If you watch wolves, It’s hard to escape the conclusion that perhaps no two species are more alike behaviorally than wolves and humans. Living as we do in families, we can easily recognize the social structures and status quests in wolf packs. No wonder Native Americans recognized in wolves a sibling spirit. And no wonder human males often face pressure to measure up as “alpha” males—to “wolf up,” as it were. The term alpha male connotes a man who at every moment demonstrates that he’s in control in the home and who away from home can become snarling and aggressive.
This alpha male stereotype comes from a misunderstanding of the real thing.
By observing wolves in free-living packs in Yellowstone National Park, I’ve seen that the leadership of the ranking male is not forced, not domineering, and not aggressive to those on his team.
“The main characteristic of an alpha male wolf,” the veteran wolf researcher Rick McIntyre told me as we were watching gray wolves, “is a quiet confidence, quiet self-assurance. You know what you need to do; you know what’s best for your pack. You lead by example. You’re very comfortable with that. You have a calming effect.”
One of your correspondents likened Ayn Rand’s “selfishness” to “animal behaviour…” (Letters, 13 April). The belief that fierce competition or altruistic cooperation are the only alternatives, in both evolution and socio-politics, is the legacy of Charles Darwin. The science has moved on, providing a justification for the trader principle that has been so successful as the basis of free-market capitalism. As Ayn Rand said: “The moral symbol of respect for human beings is the trader.”
The new science of epigenetics is demonstrating that it is the organism not the “gene” that drives evolution. (See the new A-level biology syllabus, epigenetics.) Genetic determinism is dead. Organisms actively “trade” the products of metabolism. They switch genes on and off, and tweak them, in response to environmental influences. It turns out that genes do not use life-forms; life-forms use their genes. We humans switch our genes on and off and tweak their effects by means of language. We can change our minds. We have free will. The old Malthusian idea that resources are fixed and in short supply profoundly influenced Darwin and his contemporary, Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest”. But resources are neither fixed nor in short supply. Thanks to the dynamic nature of the trading principle working throughout nature, what was once a barren rock, slowly rotating in cold space, is now teeming with ecosystem-generating life. Its most productive trader? Homo sapiens.
Readers may recall that from time to time, I have mentioned the Left Brain/Right Brain divide, which, imo, is one of the better ways of understanding why people take differing views on existence.
This divide is more of a metaphor than a precise fact, because all parts of the brain are always active and contributing, but we can use the terms as a shorthand for sorting people into two camps, the ones who are dominated by right brain activity, which is loose, poetic, dreamy, intuitive, and those dominated by left brain activity, which is tighter, logical, analytical.
If your are new to this or don’t understand it, then please check out Iain McGilchrist.
SEVEN CAUSES OF DYSLEXIA
Difficulty understanding any concept without starting with the “whole picture”. The right brain learner thinks and understands the world in whole concrete images. If the whole concrete image has not been presented first and is available when the student is starting to learn the parts, the parts will not make any sense and the brain will discard them. The right brain needs to start with and see whole images and whole concepts, not the separated parts.
As I see it, this divide correlates or approximates to the divide that the ancient Greeks identified and called mythos versus logos, see here
Incidentally, McGilchrist has said that the brain is a transceiver of consciousness.
As I’ve written extensively on this subject before, I’m not going to go far into it now, but the above may assist you to grasp what I want to talk about next. I have no access to the contemporary education system, so I have no idea what it is like now, but referring to my personal direct experiences many decades ago and added hearsay, it seemed to me that there were forces in UK soceity which were dedicated to left brain aspects, which they wanted to impose upon all children.
These could be identified as those folk who insisted that arithmetic and correct spelling and science were to be given priority over the right brain emotional intuitive creative stuff, like art, music, dance, and so forth.
And I suppose that if I were asked for a general comment, I’d have been against that left brainy discipline for kids, on the grounds that it suppresses their natural expression. I think that’s how a lot of people felt, way back in the 1960’s. Children needed to be liberated from the straitjacket of strict formal education methods, rote learning reinforced with fear and penalties.
However in retrospect, whilst it is probably a good thing to encourage all small children to develop confidence in their creativity and self expression, what seem to have gone wrong, is that this continued as they grew into adolescence and adulthood.
It’s all very well to encourage all kids to write poems, paint, sing, dance, etc, without inhibiting them by criticism. But what ought to happen, as they develop, is that someone teaches them that all poems are not equal. Same for all pictures and all music. There’s good, bad, there’s rubbish and there’s excellence.
Where I’m going with this, is that places like New Earth Lady’s forum, (sorry to pick on that, just the first example that came to mind, there are other examples everywhere) where people think that they can have any fantasy about what has happened in the past and that it should be taken seriously, just because they had it.
This does not work. Anybody can write a poem, but not everybody can write a really good poem that other people value and repeat for many generations because of its quality. Same goes for paintings and other personal expression.
The predominantly right brain folk come up with their fanciful creative inventions, detached from any kind of logic or evidence, and want to claim authority and be taken just as seriously as folks who have dedicated their entire lives to deep study and hard work trying to discover something that might be of value, because of intensive scholarship, and determination to seek ‘truth’.
The divide between the two camps can get very emotive and acrimonious. On the one hand, the untutored naive and poorly educated insist that their intuitive, possibly even mystical, insights must be listened to, even though they are at kindergarten level in terms of learning. And on the other hand, we have the high priests of academic and science who insist that they know better.
Sylvie Ivanova (seems she favours v’s over w’s now in spelling her name) claimed in one video that she believes that Jesus Christ existed only one thousand years ago, rather than the commonly accepted two thousand years. If I recall correctly, she bases her claim on the idea that some Jesuits rewrote history and revised the calendar, or something like that.
If you open up the argument on a subject like that, many voices will jump in, from those who insist that there is no evidence whatsoever to be found that demonstrates that anyone called Jesus Christ ever really existed, they’ll insist that the entire story is mythical, a fabrication, similar to other fanciful characters, Osiris, Hermes, or Spiderman, to those who will insist that Christ lives within them, that the Bible is the literal ‘word of God’ and that we have a documented record of events from that time covering every years up until the present, so a ‘missing millennium’ is an untenable proposition.
Another good example is global warming, any mention of which will attract similar opposed viewpoints, the Deniers who insist it’s all propaganda fabricated for nefarious reasons, to take away our liberties and raise taxes, and the ardent believers who think we are all doomed because we’ve failed to cut CO2 emissions.
Personally, I believe that the answer to these contentious dilemmas, is to integrate and harmonise Right and Left Brains in your own being, as a task that is to be approached psychologically, spiritually, and physically, by meditation, because lacking either reduces your own humanity, both aspects are vital for a whole human being.
But then the social divides still remain, as in the alt right versus antifa, where people are incapable of comprehending a different viewpoint as being valid, and so ascribe pure malevolence as their opponents motives. It is almost impossible for the reductionist materialist atheist wing to comprehend what people of faith and spirituality believe, it just seems absurd nonsense, so they are condescending impatient and disrespectful as if talking to handicapped lunatics.
If you sincerely believe that you yourself are merely a meat robot, a random collection of atoms in a meaningless pointless Universe, then those who see existence as sacred, infused with divinity, seem to be deluded. And vice versa, of course. Communication is almost impossible, the brains work so differently with these incompatible inbuilt presumptions and conceptual contexts.
The past does not exist, it’s nowhere, all we have is the present moment where we abide. So this means anyone is free to make up any version of the past that they wish, just as anyone is free to write a poem or paint a picture. But as mentioned, not all poems, paintings, or pasts, are of equally merit.
It’s possible that I am wrong, and I have been deceived (as I have been on some other major issues, like the European Union, which we were told was something to do with an Iron and Steel community, to prevent Germany and France fighting over the coal reserves of the Ruhr and associated industries. No mention of Coudenhove-Kalergi, the CIA, Operation Gladio, Bildebergers, and all the rest) and that the timeline back to Christ’s lifetime has been doctored and falsified for Machiavellian political reasons. But I doubt that.
Because, in Britain, for the last 1000 years, there’s the documentary record in archives, which is immense, there’s the architectural record, (dated stuff like cathedrals, old cottages, bridges, etc), there’s the archaeological record, which began with the antiquaries, which is built upon scientific methodologies, and so forth.
And a lot of this material can be cross-checked. For example, the Battle of Hastings features in records of the time, around 1066, with structures like Battle Abbey, lists of the named participants, and a correlation with the Bayeaux Tapestry illustrating the event, in France. William the Bastard had the Domesday Book drawn up to cover everything that existed on all the properties and who owned what, so that it could all be taxed and controlled. Evidence of Viking raids can be cross referenced to the Icelandic Sagas and other Scandinavian records, as well as those from England, France, Ireland and elsewhere. It would be almost impossible for anyone to have interfered equally with so many diverse sources.
