Posts Tagged ‘dictatorship’

Our Predicament In Numbers

August 10, 2012

Tony Robbins puts the numbers of our predicament in perspective. I came across this video via Mike Shedlock’s blog. Although Mr. Robbins does a spectacular job in helping you relate to the numbers we are talking about, he stops short of asking the obvious questions:

Who benefits?
Why do elected criminals allow this to happen?

Thought provoking…

June 6, 2011

Michael Hudson’s “Europe’s new road to serfdom” – self explanatory title and far more eloquent than I can ever hope to be. Some cogent excerpts:

In May 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy took the lead in rounding up €120bn ($180 billion) from European governments to subsidize Greece’s unprogressive tax system that had led its government into debt – which Wall Street banks had helped conceal with Enron-style accounting. The tax system operated as a siphon collecting revenue to pay the German and French banks that were buying government bonds (at rising interest-risk premiums). The bankers are now moving to make this role formal, an official condition for rolling over Greek bonds as they come due, and extend maturities on the short-term financial string that Greece is now operating under. Existing bondholders are to reap a windfall if this plan succeeds. […] Finance is a form of warfare. Like military conquest, its aim is to gain control of land, public infrastructure, and to impose tribute. This involves dictating laws to its subjects, and concentrating social as well as economic planning in centralized hands. This is what now is being done by financial means, without the cost to the aggressor of fielding an army. But the economies under attacked may be devastated as deeply by financial stringency as by military attack when it comes to demographic shrinkage, shortened life spans, emigration and capital flight. ”

The emphasis has been added of course but that’s really all you need to know.

You probably don’t remember the name Bernard Von NotHaus, do you. Thankfully if uncharacteristically for the main stream press, the New York Sun does and offers this thought provoking editorial: “Von NotHaus’ Question” – cogent excerpts are too many to report without copying and pasting the entire article so whilst I hope you’ll give it a read here is a teaser:

[…] it is hard to think of a more basic question than that being raised by Von NotHaus in respect of whether the government has the power to outlaw private coinage of money. The issue was raised by Von NotHaus’ conviction in March of two counts related to his issuing of silver medallions called Liberty Dollars. There were no complaints from the persons who bought Liberty Dollars or took them in exchange for goods. The fact is that Liberty Dollars have held their value even while the value of the fiat dollars issued by the Federal Reserve has plunged, to barely a fifth the value of what they were worth at the start of, say, the Bush administration. This is not lost on anyone looking at the case. One can imagine that this humiliation was keenly felt by the federal government that brought charges against Von NotHaus.

The Von NotHaus question is not dissimilar to the question raised by Ashcroft vs. Arar as well as a host of other recent rulings that have all but suspended (trampled?) the constitution of the United States of America not to mention plain old decency.

But how can the government of a Western country presumably steeped in democratic principles and boasting a transparent and open society be allowed to deliberately and freely chip away at those very principles that make it the presumed envy of developing societies the world over? Why, you terrorize your own people and then you tell them they need protecting from evil forces that resent them for their way of life.

During the years leading up to the American Revolution, the British attempted to stifle the growing independent nature of the colonies by issuing laws such as the ‘Writs of Assistance’, bypassing rights to privacy and allowing officials to search homes and businesses at will without probable cause, supposedly in the name of “capturing smugglers”. Not fully satisfied with this intrusion on the lives of the colonists, King George and his cronies issued the ‘Quartering Acts’, which required all colonists to welcome soldiers sent to subjugate them into their homes and to their dinner tables. According to law, early Americans were not only forced to allow warrant-less searches of their homes, they also had to show hospitality to the goons sent to dirty their doorsteps!

The purpose of these actions by governments is to assert their control over a population. THAT – IS – ALL. Rationalizations are always made; usually in the name of “protecting the public from harm”, but the real name of the game is imperialism, and fear. When the establishment violates the line of citizen privacy, and gives its agents the legal free reign to enter your home at will, the message they are trying to send is: “Your property is our property. Your life is our business. The law does not protect you. The law is our weapon.” In other words: Resistance is futile.

About that state sovereignty thing… (Karl Denninger)

June 3, 2011

Karl Denninger is one of the more astute observers in the blogosphere and recently he was musing on the European situation decrying the fact that Trichet implied he would like individual states in Europe to cede sovereignty to the ECB

I can’t post on Mr. Denninger’s forum because the procedure is much too complicated for someone that would only post very occasionally so I decided to make a post of my own.

The reality is that through the Lisbon Treaty, a whole chunk of sovereignty has already been ceded to an unelected EU executive body. For the ECB and the rest of the governing elite to now complete the legislative and juridical take over of Euroland,  is only a formality.

A (unwitting) mention of dictatroship…?

November 1, 2010

Our weekly dose of Ambrose Evans Pritchard is, as usual, interesting. But this time, it is interesting in unexpected ways.

Two things jump out. The first and the most stunning for reasons other than economics is this (emphasis added as a hint): “These were the terms imposed by Germany at Friday’s EU summit as the Quid Pro Quo for the creation of a permanent rescue fund in 2013. A [EU] treaty change will be rammed through under Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, a trick that circumvents the need for full ratification. Eurosceptics can feel vindicated in warning this “escalator” clause would soon be exploited for unchecked treaty-creep.”

If there ever were any doubts as to what the Lisbon Treaty is, the above should put those to rest. The Lisbon Treaty is the single most dangerous piece of fascist autocratic legislation aimed at the concentration of executive power that has been “passed” on mainland Europe since 1930s Germany.

