Wealth Redistribution Hugo Chavez Style

According to Guillermo Chochez, a former Panamanian Ambassador to OAS, Chavez has been dead for at least 7 days after he was disconnected from respirators. Chochez cites Venezuelan government sources, which he said he could not reveal because he gave his word as a journalist that he would not.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 5, 2013

According to all Socialists, Marxists and Communists, their ideology is better than others because what it was at its core is the proper redistribution of wealth. They explain that the rich must pay their share in taxes to support the poorest and that the government must be the sole giver and taker to promote social justice.

Hugo Chavez’ death is certainly not news now. But perhaps the news is the way he went about redistributing Venezuelan wealth to himself and his family. That’s right, if corporate Fascism is well-known by its goal of amassing power and stealing everything else later in back door, under the table, secret dealings, Marxists, Socialists and Communists are easily identified with hoarding resources for themselves.

As it turns out, Hugo Chavez’ death leaves Venezuela worse than it was back in 1999, when Chavez came into public light. The country is more divided than ever, and current vice-president Nicolas Maduro has deployed police and military to the streets as a preventive measure in case riots break out. But behind all the spectacle composed by social network reactions from friends and foes, people lose the opportunity to know another side of the Bolivarian Revolutionary’s way to do business.

Much like the Castro family in Cuba, the Chavez family managed to accumulate billions of dollars in cash that Chavez diverted while in power. According to Criminal Justice International Associates (CJIA), Hugo Chavez stole and redistributed about $2 billion from the country’s oil trade and has left it as an inheritance to his family. CJIA estimates that Venezuela’s former leader amassed a fortune just as oligarchs amass power and control through their monopoly oriented business model.

“The personal fortune of the Castro brothers has been estimated at a combined value of around $2 billion,” says Jerry Brewer, President of CJIA. “The Chávez Frías family in Venezuela has amassed a fortune of a similar scale since the arrival of Chávez to the presidency in 1999,” he added. His assessment is part of a complete report published by CJIA on its website.

Besides stealing $2 billion from the Venezuelan people, Chavez also made sure that his dear friend Fidel Castro and his family received a nice chunk from Venezuela’s oil sales. Brewer estimates that Castro’s loyalty cost Venezuelan’s around $5 billion per year, which includes oil shipments and other resources. That my friends is wealth redistribution Chavez style.

The CJIA President went even further to say that behind the transfer of Venezuelan funds to Cuba and other Chavez’ allies, there is an organized mafia composed by criminal groups which have defrauded Venezuela of about $100 billion in the last 12 years.

The $100 billion extracted by Chavez and his cabal of thugs from the pockets of the Venezuelan people is, however, a penny in the bucket compared to what Republicans and Democrats steal from the American people, for example, or how many millions of dollars in taxes are not paid by international corporations who close back room deals with governments to evade the payment of taxes.

Facebook recently got a tax exemption from the American government that amounts to $429 million. Other powerful political donors to both parties like Google, Apple and Microsoft are also allowed to send their profits abroad, which enables them to evade tax collection. Google alone cut its tax payments by $3.1 billion between 2007 and 2010. Meanwhile, Apple hides $1 billion a week in profits the company should pay taxes on. According to a U.S. Congressional memo, Microsoft uses subsidiaries in places like Bermuda, Singapore and Puerto Rico to save itself some $6.5 billion in taxes.

As it is abundantly clear, neither the Socialist nor the crony Capitalist wealth redistribution style is ‘just’ as supporters blindly believe them to be. While Chavez’ detractors celebrate in his death in abundance, his supporters are surely mourning his departure in equal or worse social and economic condition than they were before Chavez came into power.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Advertisement

Communism: The Imminent Threat

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 18, 2013

According to mainline history, Communism and its allies Marxism and Socialism ended with the fall of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991, after the USSR was dissolved by declaration № 142-H. After the supposed dissolution, it was agreed that a Commonwealth of Independent States would enter into existence, a move that was facilitated by President Mikhail Gorbachev’s resignation, which also meant the ‘extinction’ of his position in government. All too easy to be truth, right? That is because it is not true.

None of the aforementioned ideologies disappeared back in 1991. They are still grave threats to world affairs today. In fact, what really happened back in 1991 was not the fall of Communism, but its move to an underground operation, where it’s been planning a comeback. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the end of the Communist threat, but the beginning of the next phase in world conquest by the same powers that financed and supported Marxist and Fascist regimes all over the planet. The new Marxist stronghold would no longer be concentrated in Asia. It spread like cancerous cells that are extirpated only to come back wilder and stronger.

