Let the Unemployed Starve and the Ill Perish

The Immorality of Austerity in the Western World

By Prof. John Kozy

When a civilization abandons its morality, no rationalization can be devised to justify its continued existence. It is likely that many reasons can be given for this abandonment in the Western world, although I am convinced that one predominates—the expansion of law. Law once governed various kinds of behavior. It has now encroached upon various

Western economics is governed by subsistence wages and the lousy value of labor.

kinds of speech and is even being applied to the realm of belief. When someone is accused of having done something wrong, the reply offered usually is something like, “What was done complied with all legal requirements.” But “right” has never been defined as “conforms to law,” because thoughtful people have long noticed that the law itself can be a great crime, and the worst criminals in a culture can be its lawgivers, as the people of Ireland, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, and Great Britain are now finding out. Americans will soon find it out too.

Numerous critics of classical economists over the past two centuries have argued that it is immoral when judged by any of the recognized moral codes. Major aspects of it clearly violate the Golden Rule. It violates many, perhaps all, of the Ten Commandments. It conflicts with various teachings of Jesus. Aristotle’s Ethics can be used to demonstrate its viciousness. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Mill’s Utilitarianism. Yet some of its proponents continue to argue that The Wealth of Nations is not inconsistent with moral principles. Clive Cook and Gavin Kennedy recently made such a , but what they cite as evidence doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

First of all, they base the claim on Smith’s earlier book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he argues that conscience results from observing the condition of others, generating sympathy, which then serves as the basis of moral judgments.

Although I have no doubt that different communities view this book differently, the philosophical community has generally considered it sophomoric. In my decades as a professor of philosophy, not once did I see the book included in the standard philosophical curriculum. Most philosophy professors I knew had little knowledge of the book’s existence. So even if someone could cogently argue that The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations are philosophically consistent, that argument would have little bearing on whether classical economics is moral.

Smith has never been recognized in philosophical circles as a major thinker. As a matter of fact, he’s hardly recognized at all. And even some economists have noticed the sophomoric nature of his thinking. One highly respected, renowned economist, whose name I shall let the reader guess at, said this: “His very limitation made for success. Had he been more brilliant, he would not have been taken so seriously. Had he dug more deeply, had he unearthed more recondite truth, had he used more difficult and ingenious methods, he would not have been understood. But he had no such ambitions; in fact he disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.”

Yet Kennedy lists the elements of morality that Smith included in The Wealth of Nations. “[Smith] was no libertarian. . . . His idea of ‘natural liberty’ was almost the opposite of what it is usually taken to mean (namely, ‘do as you wish’). He was at pains in both books to emphasize the importance of self-control, of regard for the opinions of others, and of an expansive role of government in providing security, rule of law, and economic infrastructure. Way ahead of his time, he was even in favor of compulsory schooling.” An interesting list, but not one that justifies the view that Smith’s view of the economy is moral. A moralist would have expected to see something about poverty, hunger, and suffering, all of which are absent.

A serious, irrefutable proof of the immorality embodied in The Wealth of Nations and classical economics in general is easily devised.

Classical theorists like Smith aver that products derive their value from the labor that goes into producing them, and that labor, itself, is bought and sold. Wages, which are the price of labor, have a natural price which is the price needed to enable labor to subsist and to perpetuate itself without either increase or decrease. These dogmas are known as the labor theory of value and the subsistence theory of wages respectively. Some revealing implications can be derived from them.

First notice this oddity: labor produces products and the amount of labor expended determines their value. But labor is paid not the value of the products it produces but merely a subsistence wage. I defy anyone, economist or not, to justify that principle on moral grounds. Can Cook or Kennedy find an application of sympathy in this principle?

Second, the subsistence theory of wages describes a condition similar to that used by animal husbands in dealing with livestock. Classical economics treats labor as animal husbandry treats cows. Can treating a fellow human being as a farm animal ever be morally justified? Where is sympathy found in this? Working people, labor, those who create all the culture’s wealth, are nothing but farm, factory, and when necessary, cannon fodder.

