Archive for September, 2011

Jon Stewart – Ron Paul Interview

Posted: September 28, 2011 in Uncategorized

Ron Paul on Comedy Central.


The Fed Wants You To Beg For QE3

Posted: September 27, 2011 in Uncategorized

Monday, 26 September 2011

By Brandon Smith

The psychological effects of the Dow are undeniable. When the average investor or even consumer sees green, life is good, even if every other indicator in the economy clearly says otherwise. For the common Dow lemming, “green” supplants reason, mathematics, instinct, and blatant logic. If mushroom clouds came in that particular shade of bull market green, nuclear holocaust would be welcomed with beers, barbeque, and jubilee. Green in the Dollar Index is no different. Many market joyriders and MSM parrots decree victory for Team Dollar without even a remedial understanding of the implications of dollar strength being measured against multiple faltering currencies across the globe. Just because the Euro, for instance, is nearly as superfluous as the greenback, this does not mean the dollar is a stable or healthy currency by default. They are BOTH screwed. But hey, as long as that little ticker points up, all is right with the world……right?

Red is the ultimate party stopper. Red makes Americans pause and reflect. It makes them question their economic sensibilities, their political loyalties, their futures, perhaps even their choice of marriage partners or favorite football team. The sight of red in the Dow brings to mind thoughts of recession, depression, collapse. At bottom, red makes our government and the people charged with safeguarding U.S. financial good-time-tootie-fruitiness look bad. Red?! Red?! Vote the bums out!

Given this American predisposition to ignore all other indicators except the Dow and sometimes the DXY, you can imagine why the private Federal Reserve in tandem with the U.S. Treasury has focused so much of their attention on stimulus measures designed to keep these two indexes predominantly in the green since the derivatives crash of 2008. They have done this through direct and indirect injections of fiat into market systems which have acted as a buffer; multiple yet temporary patches in the hull of a scattershot ship on the verge of being swallowed by the voracious waters of the briny deep. The problem is, after over three years of this activity, the opiate of fiat is starting to lose its euphoric aftertaste. Like some dirty track-marked heroin fiend, the U.S. economy is now nervously scratching its rancid fiscal sores and screaming for more of that sweet sweet fiat juice. The more we get, the more we need later down the road to satisfy our dependency.

Obviously, QE1 and QE2 accomplished nothing. The bailouts and TARP accomplished nothing. The ongoing U.S. bailouts of the EU at the American people’s expense continue to accomplish nothing. All we have received for trillions upon trillions of inflationary dollars created has been a few years of static 20% real unemployment, higher food and energy prices, an endlessly imploding housing market, virtually bankrupt states and municipalities, and the first ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating in history. Oh….and a wonderfully fake bull run in the Dow, which I suppose, makes up for all the previously listed annoyances, at least, until recently…

In past articles, I have often pointed out that if the investment community EVER caught even the slightest inkling that the Fed might end stimulus measures and let the markets stand on their own, they would jump ship and the Dow would collapse back to levels seen in 2008 or worse. Well, with the highly inconclusive and vaporous announcement of “Operation Twist”, a program designed to sell short term treasuries in exchange for long term treasuries (???), the Fed sent just such a message. One might wonder, especially after the U.S. lost its AAA credit rating, why the Fed would bother to hesitate to announce QE3 and keep the markets plugging away? They’ve never had any qualms about revving up the printing presses before, so why change posture now?

Answer: Sometimes there is advantage in allowing the markets to bleed red too. Here are some reasons why…

Stimulus Ignoramus: Though most Americans now understand the basics of bailouts and quantitative easing, including many of the risks, most still think that these programs are somehow limited, or exclusive. In reality, there is no QE1, QE2, TARP, etc. These are not separate stimulus efforts that actually started and concluded independent of one another. They are all a part of one long fiat injection into our economy that never ended. The insanity is that a large percentage of investors actually believe that because Bernanke did not yet announce QE3, there is no stimulus going on today! The Fed is ALWAYS creating fiat. Some of it is reported, most of it is not. Ask yourself this: Are interest rates still at near zero? If the answer is yes, then the fiat still flows. The Fed has allowed the public to assume that injections have ceased even though they most certainly have not.

