Scientific Evidence shows Dangers and Ineffectiveness of Ritalin

By L. Alan Sroufe
January 31, 2012

Three million children in this country take drugs for problems in focusing. Toward the end of last year, many of their parents were deeply alarmed because there was a shortage of drugs like Ritalin and Adderall that they considered absolutely essential to their children’s functioning.

But are these drugs really helping children? Should we really keep expanding the number of prescriptions filled?

In 30 years there has been a twentyfold increase in the consumption of drugs for attention-deficit disorder.

As a psychologist who has been studying the development of troubled children for more than 40 years, I believe we should be asking why we rely so heavily on these drugs.

Attention-deficit drugs increase concentration in the short term, which is why they work so well for college students cramming for exams. But when given to children over long periods of time, they neither improve school achievement nor reduce behavior problems. The drugs can also have serious side effects, including stunting growth.

Sadly, few physicians and parents seem to be aware of what we have been learning about the lack of effectiveness of these drugs.

What gets publicized are short-term results and studies on brain differences among children. Indeed, there are a number of incontrovertible facts that seem at first glance to support medication. It is because of this partial foundation in reality that the problem with the current approach to treating children has been so difficult to see.

Back in the 1960s I, like most psychologists, believed that children with difficulty concentrating were suffering from a brain problem of genetic or otherwise inborn origin. Just as Type I diabetics need insulin to correct problems with their inborn biochemistry, these children were believed to require attention-deficit drugs to correct theirs. It turns out, however, that there is little to no evidence to support this theory.

In 1973, I reviewed the literature on drug treatment of children for The New England Journal of Medicine. Dozens of well-controlled studies showed that these drugs immediately improved children’s performance on repetitive tasks requiring concentration and diligence. I had conducted one of these studies myself. Teachers and parents also reported improved behavior in almost every short-term study. This spurred an increase in drug treatment and led many to conclude that the “brain deficit” hypothesis had been confirmed.

But questions continued to be raised, especially concerning the drugs’ mechanism of action and the durability of effects. Ritalin and Adderall, a combination of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine, are stimulants. So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

However, there really was no paradox. Versions of these drugs had been given to World War II radar operators to help them stay awake and focus on boring, repetitive tasks. And when we reviewed the literature on attention-deficit drugs again in 1990 we found that all children, whether they had attention problems or not, responded to stimulant drugs the same way. Moreover, while the drugs helped children settle down in class, they actually increased activity in the playground. Stimulants generally have the same effects for all children and adults. They enhance the ability to concentrate, especially on tasks that are not inherently interesting or when one is fatigued or bored, but they don’t improve broader learning abilities.

And just as in the many dieters who have used and abandoned similar drugs to lose weight, the effects of stimulants on children with attention problems fade after prolonged use. Some experts have argued that children with A.D.D. wouldn’t develop such tolerance because their brains were somehow different. But in fact, theloss of appetite and sleeplessness in children first prescribed attention-deficit drugs do fade, and, as we now know, so do the effects on behavior. They apparently develop a tolerance to the drug, and thus its efficacy disappears. Many parents who take their children off the drugs find that behavior worsens, which most likely confirms their belief that the drugs work. But the behavior worsens because the children’s bodies have become adapted to the drug. Adults may have similar reactions if they suddenly cut back on coffee, or stop smoking.

To date, no study has found any long-term benefit of attention-deficit medication on academic performance, peer relationships or behavior problems, the very things we would most want to improve. Until recently, most studies of these drugs had not been properly randomized, and some of them had other methodological flaws.

But in 2009, findings were published from a well-controlled study that had been going on for more than a decade, and the results were very clear. The study randomly assigned almost 600 children with attention problems to four treatment conditions. Some received medication alone, some cognitive-behavior therapy alone, some medication plus therapy, and some were in a community-care control group that received no systematic treatment. At first this study suggested that medication, or medication plus therapy, produced the best results. However, after three years, these effects had faded, and by eight years there was no evidence that medication produced any academic or behavioral benefits.

Indeed, all of the treatment successes faded over time, although the study is continuing. Clearly, these children need a broader base of support than was offered in this medication study, support that begins earlier and lasts longer.