But economists will say that these aspects of classical economics are not paid much attention any more. Perhaps, but what economists pay attention to and what goes on in the economy are different things. The Wall Street Journal’s report that 70 percent of people in North America live paycheck to paycheck demonstrates conclusively that the subsistence theory of wages is still being applied; our economists are just not honest enough to tell us about it.

If a subsistence wage is all that this economy pays working people, how would the culture determine how to treat those people not in the workforce—the aged, the infirm, and the handicapped, even the unemployed? Classical economics has no answer to this question because classical economics does not exist to provide for people generally. Classical economics divides the populace into two groups—capital and labor. Anyone not in one of these groups is somehow irrelevant, which explains why the President and other governmental officials always speak of the upper class and the middle class but never mention the lower class. Yet no one seems to notice that speaking of an upper and middle class without speaking of a lower class is meaningless.

The upshot is that if the dogmas of classical economics are applied consistently, there is no need for any people not capable of functioning in the workforce. So, in keeping with this implication, Andrew Mellon, President Herbert Hoover’s treasury secretary recommended that Hoover fight the depression by ”liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages.”

Of course, if this were openly advocated, the outrage would be uncontrollable and the system would be torn asunder. So this fact is obscured by the provision of “safety nets” that provide little safety, since what they are comprised of cannot exceed or even equal the subsistence wage. So Americans have social security which provides no security, unemployment compensation which is too meager to subsist on, welfare which is really illfare, and chancy access to healthcare at best. Yet those who promote this economy can, it seems, always find money to buttress business, create killing machines, and fight continual wars. What few seem to realize is that these consequences are logical implications of the dogmas of classical economics and come straight out of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Livestock, when unneeded, are routinely shipped to slaughter.

The United States and much of the so-called Western World are wallowing in widespread budgetary and sovereign debt crises, and the world’s financial elite are forcing many European nations into severe austerity programs much to the chagrin of European Peoples. Some of these nations have been referred to by the acronym PIGS, which is apt since pigs are a species of livestock. So what we have, of course, is swineherds sacrificing their livestock for the benefit of the international financial community which cares nothing for people or even the nations they reside in. These financiers validate Jefferson’s view that merchants have no country. They also have no morality, not even a smidgen. Neither do the economists who promote this economy.

Signs that the American swineherds are preparing to abandon their own herd by imposing an austerity program on it are displayed in the report of Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission and the insistence of our Republican Congressmen that spending on “entitlements” either be reduced or paid for while spending on wars, foreign aid, and the military be allowed to continue and even increase without any provisions whatsoever for paying for them. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that warfare and foreign aid are necessary economic principles while the American people have fallen into that group of economically irrelevant people that those like Andrew Mellon would have the government liquidate. So the unemployed should be allowed to starve, and the ill should be allowed to perish—both of which principles are perfectly consistent with the “morality” of classical economics.

Yet the most difficult thing to understand is what the proponents of this economy believe the purpose of it all is. What is the goal of all of this destruction, suffering, and killing? Does it give them some kind of deranged pride? Does a banker really feel good when he is told his bank evicted hundreds of families in the past week? Does a general rejoice when he is told that dozens of the enemy and scores of his own troops have been killed in the battle just fought? Does a legislator drink a toast to progress when it is learned that hundreds of children in her/his district go to bead hungry each night? If so, what kind of human beings are they? If not, just what can they possibly be thinking?

All the moral codes mentioned in this piece are Western in origin; yet none now plays a role in how the people of this civilization behave. When a civilization abandons its morality, no rationalization can be devised to justify its continued existence. It is likely that many reasons can be given for this abandonment, although I am convinced that one predominates—the expansion of law. Law once governed various kinds of behavior. It has now encroached upon various kinds of speech and is even being applied to the realm of belief. If there is a single aspect of human life that is not now circumscribed by law, I do not know of it. So when someone is accused of having done something wrong, the reply offered usually is something like, “What was done complied with all legal requirements.” But “right” has never been defined as “conforms to law,” because thoughtful people have long noticed that the law itself can be a great crime, and that the worst criminals in a culture can be its lawgivers, as the people of Ireland, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, and Great Britain are now finding out. Americans will soon find it out too.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

The Footprint of the Establishment

The Powers that Be shaped us in more ways than We think!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 10, 2010

Every time we need to know what happened in the past we refer to history books, visit a local library, check the Internet or look into

Human Farming is the Establishment's favourite method to enslave the masses.

our own archives to see what history tells us. But how many times do we wonder about what history doesn’t tell us? See, history is not written by historians, they just give us accounts of that official version of history. The reason why many look back in time is to avoid making the same mistakes that our ancestors made as humanity advanced. But how do we avoid those mistakes if we simply don’t know them?