But we all too numb yet (or still) to realize what is happening.

The other thing that jumped out at me from AEP’s piece today is his comment that: “Chancellor Merkel is ultimately correct. A mechanism for sovereign defaults is entirely healthy. Had it been in place long ago, EMU would have been stronger. The proper timing for this was at the Maastricht Treaty, or Amsterdam, or at the latest Nice, but in those days the EU elites were still arrogantly dismissive about the implications of a currency union. To wait until now borders on careless.”

That’s a bit of a departure for AEP whom till very recently advocated a (not entirely understood by this writer) mix of fiscal austerity with massive stimulus.

You know where I stand.

We’re hurtling towards a world war that is entirely engineered by our leaders as a way to get out of their responsibility for having aided and abetted the arbitrary and unilateral imposition of a monetary system that is limited mathematically and that, in its ending phase, is inherently destructive but that in the intervening period ensures an albeit diminishing degree of financial independence to the politicians that are willing to offer the most recklessly costly programs to the electorate.

War by 2012 / 2015

Terrorism as a tool of state

October 16, 2010

As I was wondering aloud some months ago, it appears the underwear bomber of last December was indeed a patsy…. but he was the patsy of some as yet unknown US “security” agency.

State Department Admits: Detroit Christmas Bomber Was Deliberately Allowed to Keep US Entry Visa, Board His Flight

Not surprising considering that the USA today have become the most surveiled society in the West. I can’t believe I just wrote that. It is only ten years since the Berlin wall came down and look at us today. We indeed are living interesting times much to the delight of our Chinese friends.

“The Washington Post writes about the hundreds (that’s hundreds) various secret agencies that have cropped up since 2001. The problem here are not the agencies but the fact that nobody has overall responsibility for all of them. In turn, this creates two other very serious problems; the first is that with so many agencies operating independently not only is overlap guaranteed but members of these agencies, willingly or not, also obstacolate each other and very likely take each other out. The second problem is that if an agency is secret then its financing must be too. If you have hundreds of secret agencies, then where are the funds going to come from? And here you begin to see why opium production has more than tripled in Afghanistan since we invaded that country…”

The third problem of course, and the most insidious I might add, is that if an agency is secret, how can anyone make sure they actually operate for the good of the people from whom they hold the ostensible mandate to operate? I mean we know security agencies are supposed to operate to the detriment of our “enemies” thus they operate to bring ill upon other people than their employers. But if nobody has overall responsibility for oversight of all these entities, who ensures that they bring ill only upon our enemies? Moreover, without an overarching overseer, who picks the bad guys these agencies should operate against?

This is true dictatorship.


How much more evidence is needed till we can say we are living under dictatorship?

October 16, 2010

This is becoming boring. How much more evidence do people need in order to realize what is happening?

As I pointed out in this prior post about Arar-vs-Ashcroft there comes a point when in order to insure its own survival, the state must willingly and deliberately trample the law.

Excerpts (emphasis added):

The Obama administration does not support a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures at this time, Federal Housing Administration Commissioner David Stevens said Sunday in an e-mail response to questions. “We believe freezing foreclosures for all banks in all states, whether we have reason to believe them to be in error or not, is simply not the prudent step to take in this fragile housing market,” he said.

Whether we believe them to be in error or not!!!

As in Arar-vs-Ashcroft where the state argued “[…] even if the government violated Arar’s Constitutional rights as well as statutes banning participation in torture, he still has no right to sue for what was done to him. ”

How much more clear can it be? The state is now above the law. Ergo, the rule of law has yet again been suspended.

We are now living in a dictatorship.

Dispute that if you can.

Bits n’ pieces…

July 30, 2010

CIA and Google helping each other to data-mine the web…

A bill that may yet pass and if it does, will make it easier for the US government to mandate service (including military) to the state.–Universal-National-Service-Act—This-bill-takes-away-your-freedom-

And just as a reminder…remember that brigade that was sent home from Iraq to train for civilian opeartions back in 2008? … Things that make you go “hmmm”!

Here’s a slogan for the G20 mob: What do we want? Free trade! Boris Johnson has some friendly advice for the crusty anti-capitalists soon to descend on his city.

April 1, 2009

Boris Johnson on the need to let real Capitalism have a go. For those of you that think that Capitalism has failed, nobody ever anywhere gave a go to the real thing. Setting interest rates by state mandate is not compatible with capitalism. Subsidies to industry and interest groups is not Capitalism. Tariffs are not compatible with Capitalism. Production quotas are con compatible with Capitalism.

Find me a country anywhere on planet earth that has ever given a go to the real thing. Let me save you the trouble. You can’t. You can’t because as I outlined in previous essays, the political game (regardless at which degree of the spectrum you sit at) is inherently and by necessity the art of expediency and manipulation.

Although political plurality is perceived as a noble goal denoting political and social emancipation, the inherent dynamic of plurality must necessarily culminate in an inflationary blow-off cycle as we are living today.

However, although a dictatorship could and would be more desirable under a number of moral aspects, a dictatorship is by its very nature not conducive to gathering, synthesizing and crystallizing the opinions, ideas and aspirations of a large number of members of society. Also, contrary to democracy, a dictatorship does not have to end in an inflationary blow-off cycle but it pretty much always has.

Periods of time characterized by economic, social and intellectual prosperity are to be found at the beginning and development phases of the inflationary cycle both in Democratic or Despotic societies. The difference is that whereas a Democratic society cannot influence the inevitable conclusion of the inflationary cycle, a dictatorship could but almost always fails to do so.