“Powerful government always ignores the rights of the people.”
“The European Union is simply Hitlers plan as implimented by Albert Speer( Hitler’s economic minister) for a united europe.” – JBS CEO Arthur Thompson
“If the Americans should manufacture a lock of wool or a horse shoe, I would fill their ports with ships and their towns with troops.” William Pitt- Prime Minister of Great Britain( 1766-1768)
“Following the war (of 1812), however, cheap British imports flooded the(American) nation, threatening to undermine local industries. In Parliament, a British minister defended the practice of dumping goods at prices below their actual cost on grounds that outraged Americans. “It is well worth while,” the minister declared, “to incur a loss upon the first exportation, in order, by a glut, to stifle in the cradle those rising manufacturers in the United States… ” (source)
“Give us a protective tariff, and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” Abraham Lincoln
“There is no example in all history
where free or cheap raw material and cheap labor has any ad-
vantage whatever over our own system of Protection to all our
labor and all our industries.”
From the time of the landing of the Pilgrims in 1620 to the
formation of our Government under a constitution in 1789 there
were in this country no general duties upon imports; in short,
we were living under Free-Trade, and foreign nations were able
to place in our market without restraint every article which we
were liable to buy. After we had secured independence and were united as a confederacy during the years from 1783 to 1789,
when we existed as a union of colonies, this Free-Trade was ac-
companied by most disastrous results. The wares of foreign
countries, and particularly of Great Britain, were dumped upon
our shores, for which our money went abroad until we were
drained of all our specie and had not even a dollar left as a cir-
culating medium. Because of the goods which came from abroad
our own laborers were idle, and nothing but debt and ruin stared
us in the face.
This state of affairs was one of the principal causes which led
to the adoption of a Constitution and a uniform Government
throughout the States in 1789. It is not surprising, then, that
the first law placed upon our statute books affecting the people was a Tariff law intended not only as a means of revenue, but for
the encouragement and Protection of manufactures. The effect
was at once seen in the industrial progress which we made in
both agriculture and manufactures, in spite of the attempts of
the mother country to crush our every industry in the States.
No material and complete revision of our first tariff of 1789
was made until 1812, when it was enacted:
“That an additional duty of 100 per cent, upon the permanent
duties now imposed by law upon goods, wares, and merchandise
imported into the United States shall be levied and collected upon
all goods, wares, and merchandise which shall, from and after
the passing of this act, be imported into the United States from
any foreign port or place.”
And it was further enacted:
“That this act shall continue In force so long as the United
States shall be engaged in war with Great Britain and until the
expiration of one year after the conclusion of peace, and no
longer: Provided, however, That the additional duties laid by
this act shall be collected on all such goods, wares, and merchan-
dise as shall have been previously imported.”
This was the only complete revision of the tariff that has taken
place in our history on account of war. The increase in tariff
rates, coupled with the prohibitions of non-intercourse, threw us
on our resources and resulted in the establishment of many new
industries, which, in spite of the ravages of war, brought im-
mense increase of national wealth and business activity. In a
special message to Congress, February 20, 1815, President Madi*
“Deliberate consideration of the means to preserve and pro-
mote the manufactures which have sprung into existence and at-
tained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States
during the period of the European wars,”
KAPTUR: MR. SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY JOBS THIS NATION HAS OUTSOURCED OVER THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY BECAUSE OF FLAWED FREE TRADE DEALS. THESE JOB-KILLING DEALS LIKE NAFTA HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY HARMFUL TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, RACKING UP A MASSIVE, MASSIVE TRADE DEFICIT OF $9.5 TRILLION, AND THEY FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE OF CREATING JOBS. INSTEAD, THEY WIPED OUT GOOD JOBS, HIGH-PAYING JOBS ACROSS OUR COUNTRY. TAKE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH SHUT DOWN PLANTS ALL OVER OUR COUNTRY FROM CALIFORNIA TO FLORIDA. MOTOROLA SHUT DOWN THOSE OPERATIONS AND MOVED PRODUCTION TO CHINA, TO SOUTH AMERICA, TO EASTERN EUROPE. TAKE WALGREENS, WHICH HAS OUTSOURCED ITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO MEXICO, TO INDIA, LEAVING ITS ILLINOIS EMPLOYEES JOBLESS. MEANWHILE, SIX YEARS AFTER THE RECESSION, OHIO AND 14 OTHER STATES HAVE JOB MARKETS THAT HAVE NOT YET RECOVERED FROM THE NUMBER OF JOBS LOST DURING THE RECESSION. HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS, MILLIONS OF GOOD-QUALITY, GOOD-PAYING MANUFACTURING JOBS HAVE NOT RETURNED. CITIZENS OF THESE STATES, LIKE OHIO, ARE FIGHTING FOR HONEST EMPLOYMENT. SINCE 1976 AMERICA HAS LITERALLY OUTSOURCED 47,500,000 GOOD JOBS. WE HAVE A BUDGET DEFICIT BECAUSE WE HAVE A $9.5 TRILLION TRADE DEFICIT. WE MUST SUPPORT JOB SEEKERS, MORE LOPSIDED TRADE DEALS ARE NOT THE ANSWER. WE SIMPLY HAVE TO REFORM OUR TRADE POLICIES.
Kiss Your Pension Fund Goodbye
Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party.
“Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I’m the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a ‘bold decision’ to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.
You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people. Somehow it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.
Frederick Douglass called Republicans the ‘Party of freedom and progress,’ and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.
The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.
You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.
The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they’ve always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them.
Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché.
The idea of freedom is complex and it is all-encompassing. It’s the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It’s the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it’s the idea that the emails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure. It’s the idea that parents must be the decision makers in regards to their children’s education — not some government bureaucrat.
But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than the author of our destiny. These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.
So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, ‘free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.’
“Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time. The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as “shortening the replacement cycle”).” wikipedia
In 1932 with Bernard London‘s pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence:
“An equally important advantage of a system of planned obsolescence would be its function in providing a new reservoir from which to draw income for the operation of the Government.”
“My proposal would put the entire country on the road to recovery, and eventually restore normal employment conditions and sound prosperity. My suggested remedy would provide a permanent source of income for the Federal Government and would relieve it for all time of the difficulties of balancing its budget. Briefly stated, the essence of my plan for accomplishing these much-to-be-desired-ends is to chart the obsolesce of capital and consumption goods at the time of their production. I would have the Government assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all products of manufacture, mining and agriculture, when they are first created, and they would be sold and used within the term of their existence definitely known by the consumer. After the allotted time had expired, these things would be legally “dead” and would be controlled by the duly appointed governmental agency and destroyed if there is widespread unemployment. New products would constantly be pouring forth from the factories and marketplaces, to take the place of the obsolete, and the wheels of industry would be kept going and employment regularized and assured for the masses.”
COMPETITION IS A SIN
When asked how he could justify the treachery and deceit with which he pursued the creation of the Standard Oil monopoly, John D. Rockefeller is reputed to have said: “Competition is a sin.” This is the mentality of the monopolist, and it is this justification, framed as religious conviction, that drove the oiligarchs to so ruthlessly eliminate anyone who would dare rise up as a pretender to their throne.
Bailout is the tale of an unemployed Chicago lawyer who stops paying his mortgage and enlists four friends (also unemployed) to join him in a Winnebago trip to Las Vegas. Their plan is tear a page out of Wall Street’s playbook and piss away the bank’s money by gambling and partying their asses off. Along the way our gang discovers first hand how Americans have been adversely affected by the financial crisis, principally through foreclosures. S ee first-hand how politically powerful banks are systemically eliminating America’s middle class through off-shored job losses and fraudulent home foreclosures.
An enigma wrapped in Doc-hybrid form, Bailout is a social documentary that explores American anger with the Wall Street elites who survive and thrive on their cancerous system of bailouts, fraud, and political corruption that actively work in concert to destroy Main Street. From entry-level workers in northeast Indiana RV factories to Congressional leaders to rock stars, Bailout tells the story of recent American economic events through the mouths of people who labored through thick and thin–what it was and how it has affected us all. The film focuses on unchecked financial fraud and the refusal to punish such fraud that lies at the root of our nation’s illness, examined through the well informed filter of its lead character, John Titus and his “dukes of moral hazard”. While many financial documentaries have done a great job of enraging audiences and leaving us shaking our heads, Bailout is a call to action inspiring Americans to exercise their right to speak out against injustice and take their grievances to the streets until their voices are heard. The film features well-known personalities from both sides of the political aisle leveling blistering attacks on the anything-for-big-banks culture that pervades all of politics today. Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, and Yves Smith deliver critiques from the traditional “left,” counter-balanced by MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Florida Tea Party co-founder Karl Denninger, and Wall Street banking analyst Christopher Whalen.
“Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.” – Bertrand Russell
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology … Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part … It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.
The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship … The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.
… the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.” (pg 40)
“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy … It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished … Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible …
“The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia … If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method …
Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.” (pgs 49,50)
“After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.” (pg 54)
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s. However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.
There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practiced: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia … Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.” (pgs 103,104)
“The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.” (pg 105)
“A society is not stable unless it is on the whole satisfactory to the holders of power and the holders of power are not exposed to the risk of successful revolution.” (pg 110)
“First, as regards physical conditions. Soil and raw materials must not be used up so fast that scientific progress cannot continually make good the loss by means of new inventions and discoveries … If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them in – such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to soil conservation.
Second, as regards population … To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.” (pgs 110, 111)
ebook preview: The impact of Science on Society
ebook preview: The Scientific Outlook – Bertrand Russell
EDUCATION IN A SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY
“EDUCATION has two purposes: on the one hand to form the mind, on the other hand to train the citizen. The Athenians concentrated on the former, the Spartans on the latter. The Spartans won, but the Athenians were remembered.
Education in a scientific society may, I think, be best conceived after the analogy of the education provided by the Jesuits. The Jesuits provided one sort of education for the boys who were to become ordinary men of the world, and another for those who were to become members of the Society of Jesus. In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play. Children will be educated from their earliest years in the manner which is found least likely to produce complexes.”
“These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kim-berly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.” – Frederic C. Howe
Civil Asset Forfeiture:
“Every year, federal and state law enforcement agents seize millions of dollars from civilians during traffic stops, simply by asserting that they believe the money is connected to some illegal activity and without ever pursuing criminal charges. Under federal law and the laws of most states, they are entitled to keep most (and sometimes all) of the money and property they seize. ” (Source)