ETERNAL VIGILANCE

PHARISEE WATCH: Jay-walking with Jerry Falwell

PICKET AT THOMAS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH, LYNCHBURG, VA
Charles E. Carlson

On Sunday, August 17, volunteers from Project Strait Gate held large signs and mingled quietly with the thousands who entered and left Jerry Falwell’s hexagonal Thomas Road Baptist Church. Literature was offered. The most frequent response, usually without looking, was “I DON’T NEED TO KNOW THAT.”

Strait Gate volunteers offered attendees pro-life Bible bookmarks and a variety of other items. Surprisingly, few wanted to understand the purpose of the Strait Gate picket, though a very small minority indicated they understood and were with us on this one.

Of these few we asked, "THEN WHY ARE YOU GOING IN THERE?”

Even from among the many attending students from Falwell’s Liberty University, only a few accepted literature and stayed behind to ask questions or offer arguments. Academic curiosity was at a minimum.

Late night TV host, Jay Leno, has made his “Jay-walking” a popular farce by asking non-thinking young persons dumb questions that draw
embarrassingly lame answers. Project Strait Gate displayed a large sign in front of the entrance steps offering a riddle that drew considerable comment from some of the hundreds of college students in attendance. They were asked: “Pardon me, but DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIGN?”

APOSTLE
NOT
APOSTASY
DUMMY

Our experience was reminiscent of Jay Leno's question and answer sessions, where he asks questions like, WHO IS THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT NAMED AFTER?

Here is the Falwellian version of Jay-walking at Thomas Road Baptist Church.

STRAIT GATE: Is yours a pro-life church? Jay-walker: OF COURSE WE ARE.

STRAIT GATE: How about the life of this little Iraqi girl, Teaba, whose picture you see on this bookmark. Is she entitled to live?

Jay-walker: SILENCE (most frequent answer)

Jay-walker: SADDAM HAD TO GO (second most frequent answer)

STRAIT GATE: As a professing Christian, how do you justify bombing Iraqi civilians?

Jay-walker: THE BIBLE REQUIRES US TO SUPPORT OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

STRAIT GATE: But there were no weapons (WMD), so how do you like being lied to by your leaders?

Jay-walker: WE HAD TO GET SADDAM BEFORE HE GOT US. Or:

Jay-walker: SADDAM HUSSEIN KILLS MORE OF HIS PEOPLE THAN WE DO. THEY JUST FOUND 10,000 BODIES HE HAD MURDERED.

STRAIT GATE: So do you think it is OK to kill people if we kill less than Saddam Hussein did? Where do you find that authority in the Bible?
Furthermore, your statistic is unverified. The US military encouraged an armed uprising right after the Gulf War that they did not support, and a lot of people got killed because they expected US support. The news covered it in detail in 1991, but the numbers are not known and were probably much less than your guess. The US Shock and Awe is already known to have killed over 6,100 Iraqis civilians in the bombing, and most were women and children. There were much larger numbers of Iraqi soldiers killed, who are only now being counted by the Red Cross.

Jay-walker: SADDAM HAS TO BE STOPPED; WOULD YOU HAVE DEFENDED HITLER, TOO?

STRAIT GATE: Never mind Hitler, he died before you were born. What about Ariel Sharon? Your church backs his every move and he kills people every day. Do you think Americans should have to pay for the policies of Israel, right or wrong?

Jay-walker: ISRAELIS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO KILL CHILDREN ON SCHOOL BUSES AND BLOW UP
THEIR HOUSES. Or,

Jay-walker: ISRAEL IS THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD, IT IS THEIR LAND

STRAIT GATE: But your facts are off. It’s a matter of record that Palestinians have killed about 60 children and destroyed one Israeli house in all of the 13 years of the uprising; but Israeli solders have shot to death over a thousand Palestinian children in the last two years alone. That’s a ratio of 17 children to 1, so how can you call that self-defense? Don’t you feel blood on your hands for those thousands of Palestinians children?

STRAIT GATE: As for who owns the land, do you know anyone in Israel who can trace his ancestor back 200 generations to Abraham?

Jay-walker: YOU’RE HERE TO MAKE MR. FALWELL LOOK BAD. THAT IS NOT CHRISTIAN. Or,

Jay-walker: WHY ARE YOU AFTER MR. FALWELL?

STRAIT GATE: Because he says he is pro-life, but he always supports wars, especially if they are wars that Israel wants. Jerry Falwell is not a peacemaker, as Jesus called him to be. That makes this an apostate church.

Jay-walker: BUT THAT’S NOT FAIR, THIS IS HIS CHURCH, YOU ARE INVADING HIS PRIVATE DOMAIN.

STRAIT GATE: Innocent little children are dying in the own homes because Mr. Falwell blesses Israel’s war on Palestine, so he is part of that invasion.

Jay-walker: MY DAD IS A PASTOR AND YOU BETTER NOT COME TO HIS OUR CHURCH.

STRAIT GATE: Where is his church?

Jay-walker: I AM NOT GOING TO TELL YOU.

Church official: WHY DON’T YOU COME IN THE CHURCH AND LET REV. FALWELL MINISTER TO YOU? YOU NEED IT.

STRAIT GATE: Because this is an apostate church, and we would be wrong for us to do so, just like it is wrong for you to be in there. But we will come in if you will give us five minutes at the pulpit to teach.

Church official: YOU KNOW WE CAN’T DO THAT.

NOT EVERYONE WHO TOOK THE POP QUIZ WAS A HOPELESS JAY-WALKER.
The best exchange came from a Virginia University student named Bryan, who informed the writer that Strait Gate was wrong when we said Jerry Falwell supports every war that comes along. Bryan assured us Falwell vigorously, opposed the 1998 bombing of Serbia. WE STAND CORRECTED. WE WERE WRONG.

We should not be surprised to learn Jerry Falwell talks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says Romans 13 requires Christians to support the Commander-in-Chief; and on the other hand, he opposed Chief Bill Clinton in his war in Serbia. For once we would agree with him, but this only makes Falwell a worse hypocrite.

Falwell also shows his penchant for hypocrisy by violating the ninth commandment to not bear false witness, when he first claims we must honor authority as appointed by God, but then encourages Judge Roy Moore to defy the dictate of his magistrate superiors, in the matter of the 10 Commandments monument in Alabama, where he spoke out on August 16.

Falwell said: "Civil disobedience is the right of all men when we believe breaking man's law is needed to preserve God's law."

Not that we disagree with this statement, for as in Kosovo, Falwell is right. But he talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on whether he is justifying war or no war. This makes Falwell a bearer of false witness at the very least.

Project Strait Gate requested the presence of Lynchburg police, and two squad cars were present. The demonstration was anticipated by a large part of the crowd, and it had no doubt been a hot topic of discussion in the classrooms at Liberty University, part of the Falwell empire. Over 650 e-mail announcements of the event, a “Virtual Picket” were sent in advance to a sampling of Liberty University student and faculty, as well as staff and employees of the church.

Among the volunteers present were Willis Carto, publisher of The Barnes Review and American Free Press, and Christian author, Dave Ritzenthaler. Parties interested in challenging the conference attendees or helping with Project Strait Gate's first Electronic Virtual Pickets may e-mail cecarl@whtt.org or the website www.whtt.org, or phone 480-947-3329.

Project Strait Gate will return to Lynchburg, Virginia on October 5- 8, 2003, to picket Jerry Falwell's "Superconference USA" at which Falwell’s staff predicts 10,000 pastors and Christian leader will be in attendance. Speakers will include Jerry Vines, Former President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Baptist, Vines practices Christian racism. He once embarrassed the SBC by publicly calling the Muslim Prophet Mohammed "A DEMON- POSSESSED PEDOPHILE." Neither Vines nor the SBC ever divulged the source of this amazing discovery 1400 years after Mohammed's death.


SOME LIFE AND DEATH FACTS THAT LIBERTY COLLEGE DOES NOT TEACH:

The U.S. gives $15,139,178 per day to the Israeli government and military and $205,479 to Palestinian NGO's.

820 Israelis and 2,427 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.

5,640 Israelis and 23,255 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.