One of the strongest centers of underground Communism and Marxism would be, surprise, surprise, the heart of the new and solitary Empire: The United States of America. That’s right. Mass nationalization of large sectors of the economy, as in government bailouts, redistribution of wealth, which incidentally hasn’t gone to the poorest people and a series of unfortunate events that began decades ago are bread crumbs left for the rise of the new global Marxist power.

Lately, a strong movement to discredit government opposition was unveiled. The move to smash those who oppose nationalization and wealth redistribution is led by government-owned main stream media — corporate media that received taxpayer funds in their own version of a financial rescue.

Political incorrectness is now called racism and vociferous opposition to government policies is equaled to terrorism. Whoever dares to challenge the government is rapidly labeled a lunatic who needs mental help. Main stream media personalities now call for the heads of alternative journalists and citizens who decided to stop watching the government-fed propaganda on cable and network news.

After faking an open war against Al-Qaeda, the U.S. government is warning about the new domestic threats: Conservatives, libertarians, religious people, veterans, pro-life and Second Amendment supporters are closely watched by the growing surveillance apparatus.

With most of the main stream media in its pocket, the U.S. government uses its spying network to exercise censorship over those with opposing views, mainly through public-private partnerships with Google, Facebook, Twitter and technology manufacturers such as Raytheon, which developed an all-seeing eye spy software capable of hoarding and analyzing large amounts of information circulating on the web. The internet as it turns out, is the government’s most powerful tool to spread lies and disinformation, but it is also its worst nightmare.

Recently, a series of mass shootings that took place all over the United States, thought to be false-flag or instigated events were used as tools for the orchestration of a countrywide psychological operation that seeks to disarm the population. Disarmament is unequivocally the last step a government takes before a repressive regime is fully installed.

It has happened before in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and only the foolish in North America believe that it can’t happen there. The U.S. government announced that Barack Obama will sign the United Nations Arms Treaty, which will ultimately yield control on firearms sales. purchases and manufacturing to the international organization located in New York City.

After a mass disarmament movement that renders the U.N., not the U.S. government or the American people as the decider, the next step is the creation of a paramilitary force, which was announced by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. That is not an Army or a civilian militia that would be formed by freely armed citizens, but a group of government controlled thug force.

The National Civilian Security Force that should be as large and as powerful as the U.S. Army itself will not be in place to defend the country from foreign or domestic threats, but to deal with unruly Americans. It would be something similar to the Brown Shirts.

Amazingly, the creation of Barack Obama’s National Civilian Security Force was not done directly through legislation or a presidential executive order. It was sneaked into the Obamacare legislation. According to various paragraphs of the health care law, which was given the green light by the U.S. Supreme Court, the government mandates the commissioning of officers, who, in time of a national crisis, will report directly to the president. That is what Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin calls a “constabulary force that will control the population”.

General Boykin is not the only American concerned about the advance of Marxism in the United States. People like Paul Craig Roberts, the father of Reaganomics, also wrote about the growing Police State. “The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States. So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document,” wrote Roberts in his piece It has Happened Here.

Roberts cites the Patriot Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression, the use of  torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens and consequent elimination of Habeas Corpus and due process, the creation of military tribunals and the secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country, as proof that the United States is already an acting Police State.

“I think America is rapidly moving towards Marxism,” said Lt. General Boykin during a speech on September 11, 2012.

So what is awaiting the United States and the rest of the world if everything continues to go the way Barack Obama, Jose Manuel Barroso, François Hollande, Mario Draghi and their elitist mentors want? Let’s first understand what they planned to do and how they planned to achieve it.

Marxists always saw revolution as the way to carry out their agenda. The type of revolution they practice, however, is not one led by real ideas and real change, but one spurred by violence. Violence always needs a trigger, a drop that overflows the glass so that the people think it is good to support such violence. In the 21st century, racial and class warfare are the reflections of the plan crafted by Marxists who went underground decades ago.

As Lt. Gen. Boykin explains, Marxists planned to use their ideology to create cultural revolution that would be sustained by the most sacred teachings of radical Marxist thinkers. They also planned to introduce a messiah-like figure, who would publicly lead their revolution. Their operation would need to be well-financed to be strong and effective, so they drafted loyal and rich sponsors.

Following the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the Marxists began a strong community organizing movement, whose expansion was financed in the United States by George Soros. They understood that to change society, the transformation had to start from the bottom and grow all the way to the top. Such transformation was not necessary in every single institution or government organization, but on the minds of a few selected men and women who would work for the introduction and reaffirmation of their agenda: to have a Marxist-Socialist and then Communist regime in the United States.

For the Marxist revolution to work, the movement would need as many supporters as possible, and the best way to attract the largest masses was to promise a paradise to every member of society who had ears for their message.

– How would you like to work until you are 52 years old and then retire to live on a pension the rest of your life? Wouldn’t you enjoy having free healthcare for yourself and your family?

