Keeping an eye on the truth.

February 12, 2009 by openireport

The openireport news bulliten and feature articles coming soon.

The openireport presents “The 5 Precept Project”

A CONVIENIENT LIE?

A convenient lie?

The global warming conspiracy

 

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (a film which helped to secure this failed presidential candidate a Nobel prize) waxes lyrical about global

warming and the fact that we, mankind, are responsible. Worldwide policies to reduce our dreaded carbon footprints see massive taxation

of its populous and strict controls over developing countries. The subject has become the crown of the politically motivated environmental

movement and sees over US$45 trillion poured into researching this potentially catastrophic problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) claims to represent 2.500 of the world’s “top scientists” who are all in total agreement that we must reduce greenhouse gases to

save the plant from the horrors of climate change and global warming. Yet could the data be wrong? Could the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2)

on world climate change be a myth?

 

By Tom Wilson

 

For the last 20 years or so we

have been force-fed the idea that

greenhouse gasses, especially

CO2, are responsible for the dramatic

climate changes we are told

the earth is experiencing. The

deserts are getting bigger, the ice

caps are melting, the sea is rising

and an air of impending doom

presides. Man with his insatiable

appetite for fossil fuels and

sweet smelling armpits is stamping

a deadly carbon footprint on

the planet that, if left unchecked,

will be the death of us all.

The party line has become: “We

must reduce greenhouse gases to

save the planet,” but there is an

accusation that, far from being an

unbiased scientific organisation,

in fact the IPCC is exactly the opposite,

namely biased and politically

motivated. Another side

to the debate has been revealed

that seems to be subject to active

suppression by global warming

scaremongers worldwide for in

this argument we see a very natural

cycle of climate change that

the earth has been experiencing

for millions of years and that a

completely different cause than

C02 levels is apparently responsible

for global climate variations .

If you saw the film An Inconvenient

Truth you will have seen

Al Gore as he is dramatically lifted

high above the audience following

the line of increasing

temperature that, shock horror,

ascends in line with upsurge CO2,

rising into the realms of impending

Armageddon. CO2 is promoted

as the bad guy of the greenhouse

gasses and humankind

as the naughty careless child responsible

for spoiling our planet.

It is our fault the glaciers are

melting and the polar bears are

dying and our punishment will

be worse than early to bed or no

computer or television time, our

punishment is the end of life, as

we know it!

 

Guilty of what?

 

Remember how you felt as a

child? When your parents accused

you of something of which

you were innocent and in which

you had no part? When the harsh

spotlight of blame shone on your

angelic face and you pleaded your

innocence to deaf unsympathetic

ears? Well, it seems that modern

science and the media may have

been a little harsh on mankind

with accusations raining down on

a guilt-wracked public of being

the cause for global warming. It

seems that perhaps we have been

a little misled, that the wool has

been fully pulled over our eyes

and we are being treated like a

mushroom (kept in the dark and

fed rubbish). Can this be? Could

government, science and the corporate

giant be lying to us about

global warming? Ask yourself the

question: Is such a thing possible?

Have we been lied to before?

CO2 is the villain, according to

many, a two-lettered, one-digit

devil that insidiously builds up

in the fragile layer of atmosphere

around us and threatens life as we

know it, promising to cook us in

our own selfish juices. But other

schools of thought exist, one of

which absolves mankind and lays

the blame solely at the feet of the

ever present, ever burning light

of our lives, the sun.

Does it really seem so outrageous

and unlikely that the largest,

hottest, most volatile body

in our galaxy may in fact influence,

however slightly or greatly,

the temperature of the planet

that we reside on? It does sound

plausible, doesn’t it? CO2 in fact

makes up just 0,03 per cent of our

atmosphere, and of that we, mankind,

are guilty of providing only

3 per cent. That’s right, 3 per cent

of 0,03 per cent!

 

Doing the sums

 

Could it be the maths for global

warming just doesn’t add

up? The contrary opinion to global

warming contends that the

earth’s temperature is regulated

to a great extent by cloud formation

and that clouds are formed

when water vapour evaporates,

rises and encounters cosmic rays

(the same rays that form the aurora

borealis). This encounter

results in the forming of droplets

and the droplets make up the

clouds. When the sun’s activity

increases, marked by the increase

in sunspots activity, solar wind is

formed that blows towards earth

and basically blows away the cosmic

rays thus limiting cloud formation.

Less clouds, more heat.

We are currently experiencing

a cycle that is seeing more sunspots

activity but this cycle has

been fluctuating normally for

millions of years. Apparently, we

are indeed, historically, in rather

a calm time in the sun’s ups

and downs, although in the short

term the sunspot activity happened

little more than, say, 100

years ago.

This is a perfectly normal cycle

and our earth has gone through

many of these cycles. It is thought

that every 500 years or so we experience

a shift in climate and all

changes are dependent on the activity

of the sun. It is thought that

it was much warmer in the 1400s

than it is now and that was before

the onset of the industrial

revolution.

 

Industrial effect?

 

This is not to say that industry is

not having catastrophic effects on

our environment by way of pollutants,

BUT it does seem that the

push to blame the greenhouse effect

and, therefore, mankind for

global warming could, in fact, be

false. It may be argued that, as is

often the case, the few who benefit

from this scare tactic are diverting

funds away from true environmental

issues and human

needs such as poverty, the reduction

of damaging pollutants and

development of third world populations.

It is unfortunately true

that this scam, if scam it is, could

be seen as yet another damming

indictment on our governments

and powers that be to gain yet

more control and line ever deeper

pockets.

When you look at the facts you

may conclude that it is more likely

that the sun and not CO2 is responsible

for the fluctuations in

temperature on the surface of the

planet. The effect of rising CO2 in

the atmosphere actually promotes

and increases plant growth.

You may have seen or heard

about the so-called hockey stick

graph that shows the correlation

of CO2 increase in the atmosphere

and its spike in the 20th

century matching an unprecedented

increase in global temperature.

This graph was based on a

programme produced by a previously

largely unknown scientist

named Michael Mann who

came under fire, but fights back

tenaciously, from sceptics who

claimed that it was found that the

complicated algorithm used within

the programme meant that almost

any data input would result

in the hockey stick shape. Mann’s

chart completely wipes out evidence

of the temperature increase

of the 1400s but yet has been the

flag waved by the likes of Al Gore

ever since. The sceptics maintain

that this data is flawed, but

these omissions in the graph are

put down to being regional rather

than global phenomena. >

 

“There are, as always, questions about particular

details. But those who suggest that the marked

changes in climate patterns are not associated

with human activities (as some still do) are

isomorphic with those who suggest that cigarette

smoking is not the major cause of lung cancer (as

some still do).”

Lord Robert May, whilst president of the Royal Society, UK.

photo xymonau

get thinking

 

Money, money, money

 

Money and power, as always, could be seen to be at the root of this possibly massive deception. Research grants into this concept of global warming seem only to be awarded to those out to prove CO2 as the cause. This began, it seems, for several reasons: one was that the coal industry sector held many of the world governments to ran­som in the late 1970s and early 80s – Margaret Thatcher was seen as especially keen to break the back of powerful unions and promote nuclear power in coal’s place – and what better way than to make fos­sil fuels the bane of the planet?

Secondly, the issue of global warming also helps to keep poor­er countries poor. A direct link can be seen in a country’s ability to produce power and its ability to develop. Therefore, with restric­tions on the use of fossil fuels and the strict reduction of CO2 emis­sions levied at third world coun­tries and laid down in the Kyo­to agreement this has the effect of limiting the development of third world countries, desired or not. Also taxes are levied on the majority of us and, remember, there is US$45 trillion to be had. A mighty big incentive for a myth of this nature to continue, for, af­ter all, if it turned out that it is the sun and natural cycles that are re­sponsible for global temperature fluctuations, then the huge indus­try that has grown up around glo­bal warming would crumble and government would have to turn its resources and time to real en­vironmental and social problems. There would be a lot of egg on a lot of faces and perhaps a hugely annoyed populous to boot.

Another interesting fact is that the global warming issues came about just as one of the world’s largest and most influential cor­porations was about to lose its patent on Freon (CFCs), a gas that was used in most refrigera­tion units and aerosols. This loss of patent meant that anyone could use the gas and that the corpora­tion would lose much of its rev­enue, so as the patent ran out so the gas magically became illegal, until, low and behold, the corpo­ration developed an “eco friend­ly gas” with, you guessed it, a nice new patent. If it was proven that Freon actually doesn’t harm the atmosphere to any great extent, there would have been little use for a new gas, and therefore, no new patent, leaving the poor old corporation sorely out of pocket.

Despite all the cleverly edit­ed data and pictures in films like An Inconvenient Truth it seems that the facts simply do not sup­port the position that CO2 has an­ything to do with global warming and the worry is that this mislead­ing data is being used against the masses.

There is currently a petition signed by 17.000 scientists, politi­cians and academics denouncing the current line on global warm­ing as a farce, but on the other hand, according to the New Sci­entist, there are tens of thousands who consent to the IPCC posi­tion. Al Gore perhaps jumped on the wrong bandwagon when he made An Inconvenient Truth (did you know, according to him, he also invented the internet!) and although compelling viewing, the facts may simply be wrong. There are even calls from many in the scientific community to strip him of the Nobel Prize. To date he has refused to debate the issue with others preferring to hide stead­fastly behind his seemingly false rhetoric.