The Israeli unemployment rate is 10.4%. The Palestinian unemployment is estimated at 37-67%.

One Israeli school has been fired upon by Palestinians, and 185 Palestinian schools have been fired upon by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

One Israeli home has been destroyed by Palestinians, and 16,638 Palestinian homes have been destroyed (2,202 completely and 14,436 partially) since September 29, 2000.

44 new Jewish-only settlements were built by the Israeli government on confiscated Palestinian land between 9/29/2000 and 6/30/2002. There have been 0 cases of Palestinians confiscating Israeli land and building settlements. Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Don’t forget to check RIGHT POINT REVIEW, daily news update at www.whtt.org

Why Wives Must Work

A valuable lesson learned in the Dale Carnegie sales training course is, "If you want to sell what Jim Jones buys, you have to see through Jim Jones eyes." Conversely, if you want to know just exactly what is being sold to you, you have to look through the salesman's eyes. How does a salesman sell something? How do they get someone to accept what is being offered? The prospective buyer must want what is being sold and this accomplished by stressing the benefits to the buyer. If I sell a home to a prospective buyer with a steam heating system I do it by telling the buyer that they will save on heating bills, cleaning bills and medic-al bills. Medical bills? Yes! There isn't nearly as much germ carrying dust circulating as with forced air systems! Clever, huh?

So, how does one go about selling communism to the masses? You sell benefits! Social security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, price supports, welfare payments, aid to dependent children, farm subsidies, import quotas, etc., are all benefits "to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities,” As defined by the German philosopher, Karl Marx.

The 8th plank of Marx's Communist Manifesto calls for "equal liability of all to labor," in hopes that the feminine half of the world will get up and fight their exploitation by the One World clique who need their production to stall the ultimate collapse of their money system which is the result of implementing Marx's 5th plank. Let us define communism as total control over people with paper money, credit, fear, chemicals, lies and amusements that inhibit serious thinking. There can be no communism without paper money – which is the interchangeable paper and copper clad tokens the masses have been conditioned to call "money" and accept for all their labor. There is no such thing as paper money (two words). Paper is too heavy to use as money...stop and think about this last sentence before proceeding. It might take two truckloads of paper to equal the value of one Cadillac that could be bought with two hands full of gold coins.

To control people with papermoney (one word) and credit, their use of these devices and their consumption in relation to their production must be ruthlessly regulated. The consequences were stated long ago by the British economist, John Maynard Keynes in Economic Consequences Of The Peace, "...the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

How do those who get the money first for nothing get others to submit to regulation of their use of the money so that the fraud perpetrated with it remains concealed? Well, they don't call it "regulation" – they call it “taxation.” Taxation is authorized by our Constitution. When we used gold and/or silver coins, taxation was real because you actually transferred wealth to revenue agents. Your consumption was reduced by giving up consumable (not edible) production.

Now when the Federal Reserve says that their systems "works only with credit," a check transfers ownership of nothing, however your consumption is still reduced to whatever remaining credit in your account permits AND NO BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT PAYS ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING!

For this communistic system to work, the majority has to believe a massive amount of lies and believe so fervently that they will ridicule and jail those who do not. The most repeated lie is that the government spends money. Why should the government spend money when ALL of us will risk our lives for strips of paper that haven't even promised to pay since 1963? Government spends nothing, not even the paper that we all erroneously call 'money.' Another lie is that people pay taxes. We only pretend paying and nothing more is wanted from us. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PAY TAXES WITH PAPER!

The very best thing government can print is a mere promise to pay money and they ceased doing that in 1963. They now print less than that with no promise to do anything. If government simply sent trucks around to haul off our production, the people would see this as theft and resist it. The government, however, leaves some strips of paper that authorizes their victims to go plunder their neighbors who, in turn, can take those strips of paper and plunder others who falsely believe they were lawfully paid! The theft just isn't seen as theft. It is called "free enterprise." What was it that P.T. Barnum said about suckers?

There are two primary classes of people on earth; those who get all money first for nothing and their slaves. Try to see through the eyes of those who get everything for nothing. If they did, in fact, take everything we have, they would see that we would under-stand that we are being robbed and we would revolt. Actually, we would revolt sometime before the point of total confiscation was reached. That saturation point could be held off in several ways.

If enough of their ethereal money was taxed away from us to prevent us from using it to buy our own production, revolutionary tendencies could be stemmed, but this has limitations. Another way is to get the laboring masses to produce more. Another way is to reduce the population: war, famine, disease, birth control, aspartame, canola, milk and fluoridated water. For five years, the professionals at the EPA have been telling the world that fluoride is killing people! See their site at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm See also:
http://www.notmilk.com and http://www.dorway.com.

As husbands voluntarily sign W4 authorizations for employers to reduce the numbers on their "pay" checks, the remaining numbers may not suffice to "buy" their necessities. As a result, wives go to work for more numbers and they, too, volunteer to sign W4 forms that cause employers to reduce their numbers – which is another attack on their consumption.

The numbers subtracted for social security help reduce consumption of those who permit it. In spite of the lies indicating a relationship between money "paid into" social security and what is "paid out," there is nothing going to Washington as taxes or social security payments. The Fed admits this. With the Satanic system we have (just like Hitler's), there is no limit to the checks that can come from Washington with nothing going there. "Collect the money, disperse the people; disperse the money, collect the people." – Ancient Chinese Proverb. We have been collectivized and the people love it, thanks to their conditioning for it in the public fool system which filled Marx's 10th plank. What is really diabolical is that any person who effectively resists communism by refusing to waive his rights on 1040 confession forms will be ridiculed and jailed by the parents, siblings, and other survivors of the Americans who died in Asia "fighting Communism?"

Income tax represents fulfillment of Marx's 2nd plank and we have been lead to believe that the 16th amendment authorizes a tax on incomes but it has been proven in 1985 that the 16th Amendment was never ratified! Verify thru attorney, Larry Becraft of Huntsville. Alabama.

Henry Kissinger was right! He stated, "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true." When a jury of hospital scrub-women and deceived school teachers believe there is a law requiring you to waive your rights on 1040 forms, you will go to "jail" – a very restful place with no bars, gates or walls to fear. How many know that the 13th Amendment to our Constitution authorizes slavery? "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States except where a person is duly convicted of a crime." If government can get anyone duly convicted of baying at the moon; chasing unicorns; refusing to waive their rights on 1040 confession sheets or whatever, government is entitled to work them without pay!

But wait! Since the only function of negotiable notes is to get labor without payment, we are all slaves anyway! Putting a few of us in concentration camps creates the illusion that those not in the camps are free! The illusion is intensified with the singing of the anthem of the United States of America that ends with, "...land of the free and the home of the brave. Star Spangled Slavery!!! Why doesn't our national anthem end with, “Oh, He died to make men holy; let us live to make men free?” The slaves would see that they are slaves and they might strive to get freedom.

You can sing the Star Spangled Banner until donkeys fly, but as long as you labor for strips of paper the first user got for nothing and, through the fear of being jailed, confess to how much paper you were robbed with, you are a slave to that first user. When most slaves in this country were black, they were controlled with fear of beatings. Now, when most slaves are white, all are controlled with fear of being jailed – and the star studded press keeps reminding us of the riots, beatings and killings in jail.

The whole point is that we have been communized and that production in relation to consumption must be ruthlessly regulated or the fraud upon the public perpetrated with bank credit will be revealed. As men submit voluntarily, as the IRS is fond of emphasizing, to regulation in the guise of taxation, they end up with not enough credit to live comfortably – so their wives must labor (and perhaps forego having children – see how population control takes many forms?) for more credit which they, too, voluntarily submit to the regulation of by the Imaginary Revenue Scum.

There can be no revenue in a system that works us "only with credit!" Revenue is as imaginary as our money is! Revenue sharing is federal authorization for states and cities to rob their citizens! There are 15,000 commercial banks and not a one pays a dime in taxes! What would they pay with, a check? Who says the check is good, the bank? A check from government to you is only a permit to dip into the communal pot. A check sent to them just regulates how deep you can dip.