Stimulus Impotent: Even before the S&P downgrade, the markets had begun to strain and tremble. In any Keynesian inflationary effort on the part of government, there comes a point at which the force of debt and the force of fiat reach a climactic peak. From then on, even the illusion of stability becomes impossible, and both centers of gravity tear upon one another and spiral out of control. The Fed knew full well this point had been reached, and so, reversed its rhetoric to give the impression that it was stepping back. Actually, the markets will deteriorate despite any Fed intervention from now on. Stimulus at this juncture will only serve to keep the government functional through treasury purchases while the rest of the system collapses. This is what happened in Weimar, Argentina, and to some extent Russia after the Soviet breakdown. Cleverly, the Federal Reserve covered its own tracks by making it appear that the inevitable Dow disintegration was somehow caused by the lack of QE.

Deflation Cheerleaders Return: Like mythical mucous addled hobgoblins drawn to the cries of helpless newborns, rabid deflationists have oozed back out of the muck after a long hibernation in response to the current Dow descent to proclaim yet again that the dollar is “too strong”, and that even more printing is called for. As stated, they fail to understand the nature of the Fed, and the fact that stimulus is always ongoing. Simultaneously, they actually serve Fed interests, whether they know it or not, by promoting even more dollar devaluation as “practical”. For some reason, many deflationists have adopted the strange and unsupported assumption that debt somehow “cancels out” overt currency creation. This is simply not so. Yes, fiat dollars can be used to pay off a debt, but those dollars do not suddenly disappear after they have entered the system. They stay, and circulate, and collect, like mold, or a beard of bees. Neither is pleasant to clean up. Hyperinflation of the money supply is not only possible during unregulated stimulus of a highly indebted system, it is a sin qua non. In America’s immediate circumstance, the likelihood of stagflation is high. This process combines the worst elements of deflation and hyperinflation into a single, enormous, and incredibly painful boot in the ass. Deflationary purists will feel the sting soon enough…

Dollar Primacy Nostalgia: While much of the rest of the world is slowly but surely walking away from the dollar and dollar denominated assets, many American investors still cling to the old days, when sour markets meant a dash for the greenback safe haven. Could the dollar index reach as high as 77 or 78 in the course of the next four weeks? Absolutely. Does this make the dollar a legitimate safe haven? No. The secret of the dollar index magic trick is rooted in how it is calculated; using comparisons to world currencies that are also in dire straights. As multiple currencies fall WITH the dollar, they make the dollar index appear as if it remains stable, or even superior. On top of this, we still have a very active Fed printing to prop up treasuries, which also artificially strengthens dollar sentiment, at least until other countries which own our debt begin to dump it completely.

Trade War Blitzkrieg: Last Tuesday, U.S. representatives sought trade restrictions against China in poultry markets, which might not seem like much, but the move, in my view, was to test the waters for even further confrontation with China. A crumbling Dow has the advantage of adding pressure to the renewed issue of economic warfare. A trade war is the perfect trigger for a treasury and dollar dump by China, which is on the cusp of taking such action anyway because of the violent nature of inflation within its own borders. After several failed attempts to soften inflation by raising bank reserve requirements, the only option left to the Chinese now is a sharp valuation of the Yuan to increase the buying power of the citizenry. This kind of valuation is most easily achieved by a dumping of their vast dollar holdings, a steep devaluation in the dollar, leading to rapid foreign capital redirection into the Yuan. China denies they would take such action, though they have openly admitted the possibility. Don’t buy it. If price inflation continues at similar levels, the Chinese will have no other choice but to take extreme action.

Thinning The Commodities Herd: Its funny, but every time there is a pullback in commodities like gold and silver, the same people come out of the woodwork to announce the death of precious metals. Metals then, of course, make an astonishing comeback despite all odds, and these men disappear again into their respective hovels. The reason they always get it wrong is simple; they are incapable of looking at the big picture, and few, if any, have memories that go past last week. Firstly, in an economy at the edge of utter disaster, commodities are invariably erratic. Expect to see 10% swings in gold and silver up or down CONSTANTLY from here on out. This is not unusual. It is normal considering the circumstances. Another element that is unfortunately deeply ingrained is the ETF markets, which are entirely fraudulent, and not representative of true physical metals values. However, lets get some perspective here; during the 2008 Dow drop, silver hit lows between $11 and $13. Today, even after a severe drop, it hovers near $30. There is a big difference, and that difference is due to dollar devaluation. Weak hands will buckle. The cheap silver and gold will be snapped up by smarter buyers (Asian investors and central banks, most likely), metals will climb back to the mid thirties, QE3 will be announced (eventually), and from there, the sky is literally the limit. In the meantime, the Fed has just deprived a few more people of their sound money. Silver at $30? Gold at $1600? That’s called a buying opportunity, folks, not a last chance to sell.