You don’t have to be an expert in history to figure out who wrote it and why. It takes a couple of clicks nowadays. After finishing college, anyone can surely say, for example, what type of government we have, where our educational system comes from and why we fought and continue to fight bloody wars for decades. Can we?  Really?  What if part of the history you know; the one learned in elementary school, high school and college is not as it is drawn by the books we so carefully read?

If your educated guess to the first question is a Constitutional Democracy or a Republic the answer is wrong. If your answer to the second question is from our Founding Fathers, it is wrong, too. And if your answer to the third question is freedom and independence, it is also wrong.

Let’s take for example the origins of what we call today Government, which many believe is representative. The beginnings of our model of government rests in the Hegelian model of government, not on the model our Founding Fathers would have sketched. The Hegelian model of government believes that IT is supreme, and that individuals must be subjects of the government – i.e Patriot Act, Martial Law, Illegal Spying, Torture, Military Commissions Act, RFID card, etc. But how do the elites that support this kind of governance get away with telling us that we live in a free democracy? They indoctrinate us almost from birth in concentration camps called schools, which not only do not follow a democratic government’s educational policy, but instead, a very well redesigned version of the Prussian Universal Education model, put together by the same elite that pays to publish the history you and I know.

Now, you probably think, how can an elite simply get away with all this? To put it simply in one sentence, it’s called a Political Conspiracy. The elite, better known as the powers that be, not only wrote the history you and I know, but also designed and financed the educational system you and I attended, modeled after the Hegelian form of government they adore and praise. That is why we have no clue about it, because we were born and raised in a Matrix type of environment that seems natural to all.

You are right! There need to be hundreds and thousands of people involved in a conspiracy of such level in order for it to work… and there are… The brain of this conspiracy, the Club Bilderberg, meets once a year in cities of their choosing like Virginia, Versailles, Stresa, Munich, Ottawa, Istanbul and Sitges to discuss global policies on economy, environmentalism, politics, health, trade, immigration, etc. Among the attendees are elements from the Bank Industry, The Military Industrial Complex, Academia, The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex, Mass Media, and of course the politicians we vote for every four years. In one word, the Elite.

I know… You want me to call them by their names… After reading through lists of Bilderberg attendees over the years, I can absolutely and certainly say that crooks like David Rockefeller, the same Dave whose family financed the Hegelian inspired Universal Education system we studied in, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, George Pataki, Texas governor Richard Perry, John Kerry, Henry Kissinger, Etienne Davignon, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. These and other people who have in their hands the present and future of our world, are the cabal responsible for hiding the truth about history that most of us don’t know. Why? Because they wrote it themselves.

The Footprint the Establishment has left and continues to leave in our lives, our society, and our world began early in the 1800’s. As I said before it is a political conspiracy, that is, the use of political power which is passed around from generation to generation in order to keep the secrecy of their association.

Let’s see how a conspiracy works. First, there has to be a secret meeting. Second, those who meet must agree to a course of action; and third, such action must be illegal. The Establishment, or what many call The Order, derives from a German secret society. The order was included as the Russell Trust in 1856, to later be known as the Brotherhood of Death. To us all, it’s better known as “Skull and Bones. The American version of this Order was founded in the U.S in 1833 at Yale University by General William Russell and Alphonso Taft, who in 1876, became Secretary of War under the Grant administration in the United States. The Order meets annually on Deer Island in the St. Lawrence River. Among the original members are Samuel Henshaw Bates, Rufus Hart, Asahel Hooker Lewis, Samuel Marshall and Frederick Mather. All of these people along with the two founders occupied high level position in early forms of government.