"My people perish for lack of knowledge" – Hosea 4:6

Here is an additional quote that seems appropriate:

“Fashions in ideas make their way against reason, and even self-interest cannot restrain them once they get going. Even now, in the light of what Hitler did to the wealthy who put him in a position to do so, Americans of that class cannot bring themselves to a renunciation of the Statism they fostered under Roosevelt. If they were capable of putting two and two together and coming up with the correct sum, they would howl their heads off at every accretion of state power. They would fight like mad at the growth of bureaucracy, against each and every intervention in the economy, every law that puts a penny into the hands of the politicians, every proposal leading to a militarization of the country. Not only because the weakening of the State must make for a social good, but because the strengthening of the State must eventuate in their own subjugation. But, despite the lessons of history, despite the dictates of reason, they seem incapable of understanding that the Caesarism they foster will cut their own throats; they go along with the trend on the theory, apparently, that sufficient unto the day is the unslit throat. They are slaves of their own fashioning.” – Frank Chodorov

America Will Use Nukes to Defend ‘Strategic’ Allies

A classified report leaked to the press reveals that the U.S. military is poised to use nuclear weapons in defense of countries threatened by hostile neighbors.
________________________________________________________________________

by James P. Tucker
________________________________________________________________________

The Bush administration has decreed that “the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons during an Arab-Israeli conflict,” according to leaked classified papers.

“The Pentagon’s ambitious nuclear battle plans, based on the leaked classified U.S. Nuclear Policy Review (NPR), have stunned the world and threaten to unleash a renewed nuclear arms race and an era of global instability,” Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) charged Aug. 5.

A classified NPR report in January 2002 – more than a year before the invasion of Iraq – said the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons during an Arab-Israeli conflict, an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, a north Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation between China and Taiwan, PSR reported at a Washington news conference.

The classified document underscores arguments that the invasion of Iraq was not only for oil but to protect Israel and its occupation of Arab lands.

According to the NPR report, “countries such as Iran, Syria and Libya could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies requiring ‘nuclear strike capabilities,’” PSR charged.

“The NPR also suggests the need for developing a new generation of nuclear devices to be integrated into U.S. war-fighting strategy for much wider use than for deterrence,” the physicians reported. The physicians’ group denounced the new U.S. strategy of “pre-emptive strikes” – used to justify the invasion of Iraq – that was first introduced by Israel when invading Arab neighbors.

This article appeared in the August 18,2003 issue of American Free Press.

Holocaust Racketeers Have Money to Burn

This Editorial appeared in the July/August 2003 issue of The Barnes Review.

When Jewish Agency Chairman Avraham Burg announced in August 1995, presumably with tongue in cheek since he admittedly had no evidence, that Swiss bankers held hundreds of millions of dollars in unclaimed deposits of Holocaust victims and demanded that the banks return the money, he could have had no idea of the repercussions.

The normally secretive Swiss bankers declared that they had identified all unclaimed pre-1945 deposits and that the total value of the 775 dormant accounts was not more than $34 million. This amount represented deposits by both Jews and non-Jews. Jewish groups worldwide seized on this admission as a sign of weakness and demanded not only the $34 million but also much more. Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress, soon took up the cause and demanded that an interim fund of $200 million be set up and distributed to Holocaust survivors pending a final settlement.

Since that time he has claimed that the unclaimed balances total $7 billion. There are serious weaknesses in Mr. Bronfman's claim. The most obvious is the extremely acute shortage of foreign exchange that persisted in Germany throughout the 1930's which would have rendered impossible large transfers to Swiss accounts. Certainly $7 billion would have been out of the question since this amount exceeded Germany's annual foreign exchange earnings in the late 1930's, all of which in any event were required to purchase vital imports. Less obvious but equally verifiable were the constraints that were placed on Jewish economic activity which in the midst of the Great Depression would have precluded the accumulation of the huge cash balances allegedly deposited by the Holocaust victims. Even in the unlikely event that the Jews had accumulated substantial funds during the early part of the decade.

It is unimaginable that in those conditions Jews could have earned legitimately and retained the large fortunes allegedly deposited. Furthermore, if the victims' balances came to $7 billion, the survivors' balances must have been significantly greater -- another impossibility.

The less affluent Jews who remained in Germany at the outbreak of the war in 1939 (a minority of the total Jewish population) in some cases might have had Swiss bank accounts, but if so, the balances would not have been large and in many cases there is no convincing evidence that the owners would have perished in the concentration camps. On the contrary, there is convincing evidence that many German Jews passed through the war years unmolested and fully integrated into the German war effort. Canadian Jewish author Alan Abrams describes this phenomenon in his book Special Treatment (Lyle Stuart, 1985). Simple observation in Israel, North America, Europe and South Africa demonstrates clearly that the majority survived, and prospered.

Unless, therefore, Mr. Bronfman can show that the Jews who remained in Germany and the occupied countries were (1) extraordinarily affluent; (2) able to acquire quantities of gold and foreign exchange far beyond the amounts available; (3) able to effect transfers into Swiss currency while both Jews and foreign exchange were under the strictest scrutiny and; (4) put to death or died before the war's end, he is unlikely to convince anyone familiar with the facts. Which is not to say that Mr. Bronfman will not succeed. Despite their pre-eminence in international finance, indeed perhaps even because of it, the Swiss banks and other institutions are vulnerable and could suffer severely from a worldwide Jewish boycott unless they could marshal other threatened Gentile interests to their side in a worldwide counter-boycott.

Perhaps the most hazardous to Jews is Mr. Bronfman's frequent reference to the vast numbers who allegedly perished. If indeed the figure is Six Million, however, four million were said to have "perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

We know now from the camp records finally released by the Russians that the death toll at Auschwitz was just over 74,000, not all of whom were Jews. Even more awkward is the ubiquity of the so-called "Holocaust Survivors." While purported to be no more than a tiny remnant of European Jewry, in fact they number at least 4.5 million, if individual claims for compensation filed with the West German Government are valid.

Scholarly research on Jewish demographics, notably that of Walter N. Sanning, author of The Dissolution of East European Jewry, published in 1983 by the then-viable Institute for Historical Review, confirms the thesis that very large numbers found safe havens.

Of the Jews confined to ghettos, labor camps and concentration camps, there was more to fear from the Allies than from the Germans, especially in the closing months of the war, when, ironically, in response to pleas from organized Jewry, the "railway lines leading to the death camps" were bombed, cutting off vital supplies of food and medicines. Most of the Jews who died, including Anne Frank and her sister, were victims of typhus, which would have taken many more lives had it not been for the use of a powerful German-manufactured fumigant, Zyklon B, the same chemical claimed by Holocaust proponents to have been used in the alleged extermination of the Six Million.

Absurd as the Jewish financial and human alleged losses may seem to the objective observer, they have been accepted at face value by western politicians, educators and even by normally skeptical journalists. Heavily infiltrated western governments led by venal politicians have declared the Holocaust an incontrovertible fact that can be questioned only at one's considerable peril, including loss of livelihood and imprisonment. That a "fact" should require such protection seems odd, but no more so than the failure of Churchill to have made even one single reference to the horrendous gas chambers in his definitive work on the conflict.

Soon, according to recent news reports, we shall learn of the wartime heroism of the hitherto unheralded "Jewish fighting man" in a special gallery to be built at the Canadian War Museum.

Mr. Bronfman is on no firmer ground when he accuses the Swiss of collaborating with Nazi Germany. Why wouldn't the Swiss have collaborated? Germany was not Switzerland's enemy, on the contrary was doubtless seen by most insightful citizens as the only reliable safeguard against communism. And if the Swiss made profits, they were as nothing compared to the windfall pocketed by world Jewry. In the light of this reality Mr. Bronfman's admonition that "No one should profit from the Holocaust" has a distinctly hollow ring, as does his appeal to principle, unless, of course, he is prepared to apply the same principles in the case of the dispossessed Palestinians.

-- Ian V. Macdonald

Click to subscribe to The Barnes Review.

THE U.S. AND EURASIA: END GAME FOR THE INDUSTRIAL ERA?

This perspicacious article by Richard Heinberg - written before the Iraq War - first appeared in his webzine MuseLetter in February 2003, and is reproduced here with his kind permission. A journalist and educator, Richard Heinberg is a member of the core faculty of New College of California in Santa Rosa, where he teaches a program on Culture, Ecology, and Sustainable Community. He writes and publishes the monthly MuseLetter. This article is adapted from his book, The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies.

