Land thieves like old fashioned cattle rustlers no longer steal under the cover of darkness.  Daylight dawns and the thieves walk amongst us stealing our property.  “Do gooders” they call themselves.  They “claim” it’s all about saving mother nature. I guess they don’t remember the 70′s commercial  “It’s not nice to fool mother nature”, nor is it nice to steal.

   They won’t tell you they are thieves, but thieves they are, none the less.  In this particular video  it’s taxpayer approved theft though I doubt very much the taxpayers really understood what they were doing to themselves. Dupes would be a good way to describe them.

Conservation groups are stealing land  and it is happening all over the USA.  They get to dictate to you what you can do on your land and you get to pay 100% of the tax note on land you own in name only.

 Don Casey from Keep Our Rights created a great brochure which explains conservation easements. Look here. 

If you don’t understand what words used by thieves really mean you won’t “get” what is being done to you and how you are being misled. Orwell called it double speak.

 James Edwards  author of the superb book Racism, Schmacism ( buy it  here) and host of  The Political Cesspool Radio Show heard every Sat night from 6p-9p CST on https://thepoliticalcesspool.org   had the following article on his website entitled:

White Families Wear Yokes While Apologizing For Slavery

“If you’ve ever felt the need to apologize for slavery, today is your lucky day!

A group called The Lifeline Expedition will put you in chains and let you be humiliated by blacks, all in the name of healing.

NEWPORT – The sight of a 13-year-old boy with a yoke over his head and his hands tied in chains was perhaps the most controversial image in Thursday’s “slavery reconciliation march” through the streets of Newport.

Jacob Lienau of Camano Island in Washington said he decided on his own to wear the yoke and chains after seeing a painting of African slave children wearing them in the 19th century, and hearing about the march.

Lienau and his large family, including his parents, Shari and Michael Lienau, and their four biological children and five adopted children, are part of the Lifeline Expedition that is visiting prominent American slave-trading ports from the Colonial era this month. They marched in Marblehead, Salem and Boston in Massachusetts earlier this week and in Providence on Wednesday.

“We recognize this is an unusual form of symbolic action,” said a brochure the marchers handed out to passersby. “Our hope and prayer is that this form of apology will speak in ways that words cannot.”

The group submitted a letter to the Newport City Council, asking the council to vote on a letter of apology for the city’s past involvement in the slave trade. City councils in Liverpool and Bristol in England approved such letters.

The group then left Newport for Virginia, where they will march in Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg, and then on to South Carolina, where they will march in Charleston… READ the rest here:

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/white-families-wear-yokes-chains-while-apologizing-for-slavery/

        You can fill in the blank with any “western nation” you like. In fact, the nations formerly classified as “western” (America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Canada)  barely resemble their original founding people. It seems while the descendents of founding settlers of these nations were snoozing someone pulled a fast one and decided having a country with a common heritage (western culture aka western civilization) was a bad thing and needed to be eliminated. Many areas in European nations have what are classified as “no go” areas. What that means is the people who are descendents of the founding settlers are in harms way if they travel into those areas. Obviously the cultural Marxists who laud demographic change claim the people who are being replaced are at fault.  Dissimilar cultures do not combine, they clash. That is a historical fact. It makes no difference what century or continent you look at. In Los Angeles, the native Black population is being displaced  from their homes by the Latino illegal aliens and legal immigrants mostly from Mexico. Read about it on the Your Black World website here.

        Erasing cultural history one alien and legal immigrant at a time. What is the endgame? It’s very simple. Eradication of the founding settlers. In other words eliminating the people of European origin who founded the nations. This is classified as genocide although few people are willing to admit that because they are terrified of being labeled as a racist, hater, xenophobe, bigot, White supremacist, anti-Semite or a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. I am none of those things however the truth is no defense against the cultural Marxists who seek to marginalize the people they oppose.

     If you haven’t figured it out yet, let me share one other little known fact. The GOP and the Democrats are not on your side; they work together against your best interests. They serve their masters, the Rothschild dominated cabal, not you. One thing you need to understand. The Heritage Foundation claims the price tag for amnesty is 6.3 trillion. That is incorrect.  What price tag do you place on the irrevocable genocide of Western people and the destruction of Western Civilization?

This is all part of UN Agenda 21. There are no Western Nations in the NWO, just slave nations.

***** I believe a more accurate count of the # of illegal aliens here now is about 35-40 million**********

The following is from Numbers USA.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about/question-who-were-more-90-million-people.html

Question: Who were the more than 90 million people added to the United States since 1970?

Most were immigrants.

Above-replacement-level immigration has doubled U.S. population growth.

There were 203 million people living in the U.S. in 1970 — we’ll call them “1970-stock Americans.” Births to that population have exceeded their deaths, resulting in the growth illustrated in the green block.

The green shows how much growth the U.S. would have had since 1970 if the number of immigrants arriving each year was the same as the number of Americans permanently moving away (currently that is an estimated 225,000). That is known as “replacement-level immigration.”

The red block shows the population growth cause by immigration policies of the U.S. government. It accounts for more than half of population growth since 1970. Although its frontiers were declared closed a century ago, the United States today is adding population at a numerical level just under the phenomenal Baby Boom, which far exceeded all other periods of U.S. population growth.

Why is their natural population growth (as shown by the green area), even though birth rates have fallen below replacement levels?

Well, it takes decades for a country’s population to stabilize after women adopt a family size that is on average 2.1 children. Their children have to finish having their children. Those children have to have their babies and the original mothers have to die off before full stabilization occurs.

A country that wants to stabilize its population has to start around 70 years in advance if fertility drops only to the 2.1 replacement level. Americans have had fertility since 1972 that is somewhat below replacement level. So stabilization could occur a bit sooner.

But even during the 70-year wait for stabilization, a country is able to enjoy substantially reduced population growth. That means the country can enjoy the resulting lowered demands for expanded infrastructure and mass urban development of farmland and natural habitat.

Americans, however, can enjoy none of that, thanks to Congress and its incredible increase in immigration.

