Charles Galton Darwin - The Next Million Years

http://www.scribd.com/doc/210040/Darwin-The-Next-Million-Years-how-to-kill-off-excess-population-1953

"The next million years" Charles's own 10 children all died, two of them in a mental hospital; and then his wife died. She was a Wedgwood. He then married his mother's sister, who was a Wedgwood; and his father, of course, married a Wedgwood; and his grandfather married a Wedgwood. They were already practicing this inbreeding program to try and regain what they thought was their intellect. They believed that's why they had that cunningness, that power of insight. However, in fact, when psychiatrists study it, what they're looking at are really the rationalizations of the psychopath. The Evolution THEORY came from Charles Darwin then was reiterated by his grandson Charles Galton Darwin and was publicized tremendously from getting funding by the elite to justify that the elite is more evolved then the us so they can kill us off its really part of a religion and Eugenics plan which basically originated form Hinduism. The Darwin's were high ranking FREEMASON and PSYCHOPATHS just like all the the elite and into interbreeding like the elite to keep certain traits in the family (selective breeding) we have a white coated priesthood that thinks nothing of taking animals, bashing them on the head with all kinds of gizmos and then reading their brainwaves to see how it affects them. Well why don't they try it with the scientists and maybe knock some sense into them and they use people as well as guinea pigs all the time, all the time. For years through the start of television back in the '50s they were giving you the medical dramas right away to holify, make it holy, the doctors and the nurses and hospital and the science you see of medicine and in no time at all they started in Britain and in other countries where they had national healthcare systems whipping out your tonsils and your adenoids and it became routine to children who are not old enough to understand anything; generally four or five and the excuse they gave again first through drama and then through reality to the public the excuse they gave was "well these appendages well you don't need them anymore you see. We use to be apes and we use to walk around with our heads pointing towards the ground and when we stand up that's why your sinuses get infected then your tonsils get it as well." So we'll just whip these off and same with your appendix; these vestiges of when you were an ape you see and this is taught as fact even though the Darwinian theory has never been proven. A theory is a guess. That's what it means. It's a guess and it only becomes a scientific theory when a bunch of scientists have consensus that that guess might be right. That's all. So your guess is as good as anybody else's. Make a few on all these topics. You'd be surprised what you might find out. We live in a Malthusian world. If you want to go into population control from the bigwigs themselves you can start at least -- it's not the first one but you can start with Thomas Malthus with his "Essay on Population" because Malthus was an economist who worked not just for the British government and for the first big corporations like the East India Company, he talked to governments of all European countries on how to keep the populations in check and he came out with fantastic graphs of how Europe was so overpopulated back in the 1700s and again by the use of pseudoscience and graphs and things he convinced them all that they'd have to reduce the populations because by a hundred years time we'd be crawling over each other like ants and proposed different methods of getting rid of mainly the poor and this is a big part of the old and the "new eugenics program." It's the same ongoing thing. It's had many names. Now it's called "bioethics". Sounds much gentler, fuzzy and nice but Malthus went through the usual spiel about the fittest have the right to survive. Again, all tied around the Darwinian period and remember that Charles Darwin was not the first one to write on this "survival of the fittest." His grandfather actually put a book out long before him before they were all high Freemasons and he talked about putting the poor in England and other countries into special housing units which they would locate in unhealthy areas like swamplands where disease would breed.He also advocated "the poor houses." Now the poor houses in the typical dialectical fashion to one group of people it would seem, well that's not so bad. They're putting up big buildings for the poor unfortunates who's -- the widows and their children who've been left without a husband. He's died in the mills or whatever or he was worked to death in the mines. So they put them in the work houses where to the charitable mind those far removed from the situation would think, "well that's good. That's nice and that's charitable." But Malthus had advocated the setup of these poor houses where they would be fed the worst kind and a minimal type of food and he even had it spaced down to the bed spacing which would be just rugs on the floor, so many feet apart; enough for fleas carrying typhus and other diseases to cross between one person and the next. It was a place to kill off the poor and the average length of existence for a mother and children going in there for life expectancy was maybe five months. So there's your two sides of what sounds like a charitable organization done for other reasons completely. That's the kind of world that existed before and it's far more sophisticated today.

Ten Planks of Communism

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);

Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

So I ask you...does changing the words, change the end result? By using different words is it all of a sudden OK? We are so "smart," aren't we??

Mass Psychology and Education

Brent Jessop

“For some reason which I have failed to understand, many people like the system [scientific totalitarianism] when it is Russian but disliked the very same system when it was German. I am compelled to think that this is due to the power of labels; these people like whatever is labelled ‘Left’ without examining whether the label has any justification.”- Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p56)

What exactly is the purpose of education? Does the government want to teach young people how to think and reason for themselves or is it a form of mass psychology aimed at propagandising the young? These questions are examined through Bertrand Russell’s 1952 book entitled The Impact of Science on Society*.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government. Among many other prizes, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Kalinga prize in 1957.

Part 1 of this series examines the impact of “scientific technique” on society. The second part explores Bertrand Russell’s views on the stability of a worldwide scientific society. Part 3 deals with population control and the scientific breeding of humans.

Education, a Modern Method of Propaganda

From Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey.” [emphasis mine] - 40

The Intended Result of Education

“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies. The only remaining possibility of unauthorised propaganda is by secret whispers from one individual to another. But this, in turn, is rendered appallingly dangerous by improvements in the art of spying. Children at school are taught that it is their duty to denounce their parents if they allow themselves subversive utterances in the bosom of the family. No one can be sure that a man who seems to be his dearest friend will not denounce him to the police; the man may himself have been in some trouble, and may know that if he is not efficient as a spy his wife and children will suffer. All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.” [emphasis mine] - 58

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It may be worthwhile to spend a few moments in speculating as to possible future developments of those that are oligarchies.

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” [emphasis mine] - 61

That is really worth repeating.

“Diet, injections, and injunctions [a command, admonition, etc.] will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

Some Miscellaneous Uses of Education

“…result from the elimination of war [and the establishment of a world government]. A great deal, also, is to be hoped from a change in propaganda. Nationalist propaganda, in any violent form, will have to be illegal, and children in schools will not be taught to hate and despise foreign nations. Active instruction in the evils of the old times and the advantages of the new system would do the rest. I am convinced that only a few psychopaths would wish to return to the daily dread of radioactive disintegration.” - 108

“The nations which at present increase [their populations] rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation.” [emphasis mine] - 116

The idea of using education or rather sex education to reduce the population of the west was further promoted in 1968 by Paul Ehrlich in his book The Population Bomb**:

“We need a federal law requiring sex education in schools - sex education that includes discussion of the need for regulating the birth rate and of the techniques of birth control. Such education should begin at the earliest age recommended by those with professional competence in this area - certainly before junior high school.

By “sex education” I do not mean course focusing on hygiene or presenting a simple-minded “birds and bees” approach to human sexuality. The reproductive function of sex must be shown as just one of its functions, and one that must be carefully regulated in relation to the needs of the individual and society.” - 133

For more on Paul Ehrlich’s views on the use of education and other means of population control please read this previous article, Population, Religion and Sex Education.

The Governing Classes Only

Most people reading this article are the products of a state run educational system. If the above is not enough to make you reflect on the merits of universal education and on all of the things you were ‘taught’ as a child (and since then), hopefully the following quote will.

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…” [emphasis mine] - 41

*Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X
**Quotes from: Paul R. Ehrlich. The Population Bomb: Revised & Expanded Edition (1968, 1971). SBN 345-24489-3-150.

George Orwell (1903-1950) - pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair

English novelist, essayist and critic, famous for his political satires ANIMAL FARM (1945), an anti-Soviet tale, and NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR (1949), which shows that the destruction of language is an essential part of oppression. Orwell was an uncompromising individualist and political idealist. V.S. Pritchett called him "the wintry conscience of a generation " Both the Left and Right have utilized Orwell's works in ideological debate.

