

The flowery language that comes from elite circles about utopian equality ring empty in the face of their documented history of discriminatory programs and depopulation initiatives.  Giving over our blood, and now our life force, to elites who long ago distanced themselves from the concerns of the average man and woman does not bode well for the health of humanity.

Ed. Also see the December 16 press release by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion

The Writings Of Israel Shamir
Our friend the Australian editor Peter Myers had carried out a recent debate on the origins of the Protocols of Zion. In my view, the Protocols is a multifaceted and multilayered composition being re-written a few times by various persons, sympathetic and hostile. Its contents provide a valuable key to understanding the modern paradigm, but its origin is untraceable. That is why I refrained from dealing with the origins. However, Peter Myers writes:  In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to the Protocols of Zion. The argument that the Protocols is a forgery is thus used as a shield to fend off all scholarly argument that the Israel lobby dominates United States foreign policy on the Middle East. Thus, an investigation of whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotal to the defence of Carter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt.
Read his analysis.
Israel Shamir 

Editors note:
It is also useful to point out that the claim of forgery, fraud, Antisemitism and plagiarism to shield the Protocols from any and all scrutiny are some of the many tactics employed to shut down any research and debate where the Holocaust is concerned. Sunlight means death for vampires and the vested interests concerned here have every reason to keep this Apocalypse under wraps.

“Disagreements generate more than heat - they generate light too”.

(1) From: John Bryant
Dear Mr Myers:
A friend recommended that I look at your Protocols writing. My personal prejudice -- or, rather, POST-judice -- is that the Protocols is largely the same as the Dialogue, and hence a 'forgery' -- I say 'post-judice' because I had my wife, who majored in French in college, compare the Protocols with the Dialogue, and it was her conclusion that they were very similar.
(2) Reply to John Birdman Bryant - Peter Myers, July 6, 2008
Dear Birdman,
Thanks for your correspondence.
The claim that the Protocols is a forgery is mainly based on parallel passages with Maurice Joly's book Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu at Machiavel (“Dialogues in Hell”), published in 1864.
When I first read Joly five years ago, my first impression was, like your wife’s, that the Protocols was plagiarised from it.
Herman Bernstein, whose edition of Joly I was reading, has a chapter displaying all the parallel passages side by side. I put the whole text of Joly’s “Dialogues in Hell” on my website, some years ago, here.
All the parallel passages are set side by side here.
If there is a conspiracy for One World Government, then for co-ordination purposes it would have to be written down at times, and then some persons would have written accounts of it.
The other explanation, from the forgery one, is that Joly himself may have copied from its text for his book; and that the author of the Protocols also used it, but varying the meaning.
The Protocols, on its own, cannot be used to establish that there is a world conspiracy. But if such a conspiracy be verified FROM OTHER SOURCES - such as H. G. Wells' book The Open Conspiracy and Benjamin Ginsberg's admissions and the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government: then the Protocols can be re-examined in that light, and compared against the historical record.
That is the only way to evaluate it.
The Protocols predicts that, after a world war, there will be an attempt to form a world government, secretly orchestrated by Jewish financiers.
This happened at the Treaty of Versailles.
The Protocols also predicted a despotic government in the guise of socialism, once again secretly Jewish. This happened when Lenin & Trotsky set up the USSR:
For all the Czar's toughness, his regime was more lenient than Lenin's; when the Bolsheviks came to power they were much more inclined to execute serious opponents.
When Lenin died, power passed to a triumvirate - Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin - of which Stalin was the only non-Jew.
Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky, and allied against him; Stalin was the third and least important member of the triumvirate.
But later, Stalin got sole power, and overthrew the Jewish leadership. Zinoviev and Kamenev joined Trotsky’s Opposition grouping, but too late. All three were executed (Trotsky when in Mexico).
Solzhenitsyn also depicted Jewish control at first, but their overthrow under Stalin.
The techniques of thought control espoused in the Protocols are as sinister as those depicted by George Orwell in 1984. Many people feel that we are approaching this condition today. It is reasonable to consider whether there might be any connection.
The Protocols could also be relevant in understanding the crisis in the Middle East and exploring possible solutions to it which might avert world war; wars in that area drag the great powers in.
Consider these four Indicators:
i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (the USSR) aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented by Bertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others. Even though some Jews opposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.
ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewish participants came from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew of the Jewish role, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g. in the public media, partly owned by Jews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warn of what was happening.
iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the new regime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.
iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out. Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.
Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other type of literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted this conjunction of events.
It is this kind of "coincidence" that keeps the Protocols relevant. Is there any other literature that made such a prediction?
If you know of other literature that correctly predicted this conjunction of events, please let me know.
(3) From Birdman:
 this essay was triggered by the reactions to my posting of the late Dr Gordon Stein's essay on the Protocols, found here
Some Common Sense About the Protocols
In 1903 a book was published in Russia which is now known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or just The Protocols. It purports to be the Jewish master plan for takeover of the world, and a great many people in the present day believe that is exactly what it is. The Protocols achieved serious attention the Western world in 1921, when reviews of it supposedly proving that it was a 'forgery' appeared in the British press. In spite of these and many subsequent denunciations, this book has become one of the most widely-read books in the world. Henry Ford, the legendary auto manufacturer who became convinced of a Jewish world conspiracy by talking with influential Jews who were passengers on the 'peace ship' which he had chartered in order to help end WW1, remarked that he knew not whether the Protocols was a forgery; he knew only that it had described the world situation accurately since the time it had been published.
Critics of The Protocols in the present day usually claim that it is a 'forgery', or more precisely, a book which has been plagiarized from a much earlier book by Maurice Joly entitled Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu ('The Dialogue'). My own view is that, while I believe that the Jewish establishment is indeed following a master plan to take over the world, and while that master plan may have many points in common with The Protocols, I believe that The Protocols did not originate as such a plan, and that it constitutes what I call an 'MLK plagiarism' of Joly's book, ie, compilation of plagiarized parts, sometimes modified, combined with some original material, much like MLK's doctoral thesis and many other things MLK supposedly authored. I offer this public expression of my views for the simple reason that I believe it is a serious mistake, both moral and tactical, to accuse the Jews falsely, inasmuch as there are many high crimes and low misdemeanors which may be laid at the Jewish doorstep, but to make a false allegation is to throw the true and valid charges into question, since a false charge among the true will invite rejection of both true and false charges because the true charges are tainted by the false one according to the ancient criterion, "False in one thing; false in all. In this sense, then, the promotion of The Protocols -- along with an equally strong demonstration of their falsity -- in fact gives aid and comfort to the Jewish conspirators, because it effectively paints the stupid goy believers as idiots and ignorants.
So why, then, do I think the Protocols are a 'forgery'? To explain, I begin by noting that The Dialogue, published in 1864, was in fact a critique of the regime of Napoleon III. Next, I assert that the Protocols was a plagiarism of the Dialogue, a book published almost 40 years earlier. I say this, not merely on the basis that other critics of the Protocols have asserted the same, but also -- and most importantly -- on the basis that my wife, a 4-year full-academic-scholarship French major and Phi Beta Kappa graduate, compared the Joly text with that of the Protocols and concluded that the Protocols was a plagiarism of Joly. With these points in mind, then, we see that if the Protocols were lifted from a book which was intended as a criticism of Emperor Napoleon III in the 1860s, as in fact it was, then it is absurd to think it is a 'Jewish master plan'. That is, if the Protocols was really a pre-existing Jewish master plan, then why was it turned into a critique of Napoleon III? This is something akin to taking a physics book and plagiarizing it to create an exercise manual -- it just makes no sense. To the contrary, the simplest explanation of the correspondence between the Dialogue and the Protocols is plagiarism, and under the criterion of Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, this explanation must be accepted unless there is additional data which does not fit this explanation.
The logic of the above argument must evidently stand or fall on whether one reckons that the Protocols was in fact plagiarized from the Dialogue. To some extent this is a matter of judgment, and the argument will probably go on for some time -- mostly, of course, among those who do not speak both French and English -- until the Jews decide that the controversy has served their purpose sufficiently, and that therefore any remaining copies of Dialogue and the Protocols shall be burned in the public square by the hangman.
APPENDIX: Statements of Protocols supporters and Birdman responses
HENRY MAKOW, in his article PROTOCOLS FORGERY ARGUMENT IS FLAWED (on the Net) says the following:
In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik Russia and its execration in the West today proves its authenticity.
Birdman response: It proves no such thing. It merely shows that the mostly-Jewish Bolsheviks and the Western Jewsmedia didn't want criticism of Jews popping up anywhere.
VOLTAIRE/Bill the Hermit describes the above article as a 'point by point' refutation by Henry Makow that Joly and the Protocols substantially differ in tone and content.
Birdman comment: They do differ -- the Protocols is a scaled-down version of the Dialogue, reduced in size by about 50%. And we will grant that there are differences in tone and content. But that doesn't change any arguments we have made in this essay.
PETER MYERS thinks the Protocols are genuine, as I understand it, and has posted several items on this subject. 
(4) REPLY by Peter Myers
Dear Birdman,
In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to Mein Kampf (Jimmy Carter's Kampf) and the Protocols of Zion (The Protocols of the Elder Carter). These propagandists insist that if there is ANY Jewish conspiracy, then it is the same Jewish conspiracy the Protocols describes.
But the Protocols is a forgery. Therefore, all these other books are also wrong.
The argument that the Protocols is a forgery is thus used as a shield to fend off all scholarly argument that the Israel lobby dominates United States foreign policy on the Middle East.
Thus, an investigation of whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotal to the defence of Carter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt.
Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein, and Norman Cohn (Jewish authors regarded as the authorities on the Protocols) argue that the Protocols was copied in the main from Maurice Joly’s book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, published in 1864.
To counter the propagandists, it is not necessary to prove the Protocols genuine. It is only necessary to show that the above authorities have not considered certain important issues in their proof of forgery.
The propagandists insist that the case is closed; all we need to do is show that the issue is still open.
I put the whole text of Joly’s “Dialogues in Hell” on my website here
I put the Protocols here.
All the parallel passages are set side by side at
The last link above includes Bernstein’s analysis.
Presenting the arguments of Zangwill, Bernstein & Cohn in their own words, I am the only author of a study of the Protocols who presents both sides.
I was the first person to show that the parallel passages in Joly's Dialogues comprise 16.45% of the Protocols, by word-count. This is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system, unmatched in the Dialogues.
Even the parallel passages, however, are not the same: the meaning is often quite different, despite the similarity. I give details below.