Thereafter, every monarch has been keen to have their achievements and accomplishments recorded, and so there is, more of less, an entire record of annual events up until the present. So it is very hard to see where a ‘missing millennium’ could be.
Then there’s the millennium prior to 1066, back to Year 1 at the supposed time of Christ. Well, the Roman Empire which prevailed at that time, is rather well documented, and can be cross checked with the histories of many countries, from Egypt to Germany to Spain and Libya and so on.
After the collapse of that Empire, there’s a less well recorded period, but again there’s masses of evidence to support the mainstream accounts, Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions and so forth. Of course, if you are not concerned with evidence of any kind, you can still rewrite your own personal version of what happened, but I’d say that is a kind of fiction, as in a novel, and not to be confused with academic scholarship and history as a serious subject of enquiry.
And much the same applies to the climate debate. The science is very much the epitome of Left Brain analytical thinking. Every conclusion in climate science is supposed to be supported by logical reasoning and empirical evidence, strengthened by the wider structure of the scientific project as a whole.
I’m very happy to attack and criticise science on many different grounds, especially scientism, being the position that science is the ONLY route towards truth. I think we are primarily human beings, and whilst our choices and decisions should be informed by Left Brain science and reason, science is something to be consulted, not something to be seen as a ruler.
Before anyone can make any sensible claims about global warming, they do need to have mastered the subject matter. Which is not easy. It’s not like the ‘anybody can write a poem’ Right Brain stuff. You need to study hard for a couple of decades to get to grips with the body of work that has been accumulated over the last few centuries.
It’s always easy to tell the people who have not attempted that hardwork, they are the ones who will claim global warming is nonsense, on the grounds that there’s is an unseasonably cold day in spring or summer. That is WEATHER, not CLIMATE. The science of weather is called meteorology. Meteorology is not Climatology. They are distinct and different scientific disciplines devoted to different things, like Geology and Geography or Botany and Zoology.
If you do not even understand this very simple elementary fact, then it is best to keep you mouth shut and opinions to yourself, do some serious studying. Also, much of science uses statistics, so if you are not numerate and lacking even basic understanding, you are not in any position to evaluate research results. Not that anyone will desist, though, will they, anymore than they will stop rewriting imaginary history to suit their fantasies.
In my estimation, climate chaos is upon us. I’ve given up arguing about it, because I don’t think that there is much, if anything, that can be done. We are in a mass extinction event which we cannot now avoid.
But with the glacier retreating in recent years due to Earth’s warming climate, a period of intense melting saw the flow of meltwater punch a new channel in the ice, rerouting the flow southwards via the Kaskawulsh River.
What this means is that instead of ending up in the Bering Sea by way of Kluane Lake, the meltwater now runs in a south-east direction and eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean.
It’s a massive turnaround – and not only because it’s the first time that river piracy has happened so quickly, but because it’s the first case where scientists think the phenomenon happened due to human-caused climate change.
“The event is a bit idiosyncratic, given the peculiar geographic situation in which it happened,” says one of the team, John Clague from Canada’s Simon Fraser University, “but in a broader sense it highlights the huge changes that glaciers are undergoing around the world due to climate change.”
Now even the BBC has taken to doom. (I loathe the BBC, nest of paedophiles, corrupt paedophile apologists, MI5 propagandists, zionists, purveyors of a fake news agenda, they have betrayed their duty to the nation, imo, to be honest and independent. They’ve descended to the same despicable level as WaPo, NYT and CNN).
The political economist Benjamin Friedman once compared modern Western society to a stable bicycle whose wheels are kept spinning by economic growth. Should that forward-propelling motion slow or cease, the pillars that define our society – democracy, individual liberties, social tolerance and more – would begin to teeter. Our world would become an increasingly ugly place, one defined by a scramble over limited resources and a rejection of anyone outside of our immediate group. Should we find no way to get the wheels back in motion, we’d eventually face total societal collapse.
Such collapses have occurred many times in human history, and no civilisation, no matter how seemingly great, is immune to the vulnerabilities that may lead a society to its end.
Regardless of how well things are going in the present moment, the situation can always change. Putting aside species-ending events like an asteroid strike, nuclear winter or deadly pandemic, history tells us that it’s usually a plethora of factors that contribute to collapse. What are they, and which, if any, have already begun to surface? It should come as no surprise that humanity is currently on an unsustainable and uncertain path – but just how close are we to reaching the point of no return?