The beginnings of this elite governed group can be traced back to the 1600’s when the first wealthy families arrived to the U.S from England. One example is the Lord family. In this particular case there were two branches: The one from Thomas Lord and the other from Nathan Lord. Later members arose from families who managed to make money to send their children to Yale, such as the Harriman, Payne, Davison and of course Rockefeller. The Lord’s established themselves in Hartford Connecticut where they kept a tradition typical of the elite: Intermarriage; in order to further concentrate and maintain power.

From there, they extended their arms to places like New York, where they founded businesses like law firms and consultancies. Among their clients, the New York Times and the Rubin Foundation. The latter is the financial supporter of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC.

So, now that we know how the establishment got to us, let’s see how it’s left a footprint in three of the most important aspects of our lives: Education, Energy and War.

The concept or idea over which The Order works is control; controlling it all through the compartmentalized control of the parts. For example, if they control the politicians, they can get access to powerful governments on two or three or whatever the number of political parties that exist. If they control energy companies, they can subdue society into accepting only the means of energy they can make a profit of. If they control the media, they can tell us their version of world events; who’s the bad guy and the good guy. If they own the producers of weapons, they will encourage war, and finance all the sides involved in the war because they know the profits and the control derived from war will be much greater. If they own the pharmaceutical companies, they will own all the patents to the drugs the population consumes and at the same time ban any claim on medicinal products they don’t control. If they control the food industry, the production of goods, they can sell cheap food to the masses to make them sick and fat, so they have to consume the illicit drugs they produce which by the way make people sicker. If they control the election process through remotely controlled electronic voting machines instead of traceable paper ballots, they will never let go off power.

Why do I point to Education as an important example of the way the Establishment leaves a footprint? Well, because the complete development of a society rests on the educational level of the members. In the case of the Western world, the educational model was founded after the Prussian Educational mold. This model came into existence in 1819 in the military state of Prussia. There, the Elite decided that the population had to be converted into instruments of the State in order to increase efficiency. The system was based on the premise that by erasing the creative, innovative ability of the population was how they would become obedient servants. In a matter of a few years, Prussia, which did not have natural resources, became one of the richest regions in Germany. It became so influential, that it was later the city from where two world wars originated. It was through a fully controlled educational system designed to dumb down the population, that the Elite was successful in their attempt to impose any policy they wanted to a willingly accepting crowd of mental zombies. Many countries around the world studied and continue to study the Prussian model today. From Japan to China to England to the United States. In America, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie imported the Prussian model through their foundations. It later evolved and new concepts appeared. One of them very well known to us all, Human Resources brought upon the masses the infamous Kindergarten, where children are grown up like vegetables to become subjects to the system that saw their parents come up the very same way. Later on, the Elite realized they weren’t getting people young enough so they founded the Pre-Kindergarten.

Behind this system of control was the goal that the Establishment has always had, the disintegration of the most basic form of social unity; the family. The family is the biggest obstacle to create the global system of control, therefore it has to be done away with. Multiple options were offered to parents, among them, to put the children in the hands of “experts” who had been already brainwashed following the Prussian model. The only difference perhaps between the original Prussian system and the one that currently operates around the world, is that in Prussia, the laws explicitly said that the State owned the children. In the U.S efforts were made in the 19th century to create such laws, but they did not bear fruit. The Prussian system was sneaked into society under the fear instilled by world wars, economic depressions and of course the already traditional feeling of dependency that the population has towards the State.

In 1871 in the book called “Descent of Men” Darwin said 95% of the people were inferior and only 5 % were evolving. From this way of thinking came the teachings of Sr. Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics, from whom men like H.G Wells and William Huxley took off to write their famous “scholarly” works. It is important to note, that although many people regard Charles Darwin as an outsider that made it into the circle through his discoveries in he sciences, the truth is that Darwin’s family was one of the richest in the world. Darwin met with the members of the Elite for many years. In those meetings they tailored science to fit the reality they wanted the rest to learn. John Calvin said there are so many of these inferior people that we cannot police them, so we are gonna have to teach them to police themselves; and generation through generation, the population was dumbed down more and more until it fit the corporate fascist model the Elite wanted.