If the chart had been started at any other date in U.S. history, wouldn’t it have looked very similar?

No. The last quarter century has been a unique period in U.S. demographic history.

Any other quarter-century slice would show the green –not the red– as the majority of population growth. And not other period except for the Baby Boom (1946-64) would show anywhere close to this much total growth.

At no other time in this country, have recent immigrants and their children (the red block) dominated population growth.

That has many political and sociological ramifications. It means that for the first time in U.S. history when Americans are asked to raise taxes or pay higher prices to provide additional schools, roads, cleaner air, etc., they are asked to do so not for the additional population and conditions they are creating but for the sake primarily of foreign-born residents and their children.

The majority of all new additional infrastructure needs over the past quarter century are the result of Washington’s immigration policies.

Thus, the costs Americans are asked to cover are ones that Congress (through immigration policies), and not American families (through their fertility), have created.

What is meant by “Total U.S. population”?

The circled numbers represent the U.S. Population in millions. The top line of the chart represents the total population of the United States each year.

In 1970, the U.S. population was about 203 million.

Today it has surpassed 293 million.

These numbers come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census which counted the residents of the country in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and a revised projection done by the Census in 2002. All other years are estimated by the Census Bureau based on what was learned in the previous Census, on targeted surveys done each year and on other projection devices.

Does the red block include illegal aliens?

No.

The bar graph counts only the annual number of legal immigrants.

If illegal aliens could be accurately counted and included, it is likely that the 1966-89 period would be revealed as being even more disparate from earlier eras. Illegal immigration is believed to be far higher during recent decades than in the past.

The Census Bureau estimates there are 8 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

On annual illegal immigration, the Center for Immigration Studies has extrapolated the latest Census data to show that 700,000 to 800,000 new illegal aliens are settling each year. Now, far, far more than that enter illegally each year, but there is a lot of back and forth. The 700,000 to 800,000 represents illegals who truly settle in for at least a couple of years, and usually much, much longer. .

Why do these charts start at the 203-million level?

These charts are about growth.

They are not about the total U.S. population — except tangentially — but about any additional growth in that population.

Astute chart readers are conditioned to raise questions when they see charts that start somewhere other than at zero. By picking a starting point proportionately far above zero, a chartmaker may be able to distort the impression of the information being portrayed.

But that is not what is happening here.

Because these charts are about population growth — and because there were 203 million people in this country in 1970 — they reveal only the U.S. population above 203 million.

While the 203 million people who are not shown here play a role in plans for roads, schools, parks, sewers and other infrastructure, it is the addition of residents that creates the greatest challenges.

These charts focus on the millions of people who are being added to the roads, schools, parks, and laborforce.

This information comes from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

To find similar population growth in foreign countries, we must look to the Third World.

Although its frontiers were declared closed a century ago, the United States today is adding population at a numerical level just under the phenomenal Baby Boom, which far exceeded all other periods of U.S. population growth.

Why do these charts start at 1970?

The era since 1970 has been a unique period of American history. It is the only time that the federal government and the American people have moved in opposite directions in creating the country’s demographic future: The American people have chosen family sizes that allow for a stablized U.S. population; the federal government has chosen policies to force never-ending U.S. population growth.

The year 1970 is around the time of several great changes in America:

1. It was around 1970 — the year of the first Earth Day — when the American people made a collective commitment to stop squandering their environmental resources and to restore the natural world within their nation’s borders to a healthy and sustainable quality. Major laws were passed and agencies established to see that the environmental goals were met. The American people and U.S. companies spent billions of dollars to meet the goals.

2. It was around 1970 that most environmental experts began to agree that it would be difficult for the nation to reach its environmental goals without stabilizing its population at a level not too much higher than the 203 million with which the country began the decade.

3. Although no official population goal was set, a bi-partisan presidential-congressional commission recommended moving toward a stable population to meet environmental, economic and social goals that had been adopted during the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

4. In 1972, the American people — fresh from a historic Baby Boom — lowered their fertility to “replacement level.” Ever since, American fertility has been low enough to allow the population size eventually to stabilize.

5. It was around 1970 that the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country began to rise rapidly as a result of a change in the law back in 1965.

Since 1970, there have been two contradictory blueprints for the nation’s population future:

THE PEOPLE’S BLUEPRINT: The American people since just after 1970 have adopted behaviors and attitudes that — on their own — would move the nation toward a stabilized population size. Through millions of individual and highly personal choices, Americans have adopted on average a family size of two or fewer children while telling pollsters they want a stabilized national population.

WASHINGTON’S BLUEPRINT Since just before 1970, each Congress and each President has adopted a policy allowing immigration far in excess of traditional levels and moving the nation toward constant population increases.

The charts on these pages show how these conflicting visions have affected the demographic direction of the United States. As a Census year, 1970 offers the most logical starting point for measurement.

By starting the charts at 1970, we measure what has happened since around the beginning of the era in which the majority of individual Americans in one way or another embraced population stabilization as a goal.

Where does this data come from? READ MORE HERE

The New Urbanism is “communitarian speak” for the 21 century version of tenements, slums and  ghettos. It’s really the “old urbanism” they just call it new, tricky aren’t they?  What is the HCD? Housing and Community development agency. The HCD works with the MPO.  What is the MPO? The MPO is the metropolitan planning organization which assigns the RHNA. What is RHNA?  It’s the regional housing needs assessment quota. In the San Francisco Bay area the MPO is called  ABAG which is the Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG works with the MTC. What is the MTC? The Metropolitan Transportation Commission. They work with the HCD and the BCDC. What is the BCDC? The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. They dictate the RHNA that every city needs to comply with to do their “fair share”.  For the uninitiated who don’t yet “get” the “communitarian speak” you hear at these meetings I’ll define some of the terms they use. Fair share means redistributing your dollars, redistributing people and denying you the right to choose what is best for you. There is nothing  fair about fair share, but it sounds good doesn’t it?

Now you don’t get to vote for any of these elitists at these organizations who create these mandates. Having a voice in what happens to you and your community is highly over-rated anyway.  C’mon get with the program. You are not smart enough to make these decisions for yourself. The sooner you come to that realization the better off everyone else will be. You need guidance from these “smart” people.