My argument is that Joly did not create these parallel passages ex nihilo, but modified an existing revolutionary text (precursor of the Protocols), reworking parts of it to suit his attack on Napoleon III.
Differences between the Dialogues & the Protocols
1 Who are the Machiavellians?
In Joly, the conspirator is the monarch; in the Protocols, the conspirators are those trying to overthrow him.
In the Dialogues, Napoleon III is the Machiavellian, preventing the people, led by the Revolutionaries of 1848, from installing a People's Democracy along the lines of the French Revolution.
In the Protocols, the shadowy leaders lurking behind the Revolutionaries are the Machiavellians. They are tricking the people into trusting their leadership, but when in power they will institute the Red Terror.
In the Dialogues, Napoleon (the Machiavellian) is resisting the Revolutionaries; in the Protocols, the Machiavellians are sponsoring these Marxists, anarchists, and utopian activists.
2 Joly is written "after the event", i.e. to satirise Napoleon's existing regime; the Protocols is written "in advance", anticipating a regime yet to come.
3 Joly's despot is one man; the Protocols' conspiracy has many participants.
4 Joly's despotism is localised to one country and one time; the Protocols' despotism extends widely, over many countries, regimes and decades.
5 The Protocols' conspirators envisages themselves running a World Government, and instituting a new type of regime, unknown to past history.
Compare this with Trotsky on World Federation:
'We are of course talking about a European socialist federation as a component of a future world federation ... ' (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996, p. 209).
6 Joly's despotism is achieved without violence: "violence plays no role" (p. 174); "I who have taken as final policy, not violence, but self-effacement" (p. 226); at p. 236 the despot says "sometimes of duplicity, sometimes of violence", but Napoleon III had no concentration camps or gulag, no death squads, no mass graves of victims executed by a bullet to the back of the head, no glorifying of violence.
By comparison, Protocol 1 says that the best results are obtained by violence & terrorization; also, "we must keep to the program of violence and make-believe"; Protocol 3 advocates "the violence of a bold despotism".
This is much closer to Trotsky's violence of the Kronstadt massacre, and his orders to use relatives as hostages, with the threat of executing them:
7 Napoleon (Joly's despot) is for religion; whereas the Protocols says its conspirators are against religion.
8 Timing & Future-orientation (Teleology)
Cohn admits that the Protocols were ignored until World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, 20 or so years after it was written.
Cohn wrote in Warrant For Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1970):
“The myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy would have remained the monopoly of right-wing Russians and a few cranks in western Europe, and the Protocols would never have emerged from obscurity at all, if it had not been for the First World War and the Russian Revolution and their aftermath.” (pp. 14-15)
“The success of the Protocols before the war was in fact limited. Zhevakhov tells how in 1913 Nilus complained to him: {quote} I cannot get the public to treat the Protocols seriously, with the attention they deserve. They are read, criticized, often ridiculed, but there are very few who attach importance to them and see in them a real threat to Christianity, a programme for the destruction of the Christian order and for the conquest of the whole world by the Jews. That nobody believes ... {endquote}” (pp. 124-5)
If it were a forgery designed to stir up pogroms etc, one would think that the forgers had failed, since it had no effect for 20 years.
Given that these alleged forgers had been stirring up pogroms repeatedly, one would think that they would be better at it, than 20 years of failure implies.
It was only when World War I (1914-8), the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the attempt to make the League of Nations a World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919) seemed to bear out predictions in the Protocols - predictions which are not in Joly's Dialogues - that the Protocols was taken seriously.
The same people who deny Jewish control of the Bolshevik Revolution (until Stalin stole their conspiracy), also deny the authenticity of the Protocols. Therefore, demonstrating this Jewish control is the first step in puncturing their argument:
9 Finance
The "forgery" hypothesis says that the Okhrana plagiarised the Dialogues of Maurice Joly. But the Protocols opposes the policy on government debt endorsed in the Dialogues.
Joly's despot says, "I will borrow" the funds for government expenditure (Dialogues, p. 209); borrow from the public (p. 215); but pay reduced interest (p. 217).
He speaks of the benefits of government debt (p. 214):
The Protocols acknowledges that government debt is a trap; that governments need not borrow the funds for their expenditure, but can create the money by fiat, as the banks do (but for which the banks charge interest, in effect a private tax). This was the way the finance system of the USSR operated.
Protocol 20 says: "with any form of taxation per head the State is bailing out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest".
In other words, the interest on foreign loans must be paid by the taxpayers. Governments could avoid that interest burden by issuing the money themselves; after all, the banks themselves create it ex nihilo.
The lesson is, that we need a finance system akin to the Communist one.
Protocol 20 also says:
"The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth."
This is the way a welfare system operates (child endowment, pensions etc); i.e., the government issues money to parents for the care of their children, either directly via "family allowance" payments, or via additional wages or reduced taxes for workers with dependents. Yet it's unlikely that in 1897 any state had this type of money-issue.
"... the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it ... With us the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death."
This accurately describes the sort of finance system the USSR had. I believe that, via such prescriptions, the Protocols contains not only the key to what is wrong with our finance system, but also the way to fix it.
The conspirators did not want such a solution to be implemented, until they controlled the state directly, not indirectly (through other people).
At the time the Protocols was written, Russia was getting deeply into foreign debt:
W. O. Henderson, The Industrialization of Europe 1870-1914 (Thames and Hudson, London 1969).
{p. 87} Foreigners also helped to build Russia's early railway lines. Much of the capital of the Great Russia Railway Company of 1857 was raised abroad. Three French banks were particularly active in providing money for the company and the necessary bridges, locomotives and rolling-stock were largely supplied by French firms.