Fear Makes The Heart Grow Fonder?

Resistance to Fed liquidity measures has been substantial. Three years ago, no one knew what the Federal Reserve was, or even cared. Today, most of America is at least aware of its existence and not enamored of its purpose. The latest downturn in markets, as well as seeming Fed indecision, I believe, not only signals the next aggressive leg down in the ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy, but also a very deliberate strategy on the part of our central banking elite to drive the public towards a consensus desire for further intervention. That is to say, the Fed wants us to beg for more QE, instead of fighting against it.

There is quite a bit of practicality to this tactic. If we demand stimulus measures out of fear just to slow the Dow hemorrhaging, then the Fed is able to deflect most of the blame when such measures eventually go awry. The American people become the cause of dollar destruction, instead of the Fed, and this blame will permeate into international opinions and world views. Make no mistake, QE3 is the end of the line, and it will be announced, or at least quietly enacted. At this time, our government is operating upon the fumes of Fed fiat, and nothing more. Without it, the lights go out. The only tool that exists, or ever existed for the government to influence the appearance of the economy is fiat creation through the Fed. Whether we ask for it or not, this tool will be utilized. They would just prefer that we went along with the program willingly…

We cannot forget that the Fed is a haven for open proponents of globalism. The eventual goal of central banks has always revolved around a weakening of the U.S. system for the sake of “harmonization”. This project ends with the debasement of the dollar and the loss of its world reserve status to a basket of currencies represented by the IMF’s SDR. For this end to be reached, the Fed MUST continue liquidity measures like QE. We don’t need to ask for it, nor should we ask for it. They will certainly pursue QE3 regardless. The trick to winning this game is in refusing to participate, or at least, refusing to play by their rules.


You can contact Brandon Smith


Posted: September 21, 2011 in Uncategorized

In the below chapter from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, we can see how universal principles and moral laws do not change over time.   A nation that does not respect the freedoms of the people, will not value peace in the world.

by Ayn Rand

It is said that nuclear weapons have made wars too horrible to contemplate.   Yet every nation on earth feels,  in helpless terror, that such a war might come.

The overwhelming majority of mankind- the people who die on the battlefields or starve and perish among the ruins- do not want war.  They never wanted it.  Yet wars have kept erupting throughout the centuries, like a long trail of blood underscoring mankind’s history.

Men are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused wars in the past and can do it again- the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of “good” can justify it.  It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies.

Observe one of the ugliest characteristics of today’s world: the mixture of frantic war preparations with hysterical peace propaganda, and the fact that both come from the same source– from the same political philosophy.  The bankrupt, yet still dominant, political philosophy of our age is statism.

Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

Consider the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the brutality, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by dictatorships.  Yet this is what today’s alleged peace-lovers are willing to advocate or tolerate in the name of love for humanity.

It is obvious that the ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.”  Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated.  The history of all primitive people is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter.  That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival.

Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war.  It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power- to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed.  When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal- even a cornered rat- will fight.  There can be no peace within an enslaved nation.

The bloodiest conflicts of history were not wars between nations, but civil wars between men of the same nation, who could find no peaceful recourse to law, principle, or justice.  Observe that the history of all absolute states is punctuated by bloody uprisings- by violent eruptions of blind despair, without ideology, program, or goals- which were usually put down by ruthless extermination.

In a full dictatorship, statism’s chronic “cold” civil war takes the form of bloody purges, when one gang deposes another- as in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.  In a mixed economy, it takes the form of pressure-group warfare, each group fighting for legislation to extort its won advantages by force from all other groups.

The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another.  When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests.  The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.  In order to survive under such a system, men have no choice but to fear, hate, and destroy one another; it is a system of underground plotting, of secret conspiracies, of deals, favors, betrayals, and sudden, bloody coups.