They will be building TOD which is transportation oriented development so that everyone can live in “vibrant” communities by the railroad tracks.  **”Communitarian speak” ** alert. Vibrant means low income which occasionally, not too often, just every day or so has historically involved high crime. So the thinking ( well if you want to call it “thinking”) is this. If you force middle and higher income people into “vibrant” communities, the myriad of problems in those communities will magically disappear. If you don’t want to live in a “vibrant” community you’re a racist who exhibits the NIMBY mentality. You need to be re-educated and soon. FYI The NIMBY “not in my backyard” is what elitists who run the communitarian programs call people who like freedom of choice and like living in  single family homes in safe, suburban neighborhoods. Oh, and the elitists who push this won’t be living in the “vibrant” neighborhoods aka slums they want you to live in.

If you build it they will come. I’ve heard that somewhere before. Of course I think they meant they’d come willingly.  It’s time for ya’all to embrace the New Urbanism aka forced relocation the housing and community development agency people and their buddies have in store for you. I know what you are thinking, you’re saying to yourself, why this is America, they can’t do that here. We’re free! They won’t be bringing out the guns to your temple just yet, they have other tricks they can use. They’ll do things such as raise the cost of a gallon of gas so high you can’t afford to drive your car, they’ll divert funds away from highway and bridge repairs and use those funds to build bike paths, they’ll destroy roads so you can’t use them, they will change rules so your well or septic will be outlawed, they’ll change zoning so you are no longer allowed to use your property for a particular use, they’ll dictate the minimum amount of acres you must have before you can build, etc. etc., etc.   Are you starting to see the bigger picture yet?

Now remember, if you don’t want to go along with this they’ll call you a hater, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, anti-Semite, bigot, White supremacist and a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionsjews.

 You’re just a central banker’s slave.

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

Some quotes from the video:

“I think that right now, the question is do we all work for central bankers, is this global governance at last, is it one word, the central bankers in charge?”

Aren’t we all just living and dying for what the central banks do?

“We are absolutely slaves to the central banks.”

The host even went as far as to admit that the major problem facing the world today is the fiat currency and the continued devaluation of the dollar:

“Fiat Currency that’s continually watered down, they continue to water our currency down so the markets go up and we feel good about it.”

Eustace Mullins one of the great minds of our time wrote a book about the Federal Reserve

bank.

You can read it here: Secrets Of The Federal Reserve

Here is the forward written to it. 

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

By Eustace Mullins]

In 1949, while I was visiting Ezra Pound who was a political prisoner at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane), Dr. Pound asked me if I had ever heard of the Federal Reserve System. I replied that I had not, as of the age of 25. He then showed me a ten dollar bill marked “Federal Reserve Note” and asked me if I would do some research at the Library of Congress on the Federal Reserve System which had issued this bill. Pound was unable to go to the Library himself, as he was being held without trial as a political prisoner by the United States government. After he was denied broadcasting time in the U.S., Dr. Pound broadcast from Italy in an effort to persuade people of the United States not to enter World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had personally ordered Pound’s indictment, spurred by the demands of his three personal assistants, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and Alger Hiss, all of whom were subsequently identified as being connected with Communist espionage.

I had no interest in money or banking as a subject, because I was working on a novel. Pound offered to supplement my income by ten dollars a week for a few weeks. My initial research revealed evidence of an international banking group which had secretly planned the writing of the Federal Reserve Act and Congress’ enactment of the plan into law. These findings confirmed what Pound had long suspected. He said, “You must work on it as a detective story.” I was fortunate in having my research at the Library of Congress directed by a prominent scholar, George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club, who was described by The New York Times of September 28, 1952: “Beloved by Washington newspapermen as ‘our walking Library of Congress’, Mr. Stimpson was a highly regarded reference source in the Capitol. Government officials, Congressmen and reporters went to him for information on any subject.”

I did research four hours each day at the Library of Congress, and went to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in the afternoon. Pound and I went over the previous day’s notes. I then had dinner with George Stimpson at Scholl’s Cafeteria while he went over my material, and I then went back to my room to type up the corrected notes. Both Stimpson and Pound made many suggestions in guiding me in a field in which I had no previous experience. When Pound’s resources ran low, I applied to the Guggenheim Foundation, Huntington Hartford Foundation, and other foundations to complete my research on the Federal Reserve. Even though my foundation applications were sponsored by the three leading poets of America, Ezra Pound, E.E. Cummings, and Elizabeth Bishop, all of the foundations refused to sponsor this research. I then wrote up my findings to date, and in 1950 began efforts to market this manuscript in New York. Eighteen publishers turned it down without comment, but the nineteenth, Devin Garrity, president of Devin Adair Publishing Company, gave me some friendly advice in his office. “I like your book, but we can’t print it,” he told me. “Neither can anybody else in New York. Why don’t you bring in a prospectus for your novel, and I think we can give you an advance. You may as well forget about getting the Federal Reserve book published. I doubt if it could ever be printed.”

This was devastating news, coming after two years of intensive work. I reported back to Pound, and we tried to find a publisher in other parts of the country. After two years of fruitless submissions, the book was published in a small edition in 1952 by two of Pound’s disciples, John Kasper and David Horton, using their private funds, under the title Mullins on the Federal Reserve. In 1954, a second edition, with unauthorized alterations, was published in New Jersey, as The Federal Reserve Conspiracy. In 1955, Guido Roeder brought out a German edition in Oberammergau, Germany. The book was seized and the entire edition of 10,000 copies burned by government agents led by Dr. Otto John.

The burning of the book was upheld April 21, 1961 by judge Israel Katz of the Bavarian Supreme Court. The U.S. Government refused to intervene, because U.S. High Commissioner to Germany, James B. Conant (president of Harvard University 1933 to 1953), had approved the initial book burning order. This is the only book which has been burned in Germany since World War II. In 1968 a pirated edition of this book appeared in California. Both the FBI and the U.S. Postal inspectors refused to act, despite numerous complaints from me during the next decade. In 1980 a new German edition appeared. Because the U.S. Government apparently no longer dictated the internal affairs of Germany, the identical book which had been burned in 1955 now circulates in Germany without interference.

I had collaborated on several books with Mr. H.L. Hunt and he suggested that I should continue my long-delayed research on the Federal Reserve and bring out a more definitive version of this book. I had just signed a contract to write the authorized biography of Ezra Pound, and the Federal Reserve book had to be postponed. Mr. Hunt passed away before I could get back to my research, and once again I faced the problem of financing research for the book.

My original book had traced and named the shadowy figures in the United States who planned the Federal Reserve Act. I now discovered that the men whom I exposed in 1952 as the shadowy figures behind the operation of the Federal Reserve System were themselves shadows, the American fronts for the unknown figures who became known as the “London Connection.” I found that notwithstanding our successes in the Wars of Independence of 1812 against England, we remained an economic and financial colony of Great Britain. For the first time, we located the original stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks and traced their parent companies to the London Connection.

This research is substantiated by citations and documentation from hundreds of newspapers, periodicals and books and charts showing blood, marriage, and business relationships. More than a thousand issues of The New York Times on microfilm have been checked not only for original information, but verification of statements from other sources.

It is a truism of the writing profession that a writer has only one book within him. This seems applicable in my case, because I am now in the fifth decade of continuous writing on a single subject, the inside story of the Federal Reserve System. This book was from its inception commissioned and guided by Ezra Pound. Four of his protégés have previously been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, William Butler Yeats for his later poetry, James Joyce for “Ulysses”, Ernest Hemingway for “The Sun Also Rises”, and T.S. Elliot for “The Waste Land”. Pound played a major role in the inspiration and in the editing of these works–which leads us to believe that this present work, also inspired by Pound, represents an ongoing literary tradition.

Although this book in its inception was expected to be a tortuous work on economic and monetary techniques, it soon developed into a story of such universal and dramatic appeal that from the outset, Ezra Pound urged me to write it as a detective story, a genre which was invented by my fellow Virginian, Edgar Allan Poe. I believe that the continuous circulation of this book during the past forty years has not only exonerated Ezra Pound for his much condemned political and monetary statements, but also that it has been, and will continue to be, the ultimate weapon against the powerful conspirators who compelled him to serve thirteen and a half years without trial, as a political prisoner held in an insane asylum a la KGB. His earliest vindication came when the government agents who represented the conspirators refused to allow him to testify in his own defense; the second vindication came in 1958 when these same agents dropped all charges against him, and he walked out of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, a free man once more. His third and final vindication is this work, which documents every aspect of his exposure of the ruthless international financiers to whom Ezra Pound became but one more victim, doomed to serve years as the Man in the Iron Mask, because he had dared to alert his fellow-Americans to their furtive acts of treason against all people of the United States.

In my lectures throughout this nation, and in my appearances on many radio and television programs, I have sounded the toxin that the Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system at all, but rather, a criminal syndicate. From November, 1910, when the conspirators met on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to the present time, the machinations of the Federal Reserve bankers have been shrouded in secrecy. Today, that secrecy has cost the American people a three trillion dollar debt, with annual interest payments to these bankers amounting to some three hundred billion dollars per year, sums which stagger the imagination, and which in themselves are ultimately unpayable. Officials of the Federal Reserve System routinely issue remonstrances to the public, much as the Hindu fakir pipes an insistent tune to the dazed cobra which sways its head before him, not to resolve the situation, but to prevent it from striking him. Such was the soothing letter written by Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors in response to an inquiry by a Congressman, the Honorable Norman D. Shumway, on March 10, 1983. Mr. Winn states that “The Federal Reserve System was established by an act of Congress in 1913 and is not a ‘private corporation’.” On the next page, Mr. Winn continues, “The stock of the Federal Reserve Banks is held entirely by commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System.” He offers no explanation as to why the government has never owned a single share of stock in any Federal Reserve Bank, or why the Federal Reserve System is not a “private corporation” when all of its stock is owned by “private corporations”.

American history in the twentieth century has recorded the amazing achievements of the Federal Reserve bankers. First, the outbreak of World War I, which was made possible by the funds available from the new central bank of the United States. Second, the Agricultural Depression of 1920. Third, the Black Friday Crash on Wall Street of October, 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. Fourth, World War II. Fifth, the conversion of the assets of the United States and its citizens from real property to paper assets from 1945 to the present, transforming a victorious America and foremost world power in 1945 to the world’s largest debtor nation in 1990. Today, this nation lies in economic ruins, devastated and destitute, in much the same dire straits in which Germany and Japan found themselves in 1945. Will Americans act to rebuild our nation, as Germany and Japan have done when they faced the identical conditions which we now face–or will we continue to be enslaved by the Babylonian debt money system which was set up by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 to complete our total destruction? This is the only question which we have to answer, and we do not have much time left to answer it.

Because of the depth and the importance of the information which I had developed at the Library of Congress under the tutelage of Ezra Pound, this work became the happy hunting ground for many other would-be historians, who were unable to research this material for themselves. Over the past four decades, I have become accustomed to seeing this material appear in many other books, invariably attributed to other writers, with my name never mentioned. To add insult to injury, not only my material, but even my title has been appropriated, in a massive, if obtuse, work called “Secrets of the Temple–the Federal Reserve”. This heavily advertised book received reviews ranging from incredulous to hilarious. Forbes Magazine advised its readers to read their review and save their money, pointing out that “a reader will discover no secrets” and that “This is one of those books whose fanfares far exceed their merit.” This was not accidental, as this overblown whitewash of the Federal Reserve bankers was published by the most famous nonbook publisher in the world.

After my initial shock at discovering that the most influential literary personality of the twentieth century, Ezra Pound, was imprisoned in “the Hellhole” in Washington, I immediately wrote for assistance to a Wall Street financier at whose estate I had frequently been a guest. I reminded him that as a patron of the arts, he could not afford to allow Pound to remain in such inhuman captivity. His reply shocked me even more. He wrote back that “your friend can well stay where he is.” It was some years before I was able to understand that, for this investment banker and his colleagues, Ezra Pound would always be “the enemy”.

Eustace Mullins

Jackson Hole, Wyoming

1991

James Corbett from The Corbett Report exposes how the MSM corruption hustles people into believing their lies. They are purveyors of propaganda.

by James Corbett
grtv.ca
2 January, 2012

http://www.corbettreport.com/faking-it-how-the-media-manipulates-the-world-into-war/

“As the drums of war begin to beat once again in Iran, Syria, the South China Sea, and other potential hotspots and flashpoints around the globe, concerned citizens are asking how a world so sick of bloodshed and a population so tired of conflict could be led to this spot once again.

To understand this seeming paradox, we must first understand the centuries-long history of how media has been used to whip the nation into wartime frenzy, dehumanize the supposed enemies, and even to manipulate the public into believing in causes for war that, decades later, were admitted to be completely fictitious.

The term “yellow journalism” was coined to describe the type of sensationalistic, scandal-driven, and often erroneous style of reporting popularized by newspapers like William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. In one of the most egregious examples of this phenomenon, Hearst’s papers widely trumpeted the sinking of the Maine as the work of the Spanish. Whipped into an anti-Spanish frenzy by a daily torrent of stories depicting Spanish forces’ alleged torture and rape of Cubans, and pushed over the edge by the Maine incident, the public welcomed the beginning of the US-Spanish war. Although it is now widely believed that the explosion on the Maine was due to a fire in one of its coal bunkers, the initial lurid reports of Spanish involvement stuck and the nation was led into war.

In many ways, the phrase infamously attributed to Hearst in reply to his illustrator “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” apocryphal as the story may be, nevertheless perfectly encodes the method by which the public would be led to war time and again through the decades.

The US was drawn into World War I by the sinking of the Lusitania, a British ocean liner carrying American passengers that was torpedoed by German U-boats off the coast of Ireland, killing over 1,000 of its passengers. What the public was not informed about at the time, of course, was that just one week before the incident, then-First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had written to the President of the Board of Trade that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” Nor did reports of the attack announce that the ship was carrying rifle ammunition and other military supplies. Instead, reports once again emphasized that the attack was an out-of-the-blue strike by a maniacal enemy, and the public was led into the war.

The US involvement in World War II was likewise the result of deliberate disinformation. Although the Honolulu Advertiser had even predicted the attack on Pearl Harbor days in advance, the Japanese Naval codes had already been deciphered by that time, and that even Henry Stimson, the US Secretary of War, had noted in his diary the week before that he had discussed in a meeting with Roosevelt “how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves,” the public were still led to believe that the Pearl Harbor attack had been completely unforeseen. Just last month, a newly-declassified memo emerged showing that FDR had been warned of an impending Japanese attack on Hawaii just three days before the events at Pearl Harbor, yet the history books still portray Pearl Harbor as an example of a surprise attack.

In August 1964, the public was told that the North Vietnamese had attacked a US Destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin on two separate occasions. The attacks were portrayed as a clear example of “communist aggression” and a resolution was soon passed in Congress authorizing President Johnson to begin deploying US forces in Vietnam. In 2005, an internal NSA study was released concluding that the second attack in fact never took place. In effect, 60000 American servicemen and as many as three million Vietnamese, let alone as many as 500,000 Cambodians and Laotians, lost their lives because of an incident that did not occur anywhere but in the imagination of the Johnson administration and the pages of the American media.

In 1991, the world was introduced to the emotional story of Nayirah, a Kuwaiti girl who testified about the atrocities committed by Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

What the world was never told was that the incident had in fact been the work of a public relations firm, Hill and Knowltown, and the girl had actually been the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Once again, the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred for the Hussein regime, not for the documented atrocities that it had actually committed on segments of its own population with weapons supplied to them by the United States itself, but on the basis of an imaginary story told to the public via their televisions, orchestrated by a pr firm.

In the lead-up to the war on Iraq, the American media infamously took the lead in framing the debate about the Iraqi government’s weapons of mass destruction NOT as a question of whether or not they even existed, but as a question of where they had been hidden and what should be done to disarm them. The New York Times led the way with Judith Miller‘s now infamous reporting on the Iraqi WMD story, now known to have been based on false information from untrustworthy sources, but the rest of the media fell into line with the NBC Nightly News asking “what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America”, and Time debating whether Hussein was “making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Reports about chemical weapons stashes were reported on before they were confirmed, although headlines boldly asserted their existence as indisputable fact. We now know that in fact the stockpiles did not exist, and the administration premeditatedly lied the country into yet another war, but the most intense opposition the Bush administration ever received over this documented war crime was some polite correction on the Sunday political talk show circuit…” READ THE REST HERE

So who are the racists now?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/348571

 ”…Irene van Niekerk is a 15-year-old runner who lives in a squatter camp near Pretoria, South Africa. She has won, in total, 27 gold medals, but owns no shoes.

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2013/04/sa-gold-medalist-young-athlete-from.html

Irene is a young  Afrikaans girl who lives in a shack in a squatter camp near Pretoria, South Africa. They have no electricity or running water, and Irene owns no shoes. She runs barefoot, because the shoes that were custom-designed for Irene were stolen by a drug addict. The shoes were custom-designed because Irene lost most of her toes in an accident as a child, when boiling water spilled on her feet. Her family eat when there is food and they bathe when there is water, but they praise God every day for what they have. Irene recently ran in both the 800m and the 1500m races and won gold medals in both. Apparently her time in the 1500m was 4:48, and the current world record for 15-year-olds is 4:00, so she is doing well.

 

YouTube

Irene van Niekerk, a multiple gold-medal winning runner who lives in a squatter camp in South Africa.