However, Russia's industrial progress in the 1890s was to a great extent the achievement of Count Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance between 1892 and 1903. In the eleven years that he held office Witte pressed forward energetically with his plans to speed up the pace of industrialization. Since he considered the construction of a greatly improved railway system the key to future economic progress, he had the railways of Russia nearly doubled in length: Moscow was linked with the ports of Archangel and Riga and the textile centre of Ivanovo-Vognesensk; St Petersburg gained direct access to the Ukraine, while Kiev was joined to the Donetz valley, and Rostov, on the Don, was linked with the oilfield of Baku. Witte's most spectacular railway was the Trans-Siberian line, of which well over 3,000 miles had been completed by 1899. Heavy government investment in railways fostered the expansion of the iron, steel and engineering industries; there was great activity in the Krivoi-Rog ironfield, the Donetz coal basin and the Baku oilfield; the industrial resources of Siberia and Central Asia
{p. 88} began to be opened up, and even the remote Chinese provinces of Manchuria and Korea were subject to Russian economic penetration.
To finance an enormous programme of public works Witte relied heavily upon government borrowing from abroad and upon persuading foreign capitalists to invest in Russian industrial enterprises. In answer to his critics Witte insisted that in the past all underdeveloped countries had relied upon borrowed money to assist in financing the early phase of industrialization. But his financial policy undoubtedly placed heavy burdens upon the Russian taxpayers and consumers. Witte's critics complained that prices were rising, that grain was being exported even when there was a poor harvest and that 'Witte's system' could survive only so long as foreign - particularly French - investors were prepared to go on buying Russian State bonds and shares in new Russian joint-stock companies. They claimed that many of the new industries were being run by foreign entrepreneurs for the benefit of foreign investors, and that although some manufacturing regions (such as the Donetz valley) might appear to be flourishing, older industrial areas (such as the Urals) were declining. The critics also argued that if industry were to flourish there must be a heavy home demand for consumer goods.
Towards the end of his term of office Witte began to realize the need for overall State economic planning. With incomparable energy he extended his influence over the activities of one branch of the civil service after another. But in the Russia of his day he could never hope to gain decisive control over all aspects of economic life. Moreover, he came to see that the peasant problem lay at the root of Russia's difficulties in the 1890s. His recommendations for dealing with it fell upon deaf ears, though they foreshadowed the subsequent agrarian reforms of Stolypin. While Witte believed that an autocratic form of government was essential for Russia, he realized that Nicholas II lacked the understanding and will-power needed to carry out the crucial reforms.
The Protocols was written around the same time as Witte was finance minister.
If the Protocols was created by the Okhrana (Secret Police), then this arm of government was warning of the danger of foreign debt, at the same time as the finance branch of the Russian government was endorsing Russia's getting deeply into that same foreign debt.
10 Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols, to any material on Jews behaving in a conspiratorial way
Cohn could have agreed, like Benjamin Ginsberg (above), that Jews created the Bolshevik Revolution (not all Jews, but Jews), and that they largely control the US media and government. He could have said, "yes, but", as Israel Shahak does. That would have been an acceptable position.
Instead, Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols of Zion, to any material on Jews behaving in a conspiratorial way:
"Stalin in his last years produced a new version of the conspiracy-myth, in which Jews figured as agents of an imperialist plot to destroy the Soviet Union and assassinate its leaders; this was used to secure the execution of Rudolf Slansky and his Jewish colleagues on the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist party in 1952, and it also formed the basis for the story of the 'doctors' plot' in 1953." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 15).
After Stalin, the contest between Zionists and anti-Zionists continued in the USSR. A document called "The Catechism of the Jews in the [former] Soviet Union", circulated in the last decades of the USSR, and was published there in a newspaper in 1990. A copy is at; another copy is at
Cohn wrote,
"New forgeries were also produced to supplement the Protocols and bring them up to date. The most celebrated of these was a document said to have been found on a Jewish Bolshevik commander in the Red Army, of the name of Zunder." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 130).
He rejects not only the Protocols, but any claim of Jews acting in a conspiratorial way, treating this as tantamount to the Protocols.
In thus overstating his case, he makes refutation easier. It can be refuted by any direct evidence, e.g. of Jewish domination of the US media.
Can one disclose such information in public, without being ignored, vilified, subjected to argumentum ad hominem? Then this also provides evidence of who is in power: those you cannot criticize, are those in control.
Cohn's book, and books arguing a similar viewpoint, can be sold in bookshops. Can one get a book arguing that the Protocols is genuine into the bookshops? Why?
11. What Cohn implicitly rules out of the debate:
(a) He does not examine the Jewish domination in the early USSR, except cursorily, or the association between Jews and Revolution admitted by J. L. Talmon.
(b) Cohn does not examine Jewish promotion of World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919), or in the Baruch Plan for World Government (1946).
(c) He does not relate the Protocols' Jewish utopia to the Balfour Declaration, (Britain's "contract with Jewry" in order to win the First World War), or why the British Government might have thought that an alliance with Zionists would get the US into the war.
(d) He does not relate the above points to the ideas and sense of mission of the Jewish religion, i.e. to intention and program. This omission is the more striking because Cohn has written (disparagingly) about nearly every kind of modern millenialism except the Jewish kind.