 

Hot and cold

 

In the 1970s the big scare on eve­ryone’s lips was a global freeze now it’s a global warming but if, as the data suggests, we have lit­tle to do with this process (al­though a lot to do with a more serious issue related to the burn­ing of fossil fuels, namely pol­lution), we should perhaps be diverting the massive funds ded­icated to this white elephant and instead put that money to better use cleaning the planet and ad­vancing its entire population, as well as focusing on a more real­istic approach to the inevitable swings and roundabouts of natu­ral climate fluctuations. It seems such a common theme that we are duped by questionable me­dia and governmental reports based on nothing more than a clever twisting of data to suit the untrustworthy.

This convenient lie makes money and power and the incon­venient truth is that we are being fed lie, after lie, after lie. A bitter pill to swallow.

 

Mankind is responsible for many problems on the planet but if we are to address them we must stop wasting time and money on something that is not our fault or in our power to change and in­stead start to focus on what we can fix like the duplicitous na­ture of our governments and me­dia for a start. Is it time for us to demand that the inconvenient truth simply becomes the truth?

Keeping an eye on the truth.

February 12, 2009 by openireport

The openireport news bulliten and feature articles coming soon.

The openireport presents “The 5 Precept Project”

MEET THE BILDERBERGS

Meet the Bilderbergs

War, famine, poverty and disease are the banes of humanity. It is not difficult to see

why mankind has been unable to address these problems or to accept that greed

is the greatest hurdle to the satisfactory resolution of these issues. As the financial

markets of the world continue to unravel, many are beginning to question the

policies and strategies of governments, institutions and corporations that seem to

be sending us hurtling towards a complete social and financial breakdown.

 

By Tom Wilson

 

Have our duly elected governments

simply dropped the ball?

Or is the current state of the world

‘intended’ to leave us at the mercy

of the financial elite whose plan

for global domination disregards

the suffering of mankind in favour

of a more highly prized ideal,

that of profit?

Blatant abuse of power to obtain

profit, and of course more

power, seems to be a common

theme throughout governmental

and corporate policy and as the

lines blur between those in political

positions and those pulling the

corporate strings, what emerges

is a picture of a global elite whose

agenda is to benefit the few at the

expense of the many. This relentless

drive for total control of the

world’s resources, including its

populous, resembles for some the

four horsemen of the apocalypse

dancing unencumbered across

the surface of the earth.

Who are these faceless elite

and how, in a world seemingly

so complex, do they manage

to orchestrate such an elaborate

and self-serving agenda? Could

it be possible that a rich minority

have the reins on media, politics

and finance to such an extent as

to be able to coerce world events

and direction? Are these few with

their desire for absolute profit

the motivating force behind the

West’s global agenda and its disregard

for collateral damage? At

this point any conspiracy theorist

worth his salt would begin to recite

names such the Trilateral Coalition,

The Council for Foreign

Relations, even the Round Table,

as the foundation institutions

they insist are the hidden policy

makers behind our governments.

 

From whence it came

 

The Bilderberg group is a yearly

meeting of some of the West’s

most influential figures from the

worlds of finance, politics and

media. Although it gains its name

from the Bilderberg Hotel in the

Netherlands, the site of its origin

in 1954, this supposedly informal

meeting is held at various five star

hotels throughout Europe and

the US and always under a net of

seemingly impenetrable security.

The attendees are there by invitation

only and the discussions

that take place do so under a veil

of secrecy that has seen its participants

banned from even alluding

to its contents. Considering

the guest list which includes

royalty, media moguls and representatives

of the West’s richest

and most powerful individuals,

media attention of the event

is surprisingly lacking with the

world’s mainstream media seemingly

unaware, uninterested or

restricted from taking an interest

in this meeting of such grand figures.

The Bilderberg group values

its privacy above all and cites

the need of its members to speak

freely on topics of concern to be

of the utmost importance during

this three-day think tank.

 

Whys and wherefores

 

The group, at its most benign, insists

it is merely a forum for ideas,

no declarations are made, no

policies announced and no official

plans are laid out as part of

the conference, yet the very level

of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg

group begs the question -

if there is nothing to hide, why all

the secrecy? Many of the figures

who attend these conferences are

in public office and many wonder

if it is public money that funds

their visit to this luxurious threeday

think tank. It is certainly

public funds that supply the security

as the secret services, army

and police forces of the government

hosting the event are called

upon to ensure its seclusion. It is

a little unsettling that these elite

choose to keep their thoughts and

opinions a secret from all and,

this should, if nothing else, raise

questions as to the group’s agenda.

The very fact that a percentage

of the invitees are from the major

western media concerns, and

that little or no reporting of these

events reaches the public, should

be cause to raise red flags for all

those who are even a little skeptical

of the 130 or so ‘Dark Suits’,

representing the world’s most

powerful and influential figures,

coming together for alleged private,

informal discussions.

Not surprisingly the conspiracy

theorists are highly vocal on

the subject.

YouTube is awash with video

snippets, not only of the opinions

of conspiracy theorists like David

Icke and Alex Jones, but also

with nervous retorts by grinning

politicians as they are questioned

about the roles of these various

groups. Bland political spin and

condescending rhetoric seems to

replace truth and the secret nature

of these meetings is vigorously

maintained.

 

What you know or…

 

In 1954 Joseph Ratinger along

with Prince Bernhard of the

Netherlands contacted Walter

Bedell, then head of the CIA,

with a proposal to form an informal

meeting of members of the

Atlantic Community with a view

to discussing the problems faced

by that same community.

At the time there was considerable

anti-US sentiment in Europe

and the aim of this initial meeting

was to present a forum for discussion

that would enable both sides

of the Atlantic to pursue common

ideals and goals.

Attending the first meeting

were figures like David Rockefeller

and Henry Kissinger along

with many other highly powerful

figures of the time. The success

of this meeting prompted it

to become a yearly event where

a permanent Steering Committee

set the agenda for discussion and

decided on the guest list. Since

that time the Bilderberg group has

been having its almost clandestine

meetings and boasts an impressive

array of guests including Bill Clinton,

Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld

and Paul Wolfowitz.

The group has been accused

of inviting and influencing politicians

who are willing to follow

an agenda that suits the corporate

elite and indeed Bill Clinton,

Tony Blair and current President

of the European Commission,

José Manuel (Durão) Barroso, all

attended the meeting before they

took office.

The accusation that members of

the Bilderberg group influence the

outcome of political appointments

and policies stems from the fact

that the attendees, some of whom

fund campaigns for the likes of

Obama and McCain, are working

towards the same policies dictated

by the Bilderberg group.

Barack Obama has denied he

has attended Bilderberg, yet this

year the meeting, held at Chantilly

in Virginia, near Washington,

just happened to be 26 miles from

where the now president-elect happened

to be residing at the time

and, as luck would have it, the entire

press entourage that accompanied

him on his presidential

campaign were sent on a plane to

Chicago allowing him, it was said,

to attend a private meeting with

Hillary Clinton. The press has spoken

of a feeling of being kidnapped

in order for them to be unable to report

on Obama’s movements and it

would seem a little too coincidental

that he disappeared at the exact

time that the Bilderberg group was

meeting so close by. Of course, coincidences

do happen.

Also attending this year’s conference

were the Porto and Lisbon

mayors, Rui Rio and Antonio Costa

respectively, both of whom are

possibly being considered as future

leadership candidates.

 

Policymaker?

 

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time

Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended

our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40

years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the

world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those

years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march

towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an

intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national

auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991, Baden-Baden, Germany

 

 

It seems that the cat is somewhat

out of the bag this year and,

for the first time, the Bilderberg

group released a short press release

announcing the meeting

and it is apparent as you surf the

net that members both past and

present are slightly more open to

discuss the meeting’s existence if

not content, although most insist

it is still a benign event.

An interesting quote by Dennis

Healy, when asked about the influence

of the group and the conspiracy

theories surrounding its

agenda, was that it is “exaggerated,

but not unfair”. When we

look at the sheer logistics of getting

so many powerful people in

one place and under relative secrecy,

it does begin to raise questions

as to the benefits derived

from participation.

It may be that this group meets

in a spirit of harmless cooperation

and that no firm ideas are put

in place as a result of these meetings

but that seems unlikely.

The Bilderberg group insists its

meetings are well-meaning, yet

the very level of influence exerted

by its members in their relative

fields could lead us to assume

that topics and concerns raised at

the meeting then go on to form

the basis of current world policies.

The group is said to be the

driving force behind the policies

of the Neo-Cons whose founding

members, Rumsfeld, Cheney

and Wolfowitz, are unrepentant

in the aim to extend the powers

of the US and its corporate elite

worldwide.

The Bilderberg group and others

like them do themselves no

favours by hiding the true intent

of these meetings and if, as they

say, they are harmless why all the

secrecy?

Perhaps the Bilderberg group

does represent the secret government

of the new world order and,

if so, what indeed is their agenda

and, is it not time for the people to

be privy to the thoughts and ideas

of this elite? When we look at the

policies of the Neo-Cons and the

actions of the WTO, IMF and the

Federal Reserve we begin to see

a picture emerge of a worldwide

strategy to obtain and maintain

profit. Many of the world’s most

powerful figures and the leaders

of these institutions attend the

Bilderberg meetings and it is rumoured

that these figures dictate

the direction of world events.

 

Getting on top

 

The plus side of a pyramidal system

is that a top tier with enough

influence to truly affect the outcome

of world policy does exist.

Perhaps it is not that we need to

replace or unseat this elite but

rather to demand a level of input

and transparency as to ensure

that the good of the many outweighs

the greed of the few.

It seems that somehow we

must regain control and reign

in the selfish desires of those

corporate and political entities

that currently ride rough-shod

over us all. We have the money

and technology to ensure the

human rights and dignity of all

who dwell on earth without endangering

precious profit, but it

is the sole adherence to the bottom

line that seems to take precedence

over all other considerations

and this could be seen as

the true motivating force behind

the Bilderberg meetings.

In a world where the majority

of people are better educated

and more aware, this is an issue

that must surely be addressed. It

would take extraordinary minds

to manipulate the world toward

profitable chaos. Perhaps we

should demand that same intellect

turn its attention to alleviate

rather than exacerbate the human

condition?

The people we place in positions

of power have an obligation

to work for our benefit yet

it seems that the secrecy behind

these meetings would suggest

that it is possible these elite in

Dark Suits are pursuing another

agenda.

Soon we shall take a look at the

influence behind the members of

Bilderberg and also the actions

of entities like the Neo-Cons, the

Federal Reserve (did you know

the Federal Reserve is a private

company!), and events like 9/11

which are seen by some as the

catalyst for a new world order.

 

All the President’s men (well some of them, and women)

 

Since his election, Barack Obama has nominated some of his

cabinet staff, the people who will fulfill his promise of change.

Here are some of his choices so far:

Hilary Clinton (Bilderberg 1997)

Timothy Geither (Bilderberg 2008, Trilateral Commission (TRI)

and Council for Foreign Relations (CFR))

James Jones (Bilderberg 1985)

Tom Dashel (Bilderberg 2008)

James A Johnson (member of Obama’s VP selection team -

Bilderberg 2008), TRI and CFR

Robert Gates (Bilderberg)

Joe Biden (CFR)

Paul Volker (TRI and CFR)

Lawrence Summers (Bilderberg 1998, 2002, 2008, TRI and CFR)

 

It will be interesting, and possibly disturbing, to see Obama’s full

cabinet when he finally takes office in 2009.

It is probably just another unlucky coincidence but as a wise man

once said “if it looks like a sheep and baas, its probably a sheep”.

 

Keeping an eye on the truth.

February 12, 2009 by openireport

The openireport news bulliten and feature articles coming soon.

The openireport presents “The 5 Precept Project”

What a load of bankers!

What a load of bankers!

 

“The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be

fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.”

Lord Acton

 

Due to the structure of our financial systems most of the money in circulation today

is a figment and in real terms represents no more value than the paper on which it is

printed. The result of this insubstantial currency, which some see as fraud or at best

legalised theft and others an essential part of the modern economy, is the credit

crunch we see today.

 

 

By Tom Wilson

 

The simple truth is that there are

not enough reserves in the bank

vault to honour the promises on

the paper we hold in our hand, a

vacuum where worth should be.

Make no mistake, whilst many

face bankruptcy and poverty at

the fickle whims of our current financial

system the very existence

of our modern financial institutions

and the ups and downs of

our usury economy (the lending

of money at an exorbitant rate of

interest) make the really rich richer

whilst bleeding the rest of us

dry. Stocks, oil prices, and interest

rates soar and plummet, house

values and retirement funds disappear

in the blink of an eye. Sadly,

our assets, merely electronic

data, are easily erased by the touch

of a button. This economy is designed

for planned executions and

reprieves and as ever only the architects

of this financial rape reap

the true benefits.

Many great minds throughout

the ages have warned against exactly

the situation we are in now

only it seems to be violently silenced.

JFK in the months before

his assassination was proposing

drastic changes to the US banking

system and Jesus expelled the

moneylenders from the temple

four days before his execution, so

the bible says. Presidents, philosophers,

intellectuals and obscure

laymen have all warned against

the evils of the financial system

this world is currently forced to

embrace. A few people are making

money, lots of money, real

hard cash, but as a result the world

suffers. Again the blind pursuit

of wealth and power leaves in its

wake a mire of devastation and

anguish.

 

Bygone days

 

The history of banking begins

with fear of loss and a touch of laziness.

Gold is weighty and risky

to lug around. On a long journey

you could get robbed or worse,

even on a short one come to that,

and so it naturally fell to the goldsmiths,

who already handled most

of the commerce in gold and silver

coins, to provide safe storage

for the gold of travellers and city

dwellers alike. Far and wide, people

began to entrust their gold to

the goldsmith and in exchange

for a modest rental fee they received

a goldsmith’s note. As a

network of goldsmiths emerged,

holders could redeem the note in

other towns receiving the worth

of that note, less expenses, without

the hassles and dangers of carrying

the gold from place to place

themselves. The goldsmith’s note

was the origin of our modern paper

money.

More and more these notes of

tender became trusted and the

world of banking came into being.

In its first incarnation it was a

reasonably fair and useful system

keeping assets safe whilst offering

the ability to move quantities of

wealth without risk. All went well

until the goldsmiths realised they

could issue more notes than the

value of bullion they held in reserve

as it was seldom, if ever, that

people came to collect all their

wealth at the same time. Only if

confidence in the liquidity of the

bank was low would they experience

a ‘Bank Run’ where a rush of

note holders insisted on retrieving

their gold and silver coin. Some

succeeded while for others the

note would become worthless and

the bank would become bankrupt.

The bank’s holdings were

then often sold off at a fraction

of the real value mainly to other

banking concerns. This happened

somewhat frequently in the early

years of banking and as a result

large banking families emerged

and learned fast from earlier mistakes,

greed being an exceptional

motivator. Many of these families

still control banking today.

 

Family business

 

From the start the banks began

to make huge profits by lending a

promise of money in the form of

a bank note, charging interest and

insisting on hard cash in return.

The lending started with individuals

but in time these institutions

ended up lending to Kingdoms.

Of course in real terms much of

the money didn’t exist until it was

repaid, so began the debt economy

in which clutches we find ourselves

today. As the goldsmiths’

tangible reserves of gold and silver

coin grew, so did the amount

of notes in circulation. We now

see up to nine times the deposited

value of any transaction credited

to and in turn lent by the banks.

This simple fraud has ballooned

and amounts in the trillions are,

in real terms, worth no more than

thin air. The huge wealth collected

by the banking cartels gave them

unprecedented power worldwide

and this is power they still hold

today.

The Federal Reserve cartel

which controls currency issue in

the US is, in essence, a privately

owned bank and the US borrows

money from this private corporation

issuing in return government

bonds, which are essentially

a promise to repay debt. The Federal

Reserve and the US government

point out the many safety

nets governing the running of the

Federal Reserve but it is still, at its

heart, a private corporation with

the well known aims of such entities,

profit and power.

Banks and their position control

the global economy and as

almost everyone owes money

to the bank they could be seen

as literally owning the world by

default.

History is written on the back

of greed. Countries became so indebted

and beholden to the banks,

normally whilst waging war, and

banks manipulated the countries

in their debt to consolidate their

position. Many well known episodes

throughout history can be

traced back to these traders in

gold. Charles I of England revoked

the charter of the banks regaining

control of the issue of monies

and returning to a value based system.

It is alleged the banks, in particular

the Rothschild’s, which financed

Oliver Cromwell to over

throw the King and reinstate the

banking system.

The Boston tea party leading

to the war for independence can

be linked to the need of the UK

to honour its debt to the largest

and most powerful banking

family, again the Rothschilds.

The American colonies at the

time were planning a break from

Europe and had begun to print

their own form of legal tender.

This move would have stripped

the European banks of power

and wealth in the new world.

With pressure from the bank

cartels the UK raised taxes in the

US colonies making life unbearable

and bringing about the war

for independence. After victory

the US, for a time, enjoyed a fairer

system of financial commerce

but in the background lurked the

ever-present banking families

and, despite the warnings of the

likes of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew

Jackson and later Lincoln,

all who lobbied strongly against

a bank charter, the banks once

again took hold of the US and

didn’t let go.

Money and power it seems

are too intoxicating to be spread

around even a little. With so

much of the money we handle

each day being, in the event of a

financial crash, worthless the old

adage that one per cent of the people

own 99 per cent of the wealth

may be sorely understated.

 

You snooze, you lose

 

In this system Joe Public has to

honour his debt with serious

consequences on default. It is often

quoted that most of us live

three pay cheques from disaster,

and even if we have paid faithfully

for years, fail to live up to

our repayments and the banks

can and, often do, take it all.

In a landmark court case in the

US, a man challenged the bank’s

right to repossess his home, citing

the fact that the bank had

used money that didn’t exist to

honour the loan agreement, this

being the case why should they

get his house as they had actually

lost nothing. He had offered to

pay what he could when he could

but the banks had ignored his

pleas and foreclosed anyway. He

won the case and kept his house

- an all too rare judgment on the

side of those struggling showing

that the system does work sometimes.

This judgment is of course

being appealed.

The banks, like the corporations,

wield incredible influence,

altering law and policy to suit

their insatiable need for more.

Inherent in the mass abuse of

trust being committed by our

government and economic institutions

is the potential to initiate

remarkable change to our

condition.

The system can work and the

need for a global agreement on

issues of environment, people

and commerce is undeniable but

maybe across the board we need

a fair and reasonable use of the

system built on compassion and

common sense not the blind pursuit

for the bottom line.

We are not blind anymore and

from bitter experience we know

the system needs some major

tweaking because in the end is

it this sole pursuit for gain that

corrupts and perhaps inevitably

retards the growth of our

civilisation?

Corporations are created to be

solely concerned with the bottom

line and dherence to the

law, political or natural, depends

on the effect on profit. Our safety

net of governmental and public

oversight has failed allowing

the influence of selfish intent to

dominate world events and some

accuse the central banks of being

the axis of this evil. When the influence

of money is not given absolute

precedent could the spectres

of poverty, disease and war

be given a chance at resolution?

 

Ask yourself a question

 

photo woodsy

 

By good fortune, technology has

given us access to so much information.

Information provokes

questions, questions that need to

be answered, not with political

spin or a slick corporate tongue

but with substantive responses.

Can we continue to ignore the

words of those who question the

direction we are being forced to

take?

Even if it was originally all the

bankers’ fault, it is ultimately

us who have allowed the system

to falter as we stood complicit

watching those in power and

luxury dismiss their humanity.

But maybe, as we are so often

told, we need this system despite

its obvious faults and that in the

end we are all being served by

this endless pursuit for wealth?

What do you think?

In Thomas Jefferson’s opinion:

“If the (American) people ever

allow private banks to control

the issue of their money, first by

inflation and then by deflation,

the banks and corporations that

will grow up around will deprive

the people of their property until

their children will wake up

homeless on the continent their

fathers conquered.”

 

Enough said.

 

Federal Reserve of the USA’s (a private banking cartel) explanation

relating to the need for Fractional Reserve Banking.

“The fact that banks are required to keep on hand only a fraction

of the funds deposited with them is a function of the banking

business. Banks borrow funds from their depositors (those with

savings) and in turn lend those funds to the banks’ borrowers

(those in need of funds). Banks make money by charging borrowers

more for a loan (a higher percentage interest rate) than is paid

to depositors for use of their money. If banks did not lend out

their available funds after meeting their reserve requirements,

depositors might have to pay banks to provide safekeeping services

for their money. For the economy and the banking system as a

whole, the practice of keeping only a fraction of deposits on hand

has an important cumulative effect. Referred to as the fractional

reserve system, it permits the banking system to “create” money.”

This cumulative effect has seen the bubble burst more than once.

 

PRIVACY RIP

Privacy R.I.P

Inside your own head may be the only place these days where you can truly expect privacy. With the aid of technology our society today is monitored prolifically. Law enforcement, government and others besides have the means to see into our homes, through our clothes, to monitor our calls and e-mails and have access to CCTV imagery and transactional data that can track the movements of any citizen in the system.

By Tom Wilson

Our shopping habits and our web surfing preferences form a huge database that can be turned to good use by corporate companies and governments alike. Informa¬tion is power.
In the past there were limits to how much data could be stored, and although a system was in place to obtain information, those ob¬taining it needed to be more dis¬cerning as to what they kept. Now with the increase in data storage technologies, more and more in¬formation about our daily lives is being gathered. This unprece¬dented access into our private af¬fairs begs the question of do we have any privacy left at all?

Tell all
Some fridges these days have the technology to tell you what is left inside, connect to the Internet, of¬fer recipe ideas based on its con¬tents and contact the local super¬market to get food delivered when it runs out. It can tell you when food has passed its sell-by date or if you are drinking more milk than is healthy for your diet. In fact, the only thing these fridges don’t do is eat the food for you. The tech¬nology is in place so that this same information could be used to noti¬fy you when you pass a shop with an item required, by way of a text message to let you know that you need butter, for example, and the shop you just passed sells it. All that information, where you went, what you bought, the fact you can afford such an expensive fridge, paints a picture.
Over the course of our daily life we offer breadcrumbs into the sys¬tem and leave clues as to our likes and dislikes, our current financial situation, even our health. If that information is on an intranet, the World Wide Web, or even in a se¬cure government database, it has the potential to be accessed and, in turn, exploited. In the case of our fridge owner, he’s just happy he remembered the butter but for many the availability of our pri¬vate information leads to identity theft or worse. At the very least we get accosted by junk mail and tele¬sales calls because our information ended up on someone’s list. Who has our information and how they use it is a cause for concern for all and, although laws exist to protect our privacy, the inevitable advan¬tage stemming from access to this information allows for grey are¬as in the implementation of these laws. As governments rely on cor¬porations like the telecommu¬nication industry and computer technologies for much of the data provided an I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine approach to data protection is inevitable.

Someone is watching you
There have been mind-boggling advances in technology recent¬ly and the world of surveillance and data collection has become saturated with the glut of new information.
These days’ surveillance devic¬es surround us. Where we work, were we shop, where we relax and even in the relative safety of our own homes technology is in place to observe and monitor our every move. There are surveillance sys¬tems in development that are only seven millimetres thick, and now the aim is to create a one millime-tre surveillance device that could be released in the thousands and blow like dust in the wind, collect¬ing data for up to three weeks at a time. Microscopic spies with the ability to go everywhere.
Proposals to have identity chips in our car’s number plates, dis¬playing all relevant information; insurance, MOT, date of registra¬tion, etc., are being introduced and although the tracking of our movements is said not to be the prime objective, inevitably the in¬formation will still be available.
Cell phones can be triangulat¬ed to within 50 metres of your po¬sition. Every keystroke we make on the computer’s keyboard can be recorded by spyware revealing passwords and financial data to the recipient spy. More and more biometric identity recognition de¬vices are being introduced, finger¬prints, iris scans, facial recogni¬tion software and DNA are being used with this technology, able to identify and track us whenev¬er we input into the system, lead¬ing to a clearer and more defined picture of what we do. And, even if nobody is interested in you per¬sonally, this information leaves us exposed. We don’t have to be criminals to be watched and ex¬ploited and the push by corpora-tions to obtain info that will help them sell more to the consumer is irresistible.
It has been proven that we act differently when we are being ob¬served. Jeremy Betham, a 16th century philosopher, designed a prison called the Panopticon. Its basic premise was that if a pris¬oner did not know when they were be¬ing watched (the actions of the guards being hidden from view), but was aware that there was always a pos¬sibility he was being watched, fear based obe¬dience would follow. A prison¬er would conform more quick¬ly and in addition it would take fewer officers to control the envi¬ronment. It could be seen that the Panopticon effect is now preva¬lent in modern society and, more and more, we realise that by using the technologies available we are indeed aiding the powers that be to control our movements, our ac¬tions and ultimately giving away freedoms that are ours by right.

Right… or wrong?
Where the information is used correctly you can see the advan¬tages, crime is reduced in areas of high surveillance and in time you’ll never forget the butter again, but laws on privacy are struggling to keep up with the increase in technology, as there are dif¬ferent require¬ments as to access of pri¬vacy by differ¬ent agencies. For exam¬ple, a govern-ment may ar¬gue that it requires full access in order to better protect and serve, whilst a company may insist that it is imperative to in¬crease sales and offer customers a more bespoke and complete serv¬ice. This allows for loopholes and that leaves us exposed.
The issue is not whether we have anything to hide but more do we have the right to choose when personal information about us can and should be available to others. After all, this information belongs to us.

‘You have ZERO privacy. Get over it.’Scott McNealy, CEO, Sun Microsoft Systems Inc.

Right now personal data is be¬ing traded as a commodity and sold, not necessarily for our ben¬efit. And, of course, one big prob¬lem with technology is that it is not always right. A case in point in the US sees a mother and two daughters arrested for murder, the damming evidence came from a CCTV camera at an ATM machine placing the hapless fam¬ily in the area at the exact time of the murder. Only three weeks lat¬er did it surface that the ATM had an error with its timer. The family was free to go but the damage to three lives was already done.

The future
We never know when the winds of change will blow through po¬litical agendas and what is seen as harmless today could be con¬strued as anti-establishment tomorrow.
It is not all gloom and doom, big brother is definitely watching but he has a lot of siblings to keep an eye on. So for most, the mass of data collected serves to hone marketing strategies and politi¬cal agendas as a whole rather than focusing on the individual, but, again, the danger is if, for some reason, and that can be errone¬ous, we come under the spot¬light, our history is easily found and exposed. Everyone deserves to keep their private life private and only when the use of privacy laws offer definite consequenc¬es for abuse of the same will we be protected. Currently, we are not protected from abuse, even prince Charles had his phone il¬legally tapped and the resulting transcript was laid bare to an ea¬ger press, and he is royalty!
Take a look around you. Are you close to an ATM? A camera? Is your mobile next to you or a computer? You are under sur¬veillance right now. Welcome to the Panopticon 2008. Scott Mc¬Nealy is probably right: we don’t have much privacy these days but what we do have is a right to pro¬tect that which we do have. This right will come when controls are placed on the use of data, as well as its collection and storage, and when we become more discern¬ing about the type of informa¬tion we release. But, if the truth be known, the only thing that may end up protecting our pri¬vacy could be the sheer volume of data now available, the wood from the trees.
David Brin author of the Trans¬parent Society states: “It is already far too late to prevent the inva¬sion of cameras and databases; no matter how many laws are passed, they are here to stay”. And he is probably right. Maybe we should just get used to it. But on the oth¬er hand, maybe it is time we took notice and pay a little more at¬tention to those who are collect¬ing and using the data about us. Perhaps we should not blindly ac¬cept that it is in our best interests for others to have so much access to our daily lives or soon we may find freedom of information be¬comes a shackle to the masses. A prison without walls that we are all forced to attend.