"The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, than one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals." ( from 'Reflections on Gandhi', in Shooting an Elephant, 1949)

George Orwell was born in Motihari, Bengal, India, as the second child of Richard Walmesley Blair and Ida Mabel Limonzin. His father was a civil servant in the opium department and his mother was the daughter of a tea-merchant in Burma. In 1904 Orwell moved with his mother and sister to England, where he attended Eton. His first writings Orwell published in college periodicals. During these years Orwell developed his antipathy towards the English class systems. Also Orwell's years at St Cyprian's Preparatory School in Easbourne were not happy. His bitter, barely disguised attack on St. Cyprian's, SUCH, SUCH WERE THE JOYS, was not published until 1968 for fear of libel action.

At the age of seventeen Orwell had his first experiences as an "amateur tramp" in Plymouth, where he was stranded accidentally without much money. After Orwell failing to win a scholarship to university, Orwell went in 1922 to Burma to serve in the Indian Imperial Police (1922-27) as an assistant superintendent. Like his colleagues, Orwell had a native mistresses. Eventually Orwell's mounting dislike of imperial rule led to his resignation. SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT (1950) is collection of essays revealing the behaviour of the colonial officers. One of his most famous early essays is 'A Hanging' (1931), in which a Hindu man is hanged in a hurry, but with a great routine. "An enormous relief had come upon us now that the job was done. One felt an impulse to sing, to break into a run, to snigger. All at once everyone began chattering gaily."

Orwell returned to Europe and lived as a tramp and beggar, working low paid jobs in England and France (1928-29), where his aunt lived. He picked hops in Kent as a migratory laborer and once Orwell tried to get himself arrested as a drunk to have some knowledge about life in prison. After forty-eight hours he was released. In 1928 he had decided to become a writer, but his first amateurish efforts arose smiles. A poet friend described him "like a cow with a musket." Orwell's experiences in poverty gave material for DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON (1933). However, the author was never a full-time vagrant, but he stayed every now and then with his older sister or with his parents, and plunged to the lower depths of society like an explorer. "The Paris slums are a gathering-place for eccentric people - people who ave fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent. Poverty frees them from ordinary standards of behavior, just as money frees people from work." (from Down and Out in Paris and London) From 1930 Orwell contributed regularly to the New Adelphi. In 1933 he assumed the pseudonym by which he would sign all his publications - Orwell was the name of a small river in East Anglia, and George was definitely a British Christian name.

Unable to support himself with his writings, Orwell took up a teaching post at a private school, where he finished his first novel, BURMESE DAYS (1934). In 1936 Orwell married Eileen O'Shaugnessy, a doctor's daughter. KEEP THE ASPIDISTRA FLYING, the story of a young bookseller's assistant, appeared in 1936. From 1936 to 1940 Orwell worked as a shopkeeper in Wallington, Hertfordshire. He was commissioned in 1936 by the publisher Victor Gollancz to produce a documentary account of unemployment in the North of England for the Left Book Club. The result, THE ROAD TO WIGAN PIER, is considered a milestone in modern literary journalism.

In the1930s Orwell had adopted socialistic views. Like many other writers, he travelled to Spain to report on the Civil War. He fought alongside the United Workers Marxist Party militia and was shot through the throat by a Francoist sniper’s bullet. When Stalinists on their own side started to hunt down Anarchists and his friends were thrown into prison, Orwell escaped with his wife Eileen Blair from the chaos. The war made him a strong opposer of communism and an advocate of the English brand of socialism. Special Branch police had monitored Orwell since the late 1920s, but eventually the authorities decided that he was not a threat to the national security. Orwell's book on Spain, HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, appeared in 1938 after some troubles with its publication. The book was coldly received by left-wing intelligentsia, who regarded Communists as heroes of the war. In Orwell’s lifetime Homage to Catalonia sold only about fifty copies a year.

Orwell opposed a war with Germany, but he condemned fascism. During World War II he served as a sergeant in the Home Guard and worked as a journalist for the BBC, Observer and Tribune, where he was literary editor from 1943 to 1945. Toward the end of the war, he wrote Animal Farm, which depicted the betrayal of a revolution. After the war, Orwell went to Germany as a reporter, but in his dispatches he sent to The Observer and The Manchester Evening News he did not mention the extermination camps or Auschwitz.

Aftewr the war Orwell lived mostly on the remote island of Jura in the Western Isles of Scotland. With Eileen he had adopted a little boy. His wife died in 1945 - "Yes, she was a good old stick," Orwell said to his friend. In 1949 Orwell married Sonia Brownell (1918-1980), who had been an editorial assistant on Cyril Connolly’s magazine Horizon. Her marriage to Orwell lasted only three months. Orwell died from tuberculosis in London University Hospital on January 21, 1950, soon after the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The biting satire of Communist ideology in The Animal Farm made Orwell for the first time prosperous. Another world wide success was Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the classical works of science fiction along with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and H.G. Wells novels Time Machine, War of The World and Invisible Man. Animal Farm was a satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution, particularly directed against Stalin's policies. Orwell's famous works were naturally forbidden in the Soviet Union, but nowadays the novels have been translated even into Chinese.

Led by the pigs, the Animals on Mr Jones's farm revolt against their human masters. After their victory they decide to run the farm themselves on egalitarian principles. Inspired by the example of Boxer, the hard-working horse, the cooperation prosper. The pigs become corrupted by power and a new tyranny is established under Napoleon (Stalin). "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Snowball (Trotsky), an idealist, is driven out. The final betrayal is made when the pigs engineer a rapprochement with Mr Jones. The book was originally rejected for publication in 1944 at Faber and Faber by T.S. Eliot, who wrote: "After all, your pigs are far more intellectual than the other animals, and therefore the best qualified to run the farm—in fact, there couldn’t have been an Animal Farm at all without them: so that what was needed (someone might argue) was not more communism but more public spirited pigs." Since its appearance the book has gained a status of a classic. - Film adaptation from 1955 was a faithful rendition of Orwell's original work, but watered in the end the satire, and presented a socialist viewpoint: the system is good, but the individuals are corruptible.

1984 was a bitter protest against the nightmarish future and corruption of truth and free speech of the modern world. In the story, Britannia has become Airstrip One in the superstate Oceania, which is controlled by Big Brother and the Party. "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power." (from Nineteen Eighty-Four) The Party's agents constantly rewrite history. The official language is Newspeak, and the society is dominated by such slogans as "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength." Goldstein with his book is supposedly plotting against Oceania, and a target of a hate period. The hero, Winston Smith, a minor Party operative, rewrites the past at the Ministry of Truth. He keeps a secret diary and has a brief love affair with a girl named Julia. He believes that O'Brien, a member of the Inner Party, is not sympathetic to Big Brother. O'Brien enrolls him and Julia in a conspiracy. One day Winston is arrested by the Thought Police, tortured and brainwashed. O'Brien directs Winston's torture and rehabilitation and tells that Goldstein is the invention of the Party. His spirit broken, Winston learns to love Big Brother. Winston and Julia meet briefly one day, they both have gone through the process and have lost their former love for each other. Some critics have related Smith's sufferings to those the author underwent at preparatory school - Winston is finally broken by rats. Orwell has said that the book was written "to alter other people's idea of the kind of society they should strive after."

In 1998 Martin Seymour-Smith listed Orwell's dystopia among 100 most influential books ever written. It has inspired less or more directly a number of other science fiction novels, among them Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 (1953). Orwell himself implicitly acknowledged his debt to Evgeny Zamyatin's (1884-1937) novel We (in Russia My), which was written in 1920 and translated into English 1924. Although Orwell is best-known as a novelist, his essays are among the finest of the 20th-century. He also produced newspaper articles and reviews, which were written for money, but he carefully crafted his other essays for such journals as Partisan Review, Adelphi, and Horizon. Without hesitation he accused that Yeats is a fascist, H.G. Wells was out of touch with reality, Salvador Dali he found decadent, but he defended P.G. Wodehouse. In 'Why Write?' and 'Politics and the English Language' (1948) Orwell argued that writers have an obligation of fighting social injustice, oppression, and the power of totalitarian regimes.

For further reading: George Orwell by L. Brander (1954); The Crystal Spirit by G. Woodcock (1966); Orwell by Raymond Williams (1971); The Unknown Orwell by Peter Stansky (1972); Road to Miniluv by C. Small (1975); George Orwell: The Critical Heritage, ed. by Jeffrey Meyers (1975); A Reader's Guide to George Orwell, ed. by Jeffrey Meyers (19757); George Orwell: A Life by B. Crick (1981); A George Orwell Companion by J.R. Hammond (1982); The Language of 1984 by W.F. Bolton (1984); George Orwell, ed. by Courtney T. Wemyss and Alexej Ugrinsky (1987); Orwell by Michel Shelden (1991); Orwell: Wintry Conscience of a Generation by Jeffrey Meyers (2000); Orwell's Victory by Christopher Hitchens (2002); George Orwell and the Betrayal of Dissent by Scott Lucas (2003); George Orwell by Gordon Bowker (2003); Orwell: The Life by D.J. Taylor (2003) - For further information: Charles' George Orwell Links - See also: Franz Kafka - Suom.: Suomennettu myös valikoima Esseitä (1984) - Other writers witnessing the Spanish Civil War: Ernest Hemingway, Federico Garcia Lorca, André Malraux, Langston Hughes

Selected works:

• DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON, 1933 - Puilla paljailla Pariisissa ja Lontoossa
• BURMESE DAYS, 1934
• CLERGYMAN'S DAUGHTER, 1935
• KEEP THE ASPIDISTRA FLYING, 1936 - Eläköön tuonenkielo! - film A Merry War (1997), dir. by Robert Bierman, starring Helena Bonham Carter, Richard E. Grant, Jim Carter, Harriet Walter
• THE ROAD TO WIGAN PIER, 1937 - Tie Wiganin aallonmurtajalle
• HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, 1938 - Katalonia, Katalonia
• COMING UP FOR AIR, 1939
• INSIDE THE WHALE AND OTHER ESSAYS, 1940
• THE LION AND THE UNICORN, 1941
• ed.: TALKING TO INDIA, 1943
• ANIMAL FARM, 1945 - Eläinten vallankumous - animated movie 1955, dir. by Joy Batchelor, John Halas; film 1999, dir. by John Stephensen, starring Kelsey Grammer and Julia Ormond
• CRITICAL ESSAYS, 1946
• JAMES BURNHAM AND THE MANAGERIAL EVOLUTION, 1946
• THE ENGLISH PEOPLE, 1947
• ed.: BRITISH PAMPHLETEERS 1, 1948
• NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, 1949 - Vuonna 1984 - film adaptations: 1955, dir. by Michael Anderson, starring Edmund O'Brien, Michael Redgrave, Jan Sterling, David Kossoff; film 1984, dir. by Michael Radford, starring John Hurt, Richard Burton, Suzanna Hamilton, Cyril Cusack; film 1985 (Brazil), dir. by Terry Gillam, starring Jonathan Pryce, Kim Greist, Robert De Niro, Katherine Helmond, Bob Hoskins
• SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT, 1950 - Kun ammuin norsun
• ENGLAND, YOUR ENGLAND AND OTHER ESSAYS / SUCH, SUCH WERE THE JOYS, 1953
• A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS, 1954
• THE ORWELL READER, 1956
• SELECTED ESSAYS, 1957
• SELECTED WRITINGS, 1958
• COLLECTED ESSAYS, 1961
• DECLINE OF THE ENGLISH MURDER AND OTHER ESSAYS, 1965
• THE COLLECTED ESSAYS, JOURNALISM AND LETTERS OF GEORGE ORWELL 1920-1950, 4 vol., 1968 (ed. by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus)
• THE PENGUIN ESSAYS OF GEORGE ORWELL, 1984
• THE COMPLETE WORKS, 1984 (17 vols.)
• ORWELL: THE WAR BROADCASTS, 1985
• THE COMPLETE WORKS OF GEORGE ORWELL, 1998 (20 vols., ed. by Peter Davison, assisted by Ian Angus, and Sheila Davison)