(e) He does not relate the above points to the Jewish tradition of Marranism. In particular, he does not relate Marranism to the Letter of the Jews of Arles and the Reply of the Jews of Constantinople
(f) He does not examine the politics of France before, during and after the reign of Napoleon III, against which Joly pitched his Dialogues
(g) He does not examine the parallels between Joly's Dialogues and Jacob Venedey's earlier book Machiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau
(h) He does not examine the praise of Machiavelli, and appeal to Machiavelli, by Revolutionary writers and activists, such as Rousseau and Babeuf
(i) After saying that the Tsar dismissed the Protocols as a forgery, Cohn does not explain why the Tsarina had a copy of the Protocols with them at the time of their death.
(5) Birdman: “You seem to think ... the Protocols is necessary to proving a Jewish world conspiracy”
I am amazed at your logic. You seem to think that proving the validity or truth of the Protocols is necessary to proving a Jewish world conspiracy. But the truth is that the Protocols are not necessary, and in fact are completely irrelevant. As proof, I offer my (inductive) argument of JWC without the Protocols:
As to the argument 'The Protocols is false, therefore there is no Jewish world conspiracy', I find this rather silly, tho, as PT Barnum said, 'There's a sucker born every minute', and I suppose a few of those would believe it.
(6) Reply (Peter M.):
But I don’t claim to prove the Protocols genuine; I present evidence for its authenticity, but I don’t go the next step and make a dogmatic statement that it IS genuine. However I do assert that the proofs of forgery are not really proofs.
I offer plenty of other evidence of a Jewish conspiracy, or rather two Jewish conspiratorial movements, Zionist and Communist, sometimes at odds but often aligned, in conjunction with a British one:
It’s the Zionists who make dogmatic statements about the Protocols; they insist it’a forgery. And from that they go on to ridicule other authors alleging Jewish domination of the US - Carter, Mearsheimer/Walt, Finkelstein.
(7) Why didn’t the Czar use Protocols after failed Jewish dominated revolution of 1905?
From: Bill <> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:13:57 -0400
Two points in particular impress me.
(1) The Jewish authors who deny the authenticity of the "Protocols" simultaneously deny that Jews exercise any provable international influence at all. That is provably not true, e.g. the bolshevik revolution, the "minorities treaties" in Central Europe, the League of Nations, the mandate over Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, etc.
(2) If the "Protocols were "forged" to target the Jews, then the effort failed from 1901-1917. The Protocols were first published by Nilus in book form in 1901. Why did the Czarist government not resort to them as a propaganda weapon after the failed Jewish dominated revolution of 1905? That would have been the ideal time.
(8) From: Kerry Bolton
The debate on the authenticity of The Protocols has so far neglected to mention some salient facts.
1. Cohn et al do NOT mention that Joly was a protégé of Cremieux, head not only of the Universal Israelite Alliance, but also of Mizraim and Grand Orient Masonry, and a leading figure in the Gambetta regime. The Gambetta regime was heavily influenced by Masons. Joly himself was a highly regarded propagandist for the regime. Cremieux moreover was bitterly opposed to Napoleon III, therefore the Dialogue of Joly would reflect that milieu.
2. Very close parallels exist between passages in The Protocols and documents from the Illuminati. There is a direct relationship between the Illuminati and Mizraim Masonry via Pasquales, who was a leading Illuminatist (according to Bernard Lazare) and founder of Mizraim.
3. Internal evidence would seem to argue for a far earlier existence of the Protocols than ca. 1900, or for the time period that Czarist agents were allegedly in France 'forging' The Protocols. 'Anti-Semitic forgers' would surely have made much of Herzl's Zionism had the Protocols been contrived in the last part of the 19th or beginning of the 20th Centuries. Yet the doctrine of the Protocols does NOT seem to be based on Herzl's Zionism or any notion of a "return to the promised land" but rather refers to the dispersion of Jewry as being its strength, the attitude of a certain non-Zionist section of Jewry, including sections of Jewish banking (e.g. Schiff). Secondly, there is NO mention of the Dreyfus Affair, which surely indicates again an earlier existence. I find it inconceivable that anti-Semites in France contriving the Protocols would not at least make some reference to Dreyfus given that it was the cause celebre of both pro- and anti-Semites and convulsed France.
4. There is no evidence for the forging of the Protocols found among the archives of the Okhrana or of those principals supposedly involved.
5. The Protocols refer to Catholicism and the Jesuits being major foes of the Learned Elders’ plans, along with the Czar. Orthodox, traditionalists Czarists, whether Okhrana agents or Nilus, are not likely to have made such comments. The passages on the Jesuits run parallel to those from the Illuminati.
The Protocols are more likely to be a compilation of material from the documents of Mizraim Masonry, the same source that influenced Joly via Cremieux and others. At any rate, the explanations offered by those who dismiss the Protocols as fake have turned out to be less than reliable, such as the testimony of Princess Radziwill or the farcical trial of the Swiss publishers during the 30s. The question as to origins at the least remains open, rather than offhandedly dismissed.