It is not a system conducive to brotherhood, security, cooperation, and peace.

Statism- in fact and in principle- is nothing more than gang rule.  A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country.  When a statist ruler exhausts his own country’s economy, he attacks his neighbors.  It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule.  A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.  Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.

Statism needs wars; a free country does not.  Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones.  For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies.  World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

Observe that in World War II, both Germany and Russia seized and dismantled entire factories in conquered countries, to ship them home- while the freest of the mixed economies, the semi-capitalistic United States, sent billions worth of lend-lease equipment, including entire factories, to its allies.(For a detailed, documented account of the full extent of Russia’s looting, see Werner Keller, East Minus West=Zero, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1962)

Germany and Russia needed war; the United States did not and gained nothing. (In fact, the United States lost, economically, even though it won the war: it was left with an enormous national debt, augmented by the grotesquely futile policy of supporting former allies and enemies to the day.)  Yet it is capitalism that today’s peace-lovers oppose and statism that they advocate- in the name of peace.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships.  By nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.

Men who are free to produce have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose.  Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country.  Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens- there is no overblown public treasury to hide the fact- and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses ( such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war.  Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.

In a statist economy, where wealth is “publicly owned” a citizen has no economic interests to protect by preserving peace- he is only a drop in the common bucket- while war gives him the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts from his masters.  Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public alter for the benefit of the same state.

The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history.  Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble.  Capitalism is a society of traders– for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as “selfish” and conquest as “noble.”

Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history – a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world- from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies.  The element of freedom, however, was dominant; it was as close to a century of capitalism as mankind has come.  But the element of statism kept growing throughout the nineteenth century, and by the time it blasted the world in 1914, the governments involved were dominated by statist policies.

Just as, in domestic affairs, all the evils caused by statism and government controls were blamed on capitalism and the free market- so, in foreign affairs, all the evils of statist polices were blamed on and ascribed to capitalism.  Such myths as “capitalistic imperialism,” “war-profiteering,” or the notion that capitalism has to win “markets” by military conquest are examples of the superficiality or the unscrupulousness of statist commentators and historians.

The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade– i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges- the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.  During the nineteenth century, it was free trade that liberated the world, undercutting and wrecking the remnants of feudalism and the statist tyranny of absolute monarchies.

As with Rome, the world accepted the British empire because it opened world channels of energy for commerce in general.  Though repressive (status) government was still imposed to a considerable degree on Ireland with very bad results, on the whole England’s invisible exports were law and free trade.  Practically speaking, while England ruled the seas any man of any nation could go anywhere, taking his goods and money with him, in safety. (Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine, Caldwell, Idaho: The Xaxton Printers, 1964, p. 121)

       As in the case of Rome, when the repressive element of England’s mixed economy grew to become her dominant policy and turned her to statism, her empire fell apart.  It was not military force that held it together.

    Capitalism wins and holds its markets by free competition, at home and abroad.  A market conquered by war can be of value (temporarily) only to those advocates of a mixed economy who seek to close it to international competition, impose restrictive regulations, and thus acquire special privileges by force.  The same type of businessmen who sought special advantages by government action in their won countries sought special markets by government action abroad.  At whose expense?  At the expense of the overwhelming majority of businessmen who paid the taxes for such ventures, but gained nothing.  Who justified such policies and sold them to the public?  The statist intellectuals who manufactured such doctrines as “the public interest” or “national prestige” or “manifest destiny.”

    The actual war profiteers of all mixed economies were and are of that type: men with political pull who acquire fortunes by government favor, during or after a war- fortunes which they could not have acquired on a free market.

    Remember that private citizens – whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers – have no power to start a war.  That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government.  Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional restrictions- or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive?

    Yet it is not a limited government that today’s peacelovers are advocating.

    (Needless to say, unilateral pacifism is merely an invitation to aggression.  Just as an individual has the right of self-defense, so has a free country if attacked.  But this does not give its government the right to draft men into military service- which is the most blatantly statist violation of a man’s right to his own life.  There is no contradiction between the moral and the practical: a volunteer army is the most efficient army, as many military authorities have testified.  A free country has never lacked volunteers when attacked by a foreign aggressor.  But not many men would volunteer for such ventures as Korea or Vietnam.  Without drafted armies, the foreign polices of statist or mixed economies would not be possible.)

    So long as a country is even semi-free, its mixed-economy profiteers are not the source of its warlike influences or policies, and are not the  primary cause of its involvement in war.  They are merely political scavengers cashing-in on a public trend.  The primary cause of that trend is the mixed-economy intellectuals.

   Observe the link between statism and militarism in the intellectual history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  Just as the destruction of capitalism and the rise of the totalitarian state were not caused by business or labor or any economic interests, but by the dominant statist ideology of the intellectuals- so the resurgence of the doctrines of military conquest and armed crusades for political “ideals” were the product of the same intellectuals’ belief that “the good” is to be achieved by force.

    The rise of a spirit of nationalistic imperialism in the United States did not come from the right, but from the left, not from big-business interests, but from the collectivist reformers who influenced the policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  For a history of these influences, see The Decline of American Liberalism by Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr

In such instances [writes Professor Ekirch] as the progressives’ increasing acceptance of compulsory military training and of the white man’s burden, there were obvious reminders of the paternalism of much of their economic reform legislation.  Imperialism, according to a recent student of American foreign policy, was a revolt against many of the values of traditional liberalism.  “The spirit of imperialism was an exaltation of duty above rights, of collective welfare above individual self-interest, the heroic values as opposed to materialism, action instead of logic, the natural impulse rather than the pallid intellect.” Ibid, p. 189

In regard to Woodrow Wilson, Professor Ekirch writes:

Wilson no doubt would have preferred the growth of United States foreign trade to come about as a result of free international competition, but he found it easy with his ideas of moralism and duty to rationalize direct American intervention as a means of safeguarding the national interest. Ibid p. 199

And: “He [Wilson] seemed to feel that the United States had a mission to spread its institutions – which he conceived as liberal and democratic- to the more benighted areas of the world.”  It was not the advocates of capitalism who helped Wilson to whip up a reluctant, peace-loving nation into the hysteria of a military crusade- it was the “liberal” magazine The New Republic.  Its editor, Herbert Croly, used such arguments as: “The American nation needs the tonic of a serious moral adventure.”

    Just as Wilson, a “liberal” reformer, led the United States into World War I, “to make the world safe for democracy” – so Franklin D. Roosevelt, another “liberal” reformer, led it into World War II, in the same name of the “Four Freedoms.”  In both cases, the “conservatives”- and the big-business interests- were overwhelmingly opposed to war but were silenced.  In the case of World War II, they were smeared as “isolationists,” “reactionaries,” and “America-First’ers.”

    World War I led, not to “democracy,” but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi German.  World War II led, not to the “Four Freedoms,” but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.

    If peace were the goal of today’s intellectuals, a failure of that magnitude – and the evidence of unspeakable suffering on so large a scale- would make them pause and check their statist premises.  Instead, blind to everything but their hatred for capitalism, they are now asserting that “poverty breeds wars” (and justifying war by sympathizing with a “material greed” of that kind).  But the question is: what breeds poverty?  If you look at the world of today and if you look back at history, you will see the answer: the degree of a country’s freedom is the degree of its prosperity.

    Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  Observe that the “haves” are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the “have-nots” have not.

    If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose.  So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged “good” can justify it- there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.

    It is true that nuclear weapons have made wars too horrible to contemplate.  But it makes no difference to a man whether he is killed by a nuclear bomb, or a dynamite bomb or an old-fashioned club.  Nor does the number of other victims or the scale of the destruction make any difference to him.   And there is something obscene in the attitude of those who regard horror as a matter of numbers, who are willing to send a small group of youths to die for the tribe, but scream against the danger to the tribe itself- and more: who are willing to condone the slaughter of defenseless victims, but march in protest against wars between the well-armed.

    So long as men are subjugated by force, they will fight back and use any weapons available.  If a man is led to a Nazi gas chamber or a Soviet firing squad, with no voices raised to defend him, would he feel any love or concern for the survival of mankind?  Or would he be more justified in feeling that a cannibalistic mankind, which tolerates dictatorships, does not deserve to survive?

    If nuclear weapons are a dreadful threat and mankind cannot afford war any longer, then mankind cannot afford statism any longer.  Let no man of good will take it upon his conscience to advocate the rule of force- outside or inside his own country.  Let all those who are actually concerned with peace- those who do love man and do care about his survival- realize that if war is ever to be outlawed, it is the use of force that has to be outlawed.

Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.

How I spent my September 11th

by Simon Black · View Comments

September 12, 2011

London, England

Speaker’s Corner is a lively section of Hyde Park (the London equivalent of New York’s Central Park) where debate and impromptu speeches take place.  It’s a public forum in its purest sense– people literally stand on a small box or stool to speak their minds about anything, often drawing large crowds of onlookers and hecklers.

Topics range from things like public policy to religion to the whereabouts of Elvis. Yesterday, for example, I saw one man stand on his box and proclaim that Mohammed is a false prophet. Naturally he attracted a crowd of Muslims who jeered him relentlessly… though the remarks remained light-hearted and peaceful.

Meanwhile, another crowed emerged nearby where two men were aggressively debating about the war in Libya. Another man was condemning capitalism to his audience, and yet another was decrying instances of racism in the United Kingdom.

It’s not all serious. One man was testing out his latest stand-up comedy material on a small crowd, and when he finished, he asked if anyone else would like to speak.

I stepped forward.

[Editor’s note: what follows is obviously not a word for word transcript, but a brief summary of Simon’s public remarks.]

“Ladies and gentlemen,” I began, “I’ve never done this before, but if I may impose on your attention for a few moments, I’d like to talk about something that may be extraordinarily uncomfortable for many of you.

“Does anyone know what today is?” Nods. Dull murmurs.

“That’s right.  10-years ago today, a terrible event took place in the United States that has shaped the course of human history and public policy more than anything else in the last decade.

“We can now think of the world as pre-9/11 and post-9/11. This event, and world government response to it, has transformed human civilization… affecting nearly all aspects of society.

“Think about how much has changed over the last 10-years. We’ve waged multiple wars around the world; we’ve drastically increased the role of government in our lives; we’ve changed the way we travel; we’ve abandoned basic privacies from personal finance to library records; we’ve seen police agencies become paramilitary organizations.

“People around the world are now forced to suffer extraordinary indignities in favor of the ‘greater good.’ A 70-year old woman cannot fly to visit her grandchildren without being molested by a government agent. A young girl cannot set up a simple lemonade stand without being cited by police officers.

“University students get body slammed and arrested for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. People get detained and arrested all the time for things like taking pictures of public transportation… or recording their encounters with the police.

“Ladies and gentlemen– these incredible changes that have taken place around the world are derived from this single event that took place 10-years ago today. The implications have been so far-reaching and long-lasting that it’s imperative for rational, thinking people have an objective understanding of what happened.

“Folks, this is where things are going to get uncomfortable. I’m not here to tell you what happened that day, and I’m not here to spin any cloak and dagger conspiracy theories. But I am here to say that the government’s official explanation of what happened is full of holes– huge, gaping holes that would frustrate even the most dim-witted.

“Unfortunately, most people have emotionally-entrenched positions. Objective facts pointing out obvious flaws in the government’s story are outright rejected. Both the public and politicians dismiss scientific evidence as heretical lunacy as if we are all living in the Dark Ages.

“Seeking the truth can be a difficult and uncomfortable journey. The easy choice is to do nothing and go on accepting everything that you’ve already been told. But given how much this event has changed the course of history, I want to urge you to have the intellectual courage to do your own research… and follow it wherever it may lead you.”

Afterwards I fielded some questions from the crowd and gave them a few sources where they could seek objective information from professionals (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth).

I had barely finished speaking when a commotion broke out nearby on the street behind us; hundreds of people (and police) were running from every direction towards the road. I followed and recorded the following with my iPhone:

If you can’t watch the video right now, a group of wanna-be mujahideen was parading down the street between Marble Arch and Speaker’s Corner carrying signs with slogans like “Muslims Rise, Defend Islam”.

They were effectively celebrating the civilian deaths from 9/11… and it became an emotionally charged event. The Brits went nuts, and police cordoned-off the streets to keep the peace.

Frankly, this is exactly the reaction that these phony jihadists were hoping for; they were just a bunch of dumb kids trying to ruffle some feathers… and that’s exactly what happened.