With the dawn of the 21st century the world has entered a new stage of geopolitical struggle. The first half of the 20th century can be understood as one long war between Britain (and shifting allies) and Germany (and shifting allies) for European supremacy. The second half of the century was dominated by a Cold War between the US, which emerged as the world's foremost industrial-military power following World War II, and the Soviet Union and its bloc of protectorates. The US wars in Afghanistan (in 2001-2002) and Iraq (which, counting economic sanctions and periodic bombings, has continued from 1990 to the present) have ushered in the latest stage, which promises to be the final geopolitical struggle of the industrial period - a struggle for the control of Eurasia and its energy resources.

My purpose here is to sketch the general outlines of this culminating chapter of history as it is currently being played out.First, it is necessary to discuss geopolitics in general, and from a historical perspective, in relation to resources, geography, military technology, national currencies, and the psychology of its practitioners.

The Ends and Means of Geopolitics

It is never enough to say that geopolitics is about "power," "control," or "hegemony" in the abstract. These words have usefulness only in relation to specific objectives and means: Power over what or whom, exerted by what methods? The answers will differ somewhat in each situation; however, most strategic objectives and means tend to have some characteristics in common.

Like other organisms, humans are subject to the perpetual ecological constraints of population pressure and resource depletion. While it may be simplistic to say that all conflicts between societies are motivated by the desire to overcome ecological constraints, most certainly are. Wars are typically fought over resources - land, forests, waterways, minerals, and (during the past century) oil. People do occasionally fight over ideologies and religions. But even then resource rivalries are seldom far from the surface. Thus attempts to explain geopolitics without reference to resources (a recent example is Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations) are either misguided or deliberately misleading.

The industrial era differs from previous periods of human history in the large-scale harnessing of energy resources (coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium) for the purposes of production and transportation - and for the deeper purpose of expanding the human carrying capacity of our terrestrial environment. All of the scientific achievements, the political consolidations, and the immense population increases of the past two centuries are predictable effects of the growing, coordinated use of energy resources. In the early decades of the 20th century, petroleum emerged as the most important energy resource because of its cheapness and convenience of use. The industrial world is now overwhelmingly dependent on oil for agriculture and transportation.

Modern global geopolitics, because it implies worldwide transportation and communication systems rooted in fossil energy resources, is therefore a phenomenon unique to the industrial era.

The control of resources is largely a matter of geography, and secondarily a matter of military technology and control over currencies of exchange. The US and Russia were both geographically blessed, being self-sufficient in energy resources during the first half of the century. Germany and Japan failed to attain regional hegemony largely because they lacked sufficient indigenous energy resources and because they failed to gain and keep access to resources elsewhere (via the USSR on one hand and the Dutch East Indies on the other).

Yet while both the US and Russia were well endowed by nature, both have passed their petroleum production peaks (which occurred in 1970 and 1987, respectively). Russia remains a net oil exporter because its consumption levels are low, but the US is increasingly dependent on imports of both oil and natural gas.

Both nations long ago began investing much of their energy-based wealth in the production of fuel-fed arms systems with which to expand and defend their resource interests globally. In other words, both decided decades ago to be geopolitical players, or contenders for global hegemony.

Roughly three-quarters of the world's crucial remaining petroleum reserves lie within the borders of predominantly Muslim nations of the Middle East and Central Asia - nations that, for historical, geographic, and political reasons, were unable to develop large-scale industrial-military economies of their own and that have, throughout the past century, mainly served as pawns of the Great Powers (Britain, the US, and the former USSR). In recent decades, these predominantly Muslim oil-rich nations have pooled their interests in a cartel, the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC).

While resources, geography, and military technology are essential to geopolitics, they are not sufficient without a financial means to dominate the terms of international trade. Hegemony has had a financial as well as a military component ever since the adoption of money by Bronze Age agricultural empires; money, after all, is a claim upon resources, and the ability to control the currency of exchange can effect a subtle ongoing transfer of real wealth. Whoever issues a currency - especially a fiat currency, i.e., one not backed by precious metals - has power over it: every transaction becomes a subsidy to the money coiner or printer.

During the colonial era, rivalries between the Spanish real, the French franc, and the British pound were as decisive as military battles in determining hegemonic power. For the past half-century, the US dollar has been the international currency of account for nearly all nations, and it is the currency with which all oil-importing nations must pay for their fuel. This is an arrangement that has worked to the advantage both of OPEC, which maintains a stable customer in the US (the world's largest petroleum consumer and a military power capable of defending the Arab oil kingdoms), and of the US itself, which receives a subtle financial tithe for every barrel of oil consumed by every other importing nation.

These are some of the essential facts to bear in mind when examining the current geopolitical landscape.

The Psychology and Sociology of Geopolitics

Geopolitical goals are pursued within specific environments, and they are pursued by specific actors - by particular human beings with identifiable social, cultural, and psychological characteristics.

These actors are, to a certain extent, embodiments of their society as a whole, seeking benefits for that society in competition or cooperation with other societies. However, such powerful individuals are inevitably drawn from a particular social class within their society - typically the wealthy, owning class - and tend to act in such a way as to benefit that class preferentially, even if doing so means ignoring the interests of the rest of society. Moreover, individual geopolitical actors are also unique human beings with insights, prejudices, and religious obsessions that may occasionally lead them to act at cross-purposes not only to their society, but their class as well.

From society's point of view, geopolitics is a Darwinian collective struggle for increased carrying capacity; but from the individual geostrategist's viewpoint, it is a game. Indeed, geopolitics could be considered the ultimate human game - one with immense consequences, and one that can only be played within a tiny club of elites.

As long as there have been civilizations and empires, kings and emperors have played some version of this game. The game attracts a patricular kind of personality, and it fosters a certain way of thinking and feeling about the world and about other human beings. The act of playing the game confers feelings of immense superiority, aloofness, power, and importance. One can begin to appreciate the supremely addictive intoxication that flows from playing the geopolitical game by reading documents composed by prominent geostrategists - national security briefing papers by people like George Kennan and Richard Perle, or books by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Take, for example, this passage from Kennan's US State Department Policy Planning Study #23 from 1948:

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization.

Such dry, functional prose is at home in a world of offices, telephones, and limousines, but that is a world utterly disengaged from the millions - perhaps hundreds of millions or billions - of people whose lives will be overwhelmingly impacted by a phrase here, a word there. At one level, the geostrategist is simply a man (after all, the club is overwhelmingly a men's club) doing his job, and trying to do it competently in the eyes of onlookers. But what a job it is! - determining the course of history, shaping the fates of nations. The geostrategist is a Superman, an Olympian disguised as a mortal, a Titan in a business suit. Nice work if you can get it.

Eurasia - Grand Prize of the Great Game

Looking at their maps and model globes, British geostrategists of 18th and 19th centuries could not help but notice that Earth's landmasses are highly asymmetrical; Eurasia is by far the largest of the continents. Clearly, if they were themselves to build and maintain a truly globe-spanning empire, it would be essential for the British first to establish and defend strategic footholds throughout this mineral-rich, densely populated, and history-soaked continent.

But British geostrategists knew perfectly well that Britain itself is only an island off the northwest of Eurasia. Within this largest of continents, the most extensive nation was by far Russia, which geographically dominated Eurasia as Eurasia dominated the globe. Thus the British knew that their attempts to control Eurasia would inevitably confront the self-preservative instincts of the Russian Empire. Throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th, British/Russian conflicts repeatedly flared on the Indian frontier, notably in Afghanistan. An imperial functionary named Sir John Kaye called this the "Great Game," a term immortalized by Kipling in Kim.

Two costly World Wars and a century of colonial uprisings largely cured Britain of her imperial obsessions, but Eurasia could not help but remain central to any serious plan for world domination.