K R Bolton
(9) May be counterproductive to bring in the "Protocols"
From: Bill
I agree that the existence of a Jewish world conspiracy can be proved without any reference to the "Protocols". It can even be argued that it is counterproductive to bring in the "Protocols" as it allows the Jews to confuse the issue by bringing up the essentially irrelevant "forgery" charge. However, I insist that, so far as they go, the "Protocols" are not inconsistent with the thesis. They do, indeed, very closely parallel what has actually been going on in the world for the last century. As to whether it is tactically wise to use them as the basis of an argument, that is a different matter.
The "Protocols" have always scared the tribe. It could be that they are merely scared about investigations of Jewish power generally, but there is something specific about the "Protocols" which scares them even more. When one considers the asonishing predictive validity of the document in so many particulars, it is easy to see exactly why it scares them.
(10) Reply (Peter M.):
Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer/Walt, and Norman Finkelstein did not use the Protocols, but Lobby writers brought in the Protocols - comparing their books to the Protocols - as a way of refuting these authors.
Therefore, there is no way to avoid the Protocols. One must deal with it as I have done.
(11) Why the Czar didn't use the Protocols to discredit the 1905 Revolution
From: Kerry Bolton
In reply to the question as to why the Czar didn't use the Protocols to discredit the 1905 Revolution; this can be answered on two counts:
1. Stolypin commissioned an enquiry to repudiate the Protocols for the purpose of discrediting the Black Hundreds organisation.
2. Nilus was the target of Court intrigues centered around Papus and Philippe de Lyon, heads of Mizraim Masonry from France; i.e. the same form of Masonry of which Cremieux, Joly's mentor, had been head. Therefore, the very repudiation once again involves Mizraim Masonry in association with the Protocols. This suggests a convergence of evidence. That the Protocols were among the final possessions of the Czarina would indicate that the Stolypin enquiry of years earlier and other effors to discredit the Protocols did not continue to hold weight.
(12) Protocols - "That Very Real Subterranean Force"
From: Bill
In musing over the infamous Protocols of Zion, that alleged Czarist forgery, it strikes this writer that the real cause of concern is not so much the content, although that largely describes the history of the twentieth century, but rather the implication that Jews are capable of long term planning over the centuries to achieve group objectives. That is the charge which the Jews wish to avoid at all costs. To anyone who has read the historical record it is obvious that the long conjectured 'Jewish international' is a provable reality. There are many examples of it in the history of the last two hundred years but one of the best examples is the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. In that year virtually every European monarchy experienced simultaneous revolutionary upheavals. Coincidence? Not a chance. In all countries Jews played a highly visible and in many cases decisive role in the upheavals. After the revolutions failed the Jews who had instigated these revolutions fled to England and America. There they became prominent in establishing the newly founded Republican Party in 1855. These European Jewish revolutionaries then became active in promoting abolitionist sentiment before joining Abraham Lincoln's Union Army as generals. After the war, these butchers in military uniform became U.S. ambassadors and diplomats to many foreign countries.
Now, how does all this happen? Are we really to believe that it is just coincidence that Jews stage a simultaneous series of revolutions in all western European countries, that they flee across the sea and become the founding fathers of a new political party in America, that they happen to become generals in the Union army despite their total lack of military expertise, that they just happen to become high diplomats and ambassadors of their adopted country, the United States, after the war? This sort of thing does not 'just happen'. It happens because of a very real, subterranean force emerging into the open as its interests dictate and require.
None of this directly 'proves' the Protocols of Zion. But the fact that this coordinated Jewish activity was taking place scant twenty or so years before the publication of Maurice Joly's book and related predecessors is certainly very indicative of a real Jewish power at work. The fact that the alleged plans of this power also surfaced not too many years afterward is also very indicative. Coincidence in politics is, more frequently than not, no mere 'coincidence'. The revolutionary outbreaks of 1848, the movement of the Jewish felons to the New World and their coordinated activities there, and the emergence of Joly's book and Jacob Venedy's book around 1860 and 1850 respectively, about the same time that the communist Jacoby brothers were founding the first Communist Party in New York simultaneous with the founding of the1848'r dominated Republican Party in the same year of 1855, adds up to something very ominous. Those who wish for more details should consult the book 'Red Republicans', available as a 'print to order' volume, in either hardcover or softcover.
(13) Reply (Peter M.):
The revolutionary movement spans centuries, from the French Revolution to Karl Marx, to the Bolsheviks, to our own time. And thus our investigation must delve into the historical continuity.
The Anarchist leader Bakunin wrote in his paper Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism:
"Babeuf's conspiracy failed; he was guillotined, together with some of his old friends. But his idea of a socialist republic did not die with him. It was picked up by his friend Buonarroti, the arch-conspirator of the century, who transmitted it as a sacred trust to future generations".
According to James Billington, in his book Fire In the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, Buonarroti was a member of the Illuminati. Billington's big book is an account of the secret societies behind revolutions.
The back of the dust jacket of this book reads:
{quote} JAMES H. BILLINGTON has been, since 1973, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ... he received his doctorate as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford ...{endquote}
Billington later became Librarian of Congress.
There's no mention in the book of the secret society of Cecil Rhodes for furthering the British Empire, which endows the Rhodes Scholarships to this day:
And despite its size (677 pages, weighing 1.1 kgs), Billington's book manages to omit any Jewish connection to Revolutions.
That Jewish connection is, however, supplied by two impeccable Jewish sources, Benjamin Disraeli and J. L. Talmon.
Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his "novel" Coningsby, in 1844 (5th edition, published by Peter Davies, London, 1927):
'that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. ... ' (p. 264).