– Of course I would, sir. What do I have to do to get it?

– First of all, think about why does that white guy across the street and his family have it and you don’t.

– And then?

– Well, you deserve all that and more. But for you to get it, you have to demand it from government. Believe me, you are entitled to every single penny.

So, where did the government get money to pay for entitlement programs? It got neck-deep into debt. For baby boomers and others to retire and live the rest of their lives as kings, –compared to the poor– the government assigned thousands of dollars of debt to thousands of unborn and their siblings who would have to work their whole lives to pay for the socialist programs promised to the people.

This phenomenon did not only occur in the United States, but in Europe as well. Entitlement programs went from being plans to help the needy, to the largest jackpot ever created. As long as paychecks made their way to savings accounts all over Europe and the U.S., the people lived happily.

But the money dried up. Socialism had failed again. The growing list of bills coming from entitlement programs, whose reserves never existed or were burglarized by the bankers, overthrew the socialist dream that preached how government was the origin of everything good and hearty.

In Europe and other parts of the world, the birth to death ratio further enhanced the funding crisis for the entitlement programs, because in many countries the next generation will not make it in time, or will not make it at all, to continue supporting the entitlement system. In the United States, pension funds, –both public and private– savings and investment accounts were ransacked by irresponsible firms that bet high with everyone else’s money.

The impossibility to substitute the baby boomers with a new generation of debt slaves worked perfectly well for the Marxist movement, which had just the ‘right’ solution for the lack of workers: inundate the country with illegal immigrants, who according to Barack Obama’s own words, will soon become legal; either by passing ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ legislation in Congress or by the stroke of his pen.

Giving free green cards to 30 million violators of U.S. immigration laws –not 11 million– will not only guarantee that the debt enslavement of new generations composed by illegals will continue, but also that the movement will have plenty of support from the unsuspecting illegal aliens who are not capable of understanding that they are being brought to the plantation to become the future mules.

Just as in the United States the ‘majority’ will soon enough change skin color, in Europe, countries have also been invaded by North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants who are reproducing at a rate of 5.6%; much higher than natives of the Anglo-Saxon regions of the world. Just as North Africans and people from the Middle East will overrun Europe, Latinos will take over in the United States.

What’s the problem with Latinos or North Africans taking over? Well, most of these people –both in the U.S. and Europe– come from places where they are taught to hate whites and where whites are blamed for the inequality they’ve lived in for generations. They are coming to take what they think is theirs. The minds of the new wave of immigrants are filled with what Karl Marx used to believe:

There are two classes: The workers, who have no control over anything, and the wealthy, who own it all. (Except the people who the illegal immigrants think are the wealthy, are not really so.)

Where did the middle class go? In Marx’s brain, it doesn’t exist. It is the 99% versus the 1%. For Marx and his students, this scenario is perfect, because it provides the perfect conditions for their dreamed revolution. Is there a more effective way to rally people than to tell them that it is necessary to overrun their neighbors to be like the rich 1%? It is a darn effective way to drive the masses, isn’t it?

Only the so-called liberal media, who is funded by George Soros and the U.S. Federal Government has the audacity to tell people who it is fair for the richest people to pay more taxes, because they earn more. Unfortunately, those ‘rich’ people are not the heads of corporations who live abroad and who hide their cash in tax heavens. Those guys and their corporations are grossly exempted from paying taxes, because the government says so.

Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and others, who incidentally call for more taxes on the rich, are always free from taxation. The rich people often referenced in Marxist talking points, who need to collaborate with the massive wealth redistribution are in reality members of the middle class.

Even though the top 10 percent pays about 70% in income taxes and the top 5 percent pays around 40%, the Marxists allege that it is just for them to pay more. Remember, this top 10 or top 5 percent does not include the really wealthy, who hide and launder their monies through foundations and charities.

So why do the Marxist and their financiers support more taxes? It is simply a talking point used in their class warfare strategy to divide the people into groups and to have them fight against each other while the richest of the rich continue to hide their monopolies and wealth behind ‘kind’ initiatives.

Socialism, the other arm of the elite’s body that controls a large part of the population, was imposed on most of Europe under the lie that it was Capitalism. Countries were allowed to run a washed out version of Capitalism that was tightly controlled by government socialism. Under this scheme, the elite’s puppets distribute the wealth from the beginning, so that they do not have to face opposition when re-distributing it.

Government ‘naturally’ distributed the wealth to its accomplices, the wealthiest people, the 0.001%, who in turn steer government to do what they want. But even this Socialism dressed as Capitalism, crony Capitalism, could not stand the test of time. It has crumbled to the ground in a controlled fashion, because it, as a system of control, does not work anymore.

This form of Socialism, still practiced in places like Brazil and the United States, which normally gives way to Communism, is not the type that Karl Marx talked about back in the 1800s. It is the type of Socialism and then Communism implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalin’s Communism is the one where everything belongs to the Party Government, not to the people. In it, the Party Government is the only and highest power. The type of social organization imagined by Marx or Lenin has never been applied.

Countries where this ideology stands today, are places where people receive what the Party Government wants to give them. In a sense, the elite uses Socialism as a launching pad, a smokescreen that hides the truth and that supports all the empty promises made by Party and Government. In its last stages, and through the transformation from Socialism to Communism, members of the elite, who are also members of the Party Government, hoard it all, including production, infrastructure, military power and of course control of Government. Cases in point: Cuba, Venezuela, China, Brazil. Little if nothing is given to the poor, who by now have been joined by the middle class in their misery.

Is it possible to see any resemblance in the way modern western countries manage themselves today? The western world is not being threatened by Marxism, Socialism or Communism, it has been taken over by it.

Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Fascism and almost any other political ideology or social movement have always been controlled by the same people and have always been used to divide and conquer, much like religion has been used to divide civilizations throughout history.

Democracy, the rule of the mob, Socialism, the rule of the Party, Fascism, the rule of the dictator and Communism the rule of the elite have something in common: They are tools used to separate the masses into small farms from where the people are controlled and made to fight against each other while the truly rich loot them all down to the last breath.

All Marxists, Socialists and Communists know how to destroy societies. Vladimir Lenin said it himself when describing his plan to destroy the United States:

“America is like a healthy body and his resistance is threefold: Its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

Hasn’t the job been carried out almost to perfection?

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Globalism Must Die

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 22, 2012

It is as simple as that. Globalism, first known as Collectivism, then as Socialism, later as ‘Sustainability’, and now as the reform of the monetary system, are all the same. As per this quick explanation, Globalism is not new at all, it simply was hidden behind curtains of different colors. The multitudinous diversity curtain, the Red curtain, the ‘Green’ curtain and now the curtain with the big $ sign on it. They’ve all have, and they’ll all lead us to the same place: centralized management, also known as the old world order.

The thought that one person or a few of them are better at managing the rest of the people is an idea as ancient as humanity’s origins. ‘Let’s do this for the sake of all’. Having failed to completely lure the crowds to accept this way of life, the globalists moved on to a more forceful, yet more effective mode of conquest: balkanization of the unwilling crowd. Socialists and Fascists managed to divide people into groups of followers to whom reality was explained differently under the same educational model. After failing once again to fully absorb everyone, the globalists went ‘green’. Now it wasn’t only about ‘us’, it was also about ‘it’. The minds of the people were filled with ‘ifs’ and fear, and fear conquered them. Also through the fear came more control; monetary control.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”, said once a savvy banker and monopoly man. And the prophecy became true. The few that understood the system condoned it and adopted it. No opposition was met. Up until today, the globalists continue to steer the present and as we’ve learned in more detail, the future. Their build up to the future has been almost perfect, except that the men, the real men who didn’t know, but that learned about the system did mount opposition and now the ride will not be so comfortable. That is why the globalists are accelerating their move to the future.

Monetarily, the crisis is not a crisis for the globalists or Globalism, but for the rest of us. Crisis, business cycles, devaluation, inflation, deflation and taxes are just artifacts; means by which the result will be achieved. That is why Globalism must die. This sickening ideology, which intends to merge it all, hoard it all and control it all is the root [of the problem], not the endgame. How’s a globalist supposed to have the monopoly of money with so many currencies out there? Currencies are not money, but they are the means by which money is created, issued and controlled. Therefore, it must be easier to attain that control if there is only a handful of currencies, and eventually only one. The more fictitious the better so it can be more easily hidden, denied and managed.

How has the reserve currency model worked for you? Awesome, because you were able to accumulate a great deal of material property, even though that means you are a slave? Great, because by defrauding a lot of people you managed to keep that riches away from your own rules of control although that means you can’t really enjoy it? Fine, because it provided you status, fine dining and public recognition, despite the fact you can’t stand it having to appear sophisticated enough in front of others? OK, because you have made a decent leaving, even when that means you are in debt up to your eye balls and have to work just to get by?

Well, all that is about to end, if the globalists have their way. The reform of the monetary system is almost here. The plans have been on the drawboard for a while, they’ve been fine-tuned, dressed up and made up for its flashy appearance. Monetary reform has had many faces throughout history, but it’s never looked like this: a handful of reserve currencies including SDR with supervised issuance and cross-border capital flows by the shadowy elite-controlled International Monetary Fund. Who said that control over the issuance of money had to be a national endeavor? “The IMF would then have the ability to conduct open market operations as the world’s central bank,” explains Xu Hongcai in his China Daily article.

Parallelly, and in the ‘green’ side of things, a globalist-controlled environmental agency with the power to issue directives about development, use of resources, growth, birth rates, food production and distribution and so on. The charter for the creation and legitimization of such entity, just as in the case of the all mighty money issuing one, has also been in the works for long. It has barely given its first steps, but its members are already sure of the need for diplomatic immunity. The Green Climate Fund, the first draft of the powerful environmental agency is fully funded and operational with all its 24 members actively seeking more power at the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil.

To round-up the trifecta, a political arm that will define and impose all things related to rights and privileges, political correctness, social engineering, surveillance, privacy — or the lack of it– is also being formed and supported by the most capable military apparatus ever dreamed about with almost unlimited reach. This globalist authority, with all its nuances has been trickling its way into the world throughout centuries in the best example of how incrementalism can successfully achieve what brute force cannot: taming the spirit of humanity. Globalism doesn’t use imperial domination — although it’s served it well — but large-scale ‘cooperation’ and ‘compromise’. There are no more talks about countries and nations, but regions, areas, blocs. “In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion – it is a lie,” said European Union leader, Herman Van Rompuy. “Today’s nationalism is often not a positive feeling of pride in one’s own identity, but a negative feeling of apprehension of the others,” he added. How would he know?

The devilish beauty of Globalism is that it was created by building upon and at the same time eroding the existing structure of the Nation-States, although it stemmed from international ‘instruments’ (i.e. UN, IMF, GCF). Such construction amounts to the fact that ITS creation, does not produce any legal obligations for the statesmen who adhered their people to IT, while IT doesn’t owe any loyalty to those existing national structures. Globalism is, simply put, the sum of all fears, for which no equal opposition exists. It is a creature that only exists in the shadows, but from the shadows it controls everything that happens in the open society.

Trilateral Commission co-founder, Zbigniew Brzezinski described the birth of Globalism very well himself:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual  appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an  elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert  almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date  complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen.  These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

But he also described his death equally well:

“For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination… [The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might be greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low.”

If Globalism has always been in the shadows — because of its makers’ choice — and operated from the shadows; that is where it shall remain. That is where it shall die; it must die, and it will die.

How the West was Conquered

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 28, 2012

The existence of society as we know it today is not a random event of nature or anything of the sort. Today’s society is a direct reflection of the gigantic plans for social engineering that were put in place and gradually imposed on the people. Globally, people have gone from being independent, self-sufficient beings to becoming dependent sheep who need their big corporate-controlled government to provide them with everything they need to survive. That was the plan from the beginning. Now, people are at the mercy of large multinational corporations — mainly banks — who turned them into their slaves by using governmental agencies to impose their policies. But it doesn’t stop there. To add insult to injury, the masses believe they actually are free and that they have choices, as supposed to being livestock, which is what reality demonstrates.

For many decades, this phenomenon was widely unknown by most people who were dependent on the system. But after the elites behind the social engineering became more arrogant than usual and started to speak openly about their plans, a minority of the people found out about it. Today, a larger minority is knowledgeable about the plans of the elites, but the masses are still ignorant or in denial. The main cause of this denial is the fact that the masses are those people who for decades and decades have benefited from big explicit or hidden socialist policies which are tools to get people hooked on their dope. As many already know, letting go of an addiction is pretty hard, especially when such an addiction is everything you’ve known. Try asking a homeless person to stop sniffing shoe glue to calm down his hunger without showing him a warm meal. That is exactly what it would be like. Of course there are those who prefer their dependency and enslavement to independence and self-governance. Those are the societies where most people, regardless of their low income and lousy conditions are conformed to keep on living in slums and receiving the miserable help that their governments provide them, as if that was the way it is supposed to be. Clear examples of these societies include Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, to cite a few, where people stand behind dictators or candidates who assure them that their welfare checks will continue to come, instead of providing adequate market conditions for them to pick themselves up from the filth they live in.

But how did the technocrats manage to get everyone into the barn? They’ve always managed to stay in control. They’ve always owned the money, the resources, the politicians and the governments, and therefore the people of the world. They worked by taking control of the poorest and most devastated regions of the world with their government-sponsored, although corporate-financed programs to keep billions of people under their boots. After setting roots there, they succeeded when implementing their centralized control policies in developing countries i.e. Argentina in 1990’s, slowing their path to development and in most cases stopping them to a halt. Their success in poor countries leveraged them to impose their programs in developing countries, which they did for the past 50-100 years. With a firmer footstep in most of the planet, the controllers brought their system to the more sophisticated nations, the developed world, which they had purposely supported in order to legitimize their colonizing and conquering schemes.