The common denominator of this educational model, no matter where it’s been applied, is the fact that the
masses -from where ingenuity and creativeness emanated- became nothing else than obedient sheep; docile beings that do not know much more than what they learn in high school or college. As a result, we now have a population that cannot find their country on a map, much less other countries like Iraq or Afghanistan.  However, the masses do support invading the two countries in the name of peace. In 1950 the U.S had 90% of all patents in the world, nowadays it only owns about 30 percent and dropping fast. The Prussian model has worked to perfection.  The same can be said about other countries.

Now when we turn our head to the Energy issue, it is important to note other members of the Elite, or the Order that have been key in the implementation of Educational and Energy policies. I earlier said that the origin of this Elite is immigrants from Europe; England to be more specific. The Lords, the Rothchilds and other families that emerged later like the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Morgans and of course, the Bushes. The founders consisted of Puritans who always absorbed the wealth of rich families, without inviting those families to join their organizations. Most of these families were bankers, lawyers and traders that later became the Barons of the Mercantilistic model that substituted free markets. In the energy sector the Bush family has been a continuous player. They have maintained contact with Saudi Arabia’s kingdom for years and have done business with them thanks to the fortunes stolen by Prescott Bush, the grandfather of former president Bush, from the Nazi Empire when he left Germany after their defeat. With him others like Percy Rockefeller, the Paynes, the Pratts, etc are all linked to the Standard Oil Company, the Shell Oil Company, Creole Petroleum and Socony Vacuum. Currently we are fed the idea of the lack of sources of energy. While fossil fuels are painted as necessary evils to the development of the world, we are also told that oil reserves are scarce and that we have reached a peak. The debate in the main stream corporate Elite-controlled media is always centered on the pollution or the scarcity, but very little time is given in comparison to real alternative energy sources. While countries like Brazil run their cars on sugar cane-derived ethanol, the United States still remains in the debate of which alternative source is better or how many miles per gallon should a car provide. Let’s take a look at a source of energy that is never discussed: Cold Fusion.

Cold Fusion occurs when lighter nuclei in an atom fuse together under intense heat in a reaction to form a heavier nucleus. One of the results of this fusion is the release of gigantic amounts of energy which would provide an endless source of energy to carry out the world businesses for as long as humans exist. All this by the way, at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure. However, Cold Fusion has been dismissed as an impossible by the profiteers who own the energy companies we depend on to live. Government agencies have also dismissed the potential of Cold Fusion and denied funding to further investigate the possibility of developing technology that allowed us to be energy independent. Instead, they suggested a bunch of alternative energy sources that counted with their blessing such as corn-based ethanol which has proven to be a new failure.

The cold fusion researchers presenting their review document to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion said that the observation of excess heat had been reproduced, that it can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered. Despite the assertions of these researchers, most reviewers stated that the effects are not repeatable.The 1989, a DoE panel said: “Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process”, but it also recognized that the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence. (Wikipedia)

However, for those who know what Cold Fusion is and how it works, the future is promising. Dr. Edmund Storms, a retired scientist who worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the only problem is the attitude people have towards Cold Fusion as a source of energy. “It’s an interesting time because a number of other ideal sources are being proposed. Cold fusion is probably the most thoroughly documented at this point, but all of them have several things in common. They would be very inexpensive, pollution-free, and inexhaustible.” Questioned about whether Cold Fusion violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, which has been one of the reasons given to keep the experiments and the funding off the table, Dr. Storms says: “No one is proposing to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. We’re talking about ordinary nuclear energy. There’s nothing magical about it. It’s the mechanism for achieving these nuclear reactions that is poorly understood at this time and, therefore, is in dispute.”

Although according to Storms neither the government nor any enterprise could practically deny access to the knowledge of Cold Fusion, anyone could seriously damage the research and progress of new technologies by claiming that the knowledge is flawed, thereby, making it harder to find funding or support of any kind.