Disraeli, writing in 1844, is referring (four years in advance) to the revolution of 1848, launched shortly after the appearance of The Communist Manifesto.
In 1852 Disraeli wrote in Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (Archibald, Constable & Co. Ltd., London 1905):
{p. 324} An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the mosaic or in the christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.
When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisional governments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, he will recognise everywhere the Jewish element. {endquote}
Disraeli's message is: if you don't want Communism, support Zionism. The West used this strategy in the Cold War.
J. L. Talmon wrote two studies of the revolutionary tradition. The first, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, "writes out" any mention of Jewish involvement.
The second, Israel Among the Nations, "writes it back in":
{p. 1} It has for a long time been almost an axiom that The Revolution was the ally, some were even wont to say saviour of the Jews, and that the Jews were the natural standard-bearers of the revolution. ... Those who should be most interested, revolutionaries of Jewish extraction, or revolutionaries in general, tend to deny the very legitimacy of the juxtaposition, 'Jews and revolution'. It is, they argue, men, classes, peoples who rise in revolt against oppression, that many revolutionaries have {p. 2} been of Jewish ancestry is quite irrelevant and the very desire to see it as relevant arises out of a sinister intention to discredit the cause of revolution itself ... Then there are those Jews who are unable to ignore the intimate relation between Jews and revolution, but wish they had never heard of it. ... {p. 69} Three years later the Tsar and all his family were helpless prisoners guarded by a Jew and a few Latvian assistants. ... - 'in the fact that the chief executioner of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in the Ekaterinburg cellar was a Jew', Jacob Yurovsky.
{p. 21} The great wave of revolutions in 1848, spreading with lightning speed from capital to capital, almost from town to town across Europe, was greeted by very many Jews as proof that all nations were about to enter into a revolutionary world association. {i.e. World Government, i.e. the messianic age}
Not only the democratic and Socialist aspirations, but even the national liberation movements bore at least in the early phase a distinctly universalist character. So great was the enthusiasm of the Jews that they were prepared to overlook the anti-Jewish excesses ... and even to proclaim that the victory of universal brotherhood had put 'an end to any distinct Jewish history', 'for liberty, like love, is cosmopolitan, wandering from people to people'.
There was hardly a revolution - that year of revolutions - in which Jews were not prominent or at least very active.
Engels, in describing the history of the Communist movement, candidly admits the role of secret societies, unlike some later historians who pretend that all those uprisings happened purely spontaneously. Engels, History of the Communist League, in Lewis D. Feuer (ed), Marx & Engels: Basic Writings on Politics & Philosophy, 1959, pp. 459-470.
In the same article he states that the revolutionary movement had been underground (conspiratorial) until 1847, when the first Congress of the League of the Just was held. At this Congress the league was reorganised and renamed the "Communist League", and, coming out of its underground mode, "barred all hankering after conspiracy, which requires dictatorship".
Acknowledgement of the connection to Weishaupt is implied: "Whatever remained of the old mystical names dating back to the conspiratorial period was now abolished".
Such names (Spartacus, Philo, Gracchus etc.) had been a feature of Weishaupt's underground organisation, the Illuminati; although Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc. were "new names" in the same style.
The granting of such new names upon conversion to a new faith is reminiscent of the way Catholic monks and nuns, on admission to the order, gave up their old name and used a new, religious, one, that of a saint. Weishaupt, of course, would have been familiar with this.
In 1848 the Communist League commissioned Marx and Engels to write the Manifesto.
The above is from The Protocols of Zion Toolkit, Part 2:
However, Karl Marx also wrote about a Jewish conspiracy in the Finance system. This must be seen, in part, as an attack on those Jews who refused to join or back the Communist movement; in today’s terms, the Zionists.
The following is from The Karl Marx Library, Volume 5, On Religion (arranged and edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover McGraw-Hill Book Company New York 1972):
{p. 219} The Jewish Bankers of Europe*
TAKE Austria, for instance - a country which suffers from chronic scarcity of cash. What is she doing at this moment? She proposes to raise money by negotiating the mortgage bonds of the landowners of the Austrian dominions. But how is such an operation possible?
Through the Jewish houses, who, shut out from all more honorable branches of business, have acquired in this an inevitable degree of aptitude. There are in Vienna the Rothschilds, and Arnsteins, and Eskeles, and the Jew-Greek house of Seria, for whom the management of a loan of $100,000,000 is a matter of most easy accomplishment. The way they start at the loan is to get all their correspondents to canvass their business constituencies, and with the allurements of a particular commission, their correspondents of course do their best to ensnare their customers.
The broad facts we have pointed out have naturally produced all over Europe, especially in its northern, western, and central portions where the indolence which prevails in the southern part (as Italy, Spain, and Portugal) is modified by dimate, all manner and kinds of capitalists, speculators, and jobbers, who have no other business beyond that of dealing in money. Now there are posted in every point of Europe Jewish agents who represent this business and who are the correspondents of other leading Jews. It must here be borne in mind that for one big fish, like Rothschild, there are thousands of minnows. ...
* From "The Loanmongers of Europe," published in the New York Daily Tribune, November 22, 1855.
The lesson is that there are TWO Jewish conspiratorial movements - Communism and Zionism - sometimes at odds, sometimes aligned. Each appeals to Jews - and non-Jews - to join it against the other. And there are Jews who join neither.
This mailing list includes people from both the Far Left and the Far Right. You might ask, how is this possible? But, to me, it is the only way I can operate. Truth does not reside in only one camp. Each camp shines a torch on its’ opponents’ sins, but hides the skeletons in its own closet. By carefully balancing the two extremes, I remain independent of both.
(14) Protocols & C.H. Douglas’s Social Credit theory of money
From: Iskandar
Do you think that the financial techniques expounded in the protocols could have been an inspiration to C.H. Douglas in developing his Social Credit philosophy?
So then, was state creation of fiat money practiced in the USSR during either Lenin's time or Stalin's time or post-Stalin?
Is 'social credit' or creation of fiat money by the state still a real solution, a kind of alternative to either third-way high taxation or neo-classical liberal 'new rightism'?
The problem of course is whose agenda will control 'the state'?
Sincere, Iskandar. Wellington, NZ.
(15)  Reply (Peter M.):
I expect that Douglas knew the Protocols. It could have influenced his theory of money.
Yes, the USSR created it own fiat money, unbacked by gold.
(16) A more subtle response from Birdman, to my more subtle argument
You have been making a subtle argument for the validity of the Protocols which I had not picked up on till now. That argument may be stated as follows:
 >>Because the Protocols have predicted important world events that no one else has predicted, it cannot be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'. Instead, no matter what earlier documents it seems related to, the knowledge implicit in its predictions means that it was written by someone who possessed intimate knowledge of the evil acts and plans of very powerful men which were designed to do the things that were correctly predicted.<<
Now that is an interesting argument. And if indeed the Protocols had been a good predictor of world events, then it might carry some weight in my mind. Obviously, Henry Ford thought that it was a good predictor. BUT.....what has it predicted that no one else has foreseen? I have not read much of the Protocols, but I want to see the predictions. My scepticism of the predictions, indeed, is enhanced by a passage from one of your letters. You said the following:
[Begin] i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (the USSR) aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented by Bertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others. Even though some Jews opposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.
ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewish participants came from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew of the Jewish role, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g. in the public media, partly owned by Jews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warn of what was happening.
iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the new regime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.
iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out. Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.
Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other type of literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted this conjunction of events. [End]
My scepticism here is due to two things, one small and one large. The small thing is your allegation of 'hiddenness': In fact, the edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia put out in the 1920s BRAGGED ABOUT THE ROLE OF JEWS IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. This is not exactly 'hidden', tho one could argue that it would be read only by Jews, hence was hidden from the stupid goys. HOWEVER, later editions eliminated the bragging, so this makes it look like the coverup is, after all, in consideration of the goys.
Now the large thing which makes me skeptical is that the predictions you cite don't really predict anything much. Specifically, (i) All regimes want to dominate the world; (ii) the Jews have always kept their role hidden for fear of causing resentment; (iii) all regimes paint themselves as benevolent; (iv) regimes often are despotic from day 1.
Or in short, if your paragraphs (i) thru i(v) is a 'prediction' that you wish the Protocols to be judged by, then clearly the Protocols is worthless.
In the same letter you cite two other predictions:
[Begin] The Protocols predicts that, after a world war, there will be an attempt to form a world government, secretly orchestrated by Jewish financiers.
This happened at the Treaty of Versailles:
The Protocols also predicted a despotic government in the guise of socialism, once again secretly Jewish. This happened when Lenin & Trotsky set up the USSR: [End]
And while the matter can be debated, I do not regard these predictions to be of much worth, either. I mean, socialism had been around since before the time of Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, and communist and socialist ideas were ensconced in the public consciousness with not only Marx's activities, but the attempts to form socialist communities such as Brook Farm, which was involved with many American intellectuals such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Thoreau, Margaret Fuller and Bronson Alcott; Nashoba (Frances Wright); the workers' commune of Robert Owen; and the Phalanx communities based on the ideas of Charles Fourier. Thus 'predicting' a socialist dictatorship has about the same ring as predicting dinner. As to 'predicting' attempts at world government, that can be dated back to Alexander, who was supposed to have broken down in tears on the shores of Alexandria because he had no more worlds to conquer; or perhaps to Rome, which governed the known world for 1000 years (the first 'thousand-year Reich'). So with such ancient ideas as 'predictions', which had no doubt been predicted a thousand times before, I really don't think there is any need to be much impressed.
But like I say, 'Show me the predictions/No predictions, no Protocols', echoing Robert Faurisson, 'Show me the holes/No holes, no Holocaust'. And since the argument from predictions is an inductive rather than a deductive argument, your argument is strengthened the more predictions you can demonstrate that turned out to be true.
Just make sure they predict something a little more substantial than that the sun rises in the morning.
(17) Reply (Peter M.):
It is not that I have made a new argument; rather, you have finally begun to read some of what I wrote, just when I thought this discussion was over.
You say I argue that
 > Because the Protocols have predicted important world events that no one else has predicted, it cannot be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'.
That’s not quite what I say. I admit that it COULD be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'; I do not assert categorically that it’s not. But I believe, probabilistically, that it’s not.
And I’m quite happy to leave the issue open. You can’t deny that I’ve given you free rein to express your scepticism; for my part, I have no more to add to what I’ve already said.
I read a comment by another writer, “Disagreements generate more than heat - they generate light too”. That’s why I welcome debate. Your challenge prompted me to reformulate my response, and I think my composition this time is the best summary I have done.