Thus in 1997, in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter and geostrategist par excellence, would insist that Eurasia must be at the center of future efforts by the United States to project its own power globally. "For America," he wrote,

the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. 1

Eurasia is pivotal, according to Brzezinski, because it "accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." In addition, it contains three-quarters of the world's population, "all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones." 2

In Brzezinski's view, just as the US needs the rest of the world for markets and resources, Eurasia needs American dominance for stability. Unfortunately, however, the American people are not accustomed to imperial responsibilities: "[T]he pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being." 3

Something fundamental shifted in the world of geopolitics with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 - which clearly presented a "sudden threat . . . to the public's sense of domestic well-being." This shift was felt again with the new American administration's determination - voiced with increasing insistence through 2002 and the first weeks of 2003 - to invade Iraq. These geostrategic shifts seemed centered in a new American attitude toward Eurasia.

At the end of WWII, when the US and the USSR emerged as the word's dominant powers, the US had established permanent bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, all to hedge in the Soviet Union. America even waged a failed and extremely costly war in Southeast Asia to gain yet another vector of Eurasian containment.

When the USSR collapsed at the end of the 1980s, the US appeared free to dominate Eurasia, and thus the world, more completely than had any other nation in world history. The decade that followed was one characterized primarily by globalization - the consolidation of corporatized economic power centered largely in the US. It appeared that US hegemony would be maintained economically rather than militarily. Brzezinski's book conveys the spirit of those times, advocating the maintenance and consolidation of America's ties to long-time allies (Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea) and the coddling or co-opting of the new independent states of the former Soviet Union.

In contrast with this prescription, the new administration of George W. Bush appeared to be taking a more strident tack - one that took old allies for granted in its unabashed unilateralism. In his shredding of international environmental, human rights, and weapons-control agreements; in his pursuit of a doctrine of pre-emptive military action; and especially in his seemingly inexplicable obsession with the invasion of Iraq, Bush was expending enormous political and diplomatic capital, needlessly creating enemies even among trusted allies. His rationale for war - the elimination of 's weapons of mass destruction - was patently silly, since the US had supplied many of those weapons and Iraq posed no current threat to anyone; moreover, a new Gulf war risked destabilizing the entire Middle East. 4 What could possibly justify such a risk? What was motivating this bizarre new change in strategy?

Again, some background discussion is necessary before we can answer this question.

The US: Colossus Astride the Globe

At the dawn of the new millennium the US had the world's most advanced military technology and the world's strongest currency. Throughout the twentieth century, America had patiently built its empire, first in Central and South America, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and then (following World War II) through alliances and protectorates in Europe, Japan, Korea, and the Middle East. Its army and intelligence agency were active in virtually every country in the world, while its immense powers seemed tempered by its ostensible advocacy of democracy and human rights.

In the 1980s, the US government came under the control of a group of neo-conservative strategists surrounding Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. For years, these strategists worked to destroy the USSR (which they succeeded in doing by undermining the Soviet economy) and to consolidate power in Central America and the Middle East. The latter project culminated in the first US-Iraq war of 1990-1991. Their publicly stated goal was nothing less than world domination.

While the Clinton-Gore administration emphasized multilateral cooperation, its push for corporate globalization - which ruthlessly transferred wealth from poor nations to rich ones - was essentially an extension of Reagan-Bush policies. However, the neo-conservatives fumed at their exclusion from the direct reins of power. They regarded themselves as the country's rightful leadership, and saw Clinton and his followers as usurpers. When the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as President in 2000, the neo-conservatives returned with a vengeance. With the assistance of the fawning media, Bush - the pampered son of a wealthy and deeply politically connected East-coast family that had made its money from banking, weapons, and oil - managed to portray himself as a down-home Texan "man of the people." He immediately surrounded himself with the group of geopolitical strategists - Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle - who had developed international policy for the first Bush administration.

In his recent article "The Push for War," international affairs analyst Anatol Lieven traced the roots of the far-right strategic agenda to a lingering Cold War mentality, Christian fundamentalism, increasingly divisive domestic politics, and an unquestioning support for Israel. The basic goal of total military domination of the globe, Lieven wrote, was

shared by Colin Powell and the rest of the security establishment. It was, after all, Powell who, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared in 1992 that the US requires sufficient power "to deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage." However, the idea of pre-emptive defence, now official doctrine, takes this a leap further, much further than Powell would wish to go. In principle, it can be used to justify the destruction of any other state if it even seems that that state might in future be able to challenge the US. When these ideas were first aired by Paul Wolfowitz and others after the end of the Cold War, they met with general criticism, even from conservatives. Today, thanks to the ascendancy of the radical nationalists in the Administration and the effect of the 11 September attacks on the American psyche, they have a major influence on US policy. 5

Whether or not the administration in some way orchestrated the events of 9/11 - as has been suggested by several commentators including Gore Vidal - it was clearly poised to take advantage of them. 6 Bush immediately proclaimed to the world that "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."

With a bloated military budget, a cowed and obedient corporate media establishment, and a public frightened into willingly giving up basic constitutional protections, the neo-conservatives appeared to have won full control of the nation and to have become masters of its global empire. But even as their victory seemed complete, rumors of dissent began swirling.

Insubordination in the Ranks

Popular resistance to corporate globalization started to materialize in the late 1990s, first coalescing in the anti-WTO mass demonstration in Seattle in November 1999. Thenceforth, the anti-globalization movement appeared to grow with each passing year, morphing into a global anti-war movement in response to US plans to invade first Afghanistan and then Iraq.

But discontent with US domination of the globe was not confined to leftists in street demonstrations brandishing giant puppets. As American military bases sprang up in the Balkans in the 1990s, and in Central Asia in the aftermath of the Afghanistan campaign, geostrategists in Russia, China, Japan, and Western Europe began examining their options. Only Britain seemed steadfast in its alliance with the American colossus.

One seemingly inoffensive response to US global hegemony was the effort of eleven European nations to establish a common currency - the euro. When the euro debuted at the turn of the millennium, many predicted that it would be unable to compete with the dollar. Indeed, for months the euro's comparative value languished. However, it soon stabilized and began to rise.

A more worrying development, from Washington's perspective, was the increasing tendency of second- and third-tier nations to overtly abandon the neoliberal economic policies at the heart of the project of globalization, as new governments in Venezuela, Brazil, and Ecuador publicly broke with the World Bank and declared their desire for independence from American financial control.

Meanwhile, in Russia political theorist Alexander Dugin was gaining increasing influence with anti-American geostrategic writings. In 1997, the same year Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard appeared, Dugin published his own manifesto, The Basics of Geopolitics, advocating a reconstituted Russian Empire composed of a continental bloc of states allied to cleanse the Eurasian land-mass of US influence. At the center of this bloc Dugin posited a "Eurasian axis" of Russia, Germany, Iran, and Japan.

While Dugin's ideas were banned during Soviet times for their echoes of Nazi pan-Eurasian fantasies, they gradually gained influence among post-Soviet Russian officials. For example, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently decried the "strengthening tendency towards the formation of a unipolar world under financial and military domination by the United States" and called for a "multipolar world order," while emphasizing Russia's "geopolitical position as the largest Eurasian state." Russia's Communist party has adopted Dugin's ideas in its platform; Gennady Zyuganov, Communist Party chairman, even published his own primer on geopolitics, titled Geography of Victory. Though Dugin remains a marginal figure internationally, his ideas cannot help but resonate in a country and continent increasingly hemmed in and manipulated by a powerful and arrogant hegemonic nation on the other side of the globe.

Outwardly, Russia - like Germany, France, Japan, and China - still usually defers to the US. Even dissent from the Bush buildup to war on Iraq has remained fairly muted.

But in private, leaders in all of these countries are no doubt making new plans. Few would yet go so far as to agree with Alexander Dugin's view that Eurasia will come to dominate the US, not the other way around. Yet in just three years, many Eurasian leaders' attitudes toward American hegemony have shifted from quiet acceptance to biting criticism to a serious examination of the alternatives.

The American Dilemma

Dugin and other Eurasian critics of US power begin from a premise that would seem ludicrous to most Americans. To Dugin, the US is acting not out of strength, but of weakness.