Like this image2

 

Apparently Irene attends a Special Ed school, due to the trauma she has experienced in her life. She is interviewed in the video above. Please bear in mind that her home language is Afrikaans, so she tends to falter a little with her English. To continue with her running, and to escape poverty, Irene needs sponsors. Apparently the South African government provides nothing, not even school assistance….”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/348571#ixzz2S9thmEgU

 If you would like to help Irene and many of the other unfortunate Whites destitute, homeless and hungry, confined to the squalor of these White squatter camps in South Africa, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian and the South Africa Project has created the “Living Waters Foundation”. Please Help by sending your tax deductible monetary donations to the address below. Monica Stone will take personal responsibility in seeing to it that your donations reach the needy hands of our White kindred in South Africa.

http://southafricaproject.info/living_waters_foundation.html

Text of Address by

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,

Thursday, June 8, 1978

I am sincerely happy to be here with you on this occasion and to become personally acquainted with this old and most prestigious University. My congratulations and very best wishes to all of today’s graduates.

Harvard’s motto is “Veritas.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend.

Three years ago in the United States I said certain things which at that time appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I then said…

A World Split Apart

by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of entirely destroying the other. However, understanding of the split often is limited to this political conception, to the illusion that danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is a much profounder and a more alienating one, that the rifts are more than one can see at first glance. This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a Kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.

Contemporary Worlds

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples’ approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.

Convergence

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development is quite different.

Anguish about our divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not at all developing into similarity; neither one can be transformed into the other without the use of violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side’s defects, too, and this is hardly desirable.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country, examining the overall pattern of the world’s rifts I would have concentrated on the East’s calamities. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the West in our days, such as I see them.

A Decline in Courage [. . .]

may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

Well-Being

When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one’s nation must be defended in a distant country?

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.

Legalistic Life

Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

The Direction of Freedom

In today’s Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.

It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists’ civil rights. There are many such cases.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework).

The Direction of the Press

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: “everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.

A Fashion in Thinking

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

I have mentioned a few trends of Western life which surprise and shock a new arrival to this world. The purpose and scope of this speech will not allow me to continue such a review, to look into the influence of these Western characteristics on important aspects on [the] nation’s life, such as elementary education, advanced education in [?...]

Socialism

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.

Not a Model

But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life’s complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

Shortsightedness

Very well known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism’s well planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis; it prevents one from seeing the size and meaning of events.

In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is. There have been naive predictions by some American experts who believed that Angola would become the Soviet Union’s Vietnam or that Cuban expeditions in Africa would best be stopped by special U.S. courtesy to Cuba. Kennan’s advice to his own country — to begin unilateral disarmament — belongs to the same category. If you only knew how the youngest of the Moscow Old Square [1] officials laugh at your political wizards! As to Fidel Castro, he frankly scorns the United States, sending his troops to distant adventures from his country right next to yours.

However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation’s courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?

I have had occasion already to say that in the 20th century democracy has not won any major war without help and protection from a powerful continental ally whose philosophy and ideology it did not question. In World War II against Hitler, instead of winning that war with its own forces, which would certainly have been sufficient, Western democracy grew and cultivated another enemy who would prove worse and more powerful yet, as Hitler never had so many resources and so many people, nor did he offer any attractive ideas, or have such a large number of supporters in the West — a potential fifth column — as the Soviet Union. At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.

Loss of Willpower

And yet — no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing their lives.

Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western civilization forever.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?

Humanism and Its Consequences

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.

However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century’s moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.

An Unexpected Kinship

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism’s meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism’s crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

Before the Turn

I am not examining here the case of a world war disaster and the changes which it would produce in society. As long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we have to lead an everyday life. There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.

To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.

If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President’s performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.

It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.

Notes

[1] The Old Square in Moscow (Staraya Ploshchad’) is the place where the [headquarters] of the Central Committee of the CPSU are located; it is the real name of what in the West is conventionally referred to as “the Kremlin.”

Source: Texts of Famous Speeches at Harvard

Re-formatted in HTML by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1997

augustine@columbia.edu

     Joe Neal, South Carolina State Representative explains how “smart growth” embedded within Comprehensive Plans adopted by local government will encumber private property rights. He describes how “urban growth boundaries”  are arbitrarily created within plans which limit growth and development to specific areas. They think that is the smart way to develop hence the name “smart growth”. This means that if you own property outside of the “urban growth boundary” you will NOT be allowed to use YOUR land the way you want to. What they also do is change zoning so that uses that were previously allowed will no longer be allowed.

    For example, if you have a business located in an area  zoned for industry and the zoning for “industry” has now been eliminated in the comprehensive plan, then your ability to use your property (business) the way you like has just been destroyed.  Who will buy a business located in an area which is no longer zoned for that specific kind of business? Only an idiot would do that.

    As was mentioned in the video, how much value does your property have if you cannot use it to generate wealth? If you own your home, you hope to be able to sell it for more than you paid for it, it’s supposed to be an “investment” right? If you have a piece of land you’d like to put a business on, you don’t expect the commissioners to change the zoning so you can’t use your land.

 If the 3 minute video above does not play correctly in you tube, then click the link below and you can download it to watch it.

SouthCarolina _Comprehensive Planning.mp4

I am including a link to the longer video which is well worth taking the time to watch. This video was made 10 years ago.

http://vimeo.com/8821807

        To request a copy of the longer DVD contact Don Casey,  from the group Keep Our Rights www.keepourrights.org  at email him: don4132@gmail.com.

      While America burns the people fiddle. This is just another false flag event designed to destroy freedom and liberty and set up a police state. Marshall Law is on the horizon.  More domestic enslavement is headed our way.  They’ll be grabbing your crotch and your guns. A man without the ability to defend himself is a slave. Get it? Their goal: enslave the world in their clutches.

       How many false flags have happened just in the last century  or so? The USS Maine, The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin and 911. So many people have warned us over the centuries but we refuse to listen and to “see”.  Such a deadly choice we make. We will all be slaves to the “money masters” who rule the world. Who controls the money controls the world. It’s really very simple. It isn’t rocket science yet so few people will open their eyes to see as these bastards plunder the world and place all of us in bondage.

Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money…who has it? Money equals power.  Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.   Soon that corruption will be evident for all to see.

       Remember the old E. F. Hutton ad, when E. F. Hutton speaks people listen? I say when hate hustlers speak, you better listen very carefully to everyone the hate hustlers are condemning.  The condemned are the people you need to be listening to. They are telling you the truth. The truth is hate speech to those who hate hearing the truth.

Have you looked to see if YOU made it to the official  “hate map” the “Kings of Hate” put on display? Hate speech it’s what the SPLC commies love to bathe in.

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/02/media-hypocrisy-on-full-display-over-splc-hate-map/

 http://topconservativenews.com/2013/04/weekly-standard-slams-splc/

I was looking at some comments on a website after an article about crime in Indianapolis and saw a comment about the bike/walking trail that went through the heart of the city. It’s called the Monon Trail.

I figured I’d take a peek so I found this website that is all about trails.   http://www.traillink.com/  Lots and lots of trails. Bike trails.  I looked at the “reviews” of the Monon trail and was amused at the  candor  from several reviewers. Here’s one of them: “…Then down around 38th street there is a four or six lane dangerous crossing with heavy traffic and on below that industrial and blighted area that I did not feel comfortable going through. I made it all the way to the interstate which is the southern most end of the trail. There have been problems down this far with robberies and after reading about the need for increased surveilance [sic] and patrols I won’t be going here again without protection…. ” I wonder what this bike rider means by “protection”? Do they think a camera will save them? Fool. Remember when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Maybe they are thinking of bringing a handgun? Or a baseball bat? How about a four legged companion? Some of us know where those forms of protection are headed–outlawed and eventually eliminated because they have  a “carbon” footprint. Where are all the “animal” lovers?

And another…”you have two choices: you can ride the north end near Carmel where it is crowded, or you can ride on the other side of town where it is blighted. The closer you go to the city the more streets you cross, the more unsafe you feel, and the less bikers you see…”.

Here’s one more just for the hell of it “…The trail DOES go through the inner-city, but it is all very well lit, and I have never felt unsafe when riding. You just have to be smart, aware, and just as polite as usual. …”  Just be polite? Really? Is that all it takes?  Howdy folks, just passin’ on through, don’t rob me, or assault me, or kill me. If saying please don’t hurt me helped there would be thousands upon thousands of victims who would not have been a victim.   This bicyclist is a classic example of a brainwashed nitwit who thinks all you have to do, when finding yourself riding in an area where even the poor bastards living there don’t feel safe, is to be polite. Political correctness places people in harms way, in fact it kills.  He/she is what I call a  “Moaner in waiting” .  Lots of moaning and groaning or even becoming permanently silenced await fools who don’t recognize the “danger” all around them. What trail are you on?

  “Bike paths” or “walking paths” are all part of big daddy  (Oh, I better be PC, I don’t want to offend all the communitarians who hate men, especially White heterosexual men ) big momma Agenda 21. There will no longer be a safe, convenient, warm or cool car in the future for you, but you can take that path into hell. Eventually, you will note, that bike paths all lead into cities because you won’t have anywhere else to go. You won’t be joy riding in the country. The urban growth boundaries will keep you locked in   “green” ghettos  incorrectly named “smart growth”. All people in rural areas will be driven off their land.   Roads are being erased and access to rural areas will be eliminated for all but a few “chosen” people. And if you do venture out into the “uncharted forest” as Ayn Rand called it in her novel Anthem, one of the reintroduced carnivores awaits to bite your little head off and nibble on your tiny feet.   http://www.klamathconservation.org/docs/Carroll_LynxMarten_hi.pdf   You won’t be armed to attempt to protect yourself because they will have succeeded in taking all forms of self defense from you. http://www.infowars.com/amazon-disarms-brits-by-banning-self-defense-items/

Millions and millions of tax dollars are being diverted away from repairing our roads and bridges and are used to build bike paths instead. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/transportation-and-infrastructure-policy-more-state-and-less-federal-control http://rootsinalpharetta.com/2011/03/four-ways-to-wreak-havoc-on-north-fulton-traffic/  Search bike path and diverted dollars and you will find all kinds of info. Look around. Bike paths are everywhere.

 My question to you: Is this what you want for yourself and your family? I doubt it is, but I also know few will do anything to prevent it. Have you  given much thought to  how radically inconvenient and hard life will become when your freedom to use the mode of transportation you desire is ripped away from you? Perhaps its time you did. They like to portray what they are doing as a utopian place where we will all join hands and sing songs.  How can there be happiness if you don’t have freedom?

http://eagnews.org/wisconsin-education-officials-want-students-to-wear-white-privilege-wristbands/

Here are articles tracking what they did.

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/wisconsin-state-government-is-funding-hatred-against-white-people/

Of course now they claim they NEVER promoted this. They are backtracking because they were caught.

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/wisconsin-dpi-on-the-run-after-calling-for-white-privilege-wristbands/
http://topconservativenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/privilege.pdf    Here is the flyer with instructions for White kids on how they should grovel. It’s entitled, A Mental Model For White Anti-Racists”. Now remember, anti-racist really means anti-White because as far as the “social justice/cultural Marxist” crowd is concerned, only Whites are racists.

Tim Wise gets paid big bucks to go around the country to speak at high schools and colleges to tell White kids to hate themselves. He spews his hatred of White people disguised as “social justice”.

http://topconservativenews.com/2010/11/tim-wise-i-want-right-wing-white-people-dead/  

Here is a letter he wrote. Here is how his letter to White people begins:

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/04/chicago-public-schools-are-far-left-training-camps/ Black kids are being taught to hate whites. Make sure you watch the 5 min. video.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/blowing-the-whistle-on-a-la-raza-school
You can look up what is taught to Latinos in their “La Raza” studies.  La Raza means “The Race” and the race they refer to is their own. Latinos/Hispanics are being taught to hate White people.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wisc-university-stands-by-campaign-to-teach-diversity-by-writing-unfair-on-white-students-faces/ Make sure you look at what they wrote on white students’ faces.  Ex. “Is White skin really fair skin?”