While it’s impossible to predict the future with certainty, mathematics, science and history can provide hints about the prospects of Western societies for long-term continuation.
Safa Motesharrei, a systems scientist at the University of Maryland, uses computer models to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that can lead to local or global sustainability or collapse. According to findings that Motesharrei and his colleagues published in 2014, there are two factors that matter: ecological strain and economic stratification. The ecological category is the more widely understood and recognised path to potential doom, especially in terms of depletion of natural resources such as groundwater, soil, fisheries and forests – all of which could be worsened by climate change.
That economic stratification may lead to collapse on its own, on the other hand, came as more of a surprise to Motesharrei and his colleagues. Under this scenario, elites push society toward instability and eventual collapse by hoarding huge quantities of wealth and resources, and leaving little or none for commoners who vastly outnumber them yet support them with labour.
Eventually, the working population crashes because the portion of wealth allocated to them is not enough, followed by collapse of the elites due to the absence of labour. The inequalities we see today both within and between countries already point to such disparities. For example, the top 10% of global income earners are responsible for almost as much total greenhouse gas emissions as the bottom 90% combined. Similarly, about half the world’s population lives on less than $3 per day.
For both scenarios, the models define a carrying capacity – a total population level that a given environment’s resources can sustain over the long term. If the carrying capacity is overshot by too much, collapse becomes inevitable. That fate is avoidable, however. “If we make rational choices to reduce factors such as inequality, explosive population growth, the rate at which we deplete natural resources and the rate of pollution – all perfectly doable things – then we can avoid collapse and stabilise onto a sustainable trajectory,” Motesharrei said. “But we cannot wait forever to make those decisions.”
Western civilisation is not a lost cause, however. Using reason and science to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional goodwill, human society can progress to higher and higher levels of well-being and development, Homer-Dixon says. Even as we weather the coming stresses of climate change, population growth and dropping energy returns, we can maintain our societies and better them. But that requires resisting the very natural urge, when confronted with such overwhelming pressures, to become less cooperative, less generous and less open to reason. “The question is, how can we manage to preserve some kind of humane world as we make our way through these changes?” Homer-Dixon says.
The article does not mention one obvious factor, which is that a mass labour force is no longer a necessity, because, with artificial intelligence and machine learning, much work can now be automated and performed by non-human systems. This massive change is in its early stages. What happens to the all the many millions of people who are no longer required and are surplus to requirements ?
How did we arrive in this state of affairs ? I found these video interviews with Patrick Wood, I’d not seen before, which contain many fascinating gems of information that are not commonly mentioned, as he is explaining what he means by Technocracy.
Wood does not believe the climate science, he sees the world in terms of political intrigue and manipulation of populations by propaganda.
I do not understand how anyone can deny that the climate is warming, (although many do) because folks can go and inspect the changes and see them happening.
Why would people lie about the glaciers receding and archaeologists finding ancient artefacts exposed as the ice retreats ? Why would so many scientists from so many organisations and disparate nations fabricate what they measure ? I don’t believe that they do, although others will spin and exaggerate information to suit their various aims.
The separate question is why this warming is happening, and the consensus amongst the specialists is that human activity is the cause, via burning fossil fuels, destruction of forests, etc. You’ll no doubt have your own judgement on that, my dear reader. It can be both accurate correct science AND a globalist plot, simultaneously. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
In Siberia, where it warms rapidly, the permafrost melts, and reveals the carcasses of mammoths that died long ago. This is one of the many indicators that our times are warmer than they have been, and changing at a shocking rate.
The interglacial Holocene has supported the development and growth of human civilizations, it has been the cradle of civilization, not to say their uterus. It started around 11,700 years before present with a sudden warming from the cold period called Younger Dryas. In only ten years time the temperature in Greenland rose with impressive 8 degrees, which corresponds to that North Europe’s climate was replaced with a Mediterranean climate. It is not known, what caused this rapid rise in temperature.
During the Holocene optimum parasitic plant mistletoe was widely found in southern Scandinavia. Today it grows further south, in southern England, Central and Southern Europe.
The hottest time in the Holocene occurred in the Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, it is called the Holocene Maximum. This warm climate continued largely through 3,500 years until 4,500 before present, when it was Neolithic period in Northern Europe.
It is assumed that the average temperature was 2-3 degrees higher than today’s. This is supported by the fact that plants such as mistletoe and the subtropical aquatic plant Trapa natans grew widespread in south Scandinavia. Linden, elm, spruce and oak were the the most common trees in northern Europe’s dense forests, which closed the continent’s interior into a big impenetrable forest.
In Denmark scientists have studied Stone Age settlements from the Holocene Climatic Optimum’s period and found bones of various terrestrial and marine animals, including swordfish, sturgeon, sardine and tuna, dalmatian pelican and pond turtle, all of which are species that today live in warmer climes.
Pine stub in Cairngorm Mountains that is 4,000 to 4,500 year old.
In Cairngorm Mountains in central Scotland you can find stubs of 4,000 – 4,500 old pine trees, which grew 650 meter above sea level. This altitude is slightly above the limit for dwarf trees and stunted trees today.
Another testimony of warmer climate in the past can be found in Dartmoor in Southern England, though slightly later than the Holocene Optimum. Here Bronze Age farmers cultivated the land in 450 meters above sea level, which should be compared with the absolute limit on agriculture today, that is an altitude of 300 meters.
There are some curious features concerning the Siberian mammoths and their remains. The permafrost is hundreds of meters deep, with a thin layer of soil on top which melts and refreezes each year. That’s the present situation, with increased melting happening annually as the Arctic warms.
How did the mammoths actually die, what killed them, how is it possible that they got buried and preserved ? It seems from some examples that they were killed and frozen very quickly, because there is intact grass in the stomachs that did not get digested. So it’s like they were killed by something and then almost instantly freeze-dried, before they could begin to decay or be eaten by scavengers, some process that halted the action of their digestive enzymes. How does a huge carcase like that get fast-frozen, and be in such a condition so that now, as melting ice exposes the body, the defrosted meat can still be eaten by dogs, even by humans ?
Not just the numerous mammoths, of course, there are also preserved rhinos, cave lions and other creatures. What killed them all, buried them, caused the rapid freezing to occur ? This is not a political question, the empirical evidence exists and can be studied and measured. Then the results have to be interpreted to decide what they may mean.
Of course, as soon as someone ventures to draw a conclusion, by deduction or inference, it becomes a political question, because those who do not like the conclusion, for some reason or other, will attempt to discredit the work, diminish the authority of the publishers, and even smear and silence them, whilst those who favour the conclusions will do all that they can to promote the work.
These two opposed positions are typically taken because they see some particular new research as fitting into their favoured grand narrative or meta narrative, for example, biological evolution, biblical creationism, intervention by aliens, or whatever. And then we are more or less back to the Right Brain v. Left Brain, Mythos v. Logos conflict I mentioned earlier.
The Irish monk and geographer Dicuil wrote the book “The Mensura Orbis Terrae” that became known at the Carolingian court in the year 825 AD. He described islands in the ocean that previously were inhabited by hermits, who now, however, have been displaced by Vikings. He provides a description from monks, who had lived in “Thule” until year 765 AD. They had experienced the frozen sea, which was located one day’s sailing to the north. They told of Thule that “there was no darkness to prevent any from doing, what they wanted to do”. Their description of the sun’s path as well as the temperature fits perfectly on Iceland.
A few months back, may even have been last year (whatever happened to last year ? Can you remember ?) the Vinay Gupta person said that the reason that capitalism is a white race thing, is because the Vikings were white, and capitalism is the Viking ‘raid and trade’ strategy, plus technology.
I really do not know whether that kind of ethnic or geographical determinism holds up to intellectual scrutiny or not. Certainly, the Vikings were remarkably resourceful and courageous adventurers, but capitalism first appeared several hundred years after their heyday, in England, which although influenced by an influx of Vikings and then conquered by their descendants, the Normans, was, and still is, genetically a mix of ancient people who were here thousands of years before Viking times, and Celtic and Anglo-Saxon people.
And surely there have been many other ethnic groups around the world who did their share of raiding and trading. I see it as pretty basic human conduct. If someone has something that you want, you can either offer to swap something that you possess, and negotiate an amicable exchange. Or else, you can take what you desire by trickery or force, against the will of the other who is dispossessed.
A dumb person might believe that the raid strategy is superior, you just steal whatever you want and do not have to part with anything you already own. But the problem is that the other party doesn’t like to be robbed and pillaged and so when it happens once or twice, they will come up with defensive counter measures, which may be lethal, and if you and your buddies are all dead, the pillaged treasure is not worth much.
What you really want, if your desire is to become wealthy and prosper, is a nice steady income stream, so trade is far better in that respect, build reliable trusted connections and contacts that last for generations and are mutually beneficial.
But it’s only a degree different to theft, really, because as with all of capitalism, the trick is to get the best end of the deal, even if the other guy is happy with what they receive. It’s basically like the European traders did, sailing down the West African coast to sell almost worthless glass beads and mirrors to the natives, in exchange for very valuable ivory, gold and slaves.
And once one guy has discovered a neat trick like that, and is getting richer than those around him, others try to discover how it’s being done and try to emulate the same tactics.
Of course, the simple inclination to be enterprising is quite a subtle thing, and scholars argue as to how it started and flourished in some countries and not others. And it’s taken many stages big jumps to grow into the complex capitalist behemoth which ravages the entire planet today.
An argument to support Vinay Gupta’s thesis, is that the Viking disposition or temperament was carried down from Scandinavia to France, where the Norsemen became the Normans of Normandy, and then conquered the whole of Britain. This meant that the the native elite of Anglo-Saxons and Romano-British families were brutally and violently replaced by the French speaking Norman aristocracy. Which meant that there was a class stratification, with a lot of accompanying hatred and resentment, between the owners of the land (Everything belonged to the monarch, still does really, and is then, as it were leased out to the lower orders, as a generous favour which can always be revoked. People believe that they own what is theirs, but technically, it’s all subject to the will of the King or Queen, ever since William the Bastard took over.
So the owners of the land became the owners of the means of production, with the serfs supplying the labour, if they wanted to eat. Once this class system was solidly established in England, it wasn’t hard to extend it out to any and every other part of the world, where the natives were to be seen as just a local variant of the English impoverished vulgar peasantry. Hardly above the level of farm animals.
But there must be more to it than that, because India has a similar caste stratification, and Russia also had a ruling aristocracy who owned the land and those who lived on it, and neither of them succeeded in developing capitalism and the industrial revolution. And the Russ were the eastern branch of those same Vikings that settled in Normandy, so perhaps the simple form of the Gupta thesis fails, and additional factors must be accounted for.
Anyway, the days when a talented blacksmith or gifted brewer could work hard, and marry the daughter of a similar entrepreneur in a neighboring village and thus found a prosperous middle class dynasty as a grassroots capitalist have long gone. We had the invention of the limited company, and then financialisation, and the Rothschilds learned the ultimate trick, which is that it’s not the people who invent stuff and do the actual work who matter, what matters is who controls and issues the money that the whole system requires if it is to function and grow.
If you can capture the banking system of a nation then you have the entire population under your control, even if the land is nominally owned by a monarch and an aristocratic elite. Everybody becomes subservient and ends up working to make profits for the bankers, and this is kept well concealed and most people never realise how it works.
Of course, as Henry Ford stated, if the masses ever came to realise just how unjust, iniquitous, evil, this rigged system is, there’d be a revolution. So elaborate means have been put into place to keep the structures hidden. It’s really no different to a mafia network, where money is extracted and flows along certain paths, which those who benefit must keep concealed from prying eyes, lest the revenue stream be interrupted by rival gangs, law enforcement or tax collectors. In this case, the mechanisms have to be kept secret and concealed from everyone who doesn’t have a share in the scheme. Which is most of the human population. This is the modern version of capitalism and Viking ‘raid and trade’, it’s basically legalised crime, or plunder and pillage concealed by a veil of economic disguises. (See Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine and Disaster Capitalism, and Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.)
In 1954 CIA Director Allen Dulles rescued BP by launching Operation Ajax against Iran’s democratically-elected Mohamed Mossadegh.
That same year Dulles came to the aid of United Fruit Company in Guatemala, where nationalist Jacobo Arbenz was elected President on a platform promising land reform. The leftist specifically targeted United Fruit’s 550,000 acre banana plantations for expropriation. Dulles turned to his old employer Sullivan & Cromwell to plot the overthrow of Arbenz. Sullivan was BP’s lawyer and legal counsel to J. Henry Schroeder Bank, the Warburg-controlled Hamburg bank that financed Adolf Hitler.  Dallas oil king Clint Murchison bought two paper mills in Honduras in 1954 from Bush golfing buddy Walt Mischer. Both had ties to the Marcello mob family in New Orleans. Kennedy assassin/Watergate plumber Howard Hunt, with help from Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, trained a Honduran-based militia to attack Arbenz. Frank Wisner, CIA Deputy Director of Plans, oversaw the operation.
In 1919, the Rothschild-dominated Bank of England planned to trick the United States into becoming a “British” colony again by joining the League of Nations. The League of the Nations, like the “British Empire”, was the bankers’ fiefdom, and this strategem would merely formalize a colonial status which already existed.
The bankers took over the U.S. during the Teddy Roosevelt Administration (1901-1909) when Rothschild front J.P. Morgan alone controlled 25% of American business.
The “Col. E.M. House Report”, is a chilling 10-page “progress report” dated June 10,1919 which proves the League of Nations was an aborted attempt at world government and a facade for banker tyranny. The Report reveals the reality and the tactics behind the United Nations and globalization.
House writes: “We have wrapped this plan in the peace treaty so that the world must accept from us the League or a continuance of the war. The League is in substance the Empire with America admitted on the same basis as our other colonies.”
The report oozes contempt for Americans and reveals the deceitful methods international finance employed almost 100 years ago to bring about world government. These goals and methods have not changed. If ever we needed proof of an elite conspiracy to subvert and enslave us, this is it.
Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: The creation of a mind-controlled slave who can be triggered at anytime to perform any action required by the handler. While mass media ignores this issue, over 2 million Americans have gone through the horrors of this program. This article looks at the origins of Monarch programming and some of its methods and symbolism.
When the banking cartels have full dominance and control, extended via the so called intelligence agencies and various secret and semi-secret soceities (CIA, Skull and Bones, Bilderberg, Tavistock, Masons, Chabad-Lubovitch, etc, etc) what hope is there, if any, to make changes that will avoid more wars, more environmental devastation, and ever increasing suppression and exploitation of the vast majority who are not part of the criminal elite ?
We are told that we can vote, but as anyone who observes should be able to tell by now, the same people control all the options, via bribery and corruption, blackmail of placed paedophiles, and Manchurian Candidate shills and crisis actors of various flavours.
Agorists’ opposition to voting differs from the views of Murray Rothbard, who defended the act of voting.
No other strategy for liberty can work. And yet, all this pales before the most important problem: Is a Libertarian Party evil per se? Is voting evil per se? My answer is no.
— Murray Rothbard
Konkin commented on Rothbard’s “Evil per se” argument saying “I wonder how open he would be to assuming the State is not evil per se and then continuing the discussion of some legislation, let us see where it leads him”.
Rothbard openly denounced Konkin’s agorism as a means of representing wage workers:
Konkin’s entire theory speaks only to the interests and concerns of the marginal classes who are self-employed. The great bulk of the people are full-time wage workers; they are people with steady jobs. Konkinism has nothing whatsoever to say to these people. To adopt Konkin’s strategy, then, would on this ground alone, serve up a dead end for the libertarian movement. We cannot win if there is no possibility of speaking to the concerns of the great bulk of wage earners in this and other countries.
— Murray Rothbard
Konkin responded to Rothbard’s criticism, noting, among many other points, that full-time wage workers already engage in counter-economic activities.
Rothbard was also critical of agorism’s emphasis of Black Market based economics.
Note that black markets are concentrated either in service industries or in commodities which are both valuable and easily concealed: jewels, gold, drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc. This is all well and good, but it still does not solve the problem: who will make automobiles, steel, cement, etc. How would they fare in the black market?
— Murray Rothbard
Konkin replied to Rothbard’s claims by stating how countries such as Burma and India have black market heavy industries. Konkin also pointed out how automobile making in general is heavily counter-economic with its use of outsourcing, illegal labor, and both tax and regulation evasion.
I think that the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand is almost as intransigent as the laws of physics. The numbers of humans increase, so the value of each individual falls, their hands and energy are not in short supply, and with artificial intelligence and machine learning, most jobs will become automated, because machines are far less trouble to the owners of capital. They do not demand holidays, sick pay, pensions, etc. and if they can do the work cheaper and faster without breaks for eating and sleeping, then they outcompete their human rivals.
This used to be a threat to the working class who operated the equipment in factories, cleaned the offices and streets, and so forth, but now, machine intelligence as software can replace work done by middle class folks with PhDs.
A large percentage of the global population become surplus to requirements. Of course, they can still be used as cannon fodder or as sources for slaves, organ harvesting and prostitutes.