America has for many years sustained an overwhelmingly negative balance of trade - which it can afford only because of the strong dollar, in turn enabled by the cooperation of OPEC in denominating oil exports in dollars. America's trade balance is negative partly because its indigenous production of oil and natural gas has peaked and the nation now relies increasingly on imports. Also, most US corporations have shifted their manufacturing operations overseas. A further systemic weakness comes from widespread corporate corruption - revealed most glaringly in the collapse of Enron - and the close ties between corporations and the US political establishment. Bubble after bubble - high-tech, telecom, derivatives, real estate - has either already burst or is about to.

Next to the strong dollar, the other pillar of American geopolitical strength is its military. But even in this case there are cracks in the facade. No one doubts that the US possesses weapons of mass destruction sufficient to wipe out the world many times over. But America actually uses its weaponry increasingly for the purpose of what French historian Emmanuel Todd has called "theatrical militarism." In an essay titled "The US and Eurasia: Theatrical Militarism," journalist Pepe Escobar notes that this strategy implies that Washington

. . . should never come up with a definitive solution for any geopolitical problem, because instability is the only thing that would justify military action ad infinitum by the only superpower, anytime, anywhere. . . . Washington knows it is unable to confront the real players in the world - Europe, Russia, Japan, China. Thus it seeks to remain politically on top by bullying minor players like the Axis of Evil, or even more minor players like Cuba. 7
Thus American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously reveal both the sophistication of US military technology and the inherent frailties of the US geopolitical position.

Theatrical militarism has the dual purpose of projecting the image of American invincibility and might while maintaining or extending US military domination over resource-rich third-tier nations. This largely explains the recent Afghanistan invasion and the impending attack on Baghdad. The strategy suggests that terrorist acts against the US should be covertly encouraged as a justification for more domestic repression and foreign military adventures.

Yet we have not fully answered the question posed earlier - why is the current administration willing to expend so much domestic and international political capital in order to pursue the impending Iraq war? Critics of the administration insist that this is a war for oil profits, but the situation is actually more complicated and can be understood only in the light of two crucial factors not widely acknowledged.

The first is that the continued strength of the dollar is in question. In November 2000, Iraq announced that it would cease to accept dollars for its oil, and would accept instead only euros. At the time, financial analysts suggested that Iraq would lose tens of millions of dollars in value because of this currency switch; in fact, over the following two years, Iraq made millions. Other oil-exporting nations, including Iran and Venezuela, have stated that they are contemplating a similar move. If OPEC as a whole were to switch from dollars to euros, the consequences to the US economy would be catastrophic. Investment money would flee the country, real estate values would plummet, and Americans would shortly find themselves living in Third-World conditions. 8

Currently, if any country wishes to obtain dollars with which to buy oil, it can do so only by selling its goods or resources to the US, taking out a loan from a US bank (or the World Bank - functionally the same thing), or trading its currency on the open market and thus devaluing it. The US is in effect importing goods and services virtually for free, its massive trade deficit representing a huge interest-free loan from the rest of the world. If the dollar were to cease being the world's reserve currency, all of that would change overnight.

A New York Times article dated 31 January, 2003, titled "For Flashier Russians, Euro Outshines the Dollar," noted that "Russians are believed to have hoarded as much as $50 billion in American dollars in coffee cans and under mattresses, the largest such stash of any nation on earth." But Russians are quietly exchanging their dollars for euros, and high-ticket items like cars now carry price tags in euros. Further, "Russia's central bank said today that it had increased its euro holdings in the last year to 10 percent of its foreign reserves, up from 5 percent, while the dollar's share had dropped from 90 percent to 75 percent, reflecting the low return on dollar investments." 9

Ironically, even the European Union is concerned about this trend, because if the dollar sinks too low then European firms will see their US investments lose value. Nevertheless, as the EU grows (it is slated to add ten new members in 2004), its economic clout is increasingly perceived as inevitably surpassing that of the US.

For US geostrategists, the prevention of an OPEC switch from dollars to euros must therefore seem paramount. An invasion and occupation of Iraq would effectively give the US a voting seat in OPEC while placing new American bases within hours' striking distance of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and several other key OPEC countries.

The second factor likely weighing on Bush's decision to invade Iraq is the depletion of US energy resources and the consequently increasing American dependency on oil imports. The oil production of all non-OPEC countries, taken together, probably peaked in 2002. From now on, OPEC will have ever more economic power in the world. Moreover, global oil production will probably peak within a few years. As I have discussed elsewhere, alternatives to fossil fuels have not been developed sufficiently to permit a coordinated process of substitution once oil and natural gas grow scarce. The implications - especially for major consumer nations such as the US - will eventually be ruinous. 10

Both problems are of overwhelming urgency. Bush's Iraq strategy is apparently an offensive one designed to enlarge the US empire, but in reality it is primarily defensive in character since its deeper purpose is to forestall an economic cataclysm.

It is the two factors of dollar hegemony and oil depletion - even more than the hubris of the neo-conservative strategists in Washington - that are prompting an overall de-emphasis of long-standing alliances with Europe, Japan, and South Korea; and the increasing deployment of US troops in the Middle East and Central Asia.

While no one is talking about it openly, top echelons in the governments of Russia, China, Britain, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia and other countries are keenly aware of these factors - hence the shifting alliances, the veto threats, and the back-room negotiations leading up to the US invasion of Iraq.
But the war, though by now inevitable, remains a highly risky gamble. Even if it ends in days or weeks with a decisive American victory, we will not know for some time whether that gamble has paid off.

Who Will Control Eurasia?

As I write this, the US is drawing up plans to bomb Baghdad, a city of five million people, and to pour in twice as many cruise missiles during the first two days of the assault as were used in the entirety of the first Gulf War. Depleted uranium shells and bullets will again be employed, leaving much of Iraq a radioactive wasteland and condemning future generations of Iraqis (and American soldiers and their families) to birth defects, sickness, and early deaths. It is difficult to imagine that the spectacle of so much unprovoked death and destruction could help but inspire thoughts of revenge in the hearts of millions of Arabs and Muslims.

American geopolitical strategists will call the effort a success if the war ends quickly, if production from Iraqi oil fields is soon ramped up, and if other OPEC nations are bullied into maintaining the dollar as their currency of account. But this operation (one cannot really call it a war), undertaken as an act of economic desperation, can only temporarily stem a rising tide.

What are the long-term consequences for the US and Eurasia? Many are unpredictable. Forces are being unleashed now that may be difficult to contain.
The more reliably foreseeable long-term trends are not favorable. Resource depletion and population pressure have always been predictors of war. China, with a population of 1.2 billion, will soon be the world's largest consumer of resources. In times of plenty, this nation can be viewed as immense opening market: there are already more refrigerators, mobile phones, and televisions in China than in the US. China does not wish to challenge the US militarily and recently gained trade privileges by quietly backing American military operations in Central Asia. But as oil - the basis for the entire industrial system - grows scarcer and its reserves more hotly disputed, China cannot be expected to remain docile.

North Korea, a Chinese quasi-ally, was being quietly defanged through negotiations during the Clinton era, but is now chafing at being labeled by Bush as part of an "axis of evil" and at having crucial energy-resource imports embargoed by the US. Out of desperation, it is trying to get Washington's attention by reviving its nuclear weapons programs. Meanwhile, the new South Korean government is utterly opposed to US unilateralism and wants to negotiate with the North. The US is threatening to destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities with air strikes, but to do so would raise a deadly nuclear cloud over all of northeast Asia.

Meanwhile, India and Pakistan also have interests that will likely eventually diverge from those of the US. These neighbor nations are, of course, nuclear powers and sworn enemies with longstanding border disputes. Pakistan, currently a US ally, is also a significant supplier of nuclear materials to North Korea, and has offered aid to the Taliban and al Qaida - facts that underscore just how convoluted and counterproductive Washington's strategy has lately become.

The Americans' worst nightmare would be a strategic and economic alliance among Europe, Russia, China, and OPEC. Such an alliance possesses an inherent logic from the viewpoint of each of the potential participants. If the US were to try to prevent such an alliance by playing the only strong card still in its hand - its weaponry of mass destruction - then the Great Game could end in ultimate tragedy.

Even in the best case, petroleum resources are limited and, as they gradually run out over the next few decades, will be unable to support the further industrialization of China or the maintenance of industrial infrastructure in Europe, Russia, Japan, Korea, or the US.

Who will rule Eurasia? In the end, no single power will be capable of doing so, because the energy-resource base will be insufficient to support a continent-wide system of transportation, communication, and control. Thus Russian geopolitical fantasies are as vain as those of the US. For the next half-century there will be just enough energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime.

The next century will see the end of global geopolitics, one way or another. If our descendants are fortunate, the ultimate outcome will be a world of modest, bioregionally organized communities living on received solar energy. Local rivalries will continue, as they have throughout human history, but never again will the hubris of geopolitical strategists threaten billions with extinction.

That's if all goes well and everyone acts rationally.

RICHARD HEINBERG - February 2003

FOOTNOTES
1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives (Basic Books, 1997), p. 30.
2. Ibid., p. 31.
3. Ibid., p. 36.
4. See Richard Heinberg, 'Behold Caesar', MuseLetter #128, October 2002
5. Anatol Lieven, 'The Push for War', London Review of Books, December 30, 2002
6. See Gore Vidal, "The Enemy Within", and the Center for Cooperative Research.
7. Pepe Escobar, 'The US and Eurasia: Theatrical Militarism', Asia Times Online, December 4, 2002.
8. See:
• 'Behind the Invasion of Iraq'
• 'Protest by switching oil trade from dollar to euro',Oil and Gas Journal, April 15, 2002
• W. Clark, 'The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War'
9. See Michael Wines, 'For Flashier Russians, Euro Outshines the Dollar', New York Times, January 31, 2003.
10. Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (New Society, 2003).

MuseLetter
http://www.museletter.com/index.html

HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE

by Charley Reese

http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html

The difference between true education and vocational training has been cleverly blurred. Here are a few tips on how smart people can control other people. If any of this rings a bell - Well, then wake up!

The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror, and old fashioned, expensive and not 100 % certain method of control.

It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want them to do.
One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The indirect approach is to control the education they receive.

It's possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an uneducated person. The difference between true education and vocational training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.

The most obvious symptom is their absence of original thought. Ask them a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or thought the answer was. What do they think Well, they never thought about it. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite sources.

That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.

Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn't have television. We have television because we don't have circuses and gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people's minds focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This way you won't have to worry that they will ever figure out the real issues that allow you to control them.

Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have little control over their economic destiny. You'll also want to control the monetary, credit, and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent community banks.

To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up with no unions or docile unions.

Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting real change.

Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless, and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular's fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats.

Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you do it right, they won't even know whose throat they are cutting.

Charley Reese E-mail: OSOreese@aol.com

Populist Nationalism Developing Across the Western World



By Kenneth J. Schmidt



This article is the text of a speech given by Ken Schmidt at the Third Annual Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment, held in June of 2002. His basic notions are that, first, revolution, not politics, is the only option for nationalists in America. Second, that the circumstances of nationalist movements and parties in Europe are looking very hopeful and, third, that capitalism and the rancid ideological baggage of modern conservatism need to be jettisoned if nationalism is to present itself as a viable alternative to the vapid “left/right” distinctions in America.



There is a spectre haunting Europe, the spectre of nationalism. In Europe, Australia and the United States, nationalism is the new political force that the establishmentarians have begun to fear. In Europe, these days particularly, nationalism has replaced communism as the threat which unites the center-right and the center-left. In recent days all one needs to do is pick up a newspaper and the names jump out at you: LePen, Fortuyn, Haider, Kajarrlstad.

What are the reasons for the rise of a populist-tinged nationalism? In the so-called western world, a great rift has developed between the ordinary people and the elites that rule over them.

The fact that elites and the common people have always had different worldviews is a given. I contend, however, that never in the history of European civilization has there been such a large gap in the way our elites see the world and how the common folk see the world. The historian and social thinker Christopher Lasch had a term for this, he called it a “Revolt of the Elites.” The people that rule over us—the big business managerial elite, the media barons, the Zionists and the Manhattan intelligencia—adhere to values that are strongly at variance with those of working and middle-class whites.

The elites do not believe in concepts like national sovereignty and divine providence, but the common folk do. It should be noted that the establishment often exploits the beliefs of the American people by twisting them for the sake of their own nefarious ends. For example, the Bush Administration shamelessly exploited the notion of patriotism after September 11th, even though George Jr. is a strong believer in one world government.

Another example is the way the establishment’s minions often use religious arguments to buttress new world order projects. Religious-based arguments against things like sex education and abortion are mocked to scorn, but religion is invoked in advocating civil rights for minorities, open immigration and other government policies that put European-Americans at a disadvantage. Ensconced in their gated communities, the elites have no allegiance or identification with the common people. The elites, like the Jews, are a people apart.

Let us look at some historical trends and changes that effect the environment in which these elites operate. In Europe, nationalist groups are replacing the far-left and not the center-right. I think this is a good thing. In France, for example, during the recent presidential elections, Jean-Marie LePen’s National Front has seen the beginning of a shift away from its former core constituency in the south of France, which was mainly composed of white ex-colonial settlers from the empire, to the former “Red Belt” in the working-class suburbs of Paris. Blue-collar ex-communists are now pulling the lever for the National Front because it is slowly dawning on the white working class that nationalists have their interests in mind.

It is interesting to note that many former leftists are now showing up in the ranks of nationalist groups. The most notable of these is Horst Mahler, who is for all intents and purposes the second most important man in the National Democratic Party (NPD) in Germany. In the 1970s, Mahler was a leftist terrorist with the Red Army Faction. He now spends most of his time as the NPD’s lawyer and marching side-by-side with skinheads in giant marches by nationalist groups in German cities.



The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of a new type of left-wing socialist politician in Europe (and to a certain extent in America) called the third-way. The leaders of the third-way have been people like Tony Blair in England, Gerhard Schroeder in Germany and Bill Clinton in the United States. These men have sold their souls to the capitalists in ex change for power. These leftists have abandoned the fight against capitalism while still seeking to implement the left’s social agenda. This leaves nationalists as the only major force on the political spectrum that dares to criticize the excesses of lazzez-faire capitalism.

The old categories of left and right of conservative and liberal really do not make much sense anymore. Both conservatives and liberals in this country are pro-capitalist and they are essentially cosmopolitan and internationalist. Both believe in global free trade and the end of the sovereign nation state. This means that neither side takes a dissenting view on the most important issues of the day. George Wallace’s famous quip that there was not “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties was perhaps unintentionally prophetic.

Under the influence of the Frankfurt school and the new left, liberals ceased to defend the interests of the white working class. The labor unions still support the Democratic party, but this is true simply because they feel that they have nowhere else to go. Jimmy Hoffa’s brief flirtation with Pat Buchanan is perhaps a portent of things to come. I remember a startling statistic from the last presidential election, where both sides had roughly equal contributions from corporate America.

The whole liberal/conservative paradigm is entirely obsolete. It died at the end of the Cold War; it’s just that opinion leaders have not had the sense to throw dirt on its rotting corpse. Political ideologies have a tendency to hang on long after they have outlived their usefulness. Communism is an excellent example. It actually died the day Khrushchev gave his cult of personality speech, but it took another 30 years for the structure that supported it to collapse.

The Cold War died in 1989 with the breakup of the Soviet Union. During the 40 years of the Cold War, the center-right, both in Europe and America, deferred serious ideological debate in the interests of unity in the face of a looming enemy. Conservatism in the United States lost its dynamism for three reasons (1) the red menace disappeared; (2) The left made peace with capitalism; and, (3) like all weakened institutions, it was taken over by Jews who then turned it into a bizarre Zionist club.

The end of the Cold War left the United States with a huge military machine with no apparent mission. The military-industrial complex could not let that happen. The American military now serves as a kind of New World Order mercenary corps to enforce the dictates of big oil and the Zionist lobby.

The end of the Cold War gave many thoughtful people a chance to think about the many changes that have occurred in western society, chief among them the problems of third-world immigration, free trade and the fading away of national sovereignty. This has led to a rise of nationalist and semi-nationalist ideas in Europe.