Nevertheless, findings in neuroscience are being used to prop up the argument for drugs to treat the hypothesized “inborn defect.” These studies show that children who receive an A.D.D. diagnosis have different patterns of neurotransmitters in their brains and other anomalies. While the technological sophistication of these studies may impress parents and nonprofessionals, they can be misleading. Of course the brains of children with behavior problems will show anomalies on brain scans. It could not be otherwise. Behavior and the brain are intertwined. Depression also waxes and wanes in many people, and as it does so, parallel changes in brain functioning occur, regardless of medication.

Many of the brain studies of children with A.D.D. involve examining participants while they are engaged in an attention task. If these children are not paying attention because of lack of motivation or an underdeveloped capacity to regulate their behavior, their brain scans are certain to be anomalous.

However brain functioning is measured, these studies tell us nothing about whether the observed anomalies were present at birth or whether they resulted from trauma, chronic stress or other early-childhood experiences. One of the most profound findings in behavioral neuroscience in recent years has been the clear evidence that the developing brain is shaped by experience.

It is certainly true that large numbers of children have problems with attention, self-regulation and behavior. But are these problems because of some aspect present at birth? Or are they caused by experiences in early childhood? These questions can be answered only by studying children and their surroundings from before birth through childhood and adolescence, as my colleagues at the University of Minnesota and I have been doing for decades.

Since 1975, we have followed 200 children who were born into poverty and were therefore more vulnerable to behavior problems. We enrolled their mothers during pregnancy, and over the course of their lives, we studied their relationships with their caregivers, teachers and peers. We followed their progress through school and their experiences in early adulthood. At regular intervals we measured their health, behavior, performance on intelligence tests and other characteristics.

By late adolescence, 50 percent of our sample qualified for some psychiatric diagnosis. Almost half displayed behavior problems at school on at least one occasion, and 24 percent dropped out by 12th grade; 14 percent met criteria for A.D.D. in either first or sixth grade.

Other large-scale epidemiological studies confirm such trends in the general population of disadvantaged children. Among all children, including all socioeconomic groups, the incidence of A.D.D. is estimated at 8 percent. What we found was that the environment of the child predicted development of A.D.D. problems. In stark contrast, measures of neurological anomalies at birth, I.Q. and infant temperament — including infant activity level — did not predict A.D.D.

Plenty of affluent children are also diagnosed with A.D.D. Behavior problems in children have many possible sources. Among them are family stresses like domestic violence, lack of social support from friends or relatives, chaotic living situations, including frequent moves, and, especially, patterns of parental intrusiveness that involve stimulation for which the baby is not prepared. For example, a 6-month-old baby is playing, and the parent picks it up quickly from behind and plunges it in the bath. Or a 3-year-old is becoming frustrated in solving a problem, and a parent taunts or ridicules. Such practices excessively stimulate and also compromise the child’s developing capacity for self-regulation.

Putting children on drugs does nothing to change the conditions that derail their development in the first place. Yet those conditions are receiving scant attention. Policy makers are so convinced that children with attention deficits have an organic disease that they have all but called off the search for a comprehensive understanding of the condition. The National Institute of Mental Health finances research aimed largely at physiological and brain components of A.D.D. While there is some research on other treatment approaches, very little is studied regarding the role of experience. Scientists, aware of this orientation, tend to submit only grants aimed at elucidating the biochemistry.

Thus, only one question is asked: are there aspects of brain functioning associated with childhood attention problems? The answer is always yes. Overlooked is the very real possibility that both the brain anomalies and the A.D.D. result from experience.

Our present course poses numerous risks. First, there will never be a single solution for all children with learning and behavior problems. While some smaller number may benefit from short-term drug treatment, large-scale, long-term treatment for millions of children is not the answer.

Second, the large-scale medication of children feeds into a societal view that all of life’s problems can be solved with a pill and gives millions of children the impression that there is something inherently defective in them.

Finally, the illusion that children’s behavior problems can be cured with drugs prevents us as a society from seeking the more complex solutions that will be necessary. Drugs get everyone — politicians, scientists, teachers and parents — off the hook. Everyone except the children, that is.

If drugs, which studies show work for four to eight weeks, are not the answer, what is? Many of these children have anxiety or depression; others are showing family stresses. We need to treat them as individuals.