In a book called: Cold Fusion: Secret Energy Revolution, Anthony Sutton declares that Cold Fusion is already being worked with in different laboratories around the globe and that soon, either governments or companies will come forward with practical applications. According to Sutton, Cold Fusion technology is being used by companies like BlackLight Power, Inc, Catalytic Fusion Power, Inc and financed by DARPA to produce catalytic hydrogen technology. “Free energy is here with water as fuel and will revolutionize our world. One device is the size of a thermos flask, uses water as fuel and lasts indefinitely,” Sutton declares. How many times have we heard of Cold Fusion on the news? Read on the papers? In the meantime we are led to believe that we are destined to invade middle eastern countries for their oil as the only way to secure our future energy sources. Of course of the mass population knew a little about alternative energy sources, they wouldn’t support needless wars or the drilling of National Parks or ice shells for petroleum.

Now, the subject of energy brings along a very important issue, which is exactly a consequence of energy dependence: War. If countries were energy independent, there would certainly be less conflict among them. This is because one country would not be able to impose rules onto others because they own energy sources that the other countries need. Today, OPEC controls the supply of petroleum which is vital to the commercial activity that moves the world. A handful of countries decide how much oil is produced and with that, the prices are determined. If the producers feel like they are not getting enough profits for their oil, they can simply decide to limit output so the price goes up. Although energy is probably the clearest example of how dependence causes conflict, there are countless other ones. For example, food production, manufacturing, the printing of paper money -which nowadays has turned out to be worthless, land tenure, immigration, etc.

The important point here is that war; just as many other activities, is a business. Investments are made before war occurs, so profits are expected. The best way to secure maximum profits is to invest on all sides, and that’s what history shows has happened in all major conflicts that humanity has endured: WWI and WWII are two examples. Here of course the Elite has left their Footprint stamped deeper than in any other aspect under their control. Then we have the Spanish-American as well as the Mexican-American wars which are also great examples. All armed conflicts recorded in history have come about due to the greed and evil spirit of those who seek to control us all. Although money and profits are important factors, the end goal is control. This control comes through consolidation. Armed conflicts and economic unrest provide great opportunities to bring about this consolidation and therefore control. When a country or the whole world goes into military or economic crisis, the people are the victims, while the Elite not only increases their resources tenfold, but also their control of industry, the bank system, infrastructure, military, land, and more important… Us. No example of a central government that ruled with an iron fist is responsible for an era of prosperity or bountifulness. On the contrary, it always mirrors repression, crisis, abuses, torture and inequality.

The reason why I linked war and conflict with oil, is because it is the freshest example. But the American civil war, the Spanish-American and WWI and WWII were also about influence and consolidating, a position as the world’s superpower. At the beginning of this essay I mentioned where the members of the Order came from and what type of businesses they are tied to. Nowadays, the war profiteers are weapons contractors, energy companies, security contractors, oil diggers, insurance companies and others. When a war explodes anywhere in the world, the list of companies offering their services to provide weaponry, planes, transportation, security, insurance and medical services is already typed up; and they are the same crooks who have already invested in promoting the wars during which they will provide services. When a country is dominated by the will of global corporations like Shell, NewsCorp, Halliburton, BP, GE, bankers like JP Morgan and wealthy men like Rupert Murdoch, David Rockefeller, Lord Rothchild and Prescott Bush, the decision to go to war or not isn’t made; it is imposed. Every major war has been financed by these and other families who have always held power by dominating all the sides involved in the conflicts. It’s a win-win situation. No president, prime minister or dictator achieved their goal of tyranny and control alone, there have always been the men behind the curtains who provided money, intelligence and hardware to carry out their own agenda. The group of bankers who created the private Federal Reserve, who control the Bank of England, the World Bank… is the same cabal that dictates the policies of the World Health Organization, who created the United Nations and who wrote the Nazi oriented Universal Human Rights Declaration to which they want us all to submit to.

Only those who really know history are able to envision the future; the future they want. The rest of us…, we’d better wake up and fight the bastards or we are doomed to repeat it.

Consulted Materials: