How Long Will the Dollar Remain the World’s Reserve Currency?


We frequently hear the financial press refer to the U.S. dollar as the “world’s reserve currency,” implying that our dollar will always retain its value in an ever shifting world economy. But this is a dangerous and mistaken assumption.

Since August 15, 1971, when President Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold, the U.S. dollar has operated as a pure fiat currency. This means the dollar became an article of faith in the continued stability and might of the U.S. government.

In essence, we declared our insolvency in 1971. Everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it– not even a pretense of gold convertibility! Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence backed the dollar with oil.

In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite radical Islamic movements among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement also gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as the dollar flourished.

In 2003, however, Iran began pricing its oil exports in Euro for Asian and European buyers. The Iranian government also opened an oil bourse in 2008 on the island of Kish in the Persian Gulf for the express purpose of trading oil in Euro and other currencies. In 2009 Iran completely ceased any oil transactions in U.S. dollars. These actions by the second largest OPEC oil producer pose a direct threat to the continued status of our dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a threat which partially explains our ongoing hostility toward Tehran.

While the erosion of our petrodollar agreement with OPEC certainly threatens the dollar’s status in the Middle East, an even larger threat resides in the Far East. Our greatest benefactors for the last twenty years– Asian central banks– have lost their appetite for holding U.S. dollars. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks understand that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency.

If we act now to replace the fiat system with a stable dollar backed by precious metals or commodities, the dollar can regain its status as the safest store of value among all government currencies. If not, the rest of the world will abandon the dollar as the global reserve currency.

Both Congress and American consumers will then find borrowing a dramatically more expensive proposition. Remember, our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.

Pension Scandal Shakes up Venezuelan Oil Giant

August 17, 2011

Venezuela received an enviable honor last month: OPEC said it is sitting on the biggest reserves of crude oil in the world — even more than Saudi Arabia.

But the Venezuelan oil industry is also sitting atop a well of trouble.

The South American nation has struggled to take advantage of its bonanza of expanding reserves. And a scandal over embezzled pension funds at state oil company PDVSA has renewed concerns about corruption and mismanagement.

Retired workers from the oil behemoth have taken to the streets in protest. Their beef: nearly half a billion dollars of pension fund money was lost after it was invested in what turned out to be a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme run by a U.S. financial advisor who was closely linked to President Hugo Chavez’s government.

The fraud case centers on Francisco Illarramendi, a Connecticut hedge fund manager with joint U.S.-Venezuelan citizenship who used to work as a U.S.-based advisor to PDVSA and the Finance Ministry.

Several top executives at PDVSA have been axed since the scandal, which one former director of the company said proved Venezuela under Chavez had become “a moral cesspool.”

Pensioners are not the only ones still wondering how such a large chunk of the firm’s $2.5 billion pension fund was invested with Illarramendi in the first place.

The question cuts to the heart of the challenges facing PDVSA, one of Latin America’s big three oil companies alongside Pemex of Mexico and Brazil’s Petrobras.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries issued a report last month showing Venezuela surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest holder of crude oil reserves in 2010.

PDVSA is ranked by Petroleum Intelligence Weekly as the world’s fourth largest oil company thanks to its reserves, production, refining and sales capacity, and it has been transformed in recent years into the piggy-bank of Chavez’s “21st Century Socialism.”

The timing of the scandal is not good for Chavez: the charismatic, 57-year-old former coup leader underwent cancer surgery in Cuba in June and is fighting to recover his health to run for re-election next year. He needs every cent possible from PDVSA for the social projects that fuel his popularity.


The company does a lot more than pump Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Tapped constantly to replenish government coffers, PDVSA funds projects ranging from health and education to arts and Formula One motor racing. From painting homes to funding medical clinics staffed by Cuban doctors, the restoration of a Caracas shopping boulevard and even a victorious team at the Rio carnival, there’s little that PDVSA doesn’t do.

Jeffrey Davidow, a former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela who now heads the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, points to the occasion when PDVSA senior executives turned down invitations to a regional energy conference at the last minute back in May, saying they were too busy because of PDVSA’s leading role in the government’s “Gran Mission Vivienda” project. It aims to build two million homes over the next seven years.

“In poorly-managed societies, national oil companies tend to be the most efficient organizations, so the government gives them more work to do, instead of letting them focus on being better oil companies,” Davidow told industry executives in the ballroom at a luxurious La Jolla hotel.

That’s the kind of criticism that Chavez, who has nationalized most of his country’s oil sector since he was elected in 1999, says is rooted in a bankrupt “imperial Yankee” mind-set.

He purged perceived opponents from PDVSA’s ranks in response to a crippling strike in 2002-2003 that slashed output, firing thousands of staff and replacing them with loyalists. Since then, the company has endured one controversy after another.

There was the “maleta-gate” affair in 2007, so-called after the Spanish word for suitcase, when a Venezuelan-American businessman was stopped at Buenos Aires airport carrying luggage stuffed with $800,000 in cash that U.S. prosecutors said came from PDVSA and was intended for Cristina Fernandez’s presidential campaign in Argentina. Both Fernandez and Chavez denied the charge.

There have also been persistent allegations by industry experts and international energy organizations that Venezuela inflates its production statistics — which PDVSA denies — and a string of accidents, including the sinking of a gas exploration rig in the Caribbean last year and a huge fire at a giant oil storage terminal on an island not far away.

In a big blow to its domestic popularity, tens of thousands of tons of meat and milk bought by PDVSA’s importer subsidiary, PDVAL, were left festering in shipping containers at the nation’s main port last year, exacerbating shortages of staples on shop shelves. Opposition media quickly nicknamed the subsidiary “pudreval” in a play on the Spanish verb “to rot” – “pudrir”.

In an apparent damage-limitation exercise after the pension scandal, five members of the PDVSA board were relieved of their duties in May, including the official who ran the pension fund. They were replaced by Chavez loyalists including the country’s finance minister and foreign minister.

Gustavo Coronel, a former PDVSA director in the 1970s and later Venezuela’s representative to anti-graft watchdog Transparency International, said the fraud had been going on right under the noses of the PDVSA board.

“What this scandal shows is that Venezuela has become a moral cesspool, not only restricted to the public sector but to the private sector as well,” he wrote on his blog.

“Money is dancing like a devil in Venezuela, without control, without accountability. Those who are well connected with the regime have thrown the moral compass by the side Venezuelan justice will not move a finger. Fortunately, U.S. justice will.”


U.S. investigators say Illarramendi, the majority owner of the Michael Kenwood Group LLC hedge fund, ran the Ponzi scheme from 2006 until February of this year, using deposits from new investors to repay old ones. He pleaded guilty in March to multiple counts of wire fraud, securities and investment advisor fraud, as well as conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He could face up to 70 years in prison.

By those outside the circles of power in Venezuela, Illarramendi was seen as one of the “Boli-Bourgeoisie” — someone who was already wealthy but grew much richer thanks to the “Bolivarian Revolution,” named by Chavez after the dashing 19th century South American independence hero Simon Bolivar. In one widely-circulated image, Illarramendi is seen overweight and balding, wearing a dark blue overcoat and clutching a blue briefcase as he left federal court in Bridgeport, Connecticut after pleading guilty.

An ex-Credit Suisse employee and Opus Dei member in his early 40s who lived in the United States for at least the last 10 years but traveled frequently to Venezuela, Illarramendi is on bail with a bond secured on four U.S. properties he owns.

He was close to PDVSA board members and Ministry of Finance officials, but is not thought to have known Chavez personally. The son of a minister in a previous Venezuelan government, Illarramendi did enjoy some perks — including using a terminal at the capital’s Maiquetia International Airport normally reserved for the president and his ministers, according to one source close to his business associates.

His sentencing date has not been set yet, but a receiver’s report by the attorney designated to track down the cash is due in September. In June, SEC regulators said they found almost $230 million of the looted money in an offshore fund.

That was just part of the approximately $500 million Illarramendi received, about 90 percent of which was from the PDVSA pension fund, according to the SEC.

PDVSA has assured its former workers they have nothing to worry about, and that the money will be replaced. But what concerns some retirees are allegations the company may have broken its own rules for managing its pension fund, which should have provided for more oversight by pensioners.

A representative of the retirees should attend meetings where the use of the fund is discussed, but no pensioners have been called to attend such a meeting since 2002.

PDVSA’s investment in capitalist U.S. markets may seem to be incongruous given the president’s anti-West rhetoric, but the scale of such transfers is not known, and the investment options for such funds at home in Venezuela are sharply limited, not least by restrictive currency controls.

Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez told Reuters that Illarramendi only had an advisory role with PDVSA, and that it ended six years ago. So quite how he came to be managing such a big chunk of the pension fund is a hotly debated topic. Ramirez said the pension fund had been administered properly, and that the losses were of great concern to the company.

In July, PDVSA boosted pension payments to ex-employees by 800 bolivars a month, or about $188. The government also allocated nearly half the income from a new 2031 bond issue of $4.2 billion to the company’s pension fund — probably to replenish deposits lost in the scandal.

Still, ex-PDVSA worker Luis Villasmil says his monthly stipend barely meets the essentials for him, his wife, a diabetic son and a niece. One morning in April, he rose early and met several dozen other PDVSA retirees to march in protest to the company’s local headquarters in Zulia, the decades-old heartland of Venezuela’s oil production.

“I never thought we would be in this situation,” the 65-year-old told Reuters with a sigh. “I think PDVSA should show solidarity with the retirees and pay their pensions whatever happens because it is responsible. But that’s not the heart of the issue, which is to recover the money if possible.”

Ramirez, who once proclaimed that PDVSA was “rojo rojito” (red) from top to bottom, says the firm’s 90,000 staff have nothing to worry about. “Of course we are going to support the workers,” he told Reuters in March. “We will not let them suffer because of this fraud. We have decided to replace it (the lost money) and to make ourselves part of the lawsuit (against Illarramendi).”


The latest scandal comes at a time when observers are focused on the future of PDVSA, given Chavez’s uncertain health, next year’s election and OPEC’s announcement on reserves.

The producer group said in July that Venezuela leapfrogged Saudi Arabia last year to become the world’s no.1 reserves holder with 296.5 billion barrels, up from 211.2 billion barrels the year before.

“It has been confirmed. We have 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves … we are a regional power, a world power,” Chavez said during one typical recent TV appearance, scribbling lines all over a map to show where planned refineries and pipelines to the coast would be built.

The new reserves were mostly booked in the country’s enormous Orinoco extra heavy belt, a remote region of dense forests, extraordinary plant life and rivers teeming with crocodiles and piranhas.

And there lies the rub. Not only is the Orinoco crude thick and tar-like, unlike Saudi oil which is predominantly light and sweet, it is also mostly found in rural areas that have little in the way of even basic infrastructure. It costs much more to produce and upgrade into lighter, more valuable crude.

So hopes now rest on a string of ambitious projects that Venezuela says will revitalize a declining oil sector, eventually adding maybe 2 million barrels per day (bpd) or more of new production to the country’s current output of about 3 million bpd, while bringing in some $80 billion in investment.

The projects are mostly joint ventures with foreign partners including U.S. major Chevron, Spain’s Repsol, Italy’s Eni, Russian state giant Rosneft and China’s CNPC, as well as a handful of smaller companies from countries such as Japan, Vietnam and Belarus. Even after the nationalizations of the past, investors clearly want a seat at the Orinoco oil table.

In June, Ramirez announced new funding for Orinoco projects this year of $5.5 billion through agreements with Chinese and Italian banks.

The question remains: will PDVSA have the operational capacity required as the lead company in each project, and will it be able to pay its share?

“Processing that extra heavy crude requires a lot of capital and equipment, and the climate is not good for that at the moment,” said one regional energy consultant who has worked with PDVSA and asked not to be named.

There may be billions of barrels in the ground, but the pension scandal will only underline the risks going forward for foreign companies with billions of dollars at stake.

Iran Presides over OPEC

Rostam Ghasemi joins Ahmadinejad cabinet as oil minister, automatically making him head of global oil organisation.

London Guardian
August 3, 2011

Rostam Ghasemi

A senior Iranian revolutionary guards commander targeted by international sanctions has taken over the presidency of Opec after he became Iran‘s oil minister on Wednesday.

Rostam Ghasemi, head of the Khatam al-Anbia military and industrial base, was one of four ministersnominated by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to join his cabinet last week and approved by Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament.

Ghasemi is currently subject to US, EU and Australian sanctions and his assets have been blacklisted by US Treasury and western powers. He took 216 votes from the 246 deputies present in the 290-seat parliament.

Iranian state media interpreted the vote as a reaction by Iran’s parliament to international sanctions against the country, especially those which have targeted the revolutionary guards and the country’s nuclear programme.

“The clever and decisive vote of Iranian MPs for engineer Ghasemi to become the oil minister is a meaningful and crucial response to the attacks against the guards from the west’s media empire,” said Ramedan Sharif, the head of the revolutionary guards public relations’ unit, in quotes carried by Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

In a parliamentary debate before the vote, however, Ali Motahari, a prominent conservative MP who has previously threatened to impeach Ahmadinejad, spoke out against the involvement of the revolutionary guards in Iran’s politics.

“The integration of the guard, as a military force, in political and economic power is not in the interests of the system,” Motahari told the parliament. “In neighboring countries, military officials are distancing themselves from politics and power, while it’s the opposite in Iran.”

The appointment of Ghasemi as Iran’s oil minister automatically makes him the head of Opec which has a crucial role in determining oil prices.

As its second-largest crude oil exporter, Iran took the presidency of Opec after 36 years last October and Ghasemi’s position will give the revolutionary guards a unique opportunity to influence an international organisation.

Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity


Often times, we hear sustainable development and sustainability were originated in the early 70′s and strengthened through the 80′s and 90′s. During any given research effort, most publications allege that the concern to maintain natural resources as tools for current and future generations was born in 1972, when a United Nations Conference in Sweden brought forward three principles: the interdependence of human beings and the natural environment, the links between economic development, social development, and environmental protection and the need for a global vision and common principles. Credit for developing those principles is given to the World Commission on Environment and Development of 1987.

The United Nations is the main enactor of Eugenics, a policy initiated by the founders of the Nazi movement.

Common wisdom portrays the collectivist view that sustainability and sustainable development with policies and initiatives to protect the environment from humanity’s abuses and with this to promote the benefit of the masses. Nowadays, the protection of the environment has become the most luminous spear carried by anyone and everyone, independent of race, social status, age or religion. In fact, environmentalism has become in itself the religion of choice for many. The environmentalist support for sustainability is almost inherently rooted in our lives; more than we even think. It has been applied to economics, construction, community planning, agriculture, security, natality and so on.

Countless meetings were arranged in the past 50 years in order to convince the masses that no future was complete without a sustainable approach to human existence. First, the Club of Rome came up with documents like “Limits of Growth” and “A New Path for World Development” which have as their bastion the movement to globalize the planet and social engineer everything from social values to employment, trade, demographics, politics, economics and so on; all in an effort to deindustrialize the planet and turn it into what predecessor organizations -League of Nations- wanted. Along with think-tanks like the Club of Rome, other equally prominent organizations operate in order to bring a new social, economic and developmental order into place. The United Nations, a child of the globalists who founded the League of Nations with the intention of ‘ending conflict’, has its own list of pro-deindustrialization branches and documents. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme for Development (UNEP), preaches the principles of failed green policies and green economies. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development of 1992, better known as the Earth Summit, promotes plans like Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which intend and are slowly achieving Kurt Waldheim’s ecofacist dream to depopulate the planet.

Where did modern environmentalism originate?

Although there is plenty of documentation regarding how false environmentalism is linked to the so called “green wing” of the Nazi Party, no one gets into that history in depth. Main line historians and environmentalists usually decide to ignore it and the public that is bamboozled into believing the dogmas of modern genocidal ecology does not know about it. Pertinent questions to ask regarding the Nazi origins of the green movement is, What is its inspiration? What were the goals it wanted to achieve? How did the murdering ideology of the National Socialist Party gave in to what is in appearance an unheard love for nature?

Germany was not only the place where the genocidal policy of sustainability was born, but it was also the land where it became reality. The Nazi germans and its followers adopted many of the green policies we see in modern societies and brought them to prominence. Science and the study of creatures and their environments were first talked about in Germany during the years that preceded the Nazi rise to power. The genocidal nature of environmentalism originated from a demented love for nature. (1)

Nazi thinkers and some predecessors were sure humans had to be equaled to plants, animals and insects in order to have balance in the world. These train of thought has been seen in modern environmentalist minds such as Bolivian president Evo Morales and the promoter of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, who believe that massive amounts of people must die in order to gain natural balance. Recently, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish used one of his books to call for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism like blowing up dams and destroying cities to return the planet to its form before the Industrial Revolution occurred. Along with Farnish, other highly respected so-called scientists like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen endorsed this line of thought.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

One of the fathers of what we call today environmentalism is Ernst Moritz Arndt. Together with Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt had infinite hatred for the Enlightenment. Both were well-known for their extreme nationalistic views which they used to advance the ideals of the welfare state. These two men, but mainly Arndt was identified as the first ecological thinker. Arndt wrote on an 1815 article that “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (2) What separated Arndt’s environmentalist ideas from those of others was that he closely blended his thoughts on respecting nature with xenophobic discourses and entangled them with the very existence of the Germans and Germany. While he defended the environment in most of his writings, he also called for racial purity and damned other races such as the Jews and the French. It was that love for nature and hatred towards the Jews what would later guide the persecution and murder of those who were not Arians.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, a graduate from Arndt’s school of thought made sure his teacher’s work did not wastefully dissipate. In an article dated 1853, Riehl showed his strong opposition to industrialism and said: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” (3) He opposed any type of urbanization while using anti-Semitism to approve of peasantry and its way of life. Both Riehl’s and Arndt’s ideas were later adopted by the völkisch movement, which was a mixture of nationalistic populism and mad love for nature. The leaders of the völkischs advocated a move back to the simplicity of living off the land while blaming urban living and rationalism for the environmental destruction. (4) At the core of the hatred was an old but meaningful element that had driven antisemitic groups like the völkischs for a long time: The Jewish people. Why? The Jews were the middle class of the time, and the apparent sick love for nature and the environment included an equally sickening hatred for anyone and anything that endangered that thought or way of life. (5)

After establishing their long sought relation between antisemitism and love towards nature, the völkischs extended their prejudice through the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-industrialization, anti-jewish type of speech rooted itself along with racial purity and Arian superiority just in time for the rise of the Nazi Party’s trip to power.

Nazi ecology and the link to racism

In 1867, Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist first used the term “ecology” and linked it to the study of creatures and their environments. Haeckel was heavily influenced by social Darwinism to a point that he became the father of a kind of social Darwinism known as “monism”. He founded the German Monist League, an organization guided by völkisch principles. Haeckel as well as Riehl and Arndt believed in racial superiority and were strongly opposed to social mixing. In addition, he also approved of racial eugenics. His thoughts were the base for what later would be known as the anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany. Indeed, Haeckel became a prominent speaker on racism, nationalism and the german model of imperialism. (6) Towards the end of his life, Haeckel became a member of the Thule Society, an organization that later served as the political base for the creation of the Nazi Party. (7) Haeckel, as the creator of ecology, Riehl and Arndt as his predecessors and other thinkers such as Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and BrunoWille, get all the credit for tightly threading environmentalism to national socialism, racism, anti-Semitism and the political environmental that we all know took over Germany pre and post World War I.

One of the most revealing facts about ancient and current ecological authoritarianism is the belief by sponsors of this view that humans must be encapsulated in “biological categories” and “biological zones” over which an iron fist technocratic authority must rule. Haeckel said that civilizations and nature should be governed by the same laws. The origin of this way of thinking is a reactionary anti-humanist thought. The Monists, believed humans although not themselves- were insignificant when compared to the greatness of the environment. Similar ideas are seen in modern initiatives sponsored by the Club of Rome, The Carnegie Foundation, The United Nations, NASA, as well as some colleges and universities that are funded by globalists who endorse eugenics for the sake of cleansing the planet. Take for example the text of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversitywhich has been named as the politics and religion of modern environmentalism. Among other goals, the Convention intends to “reorganize” Western civilization by excluding all human activity from 50 percent of the American continent. It wants to divide the land into “bioregions” with “buffer zones” and “corridors”. Under this plan, humans will live in tightly guarded and heavily monitored areas, from which they can never leave. This green globalist agenda is promoted by the United Nations since 1992, when it was officially presented during the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The same policies will be implemented in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Ernst Haeckel

Writings from the Carnegie Foundation also commit treasure to the implementation of policies like Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. The foundation has expressed pride on ancient practices that resembled mass murder by the powers that be in an effort to cleanse the lands from undesirable people. The Carnegie Institution touted the work of Emperor Ghengis Khan and “validated his work as a “green emperor” due to the fact his actions included the murder of 40 million people. According to its writings, this helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool.

Monists used their anti-humanist sentiment together with the völkisch ideas to discriminate against progress, urbanism and those who thought differently. On his Lebensgesetze (Laws of Life),biologist Raoul Francé, wrote that natural order determines social order. He said racial mixing was unnatural. He is up until today an acclaimed founder of contemporary eco-fascism for “pioneering the ecological movement.” (8) Francé also promoted an alleged connection between environmental purity and ‘racial’ purity. Francé and his disciples claimed that a change from peasant life to modernism would mean the degradation of the race and that the cities were diabolical and inorganic. (9)

By the early years of the twentieth century an ‘ecological’ argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had become somehow respected within the culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very deadly mixture.

The Nazi Environmentalism in Action

Some people see it as a contradiction that modern eugenicists although still pushing for Nazi-style environmentalism also belong to the technocratic corporate elites. This is not a surprise because the elites that supported the Third Reich were also industrialists who, as it usually happens, controlled many segments of the population and the thinking classes. This practice has always born fruits because it guarantees complete control, no matter what the outcome is. Men like Fritz Todt, a heavy weight of the National Socialist movement in Germany as well as Albert Speer, his successor after 1942, were involved in the construction of infrastructure such as the Autobahn, one of the largest projects in the history of engineering in Germany. Todt wanted to build the Autobahn in a way that benefited his class the most, but that at the same time promoted and maintained certain sensitivity towards nature. (10)

“Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the ‘organological’ principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology.” (11) Just as it happened with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, Todt and his partners had an endless and inseparable bond to völkisch nationalism. Todt said once: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.” (12) One of Todt’s aides, Alwin Seifert, was the Reich’s advocate for the Landscape. In discharging his official duties Seifert stressed the importance of wilderness and energetically opposed monoculture, wetlands drainage and chemical agriculture. He criticized Darré as too moderate, and “called for an agricultural revolution towards ‘a more peasant-like, natural, simple’ method of farming, ‘independent of capital’.” (13)

The prominent place that nature had within the Nazi Party helped enact the massive industrial and military advancement that enabled Hitler to bully the rest of Europe for a while. The most radical initiatives were created and carried out as they always received the seal of approval by the highest officers of the Nazi state. Another influential member of the Reich was Chancellor Rudolph Hess, who was the green wing’s strong point within the party. Hess’s power in the governmental institutions of the National Socialist regime as he was Hitler’s personal assistant. Many even consider him the Führer’s most trusted man.Hess became a member of the Nazi party in 1920 and rapidly made his way up to the top. He was the second man in the waiting list to take power if Hitler and/or Göring were unable to take on the duty. Any and all new laws that were approved by the government were had to go through Hess’ hands first, before being enacted.

In the photo: Adolf Hitler, Göring and behind him, Rudolph Hess.

In the early thirties, a complete series of laws and ordinances were passed under Hess’ sponsorship. One of those ordinances which closely hits home today is the the foundation of the nature preserves. But perhaps the most successful accomplishment of Nazi environmentalism in Germany was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This nature protecting law established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” and restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. Similar policies have been written now under United Nations Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. Just as it happens with these two documents, the Nazi required local officials to ask for permission to higher authorities before making any alterations in the countryside.Along with the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, the most important contribution that the Nazis made to modern eugenics and false environmentalism was to integrate mainstream environmentalism into the Nazi enterprise.

Sustainable Development Today

Page 350 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report says that livestock such as cows, sheep, goats and horses are not sustainable. People and organizations that support sustainable development claim that animals humans should stop eating meat, because animals pollute the environment. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on.

What kinds of things does sustainable development actually want to do? Sustainability and changes in human behavior are not only related to environment, agriculture and pollution. It is a complete package of reforms that will ultimately change societal behavior at a global scale. It is common to find educational programs that sponsor and teach children how to prepare in order to live in a sustainable world. But when the tactics do not work successfully, the globalists in charge of the sustainable agenda, the foundations and organizations financially supported by globalist corporations resort to fear tactics.

Along with the educational systems, the sustainable agenda also acts directly in the economies, health care systems, farming, social and cultural affairs as well as public safety. In the last 50 years we have seen a run to create alliances between corporations and the government, which has resulted in the corporate controlled governmental systems or corporate fascism we all live under. On private property, new ordinances and laws continue to end the right to buy and maintain any kind of land without the auspices of the authorities. That is why property taxes are charged to property owners even though money was paid when the purchase of such land occurred. Under the guidelines of Agenda 21 and the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the largest masses of lands, namely national parks, natural reserves and conservation areas have been signed to the United Nations.

The obesity pandemic that ravages the planet up until today, brought upon by massive propaganda campaigns paid for by the food industry was the tool to bring along laws and directives that basically allow the government to tell people what they can eat or drink. In the United States, school principals and boards now do not allow parents to pack their children’s lunches and snacks. In the meantime, new regulations introduced through Codex Alimentarius ban the sale and use of natural supplements and the plantation of food crops in small and medium sized farms, while allowing big agricultural corporations to pollute the environment with genetically modified plants and animals. These kind of policies have caused the suicide of hundreds if not thousands of Indian farmers who have gotten in debt to purchase Monsanto’s genetically engineered pesticide ready corn and cotton seed. Since farmers signed their lives away to Monsanto, crop yields have been significantly lower, and the soils have been completely depleted of all nutrients.

In the social and cultural aspects, political correctness has been massively adopted and dissent is seen as a form of racism and terrorism. Immigration policies have gone from mildly protecting private property and the rights of the individual to sponsoring open borders, fake free-trade agreements that destroy industry and production in the west costing the jobs of millions of people across the continents. Religious criticism of homosexuality and other practices or ways of living is labeled as homophobic, while deep religious beliefs are seen as extremist. Mobility in urban areas has also been touched by the fake environmentalist policies first thought out by the Nazis. Oil speculation and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel makes the cost of transportation to rise exponentially. The same has happened with food prices. Car pooling as well as bus and train commuting is encouraged in order to reduce CO2 pollution, while the elites that beg for the end of industrialization live in lavish palaces and fly around the planet in their fuel-guzzling private jets and yachts.

When it comes to societal safety, the governments, also under policies of sustainable development continue to work on laws to step over the constitutions of the sovereign states they claim to represent and defend. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the rights to privacy are continuously violated with the establishment of a techno-military industrial complex that monitors everyone’s moves, financial records, behaviours, health, habits, politics, religious beliefs and so on, all in the name of security.

What is the ultimate goal of the current sustainable development policies? Population reduction. Sustainable Development is indeed a plan to be applied for the length of human existence. It is a plan created by someone else to apply it to you, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The belief behind the supposed need to massively reduce the planet’s population is Thomas Malthus’ mistaken idea that population growth outpaces food availability. He thought overpopulation occurred due to reductions in mortality rates and that the world would be out of food by 1890. He then recommended to kill the poor, the old and the sick, and leave the rest to die of hunger. Malthus’ ideas were picked up more recently by Paul Earlich in 1968. Earlich said that irresponsible reproductive behavior would leave the planet with no food in the 1970′s. This imaginary crisis has proven false every time the globalists schedule another date for it to happen. Calculations of the Population Research Institute reveal that today the world’s population can live comfortably with enough food in an area the size of the American state of Texas.

The truth is that at the current natal rate, many countries in Europe and Asia are experiencing the problems related to an aging population which is not being properly replaced by new citizens. In North, Central and South America, governments struggle to support their traditional welfare systems due to the fact that more people are retiring and less people are contributing to the coffers of the central governments, social security and health care programs. Ironically, population growth will become stable naturally -that is it will stop growing and begin to decrease- once the sum of all humans gets to about 9 billion. Learn more about the science of population growth here.

Well, so what if there is enough land mass to leave? Is there enough food for everyone? If you are a believer of only ‘official’ information an statistics, it so happens that the very own United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as well as the World Food Programme agree that there is currently enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, not everyone has access to food. Why? Several reasons. Price speculation, using food such as corn and sugar cane to produce inefficient fuels and of course artificially created food scarcity. Modern cultivation techniques would even allow to plant crops in the most arid areas of Africa. Many believe that the giant continent may be able to feed the whole world if such techniques are applied with due diligence. So, why are more people going hungry everyday? Simply put, poverty, conflict and poor agricultural infrastructure in countries where those hungry people live. War is one of the main causes of crop destruction. And who are the sponsors of war and conflict? The military industrial complex controlled by the same globalists who want us to be green and friendly to the environment. Reducing the number of people on the planet would not solve an overpopulation problem, if it existed. That is just another fear tactic used by the globalists who up until today perpetuate the Nazi dream. For a detailed explanation on how the United Nations hides its eugenics programme under supposed initiatives to promote reproductive health, end poverty and decrease the appearance of disease, watch the four-part report (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Sources for this article include:

(1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.

A Revolução que os Globalistas Desejavam

Como a mídia tradicional publica mentiras, as pessoas são cooptadas e os globalistas afirmam seu poder

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Março 4, 2011

Deixe-me ir direto ao ponto. Glenn Beck não é um patriota ou nada parecido. Beck é uma máquina de relações públicas usada para vender publicidade na Fox News. Como ele, existem muitos outros na mídia, assim como há muitos ‘especialistas’ que manipulam a verdade. Então, porque Glenn Beck fala algumas verdades com precisão sobre o que está acontecendo no Egito?

Muitas pessoas no mundo acordaram para a realidade e, durante esse despertar, rejeitaram as mentiras e desinformação que a mídia oferece. Então a mídia emprega hoje uma “nova tática”. Essa “nova tática” envolve parecer que estão dizendo a verdade aos espectadores, leitores e ouvintes para, depois, encher suas mentes com informações falsas ou parcialmente falsas. Isso é feito em uma tentativa de salvarem-se do buraco no qual caíram já que as pessoas não confiam neles.

No relato ou discussão de qualquer assunto, a mídia tradicional informa as pessoas de 10 por cento da verdade e 90 por cento de mentiras. É aí onde está a armadilha. É uma operação psicológica (psy-op) para voltar a ganhar a confiança do público, mas muitas pessoas ainda não entendem isto. A mídia tradicional sabe quem é o público, como pensam e como chegar até eles. Eles empregam as mais doces combinações de palavras para atrair e manter os seus seguidores e tentar obter novos todos os dias.

É por isso que Glenn Beck e outros, as vezes, dizem às pessoas toda a verdade para, depois, contar mentiras. Exemplos disso são desnecessários, uma vez que qualquer um pode ver não só na Fox, mas também na CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Al-Jazeera, Globo, jornais e revistas populares que mascaram sua agenda com caras bonitas, apresentadores que parecem ser inteligentes e estúdios modernos. Mas o objetivo geral é o de vender mentiras. Não duvidem disso.

Exatamente como Glenn Beck apresentou em seu show muitas vezes, a situação no Egito, hoje, é uma cópia do que aconteceu no Irã em 1979. Mas ninguém parece entendê-lo completamente bem, porque ninguém se preocupa o suficiente. Ninguém se lembra do Irã em 1979. A agitação no oriente médio é interminável e muito antiga. Mas é importante saber o que origina a agitação, a perseguição, a violência e a destruição. Vamos citar apenas algumas razões pelas quais esta agitação acontece: sanções econômicas, tarifas comerciais, medidas de austeridade, fome, guerra, opressão, corrupção, trabalho escravizante e assim por diante.

O mundo não está prestes a ser dominado por poucas mãos, como Beck assinalou em um dos seus shows. O mundo tem estado nas mãos de um punhado de pessoas por pelo menos um século. A mídia tradicional não consegue entender isso, disse Beck. Outra mentira. A mídia conhece e muito bem, eles simplesmente não dizem o que sabem. Beck, assim como outros apresentadores, sabem que, se a mídia tradicional dissesse às massas como as coisas realmente funcionam, veríamos a situação do Egito repetindo-se não só no Oriente Médio, mas em qualquer outro lugar. De fato, a revolução do Egito pode ter começado como um movimento justo para destronar um ditador mas, certamente, não evoluiu como tal.

Beck tem razão quando diz que o conflito no Oriente Médio está prestes a destruir o Ocidente, mas isso não é uma surpresa, pois foi sempre sobre isso. As potências militares e econômicas ocidentais, através do seu complexo militar-industrial, sempre criaram e usaram os conflitos no Oriente para ter uma desculpa para encher seus bolsos com dinheiro e acumular o controle dos recursos e das pessoas. Nada de novo aqui.

Por que o Oriente supostamente odeia o Ocidente?

O Oriente não odeia o Ocidente. Essa é outra mentira da mídia tradicional. São os globalistas quem odeiam tanto o Oriente como o Ocidente e querem causar conflito para conseguir o controle completo de ambos os hemisférios, como originalmente planejado. O conflito entre as civilizações sempre foi estimulado por pequenos grupos de pessoas que procuram promover o controle de impérios e acumular poder enquanto oprimem os povos. Assim, os cidadãos do Leste não odeiam os cidadãos do Ocidente. Os ditadores fantoches do Oriente odeiam seus povos orientais, pois eles vendem as suas vidas aos controladores no Ocidente. As marionetes do Ocidente também odeiam seus países porque eles também vendem seu povo para os globalistas. Todos os conflitos religiosos e culturais são causados pela introdução de falácias que as pessoas acreditam como reais, como a ‘justiça social’, o multiculturalismo e o radicalismo religioso apoiados por frases como “você está do nosso lado ou do lado do inimigo”.

A mídia tradicional tem a ousadia de culpar as pessoas de pensamento progressivo por este desastre que já se arrasta por mais tempo do que qualquer progressista poderia imaginar. Tirania e corrupção não são características dos progressivos; é uma meta histórica dos globalistas. Para alcançar isto, eles utilizam nomes diferentes, políticas diferentes e, mais importante do que isso, empregam diferentes grupos sociais, religiões, ditadores e presidentes marionetes que seguem ideologias diferentes. Dessa forma, eles sempre podem amarrar todos nós. As mesmas políticas que a mídia tradicional descreve como originárias do movimento progressivo também foram produzidas e executadas pelos conservadores. Ambos os grupos produziram e executaram essas políticas porque eles são ambos controlados e cooptados por organizações e fundações globalistas.

Glenn Beck corretamente afirma que muito do ódio do Oriente é causado pela hipocrisia ocidental, especialmente a hipocrisia americana. Em parte, isso é verdade. O MAS é que esta hipocrisia não é apenas americana ou ocidental. Os Estados Unidos, assim como outros líderes do G-8 e do G-20 são dirigidos por governos fantoches que realizam os planos dos globalistas. Portanto, as pessoas responsáveis por tal hipocrisia são os globalistas no controle e não os americanos, franceses, britânicos, alemães ou gregos. Esta é a diferença entre a maneira em que a mídia atribui a culpa e a realidade que a mesma mídia nao conta.

Crédito deve ser dado à mídia tradicional porque eles têm sido capazes de manter os verdadeiros controladores escondidos ‘atrás da cortina’. Assim como Glenn Beck tentou fazer em seu show em 31 de janeiro, a mídia corporativa é especializada em mentir com uma cara séria. E ninguém pode ter uma cara mais de mentiroso e sério do que Beck. Além de detalhar o que chamou a ‘insurreição que vem’, Beck criticou Hosni Mubarak por tortura, seqüestro, espionagem e por oprimir e abusar do povo egípcio. Mas nem ele nem nenhum outro apresentador disse nada quando George W. Bush -outro fantoche presidente- fez exatamente a mesma coisa durante o seu governo.

No entanto, a farsa acabou. Muitas pessoas aprenderam a ver através das mentiras e da desinformação para reconhecer que os seus opressores não vivem em seus países. Eles também aprenderam que as agendas econômicas e políticas que causaram sua miséria e dor juntamente com a morte de milhares ou milhões de seus cidadãos chegam do estrangeiro. Eles não querem outro boneco, eles querem construir o país que querem para si e suas famílias. Mas a única maneira de alcançar este objetivo é libertar-se das cadeias que os impede de ser livres.

Como o congressista Ron Paul apontou, é a ocupação americana do Oriente Médio que tem servido como uma grande desculpa para a formação de grupos radicais, muitos deles apoiados pelos mesmos poderes ocidentais que afirmam estar lutando contra o terrorismo. Entre eles, a Irmandade Muçulmana, uma criação de agências de inteligência britânicas.

As guerras entre civilizaçoes não acontecem devido ao fato de que alguns são livres e prósperos e outros não. As guerras mais sangrentas da história não aconteceram por causa de diversidade religiosa, mas como as diferenças religiosas e movimentos religiosos têm sido usados para criar ódio entre os povos.

O complexo militar industrial criou ditadores de todas as cores e formas e os colocou no poder por séculos e os seus membros e especialistas têm confessado isto em público. Zbigniew Brzezinski não só mostrou sua preocupação com o aumento da oposição mundial contra a agenda globalista como também admitiu que era pessoalmente responsável pela criação do ditador oriental Mao Tse Tung, que foi levado ao poder pelos globalistas, assim como foi Adolf Hitler. O número de mortes devido às políticas e perseguições que esses dois tiranos realizaram são contados de forma conservadora hoje por dezenas de milhões.

Atualmente, os Estados Unidos, controlado pelos globalistas, apóia ditadores no Egito, Arábia Saudita, Tunísia, Iêmen e presidentes fantoches em toda a América Latina, Europa e outras regiões do mundo. O apoio a estes ditadores e presidentes títeres é dado em uma diversidade de maneiras. Egito recebe bilhões de dólares por ano, em grande parte em ajuda militar. Iêmen recebe uma grande parcela do orçamento da USAID. Muito disso, diz a organização, é para programas relacionados com a “paz e a segurança”. E quando a ajuda não vai na forma de dinheiro, como no caso da Arábia Saudita, está previsto e entregue por meio de tratados de armas.

Egito 2011 é o Irã em 1979

Vamos explicar isto o mais claramente possível. A revolução que está acontecendo hoje no Egito é uma cópia do que aconteceu no Irã no final dos anos 1970. Hosni Mubarack é um fantoche do sindicato internacional do crime conhecido como os globalistas. Os globalistas são um grupo de empresas e personalidades corruptas que controlam quase todos os aspectos de nossas vidas hoje. Eles conseguiram isso através da criação e imposição de um esquema para ter uma economia planificada, com desenvolvimento planejado e controlado, crescimento, educação, ou devo dizer treinamento planejado, entre outras coisas. Este regime lhes permitiu manter e aumentar o controle sobre a política, economia, política monetária e fiscal, investigação e utilização de recursos naturais, controle de natalidade, entretenimento e da mídia.

Justo como o conflito no Irã em 1979 não aconteceu porque os iranianos queriam obter democracia, o conflito em desenvolvimento em todo o Oriente Médio não é sobre democracia. É o mesmo cenário que existia no Irã, onde estudantes foram enganados em apoio a uma revolução, mas não a revolução do povo. A revolução iraniana não era sobre a liberdade e seu estado atual é um exemplo fiel disso. Antes de tornar-se no que é hoje, o Irã era um dos aliados mais fortes dos Estados Unidos, assim como o Egito é hoje. Jimmy Carter chegou fazer um brinde com o xá do Irã para apresentar a prosperidade do pais. O Xá era um ditador e um boneco, como Mubarak é hoje. Ele torturou milhares de pessoas e cometeu outros crimes que poucos lembram. Assim como acontece no Egito hoje, os grupos de estudantes apoiaram a revolução e estabeleceram um regime chamado ‘moderado’.

Então vamos ver … Em ambos os casos, a revolução foi liderada por estudantes co-optados. Em ambos os casos, eles queriam acabar com o reinado de um ditador brutal e em ambos os casos eles não conseguiram nenhum desses objetivos. Na verdade, eles acabaram sendo mais oprimidos do que nunca. No caso do Irã, um mês depois da revolução da “liberdade”, os EUA decidiram que o Xá não estava funcionando e enviaram extremistas islâmicos para assumir o poder com o aiatolá Komeni na cabeça. Dessa revolução surgiu a crise dos reféns na Embaixada dos EUA, onde pelo menos 60 pessoas foram sequestradas por mais de um ano.

Voltando para 2011

A solução que EUA tem estado cozinhando por um alguns anos é a instalação de Mohammed ElBaradei como o salvador do Egito. O boneco novo que irá fazer a devida diligência dos globalistas, como Mubarak fez. Da mesma forma, os bonecos na Jordânia, Marrocos, Sudão, Paquistão e Afeganistão fazem hoje sua parte para manter os globalistas no poder. Assim como Barack Obama faz o mesmo nos Estados Unidos e Inácio Da Silva fez a sua parte até janeiro de 2011 no Brasil.

Hoje, junto com o Egito, países como Argélia, Marrocos, Líbia, Sudão, Jordânia, Síria e Paquistão exibem revoluções populares. Todos eles são governados por ditadores que o governo fantoche dos EUA têm apoiado ao longo dos anos. Por que então os EUA, mesmo agora, tenta acabar com esses regimes? Porque os globalistas são as pessoas menos confiáveis que existem lá fora. Eles fazem de tudo para avançar sua agenda. Eles vão tirar quem eles precisam para aumentar seu controle e sua riqueza.

As mesmas pessoas no poder são os que provocam e co-optam a insurreição Egito, Iêmen, Turquia, Jordânia, Arábia Saudita e outros países ao redor do mundo. Eles sempre usaram os movimentos populares para enganar as pessoas e trazer “mudanças”. Isto é mais claro nas áreas do mundo onde as pessoas estão cansadas de ser escravos, mas não sabem como prosseguir para uma mudança real. Essa mudança não é compreendida pelas massas que, simplesmente, vão junto com a farsa. Idéias como a justiça social e a igualdade são apenas mentiras que são plantadas para atrair a atenção das pessoas. Na realidade, o objetivo é estabelecer um sistema comunista baseado na distribuição de riqueza. Mas essa riqueza não vai acabar nas mãos daqueles que mais necessitam. Muito pelo contrário. Ela vai acabar nas mãos dos globalistas. Estes globalistas controlam tudo desde lugares onde não existe extradição ou acordos para casos criminais até onde nunca podem ser vistos ou responsabilizados. Até agora.

No final de 2010, as pessoas na França, Grécia, Irlanda e Itália tinham manifestado a sua raiva nas ruas sobre os planos de austeridade planejados pelos seus governos, assim como reduções salariais, o confisco dos fundos de pensão públicos e privados, etc.

O que o ódio dos globalistas implica?

É o ódio globalista para com o povo, o verdadeiro capitalismo e o livre mercado que tem destruído um sistema que, embora imperfeito, poderia ter ajudado a melhorar as condições de vida para mais de milhares de pessoas. Mas as políticas de desregulamentação permitiram que os globalistas fizessem o que queriam e suas ganâncias cresceram fora de controle. Então, por que os globalistas querem efetivamente o colapso do mundo ao criar conflito na África, o Oriente Médio, Europa e Ásia? Essa não é a pergunta certa a fazer. A pergunta certa é: por que não? Isso lhes daria a desculpa perfeita para lançar seu tão aguardado assalto militar sobre as populações e impor a lei marcial e a militarização de, basicamente, todos os cantos do planeta sob o pretexto da segurança nacional ou internacional. Eles poderiam proibir as viagens, o comércio e, de fato, suspender toda a atividade econômica como é conhecida hoje. Tudo em nome da paz e a segurança, é claro. Nos termos do Tratado START, o exército do mundo poderia finalmente ser enviado para continuar com sua missão de manter a “paz e segurança” sempre que for necessário e, através da cláusula de emergência, fazer com que cada pais desse suas armas às Nações Unidas.

Além disso, eles poderiam avançar os seus novos regulamentos em matéria de produção alimentar, o uso de energia com a tecnologia ‘smart grid’, leis usando como desculpa o falso aquecimento global antropogênico, a proibição formal de livre expressão, o estabelecimento de zonas de livre expressão, maior regulamentação e controle da mídia, censura dos meios de comunicação alternativos e assim por diante. Como as coisas estão agora, os preços dos alimentos aumentaram somente no último ano em até 3,4 por cento em muitos países do mundo ocidental. A disponibilidade de alimentos é uma das ferramentas favoritas dos globalistas para escravizar as pessoas. A fome é uma das razões pelas quais muitos cidadãos pobres e de classe média protestam nas ruas hoje. Quem controla a produção e distribuição de alimentos mantém os dependentes como reféns. O impulso para um sistema centralizado de normas no âmbito do Codex Alimentarius proporciona um controle quase completo dos governos quando se trata de produção de alimentos, enquanto que proíbem as pequenas produções agrícolas de usar suplementos e medicina alternativa.

Segundo as leis de uso de energia recentemente aprovadas, os países cujos governos apóiam a imposição de taxas de emissões de carbono usam um mandato que limita quanta energia as pessoas podem usar e impõe restrições em diversos tipos de produção de energia, impostos, encargos e taxas para as empresas de pequeno e médio porte de acordo com o tipo de energia que utilizam. Em outros casos, os obrigam a comprar créditos de carbono. Com o novo sistema a ser implantado, os governos usam a tecnologia inteligente para regulamentar a forma como os cidadãos e as pequenas empresas utilizam energia, enquanto isenta as grandes corporações. Os subsídios do governo vão facilitar a aquisição e instalação de medidores inteligentes que permite aos governos controlar remotamente quem pode usar a energia, quanto e quando. Os profissionais de segurança têm questionado o uso destes medidores, mas a burocracia tem encontrado uma maneira de contornar as críticas e impor o seu uso.

Se você é um daqueles que odeia a intervenção do governo ou, simplesmente, prefere manter sua privacidade intacta, você está sem sorte. Protestar contra o controle do governo vai ficar mais difícil a cada dia. A liberdade de expressão é outro dos nossos direitos que pode se transformar em um luxo. Como pudemos testemunhar na América do Norte, América Latina, África e Oriente Médio, os ditadores e os globalistas não gostam da oposição da opinião pública. Eles, portanto, estabeleceram as chamadas “zonas de livre expressão” em faculdades e lugares públicos. Estas áreas estao localizadas longe da vista e da mente das pessoas, tornando o protesto público inócuo. Aqueles que não se atrevem a respeitar as regras ilegais são imediatamente acalmados por spray de pimenta, cães da polícia ou canhões de som.

A liberdade de expressão não seria completamente eliminada a menos que o governo controle a mídia. Como eles fazem isso? Não é através do envio de um bando de capangas para tomar conta das transmissões, das ondas de rádio ou prensas. Simplesmente compram a mídia com dinheiro do contribuinte. E quando se trata de mídia alternativa como blogs, sites de notícias e produtoras independentes eles estão trabalhando em um “kill switch” para a internet, o qual permite bloquear segmentos completos da net. Enquanto isto, engenheiros e advogados de segurança e privacidade alertaram em setembro de 2010 sobre um projeto de lei circulando no Congresso dos EUA que efetivamente impõe censura na internet. O projeto conhecido como Combate à Violação das Leis de Direitos do Autor foi patrocinado por membros de ambos os partidos Republicano e Democrata. “Se essa lei tivesse sido efetivada 5 ou 10 anos atrás, o YouTube não existiria hoje”, disse Peter Eckersley, técnico sênior da Electronic Frontier Foundation. O projeto não tem nada a ver com a violação de direitos autorais, é claro, mas com controle do governo sobre a internet e censura de daqueles que os burocratas consideram “perigoso”. Este projeto de lei, aprovado pela Comissão Judiciária do Senado com votação de 19-0 nunca recebeu um voto completo, mas com certeza acabará voltando como aconteceu com a Lei de Segurança Cibernética.

Então o que podemos tirar de tudo isso?

Em primeiro lugar, estar preparado. Ser auto-suficiente. Não espere que seu governo venha em seu auxílio quando você precisar de alimentos para comer, água para beber e energia para sobreviver a uma situação caótica. Os burocratas simplesmente não virão. Os governos, especialmente os governos grandes, são incapazes de ajudar a todos quando as catástrofes, violência, caos e instabilidade surgem. Em muitos casos, os próprios governos, a mando dos globalistas, causam o conflito e o caos sem ter a intenção de ajudar as pessoas necessitadas. Estar preparado é fundamental para sobreviver a qualquer situação difícil. Ser pró-ativo e não reativo é a solução. Ser auto-suficiente. Não espere até que os supermercados fiquem sem comida para começar a armazenar alimentos não perecíveis. Algumas lojas já estão sem alimentos devido à disparada dos preços do petróleo, a escassez artificial e a instabilidade da moedas. Ser independente. Ter sua própria fonte de água. Organizar pequenos grupos de bairro para se apoiarem mutuamente e melhorar as chances da sua família de superar uma crise e conseguir lidar com a escassez de comida e água. Leva apenas algumas semanas para que as pessoas com fome se tornem violentas quando o alimento e a água são escassos ou inexistentes. Leva apenas meses para que pessoas desesperadas matem para sobreviver. Finalmente, de maneira nenhuma, você pode pensar que o que está acontecendo hoje no Oriente Médio não pode acontecer aonde você vive amanhã. Esse seria o maior erro que você pode cometer.

Related Links:









Partner Links