That is where we are now. Currently, countries that had strong potential to become developed nations, as well as industrialized ones, are suffering the consequences of opening the door to the men who were always in control on the outside. Their success lies in their ability to convince or otherwise penalize or buy off those who hadn’t opened their doors. For this penalties and buy offs to work, they had to create an external “legitimate” system of control that could impose their policies on the sovereign nations so that they could be attacked, invaded and destroyed to later be absorbed. From these plans is where emerged organizations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, The World Trade Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, The European Union, the African Union, the North American Union, Mercosur, the G-20, the G-8, and so on. These entities were established by the technocrats and are supported by people who were bought off or convinced to join their system. These people are infiltrated in all strata of society, from education, to academia, finance, religion, the scientific community, the government agencies and of course those who work for large corporations.

In order not to raise questions, the elites also created foundations and philanthropic organizations which they finance and control and which helped them implement their policies, always for the sake of the common good. This collectivist way of thinking is perhaps the most successful tool when convincing the masses that it was better to think collectively, to steal from Peter to support Paul. Then came the term social justice which worked as another hook to attract more supporters because of its collectivist origin. Most people changed their way to see the world. Instead of supporting individual rights and liberties, they became cheerleaders for big government to decide what was best for them and their peers. This marked the appearance of centralized government at the local, state and national levels and the creation of laws and policies that gave government control over individual rights and responsibilities such as private property, security, food availability, free speech, healthcare and others. A central entity suddenly “knew better” about how to manage local resources than the people themselves. The power of the people shrank as the big governments grew out of control and behind them, the elites amassed more and more power right in front of the unsuspecting masses. The Welfare State, the Socialist State, the Communist State — all a creation of the globalists — were at the gates waiting to take over. In order to impose these systems of government then created conflicts among countries with secret destabilizing attacks or by practicing the Hegelian Dialect of Problem, Reaction Solution.

When the sovereign nations resisted the attacks of the elitists through their supranational organizations or their corporate-controlled governments, they used military force usually backed up by fake intelligence or false events in order to invade those nations “to democratize them” and “bring peace”. These military actions were and continue to be supported by false threats or by the abuses committed by dictators that were put in place by the globalists themselves. This way, the technocrats managed to consolidate power by further controlling governments or puppet governments as well as to rob nations from their natural resources. All the riches of the planet became property of the corporations who invaded former independent nations at the behest of their puppet governments right after the wars ended. The consequence of their successful economic, political and military conquest campaigns was the end of the nation-states, which the globalists had as one of their main objectives when they started their crusades decades and decades ago. Additional success for the elites was spurred by their well-established controlled opposition movements — World Economic Forum, World Social Forum — in which they involved community leaders in order to swindle the people into believing that their representatives could actually make a difference by joining these corporate funded organizations. But how could they help fight those they deemed their opposition when the very same forces were at the head of such “alternative movements”? They couldn’t.

But perhaps the last nail on the coffin in favor of the globalist take over was the campaign orchestrated by the main stream media — also in the pocket of the corporations — that sought to blame Capitalism for the current global economic depression. This campaign is not new. The globalists, through their economic, financial and media operations have been very clear that their plan was always to build up society in order to extract as much riches as possible so that they could later implode the global economy and with it western society.  Right now, the globalists are leading a charge to swallow countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and others in Europe, after they successfully  took control of the United States, Mexico, Canada, most of the Middle East, Oceania and much of Africa through their proxy governments and puppet presidents. It rests to see if the people of the world, the informed minority that everyday grows larger, will do what minorities have always done throughout history: to save the ignorant majority as well as themselves from the technocrat elite that is very close to completing their long-awaited plans to destroy the world as we know it today.

Third World Welfare Recipients to Protest ‘Evil’ Capitalism

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 30, 2012

What do the elites meeting in Davos, Switzerland have in common with the welfare state recipients in the third world nations? At least a couple of things. Both have immensely benefited from capitalism, yet both groups point to it as an evil system, responsible for things such as inequality and social injustice. Neither of the two groups say what kind of Capitalism they are referring to; Corporate Capitalism or real free market Capitalism. As we reported last week, elitists in Davos are circulating the idea that Capitalism is obsolete and that only a new system managed by their corporations and banks can bring the world back from its current slide into a second Great Depression. Over the weekend, thousands of attendants at the World Social Forum held in the city of Porto Alegre Brazil concluded that Capitalism is the greatest evil ever created and plan to protest against it next June.

Having lived in a third world nation for the first 20 years of my life helps me have a very good idea of the goods and evils that the welfare state is capable of creating. After living in a first world country for ten years, helps balance my view of both the welfare state and the closest example to free market Capitalism. My analysis concludes that the welfare state causes greater harm than good to people. Take a look at the Latin American nations whose people benefit from welfare. Both democratic and non-democratic nations create entitlement programs to supposedly benefit those who cannot help themselves. This welfare system is managed by the State, which taxes the middle class and to a lesser state the upper middle class and small segment of rich people to pay for the welfare programs.

Although many could argue that without those welfare programs millions of people would be left to die of hunger and disease, the truth is that government contribution to the poor is insignificant when compared to monies collected through taxation. Take for example the country of Costa Rica, one of the most stable nations in Latin America. There, the central government debt accounts for 30% of the government’s total revenues. Meantime, the country only invests 17.3 percent of its GDP in public health, education, and social welfare combined. So while the bureaucracy eats a third of the government’s income, the poor and dependent have to share half of that amount. The Costa Rican economy has gone from a self-sufficient one to a service economy, where multinationals are allowed to install their factories tax free, but pay miserable salaries to the local workers. Costa Rica now depends heavily on tourism and the production of electronics and electronic components. Both activities are likely to slow down as the global economic crisis expands out of control. What does the lack of government leadership in Costa Rica result in? Poverty. Poor and once middle class neighborhoods such as Hatillo, San Sebastian, Sagrada Familia and even downtown San Jose have witnessed an an exponential increase in slums, crime and social unrest. Another example, Brazil, perhaps the fastest growing country in the developing world and one of the most socialist nations in America. The government headed by Dilma Rousseff has a total GDP of 2.9 trillion dollars. From that amount, the central government’s debt amounts to 54 percent of the GDP, while only investing a fraction in social programs. The tax burden in Brazil easily gets to 33 percent, much of it, as seen before, goes to finance of the most corrupt regimes in the planet. In this South American country, most people have to resort to the so-called underground economy (collecting cans and plastic bottles, selling fake brand merchandise and so on) to survive. High taxation together with little investment in infrastructure, for example, makes Brazil one of the most troublesome options for local and foreign investors. The gap between the rich and the poor in Brazil continues to grow, while the middle class is being stretched thinner and thinner.

But perhaps the greatest harm caused by the welfare state is not that it gives too little to the poor, but that makes them believe that such state of affairs is the only alternative to their lack of opportunities to grow as individuals. Since the poor classes become absolutely dependent on the bureaucracy to survive, that fact gives the State, in the eyes of the bureaucrats and the welfare recipients- an almost unlimited legitimacy to govern employing the Robin Hood plan: take from the rich and give to the poor. But as we pointed out before, much of the money taxed from the middle class is kept in the coffers of the central governments, as supposed to going to aid the poor.

As seen in developed nations, a smaller government and less taxation for individuals and entrepreneurs is the only combination of policies that spurs economic growth. The liberty to spend their money as they see it fit is what empowers people to grow and forge their own destinies. Personal and social growth derives from having the power to decide what is it that one as a person wants to do while accepting full responsibility for one’s decisions, both in the personal and social settings. The short-lived 20th century real free market Capitalism that derived from societies composed by free people is the only system that spurred ingenuity and development. Receiving a free welfare check once a month while sitting around waiting for someone else to take responsibility for one’s decisions, achieves exactly the opposite.

But according to the elites and many members of the World Social Forum, the world needs to be governed by a central entity that promotes and enforce a social and “green economy,” with priority being given to eradicating hunger. This initiative intends to put pressure on bureaucrats who will take part in the UN conference on sustainable development scheduled for June 20-22 in Rio de Janeiro. This meeting will be the fourth attempt by the globalist organization to convince third world nations that it is necessary to create a central entity with the power to demand for money from the middle classes in the developed world to give it to rich people in the third world. Previous attempts have failed due to revelations that the United Nations’ proposals to create a worldwide welfare system intends to erase the sovereignty of all signing participants.

How could it be that the elite of the world and the popular movements, that allegedly fight against those very same elite’s impoverishing policies actually agree on a way to solve the problems; namely end with Capitalism and install a global socialist system of governance? As The Real Agenda informed in 2010, movements like the World Social Forum are controlled dissidence, in other words, financed and managed by the very same elite who they claim to be fighting against. According to author Michel Chossudovsky, “the mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement. The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition. In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by  informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.”

in his article “Manufacturing Dissent”: The Corporate Financing of the Protest Movement, Mr. Chossudovsky explains it is impossible to achieve a real mass movement of dissent, when those organizations that claim to support popular demands are heavily financed by the elite. He says regarding the World Economic Forum:

The people’s movement has been hijacked. Selected intellectuals, trade union executives, and the leaders of civil society organizations (including Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) are routinely invited to the Davos World Economic Forum, where they mingle with the World’s most powerful economic and political actors. This mingling of the World’s corporate elites with hand-picked “progressives” is part of the ritual underlying the process of  “manufacturing dissent”. The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders “whom we can trust” and integrate them into a “dialogue”, cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are “global citizens” acting on behalf of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment: “The participation of NGOs in the Annual Meeting in Davos is evidence of the fact that [we] purposely seek to integrate a broad spectrum of the major stakeholders in society in … defining and advancing the global agenda … We believe the [Davos] World Economic Forum provides the business community with the ideal framework for engaging in collaborative efforts with the other principal stakeholders [NGOs] of the global economy to “improve the state of the world,” which is the Forum’s mission. (World Economic Forum, Press Release 5 January 2001).The WEF does not represent the broader business community. It is an elitist gathering: Its members are giant global corporations (with a minimum $5 billion annual turnover). The selected non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are viewed as partner “stakeholders” as well as a convenient “mouthpiece for the voiceless who are often left out of decision-making processes.” (World Economic Forum – Non-Governmental Organizations, 2010).

And about the World Social Forum:

From the outset in 2001, the WSF was supported by core funding from the Ford Foundation, which is known to have ties to the CIA going back to the 1950s: “The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source.” (James Petras, The Ford Foundation and the CIA, Global Research, September 18, 2002). The same procedure of donor funded counter-summits or people’s summits which characterized the 1990s People’s Summits was embodied in the World Social Forum (WSF): “… other WSF funders (or `partners’, as they are referred to in WSF terminology) included the Ford Foundation, — suffice it to say here that it has always operated in the closest collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency and US overall strategic interests; the Heinrich Boll Foundation, which is controlled by the German Greens party, a partner in the present [2003] German government and a supporter of the wars on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (its leader Joschka Fischer is the [former] German foreign minister); and major funding agencies such as Oxfam (UK), Novib (Netherlands), ActionAid (UK), and so on.

According to Breitbart, this year’s World Social Forum opened its doors to members of several other anti-government movements such as Arab Spring, Spain’s “Indignant” movement, Occupy Wall Street, and students from Chile. All of these popular movements have criticized the globalist concept of “a green economy” because it is designed to give multinationals the largest profits by being in control of the so anxiously sought centralized global social government. Ironically, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is one of those groups that is coopted by globalist organizations and foundations.

Some of the speakers are the World Social Forum made it clear that their fight is a battle to convince 98 percent of the world’s population that there is a group composed by 1 percent that refuses to embrace the collectivist concept of social justice. This concept is based on the the belief that it doesn’t matter how people achieve success, economic or otherwise; they must give part of their property and income to a large group of self entitled conformists who need to get their checks on a monthly basis.

“The political and economic elites are the one percent who control the world and we are the one percent seeking to change it. Where are the (other) 98 percent?” said Chico Whitaker, one of the Forum’s founders. “There are many who are happy because each time they get more consumer goods, but many are concerned and unsatisfied. The challenge for us is to speak with them.” “If we do not raise the issue of inequality, we won’t solve the problems,” said Venezuelan sociologist Edgardo Lander. “If the system is not capable of redistributing and deal with inequality, we have to do it ourselves,” agreed Sam Halvorsen, of the Occupy London movement.

What these alleged leaders do not say is that nations governed by socialist or communist regimes are always less free, less successful, less equal and less independent. How long has there been Socialism and Communism? What have been their key contributions to ending poverty and misery, especially in third world countries? This is a questions that has probably never been asked in meetings like the World Economic Forum or the World Social Forum, however both movements and their supporters insist this is the way to go. Aren’t Socialism and Communism as outdated as Corporate Capitalism? On the other hand, what did real free market Capitalism achieved while it was allowed to work as an economic model?

Socialists and Communists like to answer to this question saying that their agenda is not intended to promote consumerism, and that free market societies are bound to become large groups of individuals possessed by the desire to have more and more. A possible answer to that idea is that only free market Capitalism has the power to ‘naturally’ end consumerism as market forces define what is needed and what there’s too much of. As we have now learnt, all artificially created bubbles tend to explode, unless they are artificially maintained (i.e. the financial bubble, the housing bubble and the derivatives bubble. All of them created by the globalist elite.). What has the World Economic Forum or the World Social Forum said about those bubbles? Nothing. No investigations on the real causes of the current economic crisis, no official investigation on who benefited from the impoverishment of millions in both the developed and underdeveloped nations.

It doesn’t matter that there is a credibility and morality gap, as Klaus Schwab, founder of the annual World Economic Forum, said last week in Davos. The elite and their controlled dissidents will continue to push for a change for the worst; a globalist socialist system where it will be OK to rob from the productive to give to the unproductive. The push is to drive the corporate welfare system and the social welfare system as the models for a world where the elite will have complete control of the resources, production, and the welfare checks.