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/the-real-unfair-campaign/ Here is an example of how unfair it is to be White.

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/03/fighting-the-unfair-campaign/ Here is another example.

In case you are not “tuned in” to who is doing what to whom, it is dangerous for you to remain ignorant. Colin Flaherty recently wrote a book entitled, White Girl Bleed A Lot. I suggest you take a look at it. The MSM often does not tell you “who” the perpetrators of many crimes are because the “social justice” con artists claim that information is “racist”. I know you have been brainwashed into believing its racist to notice- wrong! It is racist to hide facts from people.  You have a right to know.

http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2009/06/29/video-obamas-attorney-general-eric-holder-admits-no-equality-under-hate-crime-bill/ You also need to know that “hate crimes laws” don’t benefit or protect white people. Think Orwell’s Animal Farm where some animals are more equal than others.

You also need to know that gun bans place you in danger. Make sure you re-watch the 5 min video (in the article linked above) to understand this.

The purpose of flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens and legal immigrants is to eliminate the founding settlers and their culture. In Johannesburg South Africa, the mayor said, “There will be no work for Whites”. He said, they will “pursue the Black Economic Empowerment Laws aggressively”.  Can you see the handwriting on the wall?

If you want to know about how the president of South Africa singing songs about murdering the Whites (aka Boers) look here: http://www.southafricaproject.info/

When will the singing begin here?

This is Cultural Marxism.

This is Protocol No. 5.

This is being deliberately done.

Here is a recent Philadelphia Magazine article http://www.phillymag.com/articles/white-philly/ which the black Mayor of Philly, Mayor Nutter will now “investigate”.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/03/15/controversial-article-published-in-local-magazine-has-mayor-nutter-asking-for-investigation/

If you want to teach your kids and yourself what life would be like WITHOUT the contributions from White people then send them to the following website and have them, read this:

http://www.tomatobubble.com/wonderfulrace1.html

http://www.tomatobubble.com/wonderfulrace2.html

So will you be buying a wristband? Or, as is recommended that you do in the, A Mental Model For White Anti-Racists pdf  I linked to, have you “found a person of color who is willing to hold you accountable for addressing privilege” yet?

           The last of four memorial meetings sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression across Canada took place here this evening. Friend…s, former clients, admirers and members of Doug Christie’s Western Block party gathered to remember the Battling Barrister.

         Cecilia “Sissy” von Dehn  is a former nurse and midwife who, with a friend, several times passed out copies of Bill 48, the draconian legislation, brought in by the former NDP government, that sets up bubble zones around abortion clinics where no protests are allowed. “I felt no one knew what a bubble zone was. I distributed the law. We never discussed abortion. Apparently telling people what the law is in British Columbia is illegal. Our sign said: ‘You are in a bubble zone, Read Bill 48,’” Mrs. von Dehn explained.

            The Vancouver abortion clinic called the police and Mrs. von Dehn and her friend were arrested. She approached many law firms. “They were afraid of an unpopular case. I am grateful Doug Christie fought for another unpopular cause in my case,” she added.

             Another Doug Christie client, Terry Tremaine, spoke. Mr. Tremaine has been victimized by Richard Warman through a human rights complaint, a Criminal Code “hate law” complaint, three “contempt of court” complaints and a complaint to the University of Saskatchewan which resulted in the loss of his teaching position. “This whole country has become a bubble zone against free speech,” he said.

             “Doug Christie was my lawyer, but he was also my friend,” Tremaine said. “I haven’t been so affected by the death of anyone since the death of my own father in 1985,” he added. “No only have I lost my lawyer, I have lost my dear friend.”

           Mr. Tremaine was teaching at Red Deer College in 1983 while the James Keegstra “hate law” case was in progress. A student whose father had been Mr. Keegstra’s principal invited him to attend court one day. This was the first occasion Mr. Tremaine saw the Battling Barrister.

          James Keegstra was testifying. Mr. Tremaine had been prepared to see a monster from hyperventilating stories in the press. “But James Keegstra didn’t have horns. He was a sincere and thoughtful person and he started me off on a course of research that continues to this day.”

           “Doug Christie’s life was built on principle. He was devoted to freedom of speech and fought against people being fed into an unjust system.”

           “Doug Christie’s life was based on principle and he would withstand the rejection of lesser men. He was not swayed by the opinions of insignificant men. Doug was a hero for freedom,” he concluded.

           In his wrap-up, CAFE Director Paul Fromm reminded the audience that Doug Christie often said: The only freedoms you have are the ones you’re prepared to fight for.”

          “We have had thirty years of Trudeau’s lying Charter. He hijacked our Anglo-Saxon Common Law and replaced it with continental Napoleonic Law, where the state stingily doles out ‘rights’ to the serfs. The Charter, despite the apparent guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and freedom of religion is a fraud. We are far less free today, in terms of free speech, than we were before the Charter,” Mr. Fromm said.

          “In the Whatcott decision, traditional Christians have just had the boots put to them by a Supreme Court panel of six who included three Jews, who, and we’re not supposed to notice this fact, constitute less than one percent of the population. Made up rights, like self actualization and satisfaction for privileged minorities, have trumped freedom of speech for Christians. These are hard times.”

             “Doug Christie helped hold back the censors’ onslaught. He got the archaic ‘false news’ law thrown out at the Zundel trial and developed many challenges to the hate law which have not been adjudicated. He achieved the acquittal of Chief David Ahenakew and the staying of charges against Terry Tremaine in hate law cases. We must carry on with his work,” Mr. Fromm pledged.

— Paul Fromm

      Who were/are the communists? Who was Karl Mark aka Mordechai levy? What is Marxism?  Here’s a hint. It’s the same as Communism. Who has been behind the denigration of Christianity? Who is pushing for massive illegal and legal immigration into only Western Nations? Who is it?

The communist manifesto is their handbook. Here is an excerpt:

“…The history of all hitherto existing society⁽²⁾ is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master⁽³⁾ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune⁽⁴⁾: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation…