It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Goal of Ungovernability: Economic Terrorism by Those at Home.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:02 AM
I was directed to this youtube video by another site:

If any of you had any doubts how serious things have become in this country, you need only to listen to the nuts in this video.

Yes, I know... Some of you will undoubtedly think the objectives presented in that video are simply wonderful.

In my opinion, you are either seriously misguided or just a wannabe criminal.

Who cares about the Rule of Law? We don't need that... If we are going to do Banana Republic, let's do it BIG!

But for the rest of you who still think all of the dangers in the world lie outside our boarders, wake up!

There are dangerous tides swirling among us. Things seem to be deteriorating very quickly.

Talk of revolution has gone mainstream:

In my opinion, we are in very serious trouble.

edit on 22-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by loam

Explanation: S&F!

Personal Disclosure: Here is how I feel about that. Good luck building your pansy assed micky mouse loser country into an economic powerhouse now!

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
As much as I despise the people and institutions responsible for this clip. I pretty much agree with them. It's a viable plan to cripple the establishment in a non-violent way. I consider myself a right leaning Independent, but so what that these are the hardcore left. Right now I'm willing to make alliances with people who I despise less than the likes of Lloyd Blankenfiens, Jamie Dimons, Tim Giethners, and THE BERNANKE. We can settle our differences in whatever manner necessary once they have been held accountable (it no longer matters to me if that account is settled by jail bars, lynch mob, or guillotine).

The institutions they are planning on assaulting by and large should have been bankrupted and liquidated back in '08. They only exist today because they were able to extort around $15 Trillion from the government and Fed. It's called blowback. They've been able to hide how bad it's been with smoke and mirrors ( mark to myth accounting, lapdog MSM) and keep it together with duct tape (QE I and II, swap lines, sovereign bailouts) but people are waking up.

This is the result of not holding the institutions that brought us into that crisis accountable and clawing back the ill gotten gains. The financial crisis proved to me for once and all that rule-of-law only applies to us little people; the rapid co-opting of the Tea Party proved to me that their is no way through the electoral process to change the establishment, due to barriers of entry to anyone without a D or R by their name; and the revolutions in the mideast proved to me that there are new ways to organize and fight back against TPTB even those that rule with an Iron Fist (our TPTB have that iron fist as well but it currently resides in a fraying velvet glove). As the powers that fund and benefit from the system are not going to give up their hegemony easily, I'm less concerned about fixing the current system than I am about what the next one will look like. I'm not willing to wait on the system to collapse from it's own weight (gonna happen I know but why leave that battle for my children).

A total reset is the only option I see. To be honest it scares the hell out of me. I'd much rather it happen soon though while I'm still young and healthy than say in 2037 when I'm nearing the end of my working life and not fit enough to fight back.

edit on 22-3-2011 by jefwane because: (no reason given)

Eidt to add: Thought about deleting entire post, after reading it but I'll leave it and simply add more here. I pretty much despise the groups behind this but agree that their enemy is mine as well. The information they have as to the damage that Wallstreet has caused our system is correct. I do not agree with their end goal of a collectivist utopia, but for Capitalism to survive Mammon ( the financial system as it exists today) must be confronted and if necessary destroyed by whatever means necessary.
edit on 22-3-2011 by jefwane because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:44 AM
OOh heaven forbid Wall street or the banks should get upset.
It sounds as if you believe that this country is doing just fine and that our economic life somehow depends upon what the power brokers in DC and NY think.

Redistribution of wealth? That one gets conservative panties all in a bunch yet they have been redistributing wealth for the last 30 years, in THEIR direction.
This is why Goldman sachs execs get Billion dollar bonus checks, because they are ones successfully running the scam. These people are parasites and contribute NOTHING to the real economy yet they are paid the highest of anyone in the country.

Business as usual is just fine? Are you getting dividend checks from these people?
Do you think the civil rights movement would have been successful if everyone has simply stayed home and done nothing to *gasp* "disrupt the system? "
We would still be fighting in Vietnam and locking up blacks for being in the "wrong part of town".

You cannot create or even attempt to fix something that is broken without taking it apart first.
I firmly believe THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN. No if's and's or but's. The middle class is being squeezed out of existence by our own government and the international bankers.
If that weren't true we wouldn't be paying TRILLIONS in taxes to pay off their gambling debts.
They don't deserve billion dollar bonuses they deserve to be tarred, feathered and run out of the country.

I'm not a Socialist, Communist or any type of collectivist. I am a capitalist, but I believe in fair play and a fair playing field, something that does not exist in this country today.
Our troubles can all be traced back to the creation of the Federal Reserve and allowing it to control our monetary policies, something that was given the power for Congress to do.
From the cradle to the grave these people have their hands in our pockets and I'm sick of it.
There millions more just like me and one day a reckoning will come.

They want to have their cake as well as a piece of everybodys' cake and eat it too.
I say we stop feeding them altogether.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Asktheanimals because: corrections

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

....Our troubles can all be traced back to the creation of the Federal Reserve and allowing it to control our monetary policies, something that was given the power for Congress to do.....

AND THAT was the end of capitalism and freedom.

The bankers, who have OWNED the MSM since 1917, are busy convincing everyone that the current system of Mega-Corporations funded by Fiat Funny Money is capitalism....

I do not know what to call it (Neo-Corporatism) but it certainly is NOT capitalism.

...In 1994, Joel Kurtzman — at that time a columnist and the business editor for the New York Times — wrote an alarming book titled The Death of Money: How the Electronic Economy Has Destabilized the World’s Market and Created Financial Chaos. Kurtzman reported that the digitization, or virtualization, of capital was causing a disconnect from reality that threatened financial anarchy…

Kurtzman misses the whole point. Capital was disconnected from reality the minute bankers started loaning out money that did not exist aka Fractional Reserve Banking.

Once real capital, that is Joe Sixpack's and Mary Schoolteacher's wealth, was no longer used to fund new business, CONTROL of the corporations AND the politicians moved to the bankers. This actually happened long before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

In 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act Congress "officially" turned control of this country over to a small set of bankers and they have been squeezing every penny out of us since.

This is from the Keynesian viewpoint:

...With the demise of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836, the state banks were once again free to print money, and during this time, the states started passing free banking laws that would make it much easier for anyone to start a bank. Consequently, financial panics would continue to plague the American economy.
Free Banking

Because of the importance of banks and money to an economy, a bank could not be formed by just anyone. They required a bank charter from the state to legally exist, and, although not just anyone could start a bank, anyone could with the right political connections, whether they knew how to run a bank or not. Before 1837, a state bank charter could only be obtained by the approval of the state's legislature; federal charters were not available until 1863. And because banks could print money in the form of banknotes, naturally, many people wanted to start banks. This fostered corruption and favoritism.

So that bank charters were not just granted to political cronies, Michigan, in 1837, began the trend of free banking where a bank charter could be obtained without an act of the legislature; only very minimal requirements had to be satisfied. Other states followed with New York enacting a free banking law in 1838, but required that banknotes be backed by government bonds.

Also during this era, some states started enacting legislation to protect the depositors, either as a form of deposit insurance or as reserve requirements. In the early 1800's, New York required banks to pay a small percentage of their capital to a state fund that would reimburse depositors in case of bank failure. In 1842, the state of Louisiana required banks to keep 1/3 of their capital as cash and 2/3 in short-term loans.

However, there was little actual oversight of the banks, so restrictions were not effective. Instead, they proliferated and printed more banknotes than what they had in specie....

Notice how this website makes no mention of what was in the US Constitution:

Original U.S. Constitution

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 5
[Congress shall have Power ... ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ...;
Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1
[No State shall ...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...

Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender. Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender"....

In another article on this Keynesian website they refute Ron Paul's attempt to end the Fed and declare the Fed and banks innocent in the recent collapse of the economy.

...However, all modern economies must be able to create and destroy money when it is necessary and this is one of the main purposes of the central bank.

An economy can only run efficiently with an optimal supply of money — no more or less. If an economy would rely on the gold standard, then it would depend critically on the amount of gold that it has

THIS is the fundamental principle that is at the heart of the debate on money.

In Mises's monetary theory: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game. The bankers ability to create and destroy FIAT money is the crux of their SCAM!

"As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money's purchasing power at the height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great or small." The conclusion is obvious, and he makes it: "The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do" (p. 421).

New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them... is the most marketable commodity. "It is the most marketable good which people accept because they want to offer it in later acts of impersonal exchange" (Human Action, p. 401.).
Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.
Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value. This distinction is fundamental in Mises's theory of money....

To continue with the "Keynesian" viewpoint"

...And what caused the credit crisis? Not the Fed. The credit crisis began as a flaw of financial engineering — specifically, the creation of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) that allowed the loan originators to pass on their credit default risk to investors of the securities. The loan originators earned loan origination fees and servicing fees for their loans, and hence, made more money by originating more loans. Eventually, to keep their profits coming, they started to extend loans to people who could not really afford them. Although the loan originators were in the best position to assess the creditworthiness of the borrowers, they were unconcerned about their credit risk because they were making their money from the loan origination fees and the servicing fees — the buyers of the mortgage-backed securities would suffer from any defaults, which initially didn't worry them because they thought real estate prices would always go up and the securities had the blessings of the credit rating agencies.

Inexplicably, banks bought most of these MBSs. When it became evident that they were not as financially sound is assumed. They started to buy protection in the form of credit default swaps. As more and more borrowers defaulted, banks stopped lending money to other banks because they did not know how much of these deteriorating MBSs that other banks held. Hence, the money supply severely contracted...

Here is the REAL story and the actual laws that back the information: Quick list of Banking laws with paragraph about each.

After the Great Depression, several laws were put in place to prevent another depression. The 1933 and 1934 Security and Exchange laws, The McFadden Act of 1927, The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933. Also Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

Clinton's signed laws Negating the above: Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

More pro-banking Clinton laws:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991: Allowed big banks to gobble up smaller banks more easily.

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and RTC Completion Act - Housing and business loans to minorities.... The loan originators were doing exactly what CONGRESS told them to do!

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - left CDSs unregulated and set up AIG bailout and Foreclosuregate.

Obama - rewards the CROOKS:

Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs The "bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called “resolution authority” that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."

Seems the "history lesson" at that Keynesian website is very carefully edited

As Mises put it, BANKS should have to follow the SAME laws governing contracts that the rest of us do!

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:29 PM

..... figure out how we are trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital (for how corporations operate) .....

Well, Mr. Lerner... I suspect that the terms you chose were deliberate and clearly intended to refocus the efforts or your 'think tank' into an active plan; might I suggest some dissenting opinions are required for your own sake, because as we go forward; I believe we will see some incongruency in your stated goals and your actions....

I take it at face value that you wish to engender an economic environment where the current economic paradigm no longer benefits the corporate citizen. It would appear your intentions is to somehow taint or render unusable, the revenue/credit model upon which mercantilism is founded. Clearly, corporations operate based upon a market in which the consumer has faith.

I wonder if you care that the collateral damage you will create will far exceed the pain and disincentive to those who are the stewards of the status quo. I understand the general idea of equitable redistrbution of wealth. And I see the inequities of the world as clearly as most people in my community do. But I don't see this as more than a 'mission statement" based upon the destruction of a system. It appears at the beginning, that you are focused on not building something, but destroying something and expecting the vacuum to be magically filled with humanistic values - something which has yet to happen in any 'economic revolution.'

... a boom and bust economy is actually very fragile ....

Only from the perspective of those who have the levereage to control it's parameters. "Bubble - pop - bubble - pop - bubble - pop" is the bankster scam that has been cultivated since the US fell to the transnational banking cartel; but it is by no means the only way to suck the wealth from a nation or nations. If this is the cornerstone of your strategy being telegraphed, you will not only fail, but the resulting backlash will engender no economic change at all - just a shift to naked fascism.

... because its not based on real wealth... it's based on gambling, and all of that

True enough, quantified wealth is utterly faith-based, but it has allowed opportunity to creep in. The thrill of gambling is certainly a large part of the culture of the financial industry, but it's foundation is not. It is about the measured value of human labor, a metric which you seem content to theorize about destroying. Our fiscal problems began with the hermetic iosolation of the actuarial tables upon which these middlemen/bankers built their game. Secrecy was the poison in the system.

.... to destabilze the folks that are in power ... and start to rebuild a movement

Have none of your cabal considered how people in power undergoing destabilization respond the that stimulus? Does it concern any of you that they will not lash out at your efforts, but instead at the world itself? Do you undetrstand that the mechanisms in pace can rectify most of the issues we face, if we could just enforce existing doctrine? Or are you an echo of the old thinkers who insisted that the downfall of the system must be catastrophic to suit your preconceived notions of 'rebuilding?

The idea of starting to 'rebuild' a movement is funny to me. It there had been a movement - it has failed - certainly rebuilding it would lead to the exact same failure... movements are born, and they die... they do not become 'resurrected' by force of will. I will agree a movement is needed; but for the sake of logic, let it be a NEW movement, without the old paradigms of angst, flailing about in autothrash mode, and gleefully destroying person after person, or culture after culture.

.... if you could double that number.[of those refusing to pay their debt] .. you could put the banks on the edge of insolvancy again...

Really poor thinking here. First off, we are paying with fiat currency that has no value other than that which the bank itself decrees. They were NEVER on the edge of insolvancy ... WE WERE. All the negatives you forsee are negatives for the people; not the banks. They control interest, they control monetary policy, whatever they WANT to do THEY DO. All you will succeed in achieving by creating a mortgage strike will enable their policy makers to recast the mold and devalue our already pitifully devalued human condition. All they need do is start another war.... it's how they roll. Change from the outside, as you seem to suggest is your idea, is never without sacrifice... and there is never a guarantee that what replaces the status quo will be any better than what we have now. This change must come from within - not by playing an armchair general in economic terrorism.

If city and state and other government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt ...

You can't be that out of touch... really... what part of THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT don't you get? Via monoplies of political partisanship, political appointee policy-makers, and total control of the commercially-driven media stream they have secured control already. What you suggest needed to happen in 1950, now it is way past a day late and a dollar short. The same people who 'make a difference' are not only beholden to the system, they are apparently honorbound to empower and protect it from disruption.

So, a city, state, or county says "renegotiate" or we won't do buiness with you.... tell me... with whom ARE they going to do business.... It's high time that people like you realize the bank is a single entity. Banks compete with eachother the same way Gillette double-bladed shavers compete with Gillette triple-bladed shavers.... it's all Gillette. All of this is because we believe in the currencies THEY create as a 'real' thing.


I was going to go through the whole thing as above... but frankly, it's not necessary. Creating "fear" is no way to pursue victory in a conflict; at best it is a weapon, but it is a weapon with a terrible capacity for hurting those who weild it. It will not secure success. It will engender combat.

The monologue proceeds clarifying that the labor organizations can't achieve this, it requires a larger base, and so, he unfolds the idea that "other activists" take the lead with Unions 'helping the community' towards their goal. The goal seems to be to generally create a coalition of activism that impedes the 'big business' paradigm. He believes that the Unions will be legally confronted for their participation, but mentions no response to the challenge - only reiterating that engerndering fear of uncertainty and fear of disruption should be the main purpose of the movement.

After alluding to having the same impact on Wallstreet as the riots in Greece had on their market, he issues a maxim... the people in power care only about ... their stock, the market, and most significantly ... their bonuses. He claims the simple strategy will be to bring down the market, bring down the bonuses, interfere with their ability to be rich, he envsions politically and economically isolating the rich and powerful.

He then proceeds to identify JP Morgan Chase as the best target of their efforts. (Why not Goldman Sach's one might wonder.... I will posit that it's because this is in fact the banking cartel's plan in the first place.)

He announces that in the next couple of months a campaign will be rolled out aginst their target, JP Morgan Chase, that is really about challenging the power of Wallstreet. He adds a bit of specificity, saying that the first week of May will mark the beginning of a week-long action, he then is greeted with laughter as he jokes "I don't want to give out too many details because I don't know what police agencies are in the room."

Here is the essence of the campaign we can look forward to if this is not all bunk:

Expect to see occurences of statements and pronouncements to the effect of

1) "We are not broke, there's plenty of money"
2) "They have the money, we need to get it back"
3) "They are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us."

NOTE PLEASE: I would like to contend in contrast that in reality;

1) We are not broke, most of us have never had money. It was all replaced with debt, of which in fact, there is an abundance. The economic model adopted by the monetary policy-makers was diligently cheered on by those who owed their political existence to the banking cartel representatives that usurped the authority of Congress in 1913. Also, the purist in me would like to add for the record, we never needed their reserve notes..., ever. We need true currecy of concrete value... which they do not have, cannot provide, and couldn't tolerate since they can't steal it without us noticing.

2) They hold the debt. It was never real, but by decree we are endebted to them in perpetuity. Our governments' have secretly negotiated with them repeatedly to minimize the reality that we are debt surfs at best, slaves at worst. A gigantic cabal of transnational proportions has rigged the conditions of the challenge. Call them Groups, Commissions, Councils, or whatever, the fact is they have taken the means we gave them, and are using them to secure and guarantee their own posterity..

3) They ARE the government, and have been for quite some time. Even past presidents have commented on the whole 'other level' of power that decides and controls this planet.

Confrontation with them is impossible for they are insulated by our own good will. You could tear down the government, tear down Wallstreet, demolish the Corporate choke-hold on resources and still, they remain untouched.... the system is designed that way. The construct is fairly elegant, in order to destroy their control - we must destroy our own well-being. Its the paradigm that must change.

He follows up on the list of three things by saying they intend to engage in wide spread civil disobedience, an infiltration of the JP Morgan Chase shareholder's meeting, (I would love to be a fly on that wall), and extend that disruption of shareholder activity around the country.

He wants to be on the offensive, rather than the defensiove as they were in Madison (Wisconsin).

He intends to characterize the struggle as "brave and heroic" confrontation... which raises an interesting question.... will someone have to get hurt? Which of this group will be the one to 'go to jail' or 'get pepper sprayed?' I wonder.

Briefly, another activity from City University of New York cites some old thinkers who determined that 'ungovernability' is the harsh medicine that must be fed tot he sick power structure...

I will leave the second video alone... because there is more there to think about than the first and I don't want to become tiresome..... (too late
I know!)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

While we clearly agree on this much, I doubt based upon your post we will ever agree upon a remedy.

In fact, your comments strengthen my belief that we are well down the path to self-destruction. Unlike you, I am not so confident that what replaces it will be an improvement. In fact, history teaches that it most likely will not be an improvement.

If Americans had demanded accountability and rallied around the Rule of Law, things might have worked out differently. Things wouldn't be perfect, but they would have been better. I see that opportunity slipping away. Perhaps it is already long gone.

When I read your reply, I see advocacy for the removal of a Kleptocracy in exchange for something as bad or far worse...

You may wish to roll the dice. I do not.

Personally, I think less frequently about remediation and more frequently about how I can hedge my risk. At this rate, other options around the globe may become more attractive.

To each his own and good luck.

reply to post by Maxmars

edit on 22-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

....I wonder if you care that the collateral damage you will create will far exceed the pain and disincentive to those who are the stewards of the status quo. I understand the general idea of equitable redistrbution of wealth. And I see the inequities of the world as clearly as most people in my community do. But I don't see this as more than a 'mission statement" based upon the destruction of a system. It appears at the beginning, that you are focused on not building something, but destroying something and expecting the vacuum to be magically filled with humanistic values - something which has yet to happen in any 'economic revolution.' .....

I have also considered how the heck we can change the current system. If you think "protests" will work just look at what history tells us:

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has

...Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:

Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.

"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. ...Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

...Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning....

The people in power have every intention of staying in power. They have had a century and if ProtoplasmicTraveler's All Roads Lead to Rome is correct, THOUSANDS of YEARS to put their control mechanisms in place. The will do as they wish.

I am firmly convinced they are TRYING to prod US citizen's into open revolt against the government. TPTB want to get rid of the US Constitution and they want to reduce the USA to third world class.

Here is the evidence:

On March 20, 1969, Dr. Richard Day, the National Medical Director of the Rockefeller-sponsored "Planned Parenthood" told a meeting that American industry will be sabotaged and shown to be unreliable and uncompetitive.

In view of the recent bankruptcy of General Motors, his remarks are especially pertinent.

"The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued preeminence of the United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be changed... in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old, and American industry was one example of that."

"Each part of the world will have a specialty and thus become inter-dependent, he said. The US will remain a center for agriculture, high tech, communications, and education but heavy industry would be "transported out." .....

Obama's Science Czar, John P. Holdren stated:

..and Ehrlich (in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions) called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” The authors added:

"The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."

On another occasion, Holdren, when asked whether Americans would "need to reduce their living standards," said:

"I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous."

In 1977 Holdren and Ehrlich quantified their anti-capitalist philosophy in a mathematical equation, I=PAT, where a negative environmental impact (I) was the product of such undesirable factors as population growth (P), increasing affluence (A), and improving technology (T). In an effort to minimize environmental damage, they prescribed “organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government.”

It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

...Ted Turner, who donated over a billion dollars to the United Nations specifically to fund the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

If you check the US census, you find 24% of the 1970 labor force was engaged in manufacturing, today it is less than 9%. A nation can not exist for long if it does not manufacture "wealth" that is takes raw materials and labor and turn it into products that can be sold.

The USA has been systematically stripped of her manufacturing ability starting with Reagan and the leveraged buyouts of the 1980's.

....Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state anti-takeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals....

There is a heck of a lot more wrong than just the banking fiasco. The "Food Safety Modernization" act is another major disaster designed to turn the control of food production over to the Ag Cartel.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
Found this on of all places, one of the first tea party group sites FedUPUSA.

The Paradox of Political Divide

Convince those that are advocating for socialism that what they are railing against is not the failure of capitalism (it hasn’t really existed for over 100 years), but is more accurately, the capture of government through those who pay for representation in order to be exempt from the law.

Convince those that are advocating for a reapplication and return to the Constitution that this cannot be accomplished without removal of those who have captured our government and who pay for representation in order to be exempt from the law.

The criminality of the Banksters is beginning to breed some strange bedfellows.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Great post.

I have not seen some of those quotes.

reply to post by jefwane

Originally posted by jefwane
The criminality of the Banksters is beginning to breed some strange bedfellows.

Indeed, it is.
edit on 22-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
Speaking of Lerner and the SEIU, isn't this an interesting video:

Perhaps we should take Obama's word about "change" as truth after all.

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by loam

I never said anything about replacing the current system and no, I don't want anarchy or kleptocracy.
I believe in the rule of law, nations are more a body of laws than of peoples or a certain land mass.
Laws give us justice - the ability to punish those who harm society and to protect people from those who would harm them physically or materially.
When I say the system is broke what I mean is that we have developed an extra-legal class whose money and influence allow them to not only flaunt violations of the law but to rewrite the law itself. There has always been some amount of corruption in American government but it has reached levels of insufferable proportion.
What then do I propose? Abiding by our most basic documents of law - the Constitution for United States of America. Every piece of legislation passed since 2001 should be declared invalid due to a fraudulent Presidential election (appointments by the Supreme Court are no elections).
Many Federal agencies need to dissolved as well and all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government should revert to the States.
Foreign influence in our affairs needs to excised as well.
We must also eliminate E-voting (or use it if it has open source code) so that we can have real elections once again.
I'm a Conservative of the old school type I suppose, I haven't the imagination to create a new system and to choose among those tried before I think the original American form of independent governance is the best.
If the law does not apply equally to all then there is no law.
If there is no law, there is no nation.
We have lost our nation. This is what I mean by the system is broken.
It CAN however, be fixed.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Asktheanimals because: corrections

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:07 PM
I love what one of the commenters posted for the first video in the OP.

Why are all the so-called 'anti-NWO' people all 'don't hurt our beloved banks' on this?

It's a good question. All the right-wingnut anti-NWO people get a really bad wedgy over this. Things that make you go "hmmmmmm...."

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by Lilitu

Perhaps because evolutionary change is very often preferable to revolutionary change. I may not like the status quo of things, but I'm terrified by the collectivist interests behind some of these calls for revolution.

I want a return to the rule of law and accountability. I want government transparency.

I do not want fascism, disguised as reform.
edit on 24-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by loam

I want a return to the rule of law and accountability. I want government transparency.

It is a truism that people get the government they deserve. So, today in the U.S. instead of the rule of law, we get the rule by law, and law is defined as "governmental social control" and too many people nod their heads when given this definition and agree. Never mind the fact that thousands of years of history demonstrates scads of revolutions and insurrections that suggest that governmental social control is a sham, some sociologist declare law as "governmental social control" and we accept this.

The irony is that sociology is colloquially called a "soft science" which is to say it is not really science, just academics pretending at science, and worse academics acting as government shills. We the People then go to school and study really hard to diligently memorize our indoctrination and correctly answer on the multiple choice test c.) for governmental social control, and then when anyone dares to suggest that law is a natural phenomenon and not legislation, or that legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law, it becomes like being forced to listen to Chinese opera, and the cognitive dissonance is just too much for us to handle.

After all, we got the answer right on the test! Law is not natural, it is an invention by wiser people than us to protect us from ourselves. Rights? Oh come on! You don't seriously think rights exist outside of what government allows, do you? I mean, it's a nice idea that we are all born with certain unalienable rights, but think about it! If everyone really had these natural rights madness would ensue!

As if madness is not all ready ensuing. Nope. Society is perfectly sane. It is not society that is the problem, it is all these goddamned individuals who refuse to get in line and accept their moral duty towards the collective. Damned individuals! If it weren't for them, society would be a really cool place to live. There ought to be a law! That's what we need, some kind of law that outlaws individualism, and we'll just keep building more and more prisons to put all these pesky individuals in until we have finally achieved our "social control". After all, as Machiavelli say's, the end justifies the means, and if the means haven't achieved the end we're after, then we haven't reached the end yet, and we'll just keep trying, building more prisons, and inventing new "laws" that criminalize more individuals until that noble end has been reached, and those all those stupid "right wing nuts" or individuals will see how wrong they were.

Individualism is just flat out overrated and when everyone finally realize this then this silly notion of the rule of law will be rightfully abandoned, and government can finally impose their rule by law. Forget happiness, just do your moral duty. What is your moral duty? Well it is to do what your told, but do not worry, if ever it gets to the point that you can no longer do what your told, then government will take care of you...unless of course, it is determined that you really can do what your told, and your just pretending that you can't. Then it will be determined that you are mentally ill with that horrible psychological disease known as individualism, and medication will be prescribed, and if that doesn't work, then there is an institution made just for you.

Ah, society! Thank the non existent gods for the benign collective, who are only to happy to tell you what to do, and if you know what is good for you, you'll do as your told.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Six thousand years of human governance generally supports the view that humans are mostly incapable of anything other than tyranny.

So it isn't a surprise we find ourselves in these circumstances.

I have no problem with the 'social compact' nature of governance. And consequently, I am not an anarchist. But when I say the 'rule of law', 'accountability' and 'transparency', these things are prerequisites to anything other than what can be found in those 60000 years I mentioned.

Incidentally, when I say the rule of law, I mean limited government, protection of property interests, and enforcement of contracts. All of that would be a very good start.

edit on 24-3-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by loam

Six thousand years of human governance generally supports the view that humans are mostly incapable of anything other than tyranny.

This six thousand years of human governance is a profound indictment on government, not humanity. While petty tyrants are certainly human, they do not make up the majority of people on the planet. If they did, it is arguable that we would have destroyed ourselves thousands of years ago. Instead, the majority of people are so inclined to tolerate and accept, so inclined to acquiesce as a a matter of expedience that this has led to a facilitation of tyranny. We the People tend to enable petty tyrants, not out of some deep seeded need to be tyrannized, but because we would really just like to be left alone, and we tend to fall into a go along to get along strategy.

I have no problem with the 'social compact' nature of governance. And consequently, I am not an anarchist. But when I say the 'rule of law', 'accountability' and 'transparency', these things are prerequisites to anything other than what can be found in those 60000 years I mentioned.

Yes. Precisely! That profound indictment of government, no? I do not see myself as an anarchist either, but I do not at all buy into this mystical "social compact" ideology either. It is the implication, or insistence depending upon who is selling this "compact", that individuals surrender sovereignty to government in order to have government that I reject. The problem with this "social compact", more commonly known as "social contract" is that this contract in no way follows the law of contracts, and obligates the people, while relieving government from any liability at all. This is not how contracts work, and since it is a non functional contract, it is invalid as a contract.

Incidentally, when I say the rule of law, I mean limited government, protection of property interests, and enforcement of contracts. All of that would be a very good start.

That government which governs least, governs best. If the rule of law is not based upon the unalienable rights of all individuals, I would suggest you can forget about limited government, protection of property interests, and enforcement of any contracts tends to be one sided. Under the rule of law, murder is illegal not because it is an action government decided they should prohibit, but because it is an abrogation and derogation of another persons right to life. Theft is not illegal because government decided it should be an action prohibited, but because theft is an abrogation and derogation of person right to property. The law is recognizable in the rights of people. Here is where we control government, by limiting them to the protection of rights, which does not require "national security" which equates to secrets and crap.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:56 AM

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Lilitu

Perhaps because evolutionary change is very often preferable to revolutionary change. I may not like the status quo of things, but I'm terrified by the collectivist interests behind some of these calls for revolution.

I want a return to the rule of law and accountability. I want government transparency.

I do not want fascism, disguised as reform.

Please. All you have is a recording of faceless talkers laying out a hare-brained scheme. You don't know who those people really are or what their true motivations are. But as calls for revolution go it certainly sounds less harmful than threats of "second amendment solutions" and "constitutional conventions" even if it is a hare-brained scheme that would never work. It sure makes a great right-wingnut conspiracy theory though - sure to be believed by functionally illiterate paranoid regressives everywhere!

Oh by the way, judgement day is on May 21st.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:33 AM
This is an excellent, well written thread. I'm not nearly as articulate as the above authors but I just had to chime in.
I support the rule of law; ie the Constitution.
My part is:
I vote in local elections
I shop in the local downtown establishments and no longer go to the mallllllll.
I use a locally owned credit union instead of a national bank
I no longer use credit cards
I'm weaning myself off of debit card use and paying cash more and more.
I write my congressman and senator at least once a week even though I believe the results are actually nil. I have to keep trying anyway.
Along with my sister, we take care of our elderly mother. We feel it's our responsibility to do so and not the governments.
I volunteer at the local food pantry
I engage in conversations with my friends encouraging them to do the same things I do and discuss why it's important.
I buy silver coins

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by fltcui

I'm glad you did chime in. Many of us have been discussing and refining this dialog for a long time, over the course of many threads and debates, so don't be put off.

I kind of feel like I'm making up for lost time.

These folks who see ungovernability as a way to coerce change in a government fail to recognize the preparation government has undergone to resist it. It's called "Continuity of Government" and the cosmetic nature of that moniker becomes evident when you realize that they actually mean "Continuity of THEIR GOVERNANCE."

That is why these kinds of back alley whispers of revolution concern me.... you do not hear the voice of the American people in the back alleys and darkened corners of society... you don't hear it in the ivory towers and institutions. You hear the voice of the people in places like these. in forums of discussion, in places where people actually 'speak' to each other.

Now such dialogs as we are exposed to by the "governing class" are theatrical productions; scripted, directed, and calculated for the most desirable politically expedient effect.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in