Without a doubt the most significant historical fact of our times is the victory of global capitalism. Multinational corporations and international banks now have more political power than sovereign national governments by far. I tend to giggle a little when some well-intentioned nationalist or “right-winger” seeks to warn us of the coming danger of one world government. With the exception of a few brave nations that still hold out like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya, we already have one world government, a neat little power-sharing arrangement between the European and American capitalist elite and the Zionists. The use of the term “rogue nation” by politicians and the media is very instructive. If nations were independent and had sovereign power, how could they be described in any sense as “rogue”? Rogue from what? It can only mean rebellion from the one-world system.



There is an anecdote going around which illustrates the power of big business. In the 1980s, Slobodan Milosevic was at a Manhattan diplomatic reception with then Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger and David Rockefeller. Slobo was in a conversation with Eagleberger when Rockefeller came across the room to say hello. Eagleberger stammered like a schoolgirl and gave Rockefeller the “Yes sir, no sir” routine. After the banker walked away Milosevic asked Eagleberger why he, a high government official should be so afraid of a “mere businessman.” Poor Slobo was to learn the full nature of this lesson in 1996, when he himself ran afoul of the New World Order.

I do not think I need to tell anyone in this room about the utter worthlessness of that ideology known as conservatism. The fact that it was taken over by the Jewish ex-Trotskyite neo-conservatives in the 1970s is a mystery to no one. It was a relatively simple conquest for the Jews. In the ’70s and ’80s the conservative movement was ripe for a hostile takeover. Its leaders, who took refuge either in airy fairy nostalgia for the past or an Ayn Rand-style worship of heartless capitalism, were ripe for change. All Nor man Podhoeretz and company had to do was follow the money and take over the foundations that supplied conservatives with what they like best of all.

In the ’80s and ’90s, when the left completely finished its long march into the arms of the capitalists, any distinction between the center-left and the center-right became very blurry indeed. With the formerly feisty conservative movement marginalized, the establishment could relax. It could be said that there is now no distinction between the right and left in America and Europe now. What remains is a single belief system, a one party regime. When the capital gains tax is the hottest issue on Capitol Hill, we know that real politics as we once knew it is dead.

America’s new belief system is libertarian in its economic views and left-wing multiculturalist in its social policies. Left and right are united on the issue of third-world immigration. Liberal ism’s Zionist-inspired hatred of white people and the desire of big business to push down wages dovetail nicely.

Just as the right has shifted left under the influence of movements like neo-conservatism, the left has been heading toward the right. Ever since the beginning of the Frankfurt school of Marxist theoreticians in the 1920s the Left has made a slow, but gradual move toward abandoning the white working class. Men like Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse never explicitly declared themselves enemies of the blue-collar class, but they ceased to see it as a revolutionary tool.

The new left American thinkers of the 1960s went a step further. Inspired by the civil rights movement, they glorified blacks and expressed hatred toward working-class whites. Men like Collier and Horowitz of Ramparts magazine made themselves allies of the Black Panthers and they saw blue collar whites in places like Boston, who were fighting busing, as the primary enemy.

The old Rooseveltian left made the white working-class and —in particular—white ethnics as a key partner in their coalition. FDR was loyal to his class, but realized that in order to hang onto power he needed working class whites. That is why so much in the way of pro-union and pro-labor reforms made such headway in the ’30s and ’40s. This is certainly not true with the center-left today.

The task of the modern day nationalist activist is essentially subversive. I do not mean this in any jocular sense; nor do I say it as a means of spouting false bravado. We must fight against the whole rotten system that rules over us. We must not just take control of a government; we must take control of a culture. Our job is essentially revolutionary and not conservative. There is virtually nothing worth preserving in modern American culture. While there is much that is usable from the past, we must never get lost in the twisting roads of nostalgia. Nostalgia is a loser’s game. For example, we must not defend the Confederate flag simply because it invokes a warm fuzzy feeling about the past. We must defend the flag because it represents the best aspirations of our people and yes, because that flag drives the Zionists and their black lackeys into a state of crazed and irrational distraction.

Our objective must be to divorce ourselves completely from the general culture and the political culture of this thoroughly rotten administrative unit of the New World Order we live in. When we hear journalists and politicians talk about the “west,” this has absolutely nothing to do with the now effectively dead Euro-American culture which existed in days gone by. We must begin the difficult task of creating the new American man out of the ashes of the old. If we are to be honest with ourselves we must realize that all major institutions of what used to be called western civilization have been captured either by the neo-Marxist left or their brothers under the skin, the New World Order capitalists. Of the two, of course, the capitalists are the most dangerous.



It is the big business magnates who are flooding our land with alien peoples in order to destroy the white middle and working classes. It is the Fortune 500 that brought us feminism so that millions of pliable, easily-controlled females could enter the workforce and bring down wages. It was that Pepsico lawyer, Richard Nixon, who brought us affirmative action and not some silly leftist like Johnson or Kennedy.

The first thing that many racially conscious people must begin to do is to stop voting for the center-right. George W. Bush and the rest of the Republican/Rush Limbaugh establishment are blithering idiots who hate middle and working class white people and show it in every government policy they administer. To vote for a Republican or Democrat, indeed, to vote for anyone at all, adds to the legitimacy of this so-called “democratic” system; an anti-white regime that rules over us.

We must issue a new declaration of independence, this time not divorcing ourselves from England, but from a corrupt political process that stacks the deck against any new ideas. There is no longer any option of defending a culture. Even the handful of New York Kosher scribblers that constitutes the pitiful remains of mainstream conservatism knows this. Our paradigm should be countercultural because it should seek to destroy the dominant culture and replace it with a new one.

One may well ask how the overthrow of the dominant regime can be accomplished. A hard and difficult task to be sure, but we have a great bunch of teachers, not on the right, but on the multicultural neo-Marxist left. They, after all, began their work of destroying the old republic and European civilization years ago in the wake of the First World War. We should look to the Frankfurt school and Antonio Grams as technicians of the revolutionary art. Not that we should copy these fellows’ ideological orientation, but we must copy their technique of subverting a hostile culture.

We must never alter our worldview in order to conform ourselves to the politically correct nostrums of our time. We must never change our ideology in order not to offend the weak-willed in our midst. The moment we decide to fit in with the spirit of the age, we seal our doom. It is our task to create a new spirit, not conform ourselves to the rotten dogmas of democratic capitalism. Most people, even the uneducated, have a good instinct for detecting phonies and wafflers, after all, our culture produces so many of them.

It is, as Dickens said in another context, “the best of times and the worst of times.” It is the worst of times because we are embarking upon a time of government repression and the limiting of our civil liberties. It is the best of times because war is often a harbinger for major social change. Who could have guessed in 1914 that a strong and confident tsarist Russia would be an eventual victim of Revolution in 1917? Our leaders have become brutal and careless. George Bush has become one of T.S. Eliot’s “drunken aristocrats braying to the sound of broken glass,” threatening to invade half a dozen countries. The New World Order is scrambling to keep an international empire together and they are not going to be able to make the center hold.

If there is going to be major political and social change in this country, it is up to us to bring it about. We must be real activists and not mere hobbyists. The New World Order must be smashed. It is the sacred duty for all Nationalists and Patriots to dedicate themselves to this task. Some comrades curse the fact that they have been born into so dark a time in U.S. history. I hold a different opinion. I thank God almighty for giving me the opportunity and the honor to defend my people in this most difficult time, however modest my contribution. We must steel ourselves for the giant struggle to the death for the survival of European civilization.

Click to subscribe to the Barnes Review

The Bankruptcy of the United States

by Rep. James Traficant

The following was presented to the House of Representatives on March 17, 1993, and is part of the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth, hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. HJR 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, and departments and is further evidence that the United States Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States offices, officials and departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the constitutional Republican form of government now dissolved, the receivers of the bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section HR 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.”

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the United States of America, that the Founding Fathers declared that only gold and silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or “currency.”

Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money.”

The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and never have been authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money – gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes; one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value of substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance.

No contract in Common Law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good and valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon Law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to Duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums, are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913).

All property was “hypothecated” within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed.

Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. citizens, as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks and forests, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over 80 years without the “informed knowledge” (and consent – Ed.) of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90 percent of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the result of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C., have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, a bankruptcy and economic slavery of the most corrupt order!

Wake up America! Take back your country.