This is where we are headed

This is their world as far as they're concerned. John Kerry's the same with his wife who's involved in the Heinz industry. They said they'd take over the food industry you know 40, 50 years ago, because when you take over the food industry you have war on the people. War, in all times, takes into account economic war, food and water, all the basics when you're having a war on a city or on a whole country on in the world. They go for those primary things. It's just a coincidence of course we have John Kerry who's married to the Heinz Dynasty, who I'm sure have been modifying those foods since they created the company called Heinz. Modification of the food is modification of the people. This has been going on for thousands of years and what you think of as normal (meaning your culture) was not normal at all. It was one of many cultures they could have given you; and they changed culture from the top and the people simply emulate it and copy it. The America of today is vastly different from 20 years ago or 40 or 100 years ago. It's constantly being upgraded as you upgrade a computer program and the public don't even notice. They simply adapt. We got to this point when money was introduced into civilization with cities. That's what civilization comes from is the city. You're a citizen of the city. The definition of a citizen is someone who is born with preexisting duties to a system. If you're born with preexisting duties to a system, it means you're not born free. They talk about Nimrod being the first builder of cities; and a city cannot supply itself with anything it needs to simply survive. It needs an artificial system and it is an artificial system. It must have this thing called money. It can then hire people who don't work for food; they work for money. You buy your food and they tax it back from you and create armies to go off and conquer. Therefore, even guys like Plato said that they would bring their utopia, their world republic into being by using the cities, because in a city the culture is plastic. It is fluid. It is flexible. You can shape it and direct it into any direction you wish them to go and the public adapt so quickly in the city. It doesn't matter what kind of society it is, the public will adapt to it if they think it's normal. A child born into a system where the parents don't know it's abnormal, it means that the child itself will think everything that exists in that system must be normal and they will never question it. That technique has been used for thousands of years to be a form of slavery. Charles Galton Darwin admitted this in the 1950's. He was the grandson of Charles Darwin. He was a physicist and he said, "there has always a form of slavery and we (meaning the elite) are simply creating a more effective form of slavery today." That was in the 1950's. That form of slavery is already here. People are wage slaves. They work like rats work in a laboratory where they pull levers and get a seed, and that rat then begins to think that's normal and that's the only way that you eat. It's the same with people working for money. They are wage slaves. If you add up all the taxes and hidden taxes that you pay, it's about 60 percent of your income. If you go back to the Middle Ages, the feudal system, the average serf who did not own his land had to give 60 percent of all his produce to his lord and he's left with 40 percent to feed himself, his family, any cattle he had and any other labor. The rates are the same from the feudal system to the present system; and yet today, through propaganda they keep telling us we are free. How can you be free if you don't really own the roof over your head? How can you live in a truly advanced society, what they call progress and civilization, when someone that you will never meet in a city far away decides to send the taxman after you and they take that roof from over your head and seize it? That's called stealing, you see. They steal your property and through propaganda and through altering perceptions, the whole population's taught that this is somehow normal. It's incredible how they can distort perception by the use of words. It's the same type that goes with – if you have a highwayman on the road and he draws his pistols and holds you up and demands ransom money or you won't pass, and you pay him off, you see this guy as a highwayman. He's a robber. If a cop does it and demands he gives you a ticket, or even cash as some of them do nowadays, for their bosses, he's doing his duty for the law, the legal system. It's the same act. If the highwayman comes and steals your stagecoach, you know he's stolen it. If the police impound your car, they call it impounding not stealing. It the same act. Perceptions are altered in this system to fool the public and the public are trained to think this is all normal. That's how you distort perception. Even the creation of the United States, there's no doubt about it; it wasn't a sudden idea to have a revolution. It took years of planning and the Founding Fathers admitted that. They had to do negotiations with countries long before -- in advance they could supply them with powder and all the rest of it and logistics. They had the islands all mapped out and ready to go where they would bring all this pirated stuff. They also had treaties made with France who would finance them through this war. It took a lot of planning and preparation to set it off and it was a Masonic led revolution. That's why 33 of the 50-odd Founding Fathers signed the Declaration. It was for the high number 33 because the sun rises on the 30th degree and sets at 33. The same as Jesus comes on the same age of 30 and dies at 33. It's the same old Masonic stuff down through the ages and they do like to stick to their formulas. The Founding Fathers, like all countries that have been created through this technique, England was the first you must remember because the English Revolution was before the U.S. Revolution. Everyone seems to forget that. The colors of the Revolution were red; and then they had the Blue Lodge for the color blue, for open freemasonry, because the sun is blue when everything is out in the open; and white is for the spirit that would really guide it. That's the colors of revolution: red, white and blue. Therefore, every country that had the revolution—Britain, United States and France—ended up with red, white and blue on their flag because it's Kabbalistic and only the Founders understood this religion. The lower peasantry didn't understand anything about it at all. When they got together in the convention hall, they barred the doors. They pulled the blinds. They put sentries on the doors to keep the public out; and that was a Masonic meeting they held in Philadelphia, because they do it in the temple that has no windows. That's why no one could see in. It was a Masonic meeting and they came out and said to the people, "we have given you a government." There was no vote by the people to have that government. The public have no say in the whole thing; and then they give you the foundation myths that George Washington could not tell you a lie and all this stuff. These are called foundation myths that they always give every country. That's to make them feel good about themselves. They had meetings in Europe before the Revolution and they had the Concert of Europe and they had different ones they called them. The elite wanted a world society. They knew the way they were going. They couldn't war amongst themselves, the psychopathic crew, again at the top of this monied system that there are always psychopaths, and then they become inbred psychopaths and then hereditary psychopaths. They knew they couldn't keep on having wars without eventually having a global society, because every war led to a takeover of other countries and amalgamations that started with alliances to become amalgamated to become empires. They knew eventually they'd end up with one global empire but they knew they couldn't do it quickly with the countries that were already known for plundering every country they went into. That was Britain, France and all the other Germanic countries and so on. Therefore they had to create a new knight in shining armor that stood for freedom and democracy and all the this stuff; and so they created the United States of America, the elite. They also knew by the size of the Americas and the natural resources that it would be built up through immigration and manpower to lead the world. They'd be the richest country in the world. They could finance wars. Wars are very expensive and global war would cost an awful lot of money and manpower for a military, so they had to create this; then they gave the world this new one that didn't have a history of plundering other nations when it started off and it led the charge. Today when you go across the world, even 20, 30 years ago when you traveled across the world, you'd meet people coming from Georgetown University and students doing their work abroad to help the peoples; but what they were really doing was bringing the American business system with them and furthering American corporate interests abroad. That's really what they were doing. The U.S. has caused more wars and done more war-like things through international corporatism than any other way. Here's the dilemma. The people have come to this point thinking the past was normal and the money system was normal. Their industry has gone abroad. Most of them saw it happening and didn't recognize it at the time. They floated through the changeover to China as the industry was leaving shores. You can't get America back to a phase because all the industry is gone; and under this economic system, if you don't produce product, then you're a service economy. Service economies, as the big economists tell you, were meant as stop gap measures between industry and something else. If there is nothing else to take its place, the dog that's paddling will eventually flounder and drown. It looks to me like the U.S. is going to be vastly depopulated in the future; and that ties in with books like " Millennium" by Jacques Attali. A man who helped spearhead the unification of Europe and who wrote about the next phase, which is the unification of the Americas in his book " Millennium," written about 1990. He said that eventually when the borders were going down in the Americas, the Latin Americans will flood up and for a while, there will be mayhem as even the big gangs move up. He said it will be similar to Attila the Hun invading Rome et cetera. The Huns and the Goths and Visigoths invading Rome when they come in, but eventually it was settled down. However, that they knew, America would never come back. In fact, the next boat people would be Americans going across the world looking for employment. This has all been discussed at top think tanks at international levels for many years.

The depopulation on one aspect will be say mass immigration out of America eventually, but they also believe at the top that they don't want (and they mean this) they don't want what they call "useless eaters." These guys at the top want an efficient system where you're not born just to enjoy yourself and eat et cetera, but rather to produce for this system. They've said before: if there's no work for you to produce for this system, you are therefore a useless eater and they will not tolerate them to live. They mean what they say. They want to vastly reduce the population over the next 10, 20 years. If you look at all the agreements that have been signed by every country in the world, including the Kyoto Agreement, they want to kick back countries like Canada and America to the pollution standards of pre-1960. Pre-1960 had a much smaller population than today and electricity, your gasoline, all of those things you know. That's the China express that's going by my house, by the way, so they phone up all the Costco stores across Canada.

People like Bertrand Russell and the Council on Population Control at the United Nations have put out these statements that they are going to have vastly reduced populations that will live in these habitat areas. The United Nations has websites up on these habitat areas. What it boils down to is initially the habitat areas are the existing cities that are going to become tremendously crowded, but they also had habitat areas with armed guards and perimeter fences with high-tech homes for the high bureaucratic class that will be running the Americas. This is modeled on the Soviet System where no one could leave their area. They all lived in a form of almost a British third-rate level, except for the bureaucracies that serve the system had dachas in the country where they had servants and they could get away and enjoy themselves. That was the model that we're now based upon. These special habitat areas, high tech ones, the present ones will be for advanced professors and people who have control over parts of indoctrination processes, which is very important. Lenin said it himself. He said you must pay the police, the military and the educationalists very well because they do the indoctrination and they keep people obedient.

The people who are sleeping will stay sleeping. It's been the same in all ages if you read history that the populations, the vast of them will go to the wall rather than admit what's happening. They want to believe the propaganda. They want to believe the six o'clock news. They want to believe that the experts are running their lives for them efficiently. They don't want to know the hard, sad truth about the world. They're perpetual children and that's what socialism is, you see. They'll go to the wall holding on to the myth and stay in denial until they personally get hit or thrown out of their homes, or whatever it may be, and then they'll start howling. Then they'll start mobs and then they'll riot, uncoordinated mobs which will riot and the governments are prepared for this. They've been preparing 30, 40 years for this by building up big internal armies and rapid deployment forces. The British Department of Defence, a couple of months ago in the Guardian Newspaper, released nine pages from the Department of Defence for NATO as well as Britain; and the U.S. is part of NATO. They all signed the same thing; and for the next 20 years they project from the top think tanks in the military, they see nothing but riots and what they call flashmobs from the general population getting increasingly worse over the next 10 to 20 years. They are preparing through their think tanks of every possible scenario of what they must do to handle and control the public, including the use of neutron bombs on selected target groups within the population. This is from the biggest Defence Department on the planet. Now what on earth is going to happen to make Joe Six Pack get off his chair and actually take part in something, albeit rioting? What it will be is the effects of things like Kyoto. They're going to stop giving you your gasoline. It's going to get rationed in the future. They want non-essential vehicles only, eventually, on the road for the habitat areas. They're going to cutback electricity usage drastically, all the conveniences that you have and they're also going to give you less and less employment. You're going to get rioting breaking out, an uncoordinated riot that will be dealt swiftly by the police and the military type forces that are being trained to deal with this now. Once the United Nations has declared the sovereign government of the world and the United Americas has taken place officially, the last part of this signing of the Americas will be done in 2010. By 2010, the Americas have to be united completely with its own form of a Brussels type government; and they even discussed creating the new capital of the Americas in Quebec. That was decided back in the 1990's when they did the Free Trade Negotiations. In 2012, the U.N. is to be made the official government of the world. That means the Congress will be like a provincial government and so will the Canadian one.

They planned to have everyone brain chipped so people won't be able to think at all; and I'm not kidding about that. They've actually done testing on this. This is the big push now making people think it's a natural progression from the computer to the little Blueberry that they have, the little machine to the cell phone and then to the brain chip. People are getting indoctrinated that this is a natural evolution. However, once that brain chip is installed—and they've had world meetings on this at big universities like Loyola University in Louisiana, the World Science Meetings. The chip is ready to go. It does interface with your neurons, your nervous system. It will be able to transmit to your brain and transmit from your brain to central regionalized computers. This is ready to go. All they have to do now is convince the public to accept it and they're doing that through movies and fiction. The youngsters, it's already through their cartoons. They think it's going to be a wonderful idea, but what they're not telling you is once you take this chip and they flick the main switch and the real purpose kicks on, you will no longer be you. What they said at Loyola was – In fact, you'll be unable to even perceive yourself as a distinct separate individual. At the Loyola meeting the professor from Japan who'd been working on this brain chip, which is ready to go, he said that think of it more like the hive rather than individuals. You'll have a hive mentality where you'll hear whispers of instructions going to those around you and whispers of their thoughts going to you back to the main computer. That's exactly what you've been watching on Star Trek with the Borg. That's what the Borg is all about and the Borg are all one. In the New Age movement you hear the mantra that we're all one. Sure, for the New Agers that all of them are going to get their chance. They'll all be one. It's just that they won't retain their individuality to do anything with it.

[thanks to Alan Watt] cuttingthroughthematrix.com

The Unpopular Truth

Because of man's basic needs to get in touch with something he thinks is out there bigger than himself, which is their deity, their god, their creator, whatever, that in all times, especially in the ancient times, priesthoods arose using that knowledge and distorting the truth and saying they had the truth; and because of that they became very dominant over the people. They control the people's minds through religion; and with them, wherever they went, they brought the money system with them. That's very important because the money is a form of slavery. Once you get people to accept money, you can then tax it back from them. You can hire armies and go and conquer other countries. We're really seeing a culmination of thousands of years of this very technique coming to an end with the Middle East, and they're put under the exact same system for global domination. This agenda has been on the table for an awful long time. It also takes the cooperation of all existing religions to go along with this. If you notice, not one of the major religions or religious leaders is warning the public about the future and what it has in store for the general public, either in the cloning field, the genetic engineering field, the eugenics field, and the depopulation programs that they've been putting forward for a long time. None of the religious leaders who have the power and the authority to tell people, "look, start thinking about this." None of them seldom even talk about it or even discuss it. It tells you they're all in on this together at the very top levels. When you stumble across major figures in history like Alexander the Great for instance. Alexander the Great, his mentor was Aristotle the philosopher and Aristotle was married to one of the biggest international money lenders of his own era; and the same money lenders from the Middle East funded the Macedonians and the Greeks. They go into Persia and take it over. They paid for the war in other words and all the people who were taken over had to pay it all back through taxes to repay the money sharks. You find the same thing all down through history. Money-lenders, the leaders that teach and put up front men like Alexander the Great, or maybe a George Bush in our time, it's all the same old con game. They're all interrelated we find through their wives and through their mentors. They're all intermarried and interrelated.

Hermaphroditic has different meanings in the occult industry. In ancient times, they talked about the perfection of the human being where the right brain would be working together – emotion versus reason. It would come to a harmonized point and that was the perfected man or the illumined man as they called it. You'll find the same thing hidden behind major religions. In Genesis, the deity he makes a double of himself and from that double he then subdivides Adam and Eve from it, meaning the deity himself was male and female. That's the meaning in Genesis. You also find the same things in the writings of Plato. The deity they worshiped was male on the front and female on behind when they walked the other way. They're talking about the ultimate perfection is going to be a creature which is neither male nor female, which can self-reproduce. It's an odd agenda, too, you might think, but it's always been here for thousands of years. Now they have talked about the creation of the perfect worker human being that would be both male and female and could self-produce. That way there's no conflict. The world they want to bring in has to be conflict free. Free from conflict of nations or races, ethnic groups but also no conflict of gender conflict. That's what they call their utopia, their peace on earth. However, the elite themselves said they will not alter themselves. They will only alter the worker bees to be more perfect; and one day if you serve the system of the state very well, the honor you will have is the right to reproduce yourself, an exact model of yourself. There is Masonic coding hidden in the language, right through so many different words that we use commonly without thinking of what they really mean. Our language itself was given to us to contain coding, as all the high Freemasons know. The mainstream religions all have (for the west anyway) all came from basically the Hebrew versions and split off – the Christians would say it was the culmination or a completion of Judaism to have a Messiah. Most Jews think the messiah is still to come; and you can have many messiahs within Judaism, anyone who furthers the cause is called the Messiah. Mohammedanism was slightly tailor-made and altered to suit the Arabic peoples, the desert peoples and give them strong laws basically to make it more cohesive as a society. They all come from the same root. You'll find in every region of the world there's always a trinity of religions which are associated from a main root; and so for the west, they gave them Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedism (or Islam) coming from the same source. You'll find in the Far East they give you Shintoism, a form of Japanese Buddhism and another mainstream religion or Taoism as well. You always have a trinity of religions for each region of the planet; and that's how it's set-up, slightly altered for the mentalities of different cultures. That's the only difference there is. You have to realize that what you had was a Roman Empire, that knew it could not continue—it fell towards the end because it could not tax all of its colonies sufficiently to keep Rome in the lifestyle that had accumulated and was used to. They thought religion was a better way to dominate the minds of all people more cheaply, more effectively, especially if you could indoctrinate the young, you will never lose them when they grow up. The Catholic Church, remember, took someone else's religion, the Gnostic religion really. The Gnostics had a Jesus type figure who they said was mythical. He was a myth of a perfected man which they all hoped to emulate, so it was almost like a mascot you might say of a perfected man, not a real person. They were arguing with Constantine when he had the first great meeting in 325 AD to form this new Universal Church as it was called at the time. Since the Gnostics wouldn't go along with the Vatican saying Jesus is a real person, Constantine sent out armies to try and kill off all the Gnostics because they knew, according to them, that it was not a real person that had existed. In Judaism they have references to a Jesus in the Talmud and other writings of Judaism, which would make you think there was at least one character who could have been called Judah or Yehuda, whatever, but probably not Jesus. We know it meant the fish from the Greek, Iesous, and it was for the Age of Pisces, the fish that it was created. In every era it's the same long before that. You had the Ramses line for the pharaohs in Egypt because their lineage began in the reign of Aries the ram. They always give you a religious figure for the particular constellation that rules for 2,500 years or so. Jesus was meant to fulfill a period for 2,000-odd years and then you're into the Age of Aquarius, which we're coming into now, and then he dies off and a new one takes over. Everything is stellar occultic, lunar occultic and solar occultic in the world's history; and the priests down through the ages simply change hats as they did for Rome. The high priests of Jupiter changed their hats overnight and they were now called the Universal Church. Then after hunting down all what they called were the pagan priesthoods, the Roman Church then began to adopt those very tenants of those priesthoods back into their own religion. Very clever people put the Bible together, giving you the simple rules that would give you a really workable society if everyone followed the rules, including those who lead your countries, you see; but never, in any age, have the rulers in this system followed the religion they make the people adopt. We know that by history itself. The leaders have never followed the same rules as the public. Yes, it would be workable for the people if everyone did adopt and follow simple rules. However, these religions are very Hegelian because there's always a truth contained within. The falsehood is well-contained within, but the truth is that they're supposed to be stepping-stones to much higher truths. They're not meant to stay static and become dogmatic as a religion. They're supposed to progress onwards and upwards and carry the person who's truly seeking into a higher realm of understanding towards a creator. If you notice the main deity of Yahweh for both Hebrew is very much of a human character: Very much of a human god with his failings, his anger, his temper, and his favoritism. He can also change his mind when he wants to and kill you if he has a sudden rage. It's really a projection of the human oriental despotic king that you would find in the Middle East at that period. It was something the people could understand.

The Greeks talked about the Demiurgos, the base god at the low level of godhood, claiming there's four levels and that the base god is in charge of the world. He is the Lord of the world and he – because the people are base, they've had stringent patriarchal type rules to make their system work – he's unforgiving. If he puts you off guard, you're never sure if he likes you or dislikes you. However, he's not supposedly the only one. He's one level, so he's a Demiurgos; and Jehovah fits that level perfectly well. If you notice for instance the story of Jacob. Jacob cheats his brother out of the birthright and the blessing by pretending that he is the brother and he fools his own father who's blind or half blind, so he lies, he cheats and he steals the birthright and he disobeyed his father. He broke all the rules and yet the god blessed him for being so crafty and cunning and made him the father of Israel. Now that's how the mafia would work. You have to understand that there's high Masonic rules in there too, because they do believe you should get away with things if you do it craftily and enough cunning and to get your way. The rules of the high corrupt system are also contained in that Masonic Bible, the Old Testament, if you understand them. What deity that's for justice and all the rest of it would ever allow that to happen and actually bless the criminal? The Bible has been rewritten many times, always for political purposes, including the King James version was written to make the people obedient, because King James thoroughly believed that he was God's representative on earth ordained by God. He even wrote a big speech about that. King James said how dare the people inquire as to his decisions. He says "don't they realize that I have the power of God given to me by God to do and say and do as I wish?" That's what he truly believed. In the King James Version, he had all the writers stress that point that the government was put there by God and you should obey it. It was written for a political purpose with a lot of High Masons at the time working on that very project. Francis Bacon and others helped to write the other.

If you go back into the ancient Middle East, into Zoroastrianism really, that was the start of all of these religions. The Zoroastrian religion is the first one to come out talking about a good deity and a bad deity. Later on in Judaism, you have a god and a devil, even though the devil, if you read Job, worked for God. God told him to go and torment people. He was a worker. He was employed by God. Zoroastrianism seems to be the one they've all taken their queue from, and he created Judaism from it and Christianity as well. It's a very mythical figure but it's hard to put Zoroaster. It also calls them Zarathustra; and Zoroaster in the old, old system meant seed of Ishtar. That's where the name comes from, Zoroaster. Zoro also means the man with the mask, like Zorro, and you also have the same thing in the Old Testament with the Zoro-Babel, which means the seed of Babel. Why would anybody who had been a slave in Babylon call themselves seed of Babel? You're looking at coding in there for the wise to understand, and of course the profane are never taught the reasons as they call them. You're looking at very clever people running a system down through the ages, running an exoteric for the public—be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam by teaching a high esoteric tradition for the ones "in the know" at the top who laugh up their sleeves at the public all the time. It's even in the New Testament if you understand what you're reading, you'll find that even George Bush, Sr. said, "Everything is going to the heavenly divine plan." What he's referring to was the zodiac and what they mean, because the zodiac to them is a timetable. Each part of the zodiac is part of this system that must come into play at a particular time according to an old, old plan. The Aquarius is even in the New Testament, where Jesus says to his disciples "go into town. Find the man with the mule and ask for his mule. He'll be carrying a picture of water," and what he's telling them is that Aquarius, the man with the picture of water was Aquarius. The whole thing is astrological. I think that people can find the higher truths beyond the base truths. The laws are given for the base public. I think the individual who is truly seeking will find it if they seek hard enough and they'll even go beyond whichever religion they've been given on the base level, a common religion. Very few do but some are able to do it and use that like a stepping-stone to get up and come in touch with something far greater than themselves, far bigger than the basic Yahweh character with the human characteristics of the battle-angry old man. There's something much greater in the world than that and some people can go – there are even people from Islam who've gone beyond Islam on the same path too, and come to the same conclusions only because they've done the journey themselves. They've left the dogma behind them, the dogma given to the general public who need those basic rules at a certain period in their history. In all ages, in all lands there have been those seek truth. This seeking is an individual search for something more than self and much more than the confines of this worldly system that we live in. It is the seeker who understands there is more than what meets the eye, who is not afraid and makes the choice to going to the unknown. The process of awakening has begun. The discovery is underway.
The same with teaching someone who isn't ready to be taught in higher truths. They'll still try and fight you because there still thinking in their base level one reality. They don't want to let it go and to learn truths you must be prepared to jump out of an airplane without a parachute. You can't take anything with you that's familiar. That's not searching for truth. That's an insurance policy that you're after. An insurance policy that connects you with the familiar. Truth doesn't work that way. It doesn't come with guarantees that you'll have happy endings in the way that you presume. Most people can not even look at themselves honestly. Part of the reason is that they are a composite of what society has conditioned them to be and the culture that they were born into has conditioned them to be. And the other part is ego in the system is promoted. You can't obtain honesty unless you overcome ego. When you see that for thousands of years Christianity alone ruled a good part of the world and people didn't question it. That's all they were told was what was in that book and even then for hundreds of years they weren't even told what was in the book. It was forbidden to read it. Only the priests could read it and even then they'd only read it occasionally. THE BIBLE USE TO BE CHAINED TO THE ALTER UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES. Most of what was being taught was dogma. It was the church dogma. That's why the Protestants put out the Geneva Bible. They weren't Protestants really. They were Rosicrucian's and Masons, they simply transformed into the name Masonry. It was the same movement behind it and for the first time peoples could read things for themselves and say, "my goodness. What's all this dogma got to do with what's in this book?" And really it was nothing. The dogma was there for controlling the people. Well if that was controlling the people for one and a half thousand years at that time do you really think with all the sophistication of today's media where you have instant access to data right to your home 24-hours a day; do you really think it's not being used now. This is your journey. The individual's journey and the more you truly search and are honest with yourself. As they say, "know thyself" is important you will find that it's far more to all of this than just the mundane and it's beyond and greater than the New Age with their hocus pocus and their mind imprisoning techniques. There is far more to this of course than just facts and figures and who did what, when, where and why. But not everyone can go on that journey. It's up to those who can handle the bad news in all of its levels because the bottom level is bad enough. Few can go beyond that but there are some and you have to go through hell before you can see heaven.

Some people have said "well you've got to give the people hope". I wouldn't give them false hope. To give them hope they have to look at the truth. There's no other way to do it. You must look at things honestly including yourself. That's where the hope comes in once you've done that. Until you do for you there is no hope. You'll bend to every wind that blows from the top and I don't say they'll be hope for everyone. Most people will and always have in all ages have chosen what they thought was the easy way. They've chosen the promise of peace and safety. They've chosen to follow a big powerful leader. At least what appears to be so because they will not look to themselves to be champion and people who will not stand up for themselves individually are truly giving away their rights to decide to anything to that which appears to be strong. You are your own champion and you can be the champion for those to come. That's responsibility, a big one. And you won't be popular but then truth never is.

[thanks to Alan Watt]cuttingthroughthematrix.com

The Medicated Child

Iraq War: 1,760 Days and Counting

Sen. John McCain may have stunned some Americans with his projection that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last 100 years or more. But the political pressures in Washington sometimes make ending a war more difficult than starting one.

In this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Robert Higgs discusses what it might take to bring the troops home:

By Robert Higgs

On Oct. 19, 2001, in speaking about the new government controls and heightened surveillance already being clamped on the American people in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the new war “may never end. At least not in our lifetime. . . . The way I think of it is, it’s a new normalcy.”

We should have taken his grim forecast more seriously.

The U.S. attack on and occupation of Iraq, represented by the Bush administration as a critical element in the larger Global War on Terror, began nearly five years ago, and it shows no signs of ending soon.

Indeed, if John McCain is elected president and (with help from his successors) carries out the not-so-veiled threat to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years, then we can confidently expect that the war will not end in our lifetime. Such a prospect is so seemingly preposterous, however, that one’s mind does not readily assimilate it.

It is difficult enough to absorb the reality that the United States has now been at war against the Iraqis for almost five years. An engagement sold to the public as a “cakewalk” and represented just six weeks after it began as a “mission accomplished” has now (as I write) continued for 1,760 days.

Compare this duration with the time the United States was formally engaged in World War I (589 days) or World War II (1,365 days). In the 1940s, the U.S. forces (with important allies, to be sure) defeated two major economic and military powers in a globe-circling war in less time than the U.S. forces have been engaged in Iraq.

And after all this time, where does the U.S. venture stand? Evidently it is no closer to the “victory” the president has repeatedly said he seeks than it was immediately after the occupation began.

The 901 U.S. troops who lost their lives in Iraq during 2007 were the largest number in any calendar year since the war began.

As 2008 begins, we read reports of a U.S. air strike on the outskirts of Baghdad in which B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives, an attack described by Major Alayne Conway as “one of the largest airstrikes since the onset of the war.”

The attack came only a day after six U.S. soldiers participating in a major ground offensive were reported killed in the “biggest one-day loss in Iraq since May.” These events do not epitomize minor “mopping up” activities. The war obviously has no end in sight.

Notwithstanding these inauspicious developments and Sen. McCain’s bizarre pronouncement, we might well think in a more focused way about what will ultimately bring the war to an end, because it almost certainly will end someday.

Given its nature, it cannot be ended as each of the world wars was ended, by the formal capitulation of an enemy state. Loosely organized insurgents and guerrillas do not stop fighting in that fashion.

In view of the particulars on the ground in Iraq, it would seem that no complete cessation of armed hostilities can occur there until the United States withdraws its military forces. So the question becomes: What will induce a future U.S. president or a future U.S. Congress to act decisively to bring the troops home?

In the abstract, the answer is easy: U.S. authorities will extract their occupation force when they perceive that doing so is in their interest. Note well that I said, “in their interest.”

Whether a U.S. withdrawal serves my interest, or yours, or that of 95 percent of the American people is not necessarily important, because government leaders do not act to serve other people’s interests.

Anyone who has advanced beyond infancy in his understanding of political affairs knows that despite all the dutiful claptrap that political leaders and their functionaries spout in public, they invariably pursue their own interests. Those interests may be material, political, institutional, or ideological, but in any event they are their own interests, not yours or mine.

It follows directly that up to this point the continued prosecution of the war has served the leaders’ interests. They may say they are trying to end the war. They may have secured their election or reelection, as many of the Democrats now serving in Congress have, by promising to do whatever they can to end the war. Yet the truth is that they’ve sold the public a bill of goods.

When the leaders have considered all the personal consequences they expect to follow from acting to end the war, they have concluded that, all things being considered, doing so does not serve their interest, and therefore they have refrained from doing so.

After all, it’s not as though the U.S. war effort has a mind of its own. Whenever the president wants to remove the troops, he can do so; he has the power. Whenever the members of the majority in Congress want to remove the troops, by stopping the funding to support them there, they can do so; they have the power.

The posture of powerlessness that our leaders often affect―my goodness, what can I do? my hands are tied―is a disingenuous pose. They can stop the U.S. engagement in the war whenever they want to do so. Thus far, they simply have not wanted to do so.

What might cause them to reach a new conclusion about what serves their personal interest? Several developments might turn the trick. Nearly all of them work by heightening the public’s anger with their leaders’ decisions.

Historically, the decisive development in similar instances has been the cumulation of public costs, especially the costs in life and limb. In both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the public’s disfavor of the engagement closely tracked the cumulation of casualties.

As political scientist John Mueller showed in his book War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, “every time American casualties increased by a factor of 10, support for the war dropped by about 15 percentage points” in the polls.

One reason the public has continued to tolerate their leaders’ continued prosecution of the war in Iraq is that the casualties have not been nearly so great, by an order of magnitude, as they were in Korea and Vietnam.

So far, not quite 4,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq. That’s only one death for every 75,000 persons living in the United States, and therefore the loss of life has not cut deeply into the public psyche―most Americans have not been personally acquainted with anyone killed in the war.

(The vastly greater loss of Iraqi lives seems to have made even less impression.)

Sad to say, the public may not turn decisively against their leaders’ continued prosecution of the war until many more American soldiers have died.

Economic costs have also mounted, and they have loomed relatively much larger in this war than in the earlier wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Who says the military leaders never learn? They’ve certainly learned how to increase hugely the financial costs of fighting a war.

Estimates of the costs to date vary widely, depending on how one accounts for various joint, indirect, and implied costs, but a total cost to date in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars is not implausible, and later costs, including those associated with decades of care for the war’s legions of physically and mentally disabled, will add enormously to the total.

In earlier wars, even though the costs were relatively greater in blood than in dollars, the public eventually wearied of the economic sacrifices entailed by the financial expenses of continued fighting.

Economist Hugh Mosley concluded that the Johnson administration “was reluctant to resort to increased taxes to finance the war for fear of losing public support for its policy of military escalation.”

Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote that President Richard Nixon “realized that for economic reasons (the war was simply costing too much) and for the sake of domestic peace and tranquility he had to cut back on the American commitment to Vietnam”; the retrenchment was “forced on [him] by public opinion.”

As the recession that has just begun deepens, the public may well object more strenuously to the government’s squandering of such vast amounts of tax money on a senseless continuation of the war in Iraq.

When their purses are not so full, people may resent every additional dollar spent on the war more than they did previously. Ultimately, they may become so angry that they will take actions to punish severely the political leaders who continue to support the war.

Serious political challengers may attract a mass following by embracing the example of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who promised in the 1952 campaign to end the enormously unpopular war in Korea and, after he took office, kept his promise expeditiously.

When substantial negative feedback begins to jeopardize the personal job security, not to speak of the respect and fawning, the electorate affords incumbents, they will begin to take notice, and to discount more heavily the contributions from defense contractors, big financial establishments, petrochemical companies, and other high rollers who have encouraged them to stay the hopeless course―though not hopeless for these special interests, of course; for them it has been a bonanza.

George W. Bush parlayed a campaign of fear-mongering into his reelection in 2004, but unless another major terrorist attack occurs in the United States, the public will grow increasingly resistant to such appeals and more eager to throw the rascals out as the war’s costs continue to mount.

It is extremely unfortunate that escalating costs in blood and money are the only proven means of bringing the general public to resist strongly their political leaders who are committed to a continuation of unnecessary, unwise, and immoral war.

Some of us wish that rational argument, cogent evidence, and humane sentiment would persuade a preponderance of the public to demand an end to the war. History suggests, however, that only personal grief and economic pain will induce the American public to act against their perfidious leaders.

Needless to say, if the public remains as passive and as easily bamboozled as it has been during the past seven years, the war will continue, maybe even for the hundred years in which Senator McCain declares that a U.S. occupation of Iraq would be “fine with me.”

Robert Higgs is a Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He is the author of many books, including Depression, War, and Cold War.

The Shocking Truth Behind Google's Idealogy

Scientific Technique and the Concentration of Power

RINF NEWS

Brent Jessop

“So long as the rulers are comfortable, what reason have they to improve the lot of their serfs?”- Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p61)

Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society* he describes the effects of “scientific technique” on the increasing control of societies by an ever shrinking number of people. As we will see, “scientific technique” is much more than just the development and widespread use of new technology, but first some of its effects.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government. Among many other prizes, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Kalinga prize in 1957.

Increasing Organization

From Impact of Science on Society:

“This [the telegraph] had two important consequences: first messages could now travel faster than human beings; secondly, in large organizations detailed control from a centre became much more possible than it had formerly been.

The fact that messages could travel faster than human beings was useful, above all, to the police…” - 33

“Electricity as a source of power is much more recent than the telegraph, and has not yet had all the effects of which it is capable. As an influence on social organisation its most notable feature is the importance of power stations, which inevitably promote centralisation… as soon as a community has become dependent upon them for lighting and heating and cooking. I lived in America in a farm-house which depended entirely upon electricity, and sometimes, in a blizzard, the wires would be blown down. The resulting inconvenience was almost intolerable. If we had been deliberately cut off for being rebels, we should soon have had to give in.” - 35

“But what is of most importance in this connection is the development of flying. Aeroplanes have increased immeasurably the power of governments. No rebellion can hope to succeed unless it is favoured by at least a portion of the air force.” - 36

“In industry, the integration brought about by scientific technique is much greater [than agriculture] and more intimate.

One of the most obvious results of industrialism is that a much larger percentage of the population live in towns than was formerly the case. The town dweller is a more social being than the agriculturist, and is much more influenced by discussion. In general, he works in a crowd, and his amusements are apt to take him into still larger crowds. The course of nature, the alternations of day and night, summer and winter, wet or shine, make little difference to him; he has no occasion to fear that he will be ruined by frost or drought or sudden rain. What matters to him is his human environment, and his place in various organisations especially.

Take a man who works in a factory, and consider how many organisations affect his life. There is first of all the factory itself, and any larger organisation of which it may be a part. Then there is the man’s trade union and his political party. He probably gets house room from a building society or public authority. His children go to school. If he reads a newspaper or goes to a cinema or looks at a football match, these things are provided by powerful organisations. Indirectly, through his employers, he is dependent upon those from whom they buy their raw material and those to whom they sell their finished product. Above all, there is the State, which taxes him and may at any moment order him to go and get killed in war, in return for which it protects him against murder and theft so long as there is peace, and allows him to buy a fixed modicum of food.” [emphasis mine] - 44

“The increase of organisation has brought into existence new positions of power. Every body has to have executive officials, in whom, at any moment, its power is concentrated. It is true that officials are usually subject to control, but the control may be slow and distant. From the young lady who sells stamps in a Post Office all the way up to the Prime Minister, every official is invested, for the time being, with some part of the power of the State. You can complain of the young lady if her manners are bad, and you can vote against the Prime Minister at the next election if you disapprove of his policy. But both the young lady and the Prime Minister can have a very considerable run for their money before (if ever) your discontent has any effect.” [emphasis mine] - 45

“The increased power of officials is an inevitable result of the greater degree of organisation that scientific technique brings about. It has the drawback that it is apt to be irresponsible, behind-the-scenes, power, like that of Emperors’ eunuchs and Kings’ mistresses in former times. To discover ways of controlling it is one of the most important political problems of our time. Liberals protested, successfully, against the power of kings and aristocrats; socialists protested against the power of capitalists. But unless the power of officials can be kept within bounds, socialism will mean little more than the substitution of one set of masters for another: all the former power of the capitalist will be inherited by the official. [emphasis mine]” - 47

“As we have seen, the question of freedom needs a completely fresh examination. There are forms of freedom that are desirable, and that are gravely threatened; there are other forms of freedom that are undesirable, but that are very difficult to curb… The resultant two-fold problem, of preserving liberty internally and diminishing it externally, is one that the world must solve, and solve soon, if scientific societies are to survive.

Let us consider for a moment the social psychology involved in this situation.

…The armed forces of one’s own nation exist - so each nation asserts - to prevent aggression by other nations. But the armed forces of other nations exist - or so many people believe - to promote aggression. If you say anything against the armed forces of your own country, you are a traitor, wishing to see your fatherland ground under the heel of a brutal conqueror. If, on the other hand, you defend a potential enemy State for thinking armed forces necessary to its safety, you malign your own country, whose unalterable devotion to peace only perverse malice could lead you to question…

And so it comes about that, whenever an organisation has a combatant purpose, its members are reluctant to criticise their officials and tend to acquiesce in usurpations and arbitrary exercise of power which, but for the war mentality, they would bitterly resent. It is the war mentality that gives officials and governments their opportunity. It is therefore only natural that officials and governments are prone to foster war mentality.” [emphasis mine] - 51

“I incline to think that ‘liberty’, as the word was understood in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is no longer quite the right concept; I should prefer to substitute ‘opportunity for initiative’. And my reason for suggesting this change is the character of a scientific society.” - 68

More Organization is More Power

“The effect of the telegraph was to increase the power of the central government and diminish the initiative of distant subordinates. This applied not only to the State, but to every geographically extensive organization. We shall find a great deal of scientific technique has a similar effect. The result is that fewer men have executive power, but those few had more power than such men had formerly.” [emphasis mine] - 35

“We have seen that scientific technique increases the importance of organisations, and therefore the extent to which authority impinges upon the life of the individual. It follows that a scientific oligarchy has more power than any oligarchy could have in pre-scientific times. There is a tendency, which is inevitable unless consciously combated, for organisations to coalesce, and so to increase in size, until, ultimately, almost all become merged in the State. A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called ‘totalitarian’, that is to say, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the State.” [emphasis mine] - 56

“In the first place, since the new oligarchs are the adherents of a certain creed, and base their claim to exclusive power upon the rightness of this creed, their system depends essentially upon dogma: whoever questions the governmental dogma questions the moral authority of the government, and is therefore a rebel. While the oligarchy is still new, there are sure to be other creeds, held with equal conviction, which must be suppressed by force, since the principle of majority rule has been abandoned. It follows that there cannot be freedom of the Press, freedom of discussion, or freedom of book publication. There must be an organ of government whose duty it is to pronounce as to what is orthodox, and to punish heresy. The history of the Inquisition shows what such an organ of government must inevitably become. In the normal pursuit of power, it will seek out more and more subtle heresies. The Church, as soon as it acquired political power, developed incredible refinement of dogma, and persecuted what to us appear microscopic deviations form the official creed. Exactly the same sort of thing happens in the modern States that confine political power to supporters of a certain doctrine.” - 57

“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies. The only remaining possibility of unauthorised propaganda is by secret whispers from one individual to another. But this, in turn, is rendered appallingly dangerous by improvements in the art of spying. Children at school are taught that it is their duty to denounce their parents if they allow themselves subversive utterances in the bosom of the family. No one can be sure that a man who seems to be his dearest friend will not denounce him to the police; the man may himself have been in some trouble, and may know that if he is not efficient as a spy his wife and children will suffer. All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.” [emphasis mine] - 58

What is Scientific Technique?

Scientific technique is much more than just the impact of new technology on the machinations of society. It is the use of science, in its most calculating and inhumane ways, to analyze, control and guide societies in a desired direction. This topic was elaborated on in a couple of talks given by Alan Watt (here and here) particularly through the writings of Jacques Ellul.

The rest of the articles in this series will also elaborate on other aspects of scientific technique, especially its application to education and human breeding. But first, I will examine Bertrand Russell’s views about the stability of scientific societies and the possibility of a scientific world government.

*Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X

Note: I first heard about this book from talks given by Alan Watt at Cutting Through The Matrix.com, an individual well worth looking into.