To be fair, I completely understand why people reacted so viciously. It’s human nature to be filled with intense anger when someone is deliberately spitting in your face. But I remember thinking to myself, ‘well… there goes the speech I just gave.’

Emotion is the enemy of objectivity. When people get emotional about something, they close themselves off to other points of view. This poses a great danger to truth.

9/11 was ten years ago, but it’s clear that the scars still run deep. Given how significantly the world has changed as a result, it’s imperative that people set aside their emotions, research the facts, and come up with their own conclusions.

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” — Nietzsche

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
– Galileo

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” — Sir Winston Churchill

Does 9/11 Truth Have A Chance?

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

“In America Respect for Truth is Dead”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
September 12, 2011

In the US on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans with “A Day of Remembrance,” a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies into dogma. Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at 5pm.

During the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel’s task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the expert witnesses.

The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the Internet. I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media.

As I stressed in my recent interview about 9/11 with James Corbett and Global Research, I am a reporter, not an independent researcher into 9/11. I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with the official propaganda. Perhaps this reflects my age. My generation was raised to believe in evidence and the scientific method. George Orwell and other writers warned us of the consequence of succumbing to government propaganda as a result of disinterest in the truth or government manipulation of one’s patriotism.

My ability to serve as a reporter of scientific evidence is enhanced by my having a Bachelor of Science from Georgia Tech, a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and post-graduate education at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University, where my professor was the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. In the 1960s, I was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, in order to provide together with Polanyi to the science students at Berkeley a course in Polanyi’s unique contributions to knowledge. Polanyi’s illness prevented the course from happening and condemned me to being a mere economist.

This does not mean that I am infallible or that my reporting is correct. If my reporting stimulates you, go to the presentations, which I believe will continue to be available online, and if not, some edited CD will be available. Try

As one whose own contributions to economics, now belatedly recognized, are “outside the box,” I am responsive to those who can escape peer pressure in order to advance truth. Here are some of the important things I learned from the Toronto Hearings.

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency) reports on the twin towers and building 7 are fraudulent. Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that building 7 was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the twin towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.

A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the towers, found evidence of nano-termite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • FREE Shipping on all orders!

These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.

Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt that building 7 fell over its visible part (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) at free fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all supporting columns simultaneously.There is no possibility whatsoever according to the laws of physics that building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.

Many other powerful points were made at the conference that I will not report, at least not at this time, because the revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a challenge to their emotional and mental strength.

Psychologists explained that there are two kinds of authority to which people submit. One is to the authority of people in high positions in the government. The belief that “our government wouldn’t lie to us” is pervasive, especially among patriots. The other source of authority is experts. However, to believe experts a person has to be educated and open-minded and to trust scientific, professional, and scholarly integrity.

In recent years in America, scientific and scholarly authority has come into disrepute among Christian evangelicals who object to evolution and among anti-intellectual Tea Party adherents who object to “elitists,” that is, objection to knowledge-based persons whose knowledge does not support Tea Party emotions.

In other words, qualified, knowledgeable people who tell people what they do not want to hear are dismissed as “the enemy.” Much of the American population is set up to believe government propaganda. Without an independent media, which the US no longer has, people are taught that only “conspiracy kooks” challenge the government’s story. Even on the Internet, this is a main theme on and on, two sites that protest America’s wars but accept the 9/11 propaganda that justifies the wars.

This is the reason that I think that the US is moving into an era where the emotional needs of the population produced by government propaganda overwhelms science, evidence, and facts. It means the abolition of accountable government and the rule of law, because protection from terrorists is more important.

The fact-based world in which “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is being displaced by dogma. Anyone who doubts “our government” is an anti-American, Muslim-loving, pinko-liberal commie, who should be arrested and waterboarded until the culprit confesses that he is a terrorist.

The event of 9/11 is now outside the realm of fact, science, and evidence. It is a dogma that justifies the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes against Muslims and their countries.

Obama regime appointee Cass Sunstein, a Chicago and Harvard Law School professor, thinks the 9/11 movement, for challenging the official “truth”, should be infiltrated by US intelligence agents in order to shut down the fact-based doubters of government propaganda.

When a law professor at our two most prestigious law schools wants to suppress scientific evidence that challenges government veracity, we know that in America respect for truth is dead.

The notion that a country in which truth is dead is a “light unto the world” is an absurdity.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.