As for shortages, they will continue to wax and wane. Because these drugs are habit forming, Congress decides how much can be produced. The number approved doesn’t keep pace with the tidal wave of prescriptions. By the end of this year, there will in all likelihood be another shortage, as we continue to rely on drugs that are not doing what so many well-meaning parents, therapists and teachers believe they are doing.

L. Alan Sroufe is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development.

Cancer causing Dioxin in Meat, eggs and Dairy

by Cassandra Anderson
January 30, 2012

Dioxin is the most toxic man-made chemical known regarding damage to health and the environment.  The EPA has withheld a study about dioxin for decades in order to protect large industries that produce dioxin while manufacturing herbicides and pesticides, plastics, chlorine, bleach, and other chemicals.  In addition, industrialized agriculture (Big Ag) has pressured the EPA to withhold the report because dioxin becomes concentrated in animal products like meat, eggs and dairy.

The non-cancer portion of the EPA report is due out by the end of January 2012, with the cancer portion to follow at some unspecified date.

Dioxin is an umbrella term for a class of super toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, liver disease, immune system damage and many other health problems.  There is no safe ‘threshold’ dose as our bodies have zero defense against dioxin, according to health consultant Jonathan Campbell.

Dioxin has a half life of over 100 years in the environment when it is below the surface or dumped in waterways.

Prior Dioxin Contamination

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the largest producers of 2,4,5-T herbicide that created dioxin as a byproduct and was used as an agricultural herbicide before the 1950′s.  Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other makers of dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T produced 50 MILLION pounds of these chemicals per year for agricultural uses in the US!  Since 1947, more than 300 million pounds of dioxin laden 2,4,5-T was sprayed on more than 400 MILLION acres of US land, mostly on farms and agricultural property.

The 2,4,5-T dioxin-containing herbicide was later combined with 2,4-D to create Agent Orange for chemical warfare against Viet Nam.

Both Monsanto and Dow Chemical were aware, since the 1950′s, that German company Boeringer was able to produce herbicide 2,4,5-T without any detectable dioxin by slow cooking the chemical for about 12 hours.  But Monsanto and Dow ignored this information and cooked their 2,4,5-T batches in 45 minutes or less, thus contaminating the product with dioxin — presumably for higher profits.

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were also aware that dioxin caused health problems. Monsanto and Dow Chemical would go bankrupt if they were actually held accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment. The herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970′s.

Read Full Article…

Ron Paul to Win more Delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined this Week

Christian Science Monitor
January 31, 2012

This week, Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. In fact, he’s likely to win more delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

“Hold it”, you’re saying, “How can that be? Rep. Paul’s polling in single digits in Florida. He’s going to finish behind Gingrich and Santorum, as well as Mitt Romney, in Tuesday’s Florida primary. How can that translate into beating any of his rivals at all?”

We’ll tell you how – because he’s not winning those delegates in Florida. He’s winning, or will probably win, at least a few delegates in Maine.

Paul took a quick two-day swing through Maine over the weekend, in case you didn’t notice. He met withGOP Gov. Paul LePage. He spoke to big crowds throughout the state – in Lewiston, apparently, event organizers had to expand his conference room to handle the people who showed up.

He even landed the coveted L.L. Bean endorsement – that’s Linda Lorraine Bean, heiress of the L.L. Bean empire and a lobster roll entrepreneur in her own right. She endorsed Paul on Saturday from her restaurant in the retail outlet mecca of Freeport.

Asked why she wasn’t supporting fellow New Englander Mitt Romney, Ms. Bean said “I’ve always been for Ron Paul”, according to a statement posted on Paul’s campaign web site.

As we’ve previously reported, unnoticed by most of the DC-based political establishment, the Maine caucuses actually began this weekend. So Paul wasn’t in Maine just because he likes riding around in salt-crusted Suburus.

Most Maine towns will hold their caucuses during the state GOP’s preferred window of February 4-11. But “most” doesn’t mean “all”. Lincoln, Lowell, Burlington, Chester, Enfield, Winn, and Howland held their joint caucus on Saturday. Millinocket’s was on Sunday. And so forth.

Read Full Article…

Foro Social Mundial llama a Protestar contra el Capitalismo

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
30 de enero 2012

¿Qué es lo que las élites en Davos, Suiza tienen en común con los favorecidos del soborno estatal (Estado Benefactor) en las naciones del tercer mundo? Por lo menos un par de cosas. Ambos se han beneficiado enormemente del capitalismo, sin embargo, ambos también lo señalan como un sistema perverso, responsable de cosas como la desigualdad y la injusticia social. Ninguno de los dos grupos dicen a qué tipo de capitalismo que se refieren, el capitalismo corporativo o el verdadero capitalismo de libre mercado. En el caso de los grupos de protesta en el mundo en desarrollo quizás sea porque nunca experimentaron el verdadero capitalismo o saben lo que es en realidad. Como ya informamos la semana pasada, elitistas en Davos están circulando la idea de que el capitalismo es obsoleto y que sólo un nuevo sistema administrado por sus corporaciones y los bancos puede hacer que el mundo detenga la actual segunda Gran Depresión. El fin de semana, miles de asistentes al Foro Social Mundial celebrado en la ciudad de Porto Alegre, Brasil, llegaron a la conclusión de que el capitalismo es el mal más grande jamás creado (no es sorpresa) y que planean protestar en contra del mismo en junio próximo.

El haber vivido y estudiado en un país del tercer mundo durante los primeros 20 años ayuda a tener una muy buena idea de los beneficios y los males que el Estado Benefactor es capaz de crear. El vivir en un país del primer mundo por diez años, ayuda a equilibrar el punto de vista tanto sobre el estado de soborno de los gobiernos socialistas con su Estado Benefactor y el ejemplo más cercano al capitalismo de libre mercado. El análisis concluye que el Estado Benefactor provoca más daño que bien a la gente.

Solo basta echar un vistazo a las naciones de América Latina cuyos habitantes se benefician de la asistencia social. Ambas naciones democráticas y no democráticas crean programas de asistencia social en beneficio de aquellos que supuestamente no pueden ayudarse a sí mismos. Este sistema de seguridad social administrado por el Estado, pero financieramente sostenido por la clase media a cuyos miembros se les exprime sus ingresos para pagar por los llamados programas de bienestar social.

Aunque muchos podrían argumentar que sin esos programas de asistencia social millones de personas morirían de hambre y enfermedades, la verdad es que la contribución del gobierno a los pobres es insignificante en comparación con el dinero recaudado a través de impuestos. Tomemos por ejemplo el país de Costa Rica, uno de los países más estables de América Latina. Allí, la deuda del gobierno central representa el 30% de los ingresos totales. Mientras tanto, el país apenas invierte un 17,3 por ciento de su PIB en salud pública, educación y bienestar social en conjunto. Así, mientras la burocracia se come un tercio de los ingresos del gobierno, los pobres y dependientes tienen que compartir la mitad de esa cantidad. La economía costarricense ha pasado de ser una auto-suficiente para una economía de servicios, donde las multinacionales están autorizadas a instalar sus fábricas libre de impuestos, pero pagan salarios miserables a los trabajadores locales. Costa Rica ahora depende en gran medida del turismo y la producción de productos electrónicos y componentes electrónicos. Ambas actividades tienden a disminuir a medida que la crisis económica mundial se expande fuera de control. ¿Cuál es el resultado de la falta de liderazgo y/o interés del gobierno por realmente mejorar el estado de esta nación? Pobreza. Los barrios que una vez eran pobres y de clase media como Hatillo, San Sebastián, Sagrada Familia y San José centro han sido testigos de un aumento exponencial en la pobreza, convirtiéndose en verdaderas favelas con más delincuencia y agitación social. Otro ejemplo, Brasil, quizás el país con mayor crecimiento en el mundo en desarrollo y uno de los países más socialistas en América. El gobierno presidido por Dilma Rousseff tiene un PIB total de 2.9 billones de dólares anuales. De esa cantidad, la deuda del gobierno central asciende al 54 por ciento del PIB, mientras que sólo una fracción es invertida en programas sociales. La carga tributaria en Brasil llega fácilmente al 33 por ciento, y una gran parte de estos dineros se gasta financiando uno de los regímenes más corruptos del planeta, según Transparency International. En este país sudamericano, la mayoría de la gente tiene que recurrir a la economía secundaria (recogiendo latas y botellas de plástico, venta de mercancía de marca falsa y así sucesivamente) para sobrevivir. Los altos impuestos con poca inversión en infraestructura, por ejemplo, hace de Brasil una de las opciones más problemáticas para los inversionistas locales y extranjeros de Brasil. La brecha entre los ricos y los pobres en Brasil sigue creciendo, mientras que la clase media se reduce cada vez más. De los casi 200 millones de habitantes que Brasil tiene hoy en día, 26 por ciento ( unos 56 milliones ) viven bajo la línea de pobreza. En Costa Rica este número llega al 23.9 por ciento, o sea unos 1.119.000 millones de personas del total de casi 5 millones de habitantes.

Pero quizás el mayor daño causado por el Estado Benefactor es que hace pensar a las personas que ese estado es la única alternativa a la falta de oportunidades para crecer como individuos. Dado que las clases pobres se convierten en absolutamente dependientes de la burocracia para sobrevivir, este hecho da al Estado, a los ojos de los burócratas y de los favorecidos con las dádivas estatales, una legitimidad para demandar que se les de esas dádivas y que sus políticos gobiernen al estilo Robin Hood: robarle a unos para darle a otros. Pero, como hemos señalado antes, si la mayor parte del dinero de los impuestos se mantiene en las arcas de los gobiernos centrales, como se supone que va a ayudar a los pobres.

Como se observa en los países desarrollados, un gobierno más pequeño y menos impuestos para los individuos y los empresarios es la única combinación de políticas que estimula el crecimiento económico. La libertad de gastar su dinero como mejor le parezca es lo que faculta a las personas a crecer y forjar su propio destino. Crecimiento personal y social se deriva de tener el poder de decidir qué es lo que uno como persona quiere hacer al mismo tiempo que se acepta con plenitud la responsabilidad de nuestras decisiones, tanto en el ambiente personal como social. La corta duración que el verdadero capitalismo de libre mercado tuvo en el siglo XX, se derivó de las sociedades compuestas por personas libres y este sistema fue el que estimuló el ingenio y el desarrollo. Recibir un cheque de asistencia social gratuita una vez al mes mientras que se sienta a esperar a que otra persona tome la responsabilidad de sus decisiones, logra exactamente lo contrario.

Pero de acuerdo con las élites y muchos miembros del Foro Social Mundial, el mundo debe ser gobernado por una entidad central que promueva y aplique una economía social y “verde”, dando prioridad a la erradicación del hambre. Esta iniciativa tiene la intención de presionar a los funcionarios que participarán en la conferencia de la ONU sobre el desarrollo sostenible programado del 20 al 22 junio en Río de Janeiro. Este encuentro será el cuarto intento de la organización globalista para convencer a las naciones del tercer mundo que es necesario crear una entidad central con el poder de demandar dinero de las clases medias en los países desarrollados para dárselo a la gente rica en el tercer mundo. Los intentos anteriores han fracasado debido a las revelaciones de que las propuestas de las Naciones Unidas para crear un sistema de basado en le socialismo y el comunismo en todo el mundo tiene la intención de borrar la soberanía de todos los participantes de este acuerdo.

¿Cómo puede ser que la élite del mundo y los movimientos populares, que supuestamente luchan contra las políticas de empobrecimiento apoyados por la élite, estén de acuerdo sobre la manera de resolver los problemas, a saber: terminar con el capitalismo e instalar un sistema global de gobierno socialista? Como informamos en 2010, los movimientos como el Foro Social Mundial son ejemplos de oposición o disidencia controlada, es decir, financiadas y dirigidas por la élite contra la que dicen estar luchando. Según el autor, Michel Chossudovsky, “los mecanismos de fabricación de disidencia requieren un entorno de manipulación, un proceso de presión y cooptación sutil de los individuos dentro de las organizaciones progresistas, incluyendo coaliciones anti-guerra, ambientalistas y el movimiento anti-globalización. El objetivo interno es “fabricar disidencia” y establecer los límites de lo “políticamente correcto” en la oposición. A su vez, muchas ONG están infiltradas por informantes que a menudo actúan en nombre de las agencias de inteligencia occidentales. Por otra parte, un segmento cada vez mayor de los medios de comunicación alternativos progresistas en Internet se ha convertido en dependiente de la financiación de fundaciones empresariales y organizaciones de caridad. “

En su artículo “Fabricando Disidencia: El Financiamiento Corporativo del movimiento de protesta“, el autor Michel Chossudovsky explica que es imposible lograr un verdadero movimiento de disidencia en masa, cuando las organizaciones que dicen apoyar las demandas populares están fuertemente financiadas por la élite. Dice en relación al Foro Económico Mundial:

El movimiento popular ha sido secuestrado. Los intelectuales seleccionados, los ejecutivos de los sindicatos, y los líderes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil (entre ellas Oxfam, Amnistía Internacional, Greenpeace) se suelen invitar al Foro Económico Mundial, donde se mezclan con los actores más poderosos del mundo económico y político. Esta mezcla de las élites empresariales del mundo con unos cuantos “progresistas” es parte del ritual que subyace al proceso de “fabricación de disidencia”. El truco consiste en seleccionar personalmente y cuidadosamente los líderes de la sociedad civil “, con quienes pueden contar para integrarlos en un diálogo, aislarlos de sus bases, que se sientan que son “ciudadanos globales” que actúan en nombre de sus compañeros de trabajo pero los hacen actuar de una manera que sirva a los intereses de la clase dirigente corporativa: “La participación de las ONG en la reunión anual en Davos es la evidencia del hecho de que [nosotros] a propósito tratamos de integrar un amplio espectro de los principales actores de la sociedad en … la definición y promoción del programa global … Creemos que el Foro Económico Mundial ofrece a la comunidad de negocios el marco ideal para realizar esfuerzos de colaboración con los principales interesados y otros [ONG] de la economía mundial para “mejorar el estado del mundo ”, que es la misión del Foro.(Foro Económico Mundial, Comunicado de Prensa 05 de enero 2001). El Foro Económico Mundial no representa a la comunidad empresarial en general. Es un encuentro elitista: Sus miembros son gigantescas corporaciones mundiales (con un mínimo de $ 5 mil millones el volumen de negocios anual). El seleccionado de organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) son vistas como socios de “partes interesadas”, así como un práctico (Foro Económico Mundial – Organizaciones No Gubernamentales, 2010) “portavoz de los sin voz, que a menudo son excluidos de los procesos de decisión.”

Y sobre el Foro Social Mundial:

Desde el principio, en 2001, el FSM fue apoyado económicamente por la Fundación Ford, que se sabe tiene vínculos con la CIA que se remontan a la década de 1950: “La CIA utiliza fundaciones filantrópicas como el conducto más efectivo para canalizar grandes sumas de dinero a proyectos de la Agencia sin alertar a los destinatarios de su origen. “(James Petras, la Fundación Ford y la CIA, Global Research, 18 de septiembre de 2002). El mismo procedimiento de donantes financian las contra-cumbres y cumbres que caracterizó a la década de 1990, con personas como las que constituyen el Foro Social Mundial (FSM): “… otras entidades de financiamiento del FSM (o ‘socios’, como se les conoce en la terminología del FSM) incluyen la Fundación Heinrich Boll, que es controlada por el partido alemán Los Verdes, socio en el presente [2003] del gobierno alemán y un partidario de las guerras en Yugoslavia y Afganistán (su líder, Joschka Fischer es el [ex] ministro de Relaciones Exteriores alemán), además están otros organismos como Oxfam (Reino Unido), Novib (Países Bajos), ActionAid (Reino Unido), y así sucesivamente.

De acuerdo con la publicación Breitbart, este año el Foro Social Mundial abrió sus puertas a los miembros de varios otros grupos que protestan contra los gobiernos, tales como el movimiento de la primavera árabe, el movimiento de “indignados” de España, Occupy Wall Street, y estudiantes de Chile. Todos estos movimientos populares han criticado el concepto globalizador de “una economía verde”, ya que está diseñado para dar a las multinacionales más beneficios para que alcancen el tan ansiosamente buscado control global de los ahora gobiernos soberanos. Irónicamente, el Movimiento Occupy Wall Street es uno de esos grupos que es cooptado por organizaciones globalistas y fundaciones.Algunos de los líderes del Foro Social Mundial dejaron en claro que su lucha es una batalla para convencer a un 98 por ciento de la población mundial que un grupo compuesto por un 1 por ciento se niega a aceptar el concepto colectivista de la justicia social. Este concepto se basa en la creencia de que no importa cómo la gente logre ser  exitosa, en lo económico o de otra manera, deben dar parte de su patrimonio e ingresos para un gran grupo de auto conformistas que se sienten dueños de los cheques que reciben mensualmente.

“Las élites políticas y económicas son el uno por ciento que controlan el mundo y somos uno por ciento para el cambio. ¿Dónde está el (otro) 98 por ciento? “, Dijo Chico Whitaker, uno de los fundadores del Foro. ”Hay muchos que están contentos porque cada vez reciben más bienes de consumo, pero muchos están preocupados e insatisfechos. El desafío para nosotros es hablar con ellos. “” Si no planteamos la cuestión de la desigualdad, no vamos a resolver los problemas “, dijo el sociólogo venezolano Edgardo Lander. ”Si el sistema no es capaz de redistribuir y hacer frente a la desigualdad, tenemos que hacerlo nosotros mismos”, coincidió Sam Halvorsen, del movimiento Ocupar Londres.Lo que estos supuestos líderes no dicen es que las naciones gobernadas por regímenes socialistas o comunistas siempre son menos libres, menos exitosas, menos iguales y menos independientes. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha tenido el socialismo y el comunismo para arreglar los problemas de desigualdad que existen? ¿Cuáles han sido sus contribuciones claves para acabar con la pobreza y la miseria, especialmente en los países del tercer mundo? Esta es una pregunta que probablemente nunca ha sido preguntada en reuniones como el Foro Económico Mundial o el Foro Social Mundial, sin embargo ambos movimientos y sus partidarios insisten en que esto es el camino a seguir. No son el socialismo y el comunismo, tan anticuados como el capitalismo corporativo?Por otro lado, ¿qué hizo el verdadero capitalismo de libre mercado logró mientras se le permitió funcionar como modelo económico?

Socialistas y comunistas pueden responder a esta pregunta diciendo que su programa no está destinado a promover el consumismo, y que las sociedades de libre mercado están destinados a convertirse en grandes grupos de individuos poseídos por el deseo de tener más y más. Una posible respuesta a esta idea es que sólo el capitalismo de libre mercado tiene el poder “natural” de acabar con el consumismo pues las fuerzas del mercado definen lo que se necesita y lo que no. Como hemos aprendido, todas las burbujas creadas artificialmente tienden a explotar, a menos que se mantengan artificialmente (por ejemplo la burbuja financiera, la burbuja inmobiliaria y la burbuja de los productos financieros artificiales conocidos como derivativos. (Todos ellos creados por la élite globalista.). ¿Qué tiene el Foro Económico Mundial o el Foro Social Mundial, que decir acerca de las burbujas? Nada. No hay investigaciones sobre las causas reales de la crisis económica actual, ninguna investigación oficial sobre quien se benefició con el empobrecimiento de millones de personas, tanto en los países desarrollados como subdesarrollados. Los líderes que supuestamente deben conducir a los movimientos de protesta para recobrar los que el Fascismo Corporativo le hay quitado a las gentes del planeta, se han limitado a seguir el guión de sus apoderados globalistas.

No importa que haya una brecha de credibilidad y de moralidad, como lo dijo Klaus Schwab, fundador del Foro Económico Mundial, la semana pasada en Davos. La élite y sus disidentes controlados seguirán presionando para que haya un cambio para lo peor, un sistema global socialista que va a estar siempre listo para robar de la producción de unos para dar a los improductivos. El objetivo es imponer el sistema fascista de bienestar corporativo y el sistema socialista de bienestar social como modelos de un mundo donde la élite tiene el control completo de los recursos, la producción y la sociedad.

Third World Welfare Recipients to Protest ‘Evil’ Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And about the World Social Forum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Links:









Partner Links