We’re all criminals and outlaws in the eyes of the American police state


By John Whitehead

Source: Intrepid Report

“Never in the civilised world have so many been locked up for so little.”—“Rough Justice in America,” The Economist

Why are we seeing such an uptick in Americans being arrested for such absurd “violations” as letting their kids play at a park unsupervised, collecting rainwater and snow runoff on their own property, growing vegetables in their yard, and holding Bible studies in their living room?

Mind you, we’re not talking tickets or fines or even warnings being issued to these so-called “lawbreakers.” We’re talking felony charges, handcuffs, police cars, mug shots, pat downs, jail cells and criminal records.

Consider what happened to Nicole Gainey, the Florida mom who was arrested and charged with child neglect for allowing her 7-year-old son to visit a neighborhood playground located a half mile from their house.

For the so-called “crime” of allowing her son to play at the park unsupervised, Gainey was interrogated, arrested and handcuffed in front of her son, and transported to the local jail where she was physically searched, fingerprinted, photographed and held for seven hours and then forced to pay almost $4,000 in bond in order to return to her family. Gainey’s family and friends were subsequently questioned by the Dept. of Child Services. Gainey now faces a third-degree criminal felony charge that carries with it a fine of up to $5,000 and 5 years in jail.

For Denise Stewart, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, whether or not she had done anything wrong, was sufficient to get her arrested.

The 48-year-old New York grandmother was dragged half-naked out of her apartment and handcuffed after police mistakenly raided her home when responding to a domestic disturbance call. Although it turns out the 911 call came from a different apartment on a different floor, Stewart is still facing charges of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

And then there are those equally unfortunate individuals who unknowingly break laws they never even knew existed. John Yates is such a person. A commercial fisherman, Yates was sentenced to 30 days in prison and three years of supervised release for throwing back into the water some small fish which did not meet the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission’s size restrictions. Incredibly, Yates was charged with violating a document shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was intended to prevent another Enron scandal.

The list of individuals who have suffered similar injustices at the hands of a runaway legal system is growing, ranging from the orchid grower jailed for improper paperwork and the lobstermen charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes to the former science teacher labeled a federal criminal for digging for arrowheads in his favorite campsite.

As awful as these incidents are, however, it’s not enough to simply write them off as part of the national trend towards overcriminalization—although it is certainly that. Thanks to an overabundance of 4,500-plus federal crimes and 400,000 plus rules and regulations, it’s estimated that the average American actually commits three felonies a day without knowing it.

Nor can we just chalk them up as yet another symptom of an overzealous police state in which militarized police attack first and ask questions later—although it is that, too.

Nor is the problem that we’re a crime-ridden society. In fact, it’s just the opposite. The number of violent crimes in the country is down substantially, the lowest rate in 40 years, while the number of Americans being jailed for nonviolent crimes, such as driving with a suspended license, are skyrocketing.

So what’s really behind this drive to label Americans as criminals?

As with most things, if you want to know the real motives behind any government program, follow the money trail. When you dig down far enough, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, you quickly find that those who profit from Americans being arrested are none other than the police who arrest them, the courts which try them, the prisons which incarcerate them, and the corporations, which manufacture the weapons and equipment used by police, build and run the prisons, and profit from the cheap prison labor.

Talk about a financial incentive.

First, there’s the whole make-work scheme. In the absence of crime, in order to keep the police and their related agencies employed, occupied, and utilizing the many militarized “toys” passed along by the Department of Homeland Security, one must invent new crimes—overcriminalization—and new criminals to be spied on, targeted, tracked, raided, arrested, prosecuted and jailed. Enter the police state.

Second, there’s the profit-incentive for states to lock up large numbers of Americans in private prisons. Just as police departments have quotas for how many tickets are issued and arrests made per month—a number tied directly to revenue—states now have quotas to meet for how many Americans go to jail. Having outsourced their inmate population to private prisons run by corporations such as Corrections Corp of America and the GEO Group, ostensibly as a way to save money, increasing numbers of states have contracted to keep their prisons at 90% to 100% capacity. This profit-driven form of mass punishment has, in turn, given rise to a $70 billion private prison industry that relies on the complicity of state governments to keep the money flowing and their privately run prisons full. No wonder the United States has the largest prison population in the world.

But what do you do when you’ve contracted to keep your prisons full but crime rates are falling? Easy. You create new categories of crime and render otherwise law-abiding Americans criminals. Notice how we keep coming full circle back to the point where it’s average Americans like you and me being targeted and turned into enemies of the state?

That brings me to the third factor contributing to Americans being arrested, charged with outrageous “crimes,” and jailed: the Corporate State’s need for profit and cheap labor. Not content to just lock up millions of people, corporations have also turned prisoners into forced laborers.

According to professors Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, “All told, nearly a million prisoners are now making office furniture, working in call centers, fabricating body armor, taking hotel reservations, working in slaughterhouses, or manufacturing textiles, shoes, and clothing, while getting paid somewhere between 93 cents and $4.73 per day.” Tens of thousands of inmates in U.S. prisons are making all sorts of products, from processing agricultural products like milk and beef, to packaging Starbucks coffee, to shrink-wrapping software for companies like Microsoft, to sewing lingerie for Victoria’s Secret.

What some Americans may not have realized, however, is that America’s economy has come to depend in large part on prison labor. “Prison labor reportedly produces 100 percent of military helmets, shirts, pants, tents, bags, canteens, and a variety of other equipment. Prison labor makes circuit boards for IBM, Texas Instruments, and Dell. Many McDonald’s uniforms are sewn by inmates. Other corporations—Microsoft, Victoria’s Secret, Boeing, Motorola, Compaq, Revlon, and Kmart—also benefit from prison labor.” The resulting prison labor industries, which rely on cheap, almost free labor, are doing as much to put the average American out of work as the outsourcing of jobs to China and India.

No wonder America is criminalizing mundane activities, arresting Americans for minor violations, and locking them up for long stretches of time. There’s a significant amount of money being made by the police, the courts, the prisons, and the corporations.

What we’re witnessing is the expansion of corrupt government power in the form of corporate partnerships which both increase the reach of the state into our private lives while also adding a profit motive into the mix, with potentially deadly consequences.

This perverse mixture of government authoritarianism and corporate profits is now the prevailing form of organization in American society today. We are not a nation dominated by corporations, nor are we a nation dominated by government. We are a nation dominated by corporations and government together, in partnership, against the interests of individuals, society and ultimately our freedoms.

If it sounds at all conspiratorial, the idea that a government would jail its citizens so corporations can make a profit, then you don’t know your history very well. It has been well documented that Nazi Germany forced inmates into concentration camps such as Auschwitz to provide cheap labor to BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other major German chemical and pharmaceutical companies, much of it to produce products for European countries.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, whether what we are experiencing right now is fascism, American style, or Auschwitz revisited?

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book “The Freedom Wars” (TRI Press) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Related Podcast:


Posted in Activism, civil liberties, culture, Empire, History, Law, Podcasts, police state, Social Control, society, State Crime, surveillance state | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ruling-Class Supremacy and the Free World


By Mark Weiser

Source: Dissident Voice

Soon after children start noticing differences between others and themselves, they’re old enough to believe they’re superior or entitled in some ways. These feelings come naturally, and are reinforced by adults as children learn social behaviors by comparing attributes and values so they can fit in with, or be seen apart from, certain others in society. This is all instinctual to some degree and a normal part of life. To make the case for instinct and superiority, think about what anyone would consider when choosing a partner for a serious or long-term relationship. If a potential partner does not meet the standards of another, by default one person is considering their self above the other in some way. And speaking generally for superior humans, when considering procreation, they don’t want their superior self to mix with inferior genes. Everybody has standards of age, looks, intelligence, income, occupation, social standards and more or less, it’s different for everybody.

Pro-creationist superiority is instinctual to best insure our genetic code is passed along into the future. Of course there’s pure romantic attraction, but that’s only triggered because the partner being considered hasn’t been ruled out. It could ultimately be the depth and types of emotions which compel the romantic to get deeply involved, but they still make relative comparisons the first time meeting someone and along the way. We’re not speaking hypothetical, these attitudes are accepted realities and I would guess, at minimum, 96% of all readers over age twenty can relate by direct experience, even if they’ve not been in a serious intimate relationship.

Instinct and human nature overlap when it comes to seeking society with others, and societies or social groups necessarily have a culture that sets boundaries for ideological beliefs, abilities, practices, social status etc. If a group doesn’t set boundaries, by default, that group would be all inclusive and non-judgmental concerning any specific particulars. As individuals or groups looking at others, it’s all so much instinct and human second-nature, we may not be aware we’re being judgmental. Whether superiority by comparison is instinct due to genetics and the natural workings of the mind, or is influenced by personal nature and prejudices, or results from ideological and social culture, it makes no difference at all in the real world if the end result is the same.

What does make a difference in the real world is whether or not we unjustly impose on others. If our sense of imposing or taking advantage of others is not disabled, and we do impose unjustly on others, ultimately it’s some sense of superiority or entitlement which allows us to impose. Benign superiority is basically harmless as no actions are taken which harm or impose on others; although, if a person feels superior to others and doesn’t participate in something that could benefit himself, he could be a victim of his own perceived superiority.

In the U.S. we have laws against supremacist entitlement being imposed on the unwilling, but because of social conditioning there are times we might assume we’re not being imposed on when, in fact, we are the victim(s). It’s often considered justifiable that one should feel morally or intellectually superior to racists or sexists. But what about assuming religious or ideological superiority and entitlement(s)? Why would either of those be considered fair game in certain circles or social situations? If you have moral values you may feel superior to Wall Street bankers and our enabling Washington D.C politicians – as those two groups were literally the driving forces behind the 2008 economic crash – while at the same time they enriched themselves at the expense of innocent U.S. and world citizens.

The 2008 economic collapse was brought about by the deregulation and non-enforcement of banking laws which resulted in the Federal Reserve and banks both taking excessive risks. There was the Federal Reserve policy of giving the banks too much low interest money to begin with. The banks relaxed loan qualifications which led to real estate and stock market bubbles. It was all tied to fraudulent mortgage default insurance known as credit default swaps being used to prop up bundled mortgage securities which were sold all over the world to individuals, groups and all sizes of governments. The fraudulent mortgage default insurance and grossly exaggerated security ratings made the bundled mortgages securities look much less risky than they actually were, and the bundled mortgage securities were fraudulent due to the grossly misrepresented financial risks. So great were the cumulative risks of all combined, the world economy in 2008 was lined up like dominoes and literally ready to fall as soon as the mortgage defaults started adding up. By the time this was all recognized publicly as the unsustainable confidence game it was, the banks’ corporate officers had already pocketed hundreds of million$ and intended on leaving you and your grandchildren to pay for their entitlements.

With D.C. politicians, the regulatory boards, and Department of Justice looking the other way – while they’re supposed to oversee banking practices in some manner – the bankers were able to pull off the greatest financial scheme in human history. The two main groups which lined those dominoes up, the bankers and D.C. politicians, in this instance are prime examples of interdependent criminals. Our Republican and Democratic parties essentially accepted election campaign funding (bribes) from the bankers, in exchange for legislation the bankers wanted, which finally led to the 2008 crash. And because politicians wanted those campaign funding bribes to continue after 2008, they didn’t pressure the U.S. Attorney General to prosecute the bankers and most likely instructed him not to. These types of crimes and failure to prosecute are nearly guaranteed with the existing campaign funding laws when combined with the accepted political culture among the “ruling-class” in Washington D.C. Not only was the 2008 crash painful for many at the time, but people in the U.S and around the world are, in fact, enslaved to a certain degree while the true costs of those violations are still being paid off.

Assuming they didn’t suffer from psychological disorders, the bankers necessarily had to feel superior or entitled to put their personal interests above the U.S. law and country. A complex and intertwined scheme of 2008 magnitude could only have taken place if the laws on the books prior to the crash were non-existent (deregulated), corrupt as written, corrupted as practiced, or corrupted by enforcement (or non-enforcement) thereof; and we had all of those contributing factors leading up to the crash.

In the U.S. today we have a ruling-class supremacist culture holding itself, the self-chosen few, above the law. And they demand you comply with the law as they cultivate systemic enslavement to a degree as it’s being imposed on the vast majority of citizen-victims. And by all means they invite you, as a dupe, to join their party as a Democrat or Republican, neither of which are looking out for the American people; but join them, and you too can shill for the status quo. If big money likes you enough, they might select you through a screening and grooming process, to be in the U.S. Senate or Congress representing the personal best interests of ruling-class elites to the overall detriment of the country.

As a collective in the U.S. we believe ourselves to be validly non-supremacist as decreed by law, while also believing our culture is morally grounded, and that moral citizens wouldn’t impose unjust self-entitlements by forcing citizens into a degree of slavery. So what is it in our human instinct, human nature or various cultures which allow these types of supremacist-entitlement violations to occur? If the collective sense of injustice is not disabled by some psychological disorder, then as a “moral culture”, these transgressions could only take place by having a population with sufficiently corrupted-intellects, or by having a few corrupted-intellects imposing on the vast majority through concentrated political power. Corrupted-intellect for our purposes here would include the mindset to commit any act of deceitfulness, denial, or false rationalizations by either the perpetrators or victims, which allow legal violations to be committed without eventual prosecution. And regardless of whether or not we suffer from a disabling disorder, corrupted-intellect has collectively disabled our society from attaining a reasonable amount of “liberty and justice for all”. Among those unable to maintain intellectual integrity due to the influence of religious, academic or political cultures, collective denial can take the form of institutionalized supremacist-entitlements as we’ve seen with bankers and politicians surrounding the 2008 fiasco.

Does that mean we’re stuck in a non-democracy being run by a collective of predominately corrupted-intellects of a self-entitled ruling-class supremacist culture? That may depend on Americans understanding just how openly and blatantly they’re still being taken advantage of, and whether or not enough of them are outraged enough to demand some changes. Our two-party political system is essentially a self-perpetuating power structure and would require a major mutiny among members of at least one party to change the existing campaign funding laws, or the Supreme Court would have to overrule itself; the first case is extremely unlikely specifically because getting elected requires receiving huge amounts of campaign funds from the excessively wealthy “ruling-class”, and there’s little hope for the Supreme Court considering the corrupted-intellects sitting there on the bench without a clue.

The joke may be on “we the people” for the time being, but unjust power structures historically fail as the one in question is failing now by eroding the strength and health of its own population. It’s only a matter of time as to when and how a major shift takes place. And regardless of anyone’s sentiment toward the system as is, it’s not working to represent the best interests of the country. What’s left to be said for a system that has systemic corruption guaranteed by existing laws enjoyed by unjustly self-entitled ruling-class supremacists? According to the Declaration of Independence “we the people” have final say and it’s our duty as patriotic Americans, “to throw off such Government”.

Another group which more than deserves mention in the grand scheme of supremacy-entitlements is the so called “news” media. The press has immense power to pressure both, corporate industry and the government to operate within legal and moral parameters that would be beneficial to our overall society. What’s often referred to as “corporate news” isn’t really news, but is actually manipulative propaganda. And those running the show behind the scenes perceive personal benefits by having a bias slanted strongly toward corporate or special interests – which also means not exposing the government because the government works for corporate and special interests also. With the press not using its immense power to benefit U.S citizens and country as a whole, the people running the major news networks are performing a great disservice to the country by denying citizens the absolute truth for their own considerations. Corrupted-intellects are everywhere…

And going back to speaking of dupes, we need to acknowledge the entire subservient culture of politicians around the globe that cater to the whims of Washington D.C. Those foreign office holders often see their compliance to Washington as benefitting themselves personally while it victimizes their own citizens. If those “leaders” are not plain ignorant for any reason, then by default they are willing accomplices on some level. Whatever the case, they’re arguably not fit to look out for the best interests of their own countrymen – just as they’re currently not doing. This subservience is not only applicable to economic issues at present, but also enables unjust military incursions and illegal “wars” of chosen aggression for some perceived political or monetary gain.

If a constant and stable life could be realized, the vast majority of world citizens would prefer to live without trespassing on others. But the brokers of industry, media, and politics, who seek extreme wealth and power, are a different sort – some of these people are beyond being supremely self-entitled, where sociopath or psychopath would be a fitting definition. They act without consideration for truth or the lives they abuse and destroy. Nothing is beneath them, not robbing granny’s life savings while personally benefitting, not starting and backing unnecessary wars of personal choice for monetary or political gain. Over just the last five-and-a-half decades the U.S is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions in various places around the world. The worldwide self-entitled “ruling-class” supremacists of the “free world” predominately exists in a cultural bubble of extreme criminal immorality and exceptionalism — all due to a combination of genetic instinct, human nature and social culture(s) rendering their corrupted-intellects incapable of acknowledging absolute truth and the motives behind their actions. With most of these activities being approved and orchestrated from the epicenter in Washington D.C., the destructive earthquakes travel around the globe through varying forms of imposed ideological and economic tyranny, often with a military “solution” being carelessly and recklessly forced on countless innocent victims of the current day, year, decade or century as the case may be… The “ruling-class” puts all of our lives at risk by keeping our planet in constant jeopardy.

Due to the shear waste and destruction of war along with the possibility of wanton escalation, the entire earth and the world’s population are threatened by the practices of a tiny and miniscule minority comprising the collective ruling-class supremacist culture; and with everything on earth being directly and indirectly interconnected to everything else, their victims, I’m sure you know, include all living things and every last human being.


Posted in conditioning, consciousness, Corruption, culture, divide and conquer, Economics, Empire, Geopolitics, Law, Philosophy, propaganda, Psy-ops, Social Control, society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Two for Tuesday


Posted in Art, culture, Music Video, Two for Tuesday, Video | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Perceptions of Power



Source: Center for a Stateless Society

Parsing Political Divides in the Mainstream and in Anarchism

CNBC describes the Corporate Perception Indicator as “a far-reaching survey of business executives and the general population from 25 markets,” “research firm Penn Schoen Berland survey[ing] 25,012 individuals and 1,816 business executives.” The results of the survey show quite unsurprisingly that the general public associates government with words like “corruption,” “lies,” “incompetence,” and “thieves.” As for big business, the words that came to the minds of those surveyed included, again, “corruption” and “thieves,” also “monopoly” and “power.” Interestingly, overall perceptions of both corporations and government appear to be largely negative. In American political discourse, the political right is characterized by a perceptible overpraise of business, devoted to a view of corporations that sees them as essentially free market actors, “creators” and “doers” that give us progress and innovation. Even if this is not true of everyone on the American right, certainly such sentiments are important to the right’s narrative on free markets. The right looks on government, in contrast, as the bungling and inept meddler attempting to hold back our industrious and our productive, the supporter of the lazy and parasitic who would rather live on the government dole than work for a living.

On the left, corporations are perceived as putting profits above people, as willing to do anything to suck more and more of the world’s natural wealth into the hands of a grasping, extravagant one percent. Government, on the other hand, is treated as the agent of “the greater good” or “the public good,” a kind of benevolent, altruistic mother to us all.

In the United States, people who identify themselves as free marketers or libertarians are much more likely to align with the former of these competing narratives, the right’s assertion that the corporation is the home of the movers and the shakers, the creative and energetic champions of free enterprise. This relationship between self-identified libertarians and the American right helps explain the broader anarchist movement’s pardonable reluctance to accept individualist or market anarchists as the genuine article. Further, hostility toward communism has a long history in individualist anarchism, typified by Benjamin Tucker’s frequent denunciations, yet certainly preceding them.[1]

We may observe at this juncture that both the right and the left share the historically and empirically ridiculous theory that government and corporate power are locked in an eternal war. But it is a great politico-economic myth that governments and large corporations operate at variance with one another, that one must align herself in her political commitments with one or the other, never both, never neither. For left wing individualists, surveys which demonstrate dissatisfaction with and negative attitudes toward both actually make perfect sense. That big business should be associated with greed and governments with corruption is hardly astonishing or remarkable. Further, these results underline the problem with seeing corporate power and government power as rivals, rather than seeing them much more accurately as codependent partners in crime, mutually reinforcing components parts of a larger phenomenon we might call a ruling class or power elite.

We needn’t risk the cognitive dissonance that comes with treating the State as the great restraint upon the socially destructive avarice of multinational corporations. For we find, whenever we bother to look, that elites in the business community regularly work with the public sector to create conditions accommodating to monopolism. The ideal of free and open competition, however championed in corporate press releases and political campaigning, is nowhere to be found and indeed never has been. Thus do market anarchists prosecute our laissez faire critique of capitalism. We come from an older tradition of American libertarians, radicals who contemned capitalism as much as any communist, but understood the importance of individual rights and mutually beneficial trade.

It is interesting to witness anarchist communists and syndicalists develop strict, exclusionary criteria for anarchism, particularly insofar as the arguable father of our doctrine, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, was neither, his mutualism containing many market-friendly if not outright pro-market elements. No less important for anarchism as it developed in America is Josiah Warren, whose first forays into anarchist thought antedate Proudhon. If market or individualist anarchism represents a form of “pseudo-intellectualism,” then some of the anarchist tradition’s brightest lights must apparently be relegated to the dustbin of history. Granting that opposition to not only political but also economic authority is a necessary condition for the true anarchist, individualists like Warren (and his followers such as Benjamin Tucker) more than qualify.

Whether our communist and syndicalist comrades admit it or not, free market ideas figured prominently in fledgling anarchist thought, regarded as perfectly consistent with and a natural outgrowth of, to quote Warren, “the absolute right of supreme individuality.” Considering Warren as an example, many contemporary anarchists may not know that anarchist luminary Peter Kropotkin acknowledged Warren as an inspiration and, in the words of Crispin Sartwell, “a precursor of (and influence on?) Proudhon.” In discussing Warren’s legacy, Sartwell observes one of the major, continuing tensions between the individualist and communist strains of anarchism, the debate on “lifestyle anarchism.” Sartwell argues, quite correctly in the author’s view, that Warren “belongs squarely in what is called by its opponents ‘lifestyle anarchism’: that strain concerned with creating alternatives within the interstices in the existing system rather than arming to overthrow it.” “Peaceful Revolutionist” that he was, Warren emphasized experiments in the creation of practical alternatives to dominant economic and social modalities. To Warren, the whole of life was open to and the subject of reform. This holistic approach, the universality of his critique of the existing state of affairs, he likely inherited from Robert Owen, even while dispensing with other aspects of Owenite thinking. Indeed, Warren’s departure from Owen and his ideas offers us an illuminative proxy for the tensions and debates that still divide individualist from communist elements within anarchism. Warren worried about the overwhelming of the individual within combinations and, paraphrasing Sartwell, imposed a priori schemes. Communists often tend to see the undisciplined “lifestylism” of Warren-type experimentation as essentially bourgeois, outside of or ancillary to genuine class struggle.

Discussing early figures in anarchism such as Warren opens opportunities to reflect on the similarities that unite all anarchists. We can pause to wonder what someone with Warren’s breadth of interests and hopes for reform might think of twenty-first century problems and perceptions thereof.

As all anarchists understand, politics is at bottom conquest, spoliation and rape. Everything else, everything peaceful, voluntary and consensual is something different, throwing the distinction between the “politics means” and the “economic means” once again into sharp relief. The economic means to wealth is defined by the normal, even obvious standards we refer to in interactions with merchants, our friends, and family, the mutually beneficial guidelines we use to cooperate and trade with coequals. The political means, by contrast, is the acquisition of wealth by aggression, by forcible extraction through systematic privilege. The State, being the organization with a monopoly on the legal use of force, is the wellspring of such privilege. As Josiah Warren pointed out in Equitable Commerce:

Theorists have told us that laws and governments are made for the security of person and property; but it must be evident to most minds, that they never have, never will accomplish this professed object; although they have had the world at their control for thousands of years, they have brought it to a worse condition than that in which they found it, in spite of immense improvements in mechanism, division of labor, and other elements of civilization to aid them. On the contrary, under the plausible pretext of securing person and property, they have spread wholesale destruction, famine, and wretchedness in every frightful form over all parts of the earth, where peace and security might otherwise have prevailed. They have shed more blood, committed more murders, tortures, and other frightful crimes in the struggles against each other for the privilege of governing, than society ever would or could have suffered in the total absence of all government whatever.

A deep, principled loathing of both big business and government unites all anarchists. Confronted with the alarming realities of the present moment, its authoritarian repressions and economic maladies, anarchists ought to help one another in peaceful projects to build a freer, better world. Data such as those contained in the Corporate Perception Indicator survey show a world fully primed for our anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist critiques. It falls upon us to communicate our message, to do the constructive work of inaugurating a new order.

[1] Relatedly, in True Civilization, Josiah Warren wrote, “What is called conservatism has all the time been entirely right in its objections to communism, and in insisting on individual ownership and individual responsibilities both of which communism annihilates; conservatism has also shown wisdom in its aversion to sudden and great changes, for none have been devised that contained the elements of success.”


Posted in anarchism, Corporate Crime, Corruption, culture, Economics, Empire, History, Philosophy, Social Control, society, State Crime | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How a Minimal Ebola Outbreak Will Devastate the U.S. Economy

By Dave Hodges

Source: Investment Watch

A World Bank analysis of the economic impact of Ebola on national economies suggests that only a minimal outbreak of the virus could very well devastate the United States and its economic interests.

Economic Consequences of the Perceived Threat of Ebola

There are two dominant theories related to the present Ebola crisis. One theory states that the media and certain government sponsored agencies such as the CDC, NIH and the FDA are hyping the Ebola crisis to promote the roll-out of mandatory vaccines. This notion promotes the belief that Ebola will not impact that many people but the fear being promoted will drive people to help people like Bill Gates make a fortune from the inevitable vaccines that  will follow this crisis. The theory certainly has merit.

The second theory postulates that Ebola will serve as a depopulation instrument AND the elite (e.g. Bill Gates) will make money on the demise of much of humanity through the implementation of mandatory vaccines, while Ebola rips through the population claiming millions of lives.

This second theory also proposes that the super-elite need not worry about succumbing to Ebola because of the fact that there are at least two vaccines and one vaccine, the 2006 human-tested Crucell vaccine, is being withheld from the public and is not being reported on in the media despite a paper trail pointing to its existence and possible efficacy as a treatment agent in the fight against Ebola. This fact has given rise to the possibility that the Crucell vaccine is effective, but the majority of the population will be receiving the hastily prepared and subsequently dangerous GSK vaccine. On the surface, this would seem like crazy thinking. However, it is actually very logical thinking because the Obama administration refuses to shut down air travel from West Africa or to shut down our porous border while trying to prevent the possibility of bioterrorism involving Ebola. Any prudent person would shut down the entry points of Ebola into the U.S. Therefore, we need to be asking what does the Obama administration know that the rest of us do not?

Which of the two theories is true? In terms of economic collapse, it does not matter which is true because either scenario will result in economic devastation.

The globalists are already warning the world about what lies ahead. On October 8, 2014, the World Bank warned about economic consequences of Ebola outbreaks on West African economies.

 “With Ebola’s potential to inflict massive economic costs on Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone and the rest of their neighbors in West Africa, the international community must find ways to get past logistical roadblocks and bring in more doctors and trained medical staff, more hospital beds, and more health and development support to help stop Ebola in its tracks,” says Jim Yong Kim, the President of the World Bank Group.

In fact, the World Bank has published an economic analysis and a series of projections regarding the impacted Ebola countries in West Africa.

Ebola’s Critical Mass Impact On the U.S. Economy

What is the threshold of GDP loss that a country like the United States can endure before the wheels come off of the economy? In other words, how much of a percentage impact would Ebola have to have on the economy to devastate most businesses? Recently, the Washington Post published figures which set the historical average profit margin for a U.S. business at 4.6%. This means that if the spin-off effects of Ebola exceeds a 5% impact on the economy, the wheels will quickly come off the U.S. economy. Business failures will lead to a Stock Market collapse. Because the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed under Clinton, the Banks would be the next to fail  because they are recklessly tied to  underwriting and insuring many investment events in the Stock Market and individual savings and retirement accounts would disappear as well when the banks collapse.

Quickly, the country would fall into chaos. As widespread as the cascading economic collapse would become, no amount of martial law would contain the chaos.
Turn your attention to the World Bank chart, listed above, with regard to the projected economic impact on Liberia based upon low, medium and high projected effects  of an Ebola outbreak on their economy. Pay attention to the percentage of loss of their economic base listed in the above World Bank projections.


Ebola’s Impact on Liberia             Percentage of Impact

Low Impact From Ebola                          – 3.4%

Medium Impact From Ebola                   –  5.8%

High Impact From Ebola                         –  12.0%


Some are wondering why Liberia was chosen to illustrate the economic impact of Ebola and what this could potentially mean to the United States economy? Sierra Leone and Guinea have very primitive economies compared to Liberia, therefore, the impact of Ebola on their respective economies would be insignificant as a basis of comparison to the United States. To some extent, a Liberian comparison is invalid on its face because the Liberians do not have anything close to a 3,000 mile salad. In Liberia, there is virtually no “Just In Time” (JIT) delivery which forms the backbone of our service economy here in the United States. However, the Liberian numbers give us some idea of what we could expect in the U.S. when Ebola gains a foothold.

Since the economy of the United States is based upon JIT and our economic institutions are considerably more well-integrated and intertwined than they are in Liberia, what do you suppose would be the low, medium and high impact on the United States? Undeniably, the impact of Ebola as a factor of economic devastation would be catastrophically higher. The social consequences are devastatingly higher as well because a lower percentage of Americans are able to provide their own food supply as compared to Liberia. There are no numbers that I can point to with regard to the low, medium and high impact effect of Ebola on the U.S. economy except to say that any analysis would place the percentage of impact at a far higher rate than the World Bank projections listed for Liberia. It is safe to conclude that even a low impact effect of Ebola on the U.S. economy would exceed the 5% threshold.

When Going Out In Public Becomes Too Much of a Risk

As any politician, sociologist or policeman will tell you that the fabric that holds society together is voluntary conformity and trust. Most Americans obey most laws because we understand the importance of societal cooperation as opposed to the dangers of living in a state of anarchy. The other factor that binds society together is trust. One of the key elements of trust in America is that our citizens trust the fact that it is safe to go out in public. And going out in public is where much of America’s economic business is conducted (i.e. restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, football games, concerts, etc.).

Mike Adams, appearing as a guest on The Common Sense Show on October 6, 2014, captured this notion when he stated that when Americans lose trust in the belief that it is safe to be in crowds, the impact on our way of life, and especially on our economy, will be catastrophic.

To illustrate just how devastating the effects can be on the economy when people lose trust in the belief that it is safe to go out in public, let’s take a look at the immediate reaction from the citizens of Dallas when only one Ebola case, Thomas Duncan, surfaced in the city.

When it was announced that Thomas Duncan had contact with some Dallas school children, we saw the immediate impact as Dallas moms began to keep their children home from school. Officials in Louisiana refused to receive Thomas Duncan’s property. Subsequently, and according to the AP and Veolia North America, Duncan’s effects were  disposed of in drums taken from a Dallas apartment where Duncan became ill and were burned at the company’s incinerator in Port Arthur., TX.

It does not matter what I write or what someone broadcasts on their talk show about Ebola, once people perceive there is a threat, even a low-level threat posed by someone like Thomas Duncan, the people will panic. Rationality will not be part of the decision making process. Fear will take over.

How long would police, fire, EMT personnel, hospital personnel, people that service our water supplies and the doctors that service our infirm, stay on the job following an Ebola outbreak? An examination of this question, by using Hurricane Katrina, as a comparison, tells us that by the third day, virtually all essential  services would be seriously compromised because of personnel defections. In this scenario, how would chronically ill people receive their medications? How would people get emergency appendectomies or other emergency medical procedures?  There will be no “911, what’s your emergency”? The factors that bind society together will quickly unravel  as Ebola spreads even on a relatively low level of impact.

What can you do to prepare if the economy collapses because of the economic impact of Ebola?

Posted in culture, Economics, Financial Crisis, Health, society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

10 Things You Didn’t Know About the History of Marijuana


By Keri Blakinger

Source: Waking Times

Fancy yourself a connoisseur of all things weed? Then see whether this trip from ancient China to modern Alaska takes you anywhere unexpected.

What do Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Justin Bieber, Maya Angelou and well over 100 million Americans all have in common? They’ve all smoked pot. Throughout its history, marijuana has attracted plenty of unexpected users and proponents. And much of the history of greenery is now familiar to us—thanks to History Channel specials, the burgeoning legalization movement and the popularity of anti-pot propaganda films like Reefer Madness. But even if you’re intimately familiar with the plant in all its forms, we’re willing to wager that some of these facts will surprise you.

1. The first known potheads lived in ancient China, circa 2,727 BC. Emperor Shen Nung helpfully compiled an encyclopedic list of drugs and their uses, which includes “ma,” or cannabis. But ancient Chinese weed consumption is indicated by more than just written records: Six years ago, archaeologists on a dig in the Gobi Desert found the world’s oldest pot stash in the grave of a shaman of the Gushi tribe. The purpose of the cannabis was easily identified because the male plant parts, which are less psychoactive, had been removed.

The Chinese certainly weren’t the only ancient culture to enjoy toking. The Greeks and Romans used marijuana, as did the citizens of the Islamic empires. In 1545, Spanish conquistadors introduced it to the New World when they began planting cannabis seed in Chile to be used for fiber.

2. You probably heard that a bunch of the Founding Fathers grew weed, but did you know the details? Technically, you can’t really classify them as pot farmers because they were growing hemp, which is not the same cannabis variety that you’ll find in a joint. Hemp and pot are the same species—cannabis sativa—but the hemp variety has a lower THC content and was useful instead as a source of fiber for those distinguished dudes’ duds.

But debate continues about whether the Founding Fathers actually smoked cannabis in addition to growing it. While many traditional sources say there’s no evidence of it, other, less buttoned-down ones—including, predictably, High Times—contend that there is.

One factor that muddies the water and the Internet is an oft-repeated Thomas Jefferson “quote” that experts agree is not legit. Although he was a hemp farmer, Thomas Jefferson never said: “Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.”

Admittedly, that’s a pretty difficult image to forget.

3. Hashish, which is a compressed or purified form of pot resin, became faddish in the mid-1800s, as a result of its prominence in popular novels of the era, including two classics: The Count of Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights, an early English translation of One Thousand and One Nights.

In one scene fit to make any DARE instructor shudder, the Count of Monte Cristo virtually coerces another character into a mind-bending hashish adventure, urging, “Taste the hashish, guest, taste the hashish!”

Arabian Nights meanwhile contains multiple references to hashish, including the story “The Tale of the Hashish Eater.” Both Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights found wide audiences due to their exotic settings, foreign cultures and adventure plots that heightened the allure of the drug described on the pages. Contemporary readers who would never had the opportunity to go Persia could at least cop a little bit of Persia off seafaring vessels from foreign ports.

4. Pot’s reputation began to go south when the first English-language newspaper started in Mexico in the 1890sSensationalized stories of marijuana-induced violence gave the drug a bad rap, although pot didn’t really hit the US until after the Mexican Revolution in 1910, when a flood of Mexican immigrants moved north, bringing their favorite weed.

US groups began spreading stories of violence induced by the drug, playing on anti-immigrant sentiment, and referring to the drug by the Mexican-sounding name “marijuana.” This highly racialized propaganda led to widespread fear of the drug, which grew into a panic in the early 1930s when government research “determined” that marijuana-induced criminal acts were “primarily committed by ‘racially inferior’ or underclass communities.”

Interestingly, some of the accounts of violence and crime may not have been entirely fabricated. Just as the myth of the unicorn may have been based on early and inaccurate descriptions of the rhinoceros, the tales may have partly been the result of some confusion regarding plant names. Some media stories of the era conflated marijuana with locoweed, a type of poisonous plant. So it’s just possible that some of the horror stories held a grain of truth—relating to a completely different plant.

5. There is no consensus about where the word “marijuana” came from. The word sounds like a Spanish language cognate, but some etymologists trace its origins to China or India. The plant itself originated in Central Asia, and China and India were the first two regions to begin cultivating it.

One theory is that Chinese immigrants brought the phrase ma ren hua—which translates more or less as “hemp seed flowers”—to Mexico, where it became Spanishized into “marijuana.” Another theory is that Angolan slaves brought the Bantu word for cannabis—ma’kaña—to the Americas via Brazil and Spanish-speakers later adapted it. Yet another theory traces the word back to the Semitic root mrr.

Whatever its origins, there is some agreement that the first recorded use of a similar term was in a feature called “The American Congo” published in Scribner’s Magazine in 1894. In the article, author John G. Burke used the word “mariguan” to refer to a species of plant included in his description of the flora on the banks of the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico.

6.  But we do know that the term “pot” entered the lexicon in the 1930s as a shortened form of the Spanish potiguaya, an alcoholic drink in which cannabis buds have been steeped. A literal translation of potiguaya or potacion de guaya is “the drink of grief.”

Other terms are also far easier than “marijuana” to trace. “Ganja,” for example, likely entered the English lexicon in the 1800s when it was borrowed from a similar Hindi word. While words like pot and ganja endured, other terms for cannabis—such as “gage” (17th-century word for a pipe)  and “muggles” (used in the 1920s by the New Orleans jazz crowd)—have sadly fallen by the wayside.

7. Henry Ford experimented with the invention of a car that was possibly partially made of hemp. Some pro-pot sites claim that Ford actually developed a hemp-based automobile, but the evidence suggests that they are blowing smoke.

In the early 1940s, Ford developed a plastic car intended to be a lighter, stronger and more affordable alternative to traditional metal vehicles. Newspaper articles stated that the new car was a combination of resin binder and cellulose fiber supposedly drawn from pine fiber, hemp, soybean and ramie. However, The Henry Ford, a museum in Michigan, says that the exact ingredients for the car’s recipe have been lost, so they can’t confirm that hemp was in the mix.

Whether or not Ford’s car contained hemp, current scientists have apparently drawn inspiration from the concept as they work to develop cars made of plant fibers such as hemp and elephant grass.

8. Marijuana was initially criminalized by the federal government in an indirect, de facto way: a 1937 tax act. The act set such high taxes on the purchase of weed that it discouraged people from going through the proper legal channels. And because arrest was the penalty for non-compliance, the tax act essentially criminalized marijuana possession.

In 1969, the act was ruled unconstitutional because paying the federal tax required admitting to the possession of something already made illegal by some state laws—and thus violated the right against self-incrimination spelled out in the Fifth Amendment. The following year the law was repealed and replaced with a measure that fully criminalized marijuana. Prior to the federal bans, though, many states had adopted the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act in the early 1930s, which made pot and other drugs illegal under state law.

Today, in a reversal of that situation, marijuana remains illegal on a federal level but two states—Colorado and Washington—legalized recreational use in 2012. More are likely to follow soon.

9. Popular urban legend has it that the term “420” is a reference to a 1970s police code, but in fact a group of high school kids coined the term. In 1971, five California high school students heard about a plot of pot plants whose owner could no longer tend them. Eager to find the green, sticky treasure, the students agreed to meet outside the school at 4:20 pm to look for the plants until they found them. They never did, even after weeks of hunting.

But their fruitless search would be immortalized. Because their school was in Marin County, a counterculture hotspot, and because the treasure hunters had an indirect contact with Grateful Dead member Phil Lesh, the term 420 gradually became a part of drug culture throughout California and then the country.

10. Alaska effectively legalized marijuana 39 years ago. You might have thought otherwise—especially considering the viral video of Alaskan reporter Charlo Greene quitting on-air last month in order to campaign for marijuana legalization. And policy wonks would insist that pot is technically decriminalized, rather than legalized, in the state. But marijuana in Alaska occupies an interesting legal gray area.

In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court decided that the state’s constitutional right to privacy protects the right of adults to use and possess small amounts of marijuana in their own homes. However, Alaskan criminal law currently bans the possession of even small amounts of pot. As a result, Alaskans can be charged with possession for having pot in their homes—but technically courts should throw out the charges for amounts under four ounces.

This confusing state of affairs may be cleared up very soon, though: Next month, Alaskans go to the polls to vote on an initiative to officially legalize marijuana for recreational use.

Posted in Drug War, culture, History, Activism, consciousness, society, Science, Health | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saturday Matinee: The Return of the Living Dead



“The Return of the Living Dead” (1985) was written and directed by Dan O’Bannon (writer of “Dark Star” and “Alien”), and remains among the all-time horror/comedy classics. Unlike typical zombie film scenarios, this one is set off by bumbling employees who release military-grade toxic waste inexplicably stored in the basement of a medical storage facility. The girlfriend of one of the employees and her punk rocker friends end up at the scene and find themselves under siege from reanimated bodies in the storage facility and the neighboring cemetery. While zombie apocalypse films are a dime a dozen today, Return of the Living Dead still has an edge thanks to it’s nihilistic slapstick humor and biting social satire. Four sequels followed Return of the Living Dead, none of them nearly as good.

Posted in Art, culture, Film, Humor, Saturday Matinee, society, Video | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBD Protective Against Ebola Virus


by David B. Allen M.D.

Source: Cannabis Digest

There is good scientific evidence that cannabinoids, and in particular Cannabidiol (CBD), may offer control of the immune system and in turn provide protection from viral infections (4). Cannabis has already been recognized to inhibit fungus and bacteria and can be considered a new class of antimicrobial because of the different mechanism of action from other antimicrobials. (1)

Ebola is a complex RNA viral organism that causes the cell to engulf it by pinocytosis, and then the virus hijacks the cell to replicate itself. This replication can involve many mutations in the RNA code that make it difficult to impossible to create an effective vaccine. There are U.S. Patents showing evidence that Cannabinoids have significant anti-viral activity. (3) (4)

Normally any virus infected cells will produce surface proteins that are identified as foreign. The Immune system attacks these cells when the surface protein is identified as foreign.  The Ebola virus infection causes the cell to produce proteins that hide the virus from the immune system. The viral proteins are sterically shielded, i.e. “hidden” from view, thereby hindering cellular (and thus viral) destruction by the immune system.  This mechanism allows the RNA virus to hide the infected cell by shielding it from view from the immune system.

The cause of death by this virus is the body’s own immune response to the viral infection. This is what causes the mortality and morbidity of this infection.  Subsequently, the virus triggers the immune killer cells to release the enzymes (cytokines) they hold. This release of enzymes causes other lymphocyte to release even more Cytokines in a Storm of release. This is properly termed a Cytokine Storm.

Causes small blood clots to form in all arterioles, called; DIC or Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation.
Causes a massive Coagulopathy where the blood will not to clot properly simultaneously with the DIC (Bleeding and clotting occur at the same time.) Toxic Shock Syndrome occurs when the cytokines release causes the blood vessels to dilate to such an extent that a shock state exists.

Cannabinoids are proven to reduce and prevent Toxic Shock and DIC (2)

The Ebola virus also attacks the adhesions between cells caused by the immune Killer cells to release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) which result in the destruction of the Tight Junction between cells and causes a fluid leakage between cells until bleeding occurs. The inhibition of VEGF by cannabinoids prevent the cellular junctions from haemorrhage.

Cannabinoids Inhibit VEGF and inhibit Glioma brain tumors growth by this mechanism. (6) It is reasonable to predict that inhibition of VEGF and other Cytokines by Cannabinoids during an Ebola infection will help the survival of this deadly disease.  (6 and 7) Stopping the release of Cytokines will be a key feature of treatment of this deadly disease.

The discovery and application of the Endocannabinoid Signalling System is proving to be the control of virtually all diseases of mankind. Cannabinoids are emerging as a new class of drugs that treat infections of bacteria, fungi and virus by different mechanisms of action not found in any other class of drug. (1)

Cannabinoids are proving to have significant cidal (killer) activity to many viruses, including hepatitis C and the HIV virus. Cannabinoids down-regulate (inhibit) the immune response to the infection (2) (3). The cited U.S. Patents (3 and 4) are proof that cannabinoids inhibit many different virus strains from replicating. These patents also prove cannabinoids decreases the body’s immune over stimulated response to the viral infection.  Claims that are made in these U.S. Patents include the following:

(refer to patent for exact quote.)

  • A method of treating HIV disease by the direct inhibition of viral replication using a cannabinol derivative of claim 2. (see patent)
  • The cannabinol derivatives of claim 10 wherein the cannabinol derivative of claim  is used to treat HIV disease by the direct inhibition of viral replication. (see patent)
  • A method of treating diseases of immune dysfunction which are the result of infectious origin such as Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, Herpes Simplex virus, Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B and C, influenza virus, rhinovirus and mycobacterial infections using the cannabinol derivatives of claim 2. (see patent)
  • This United States Patent, proves cannabinoids treats this immune dysfunction that becomes what is known as a Cytokine Storm caused by different viral infections. (4)

In Summation; The US Patents prove down regulation of the immune system by cannabinoids may be a key in survival of HIV and may indeed translate into survival for Ebola patients. The direct Killing or Cidal effect of Cannabinoids is proven in HIV infections,(4) but not yet in Ebola. Inhibition of VEGF is crucial to prevent endothelial leakage and haemorrhage.

Because cannabis is so very safe especially under doctor supervision, I believe it is crucial for the medical community to start human trials on survivability of Ebola infected patients regardless of the political restraints.


David B. Allen M.D.
retired Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeon
Medical Director, Cannabis Sativa, Inc. (Cali215doc@gmail.com)



1)   Antibacterial Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: A Structure−Activity Study Antibacterial Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: A Structure−Activity Study; Giovanni Appendino et al. The School of Pharmacy, University of London

2)   Protection Against Septic Shock and Suppression of Tumor Necrosis Factor α and Nitric Oxide Production by Dexanabinol (HU-211), a Nonpsychotropic Cannabinoid Ruth Gallily1,
Aviva Yamin1, Departments of Immunology The Hebrew University, Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem,  Rehovot, Israel.

3)    Cannabinoid derivatives US patent 20070179135 A1

4)    Treatment of HIV and diseases of immune dysregulation US 20080108647 A1

5)    Curr Pharm Des. 2006;12(24):3135-46. Cannabinoids, immune system and cytokine network. Massi PVaccani AParolaro D, University of Insubria, Via A. da Giussano 10, 21052 Busto Arsizio (VA), Italy

6)    Cancer Res August 15, 2004 64; 5617 Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas Cristina Blázquez HYPERLINK “http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/16/5617.full”1,

7)    How Cannabis Might Keep Coronary Stents Open Longer
Jun 10, 2014 David Allen M.D.

Posted in Drug War, Health, Science, society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another “Gift” From Monsanto: Cancer-Causing Astroturf


Could artificial turf cause cancer?

Source: La Opinion

Artificial turf has always been seen as practical; not only are old tires being put to good use, athletic facilities are spared the expense and maintenance costs of keeping up with real grass. There appears to be a huge potential down-side to this common athletic tool, however–it may be giving people cancer.

Artificial turf is made of synthetic grass fibers, filled in with black or green pieces of re-purposed rubber, typically gained from old tires. It was first introduced to the public in 1965 by Donald L. Elbert, James M. Faria, and Robert T. Wright, employees of Monsanto Company, a company now best-known for its genetically modified crop products. The University of Connecticut Health Center indicates in 1967, Indiana State built the first stadium with outdoor artificial turf, a product called Astroturf.

Since then, many debates have surfaced as to the health risks of artificial turf exposure. Concerns have ranged from an increase in athletic injuries to cancer, with parents, teachers and other officials worried what prolonged exposure to tire particles might mean for children. The rubber in artificial turf heats up on hot days, causing the rubber particles to release small amounts of chemicals. The question is: Are these chemicals being released in enough quantity to actually cause someone harm?

What the research says about artificial turf and cancer

First and foremost, there are no studies linking artificial turf to cancer, and the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, says that the evidence collected so far by scientists and state and federal agencies proves that artificial turf is safe.

“We’ve got 14 studies on our website that says we can find no negative health effects,” said to NBC News, Dr. Davis Lee, a Turf Council board member. While those studies aren’t “absolutely conclusive,” he added, “There’s certainly a preponderance of evidence to this point that says, in fact, it is safe.”

Other research and a number of case studies suggest otherwise, though, like the inconclusive evidence saying artificial turf is safe, these studies and individual accounts also don’t prove the turf causes cancer. What has been proven is that, in its natural setting, artificial turf does leech out potentially dangerous substances.

Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) notes artificial turf was examined in the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station report, and found to leech more than two dozen chemicals into the environment, some of which have been linked to cancer in other studies, with four compounds conclusively identified with confirmatory tests: benzothiazole; butylated hydroxyanisole; n-hexadecane; and 4-(t-octyl) phenol.

“Those chemicals identified with confirmatory analytical studies at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station study have the following reported actions:

  • Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
  • Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen, suspected endocrine, gastrointestinal toxicant, immunotoxicant, neurotoxicant, skin and sense-organ toxicant. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
  • n-hexadecane: severe irritant based on human and animal studies. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
  • 4-(t-octyl) phenol: corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

The study also detected metals that were leached from the tire crumbs. Zinc was the predominant metal, but selenium, lead and cadmium were also identified,” states EHHI.

In addition to the substances found in the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station study, in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated their artificial turf data, stating another concern for individuals in close contact with this athletic product was exposure to lead.

“The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur,” stated the CDC. “As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases. If exposures do occur, CDC currently does not know how much lead the body will absorb; however, if enough lead is absorbed, it can cause neurological development symptoms (e.g., deficits in IQ). Additional tests are being performed by NJDHSS to help us better understand the absorption of lead from these products.”

While no link between these risks and actual cancer cases have been established, some experts believe the individual reports speak for themselves.

In the NBC News report, soccer coach Amy Griffin said she was visiting athletes in the hospital during 2009, two of which were goalkeepers diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. She hadn’t thought much about the correlation between the illness and artificial turf until a nurse made the comment, “Don’t tell me you guys are goalkeepers. You’re the fourth goalkeeper I’ve hooked up this week.”

Since then, Griffin has compiled a list of 38 American soccer players who have been diagnosed with cancer. Thirty-four of those players are goalies, individuals who have the most contact with the turf compared to other players.

The case reports suggest athletes and those spending time on artificial turf may be putting themselves at-risk in a manner similar for people who work in rubber and tire plants.

“Use of recycled tire shreds or crumbs in athletic fields, gardening and playgrounds involves repeated and direct exposures for both children and adults to tire dust and some chemicals similar to those in tire plants,” stated EHHI. “A comprehensive assessment of the information known about the health risks to the public is necessary to assess safety.”

Posted in Corporate Crime, culture, Health, Science, society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

There is no reasoning with an empire waging a world war of deception


By Larry Chin

Source: Intrepid Report

On September 24, 2014, the United Nations passed a resolution paving the way to open-ended “anti-terror” warfare against the Islamic State (IS), the “network of death,” promising a war that will “last for years.”

The “war on the Islamic State” is a lie. It is the same fetid Big Lie that is the “war on terrorism,” reheated and updated with new, bloodier special effects, new propaganda, a familiar but revised cast of demonic villains and a new military attack calendar.

Three thousand lives were sacrificed on 9/11 for the fabricated “war on terrorism” against “Al-Qaeda” and Osama bin Laden. Now, thirteen years of continuous imperial onslaught and tens of thousands of deaths and atrocities later, the “Islamic State” escalation will topple Syria, Iran, transform Iraq, and provide yet another pretext to wreak havoc anywhere else the empire wishes.

But it is the same lie, built on the same propaganda cornerstones: the myth of the “outside enemy,” the threat of “Islamic terror,” eternal pretexts to galvanize public opinion behind an Anglo-American agenda of conquest and war that will never end.

It is the same lie, founded upon the idea that “Islamic terrorists” are enemies of the West, when, in amply documented fact, these terrorists are the West’s finest foot soldiers and military-intelligence assets.

The Islamic State, like Al-Qaeda and all entities that comprise the “Islamic Jihad” is a creation of the CIA and Anglo-American intelligence (Pakistan’s ISI, Saudi intelligence, British MI6, the Israeli Mossad, etc.). The various jihadist militias and military-intelligence assets and fronts—IS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah, etc.—are “American made,” openly supported and utilized by the United States and its allies, as they have been continuously from the Cold War to this very second. These forces are carefully manipulated and guided weapons for US-NATO. Terrorists are instrumental to the ongoing US-led covert and overt operations in Syria. Terrorists run by the US and CIA destabilized and toppled Libya, are integral to coming regime changes. Under both direct and indirect orders of US-NATO sponsors and handlers, these “demon hordes” are, and will continue to be, the leading military-intelligence assets behind every major geostrategic action in the region.

The IS joins Al-Qaeda as today’s favorite “boogeyman” target. The war masks the true intent, which is the toppling of Syria and Iran, and onward.

The “terrorists” are depicted in propaganda as either villains or “freedom fighters,” depending on the day and the military theater. The horrific acts of the death squads, including beheadings and other atrocities, are standard operating procedure in CIA black operations, terror techniques going back to the Vietnam War and the Phoenix Program, and are done upon orders of US and US-allied military-intelligence. Decapitations of Syrian civilians have been ongoing for years, to media silence. The recent spate of beheadings of Americans and British have been selectively carried out (and in some cases staged) for propaganda purposes. Political theater designed to galvanize the dimwitted, ignorant masses to support massive retaliatory war.

According to recent polls, four out of five registered American voters overwhelmingly support military attacks against the Islamic State. The acquiescent, ignorant American masses, still irretrievably pacified by the propaganda “shock and fear” effect of 9/11, enthusiastically back any “retaliation” against “bad guys who cut off heads” and “threaten America,” and have no problem sending American youth to the front lines to be cannon fodder. They are “defending freedom.” The American sheeple believe—even love to believe—the Big Lie. Whereas the citizens of Hong Kong and in other countries take passionately to the streets to fight for their democracy, the average American has long abdicated his and her duty as an informed, vigilant citizen. Far too busy shooting nude selfies on handheld gadgets—their brains addled by inane entertainment, and Hollywood celebrations of the national security apparatus—to care.

So-called liberals and progressives also back action against the Islamic State. The few who have any inkling that Islamic terror is a product of the US war machine wind up wringing their sweaty hands over the red herring of “blowback”: the tired idea that the US created but lost control of a Jihadist force that it now must contain. It is bogus. These militias are the American empire’s key foot soldiers and operatives, the leading force behind plans to topple Syria, just as they were in Libya. This is not blowback, but a well orchestrated military-intelligence operation, cloaked beneath a criminal conspiracy that is maintained by an ironclad elite consensus.

Islamic terrorism “stops” the minute that its sponsors at CIA, MI, ISI, etc. stop using it. The war itself stops when the elites who have planned this Final Solution to seize control of the last remaining oil supplies on the planet—the very life blood of the Anglo-American empire—stop, and give up their war of conquest and greed. The entire apparatus collapses. But this will not happen in this lifetime. Not even in the event of planetary calamity.

To threaten humanity, to pretend to wage war against boogeyman that they themselves created, and continue to support and use, only those of world class evil could conceive of and carry out this horror.

The American network of death goose-steps to the abyss

With each passing day, more of the Anglo-American empire’s veneer falls away, revealing the violence at its core.

Leading the charge in front of the United Nations, the mendacious President Barack Obama thundered: “No God condones this terror. There can be no reasoning—no negotiation—with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”

Here was a performance directly out of the playbook of the Third Reich and Bush/Cheney, brimming with threats, false morality, pseudo-religious claptrap, and invective directed against the perceived enemies. Here was Obama being who he really is, a war criminal. The ghost of Hitler has to be envious.

No God condones deceit. No God condones the terror of the Anglo-American empire’s war of conquest. No God condones the extermination of tens of thousands of lives in more than a decade of imperial conquest for oil.

There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with the criminal leadership of an empire that will thrash and kill to the brink of extinction. There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with warmongers who have wiped out entire swaths of humanity.

There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with an empire so desperate and out of answers that gangsterism replaces the rule of law, and false flag operations constitute foreign policy. There is no reasoning with those who could, in the span of just a few months, set off false flag destabilizations in Syria, false flag operations in support of a neo-Nazi cabal in Ukraine, plan and cover up the false flag shootdown of Flight MH-17 (blamed on Russia), support the bombing and conquest of Gaza by Israel (blamed on Hamas, in the wake of the murder of Israeli teenagers by ISIL terrorists), and set off the “sudden” rise of the Islamic State.

There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with an empire that must and will stop at nothing to control every inch of the Eurasian subcontinent, and destroy all opposition along the way, including potential nuclear confrontations with Russia and China.

There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with the functionaries and enablers of this empire in governments, in media, everywhere. There is also no reasoning—no negotiation—with the cognitively impaired sheeple.

There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with the killers, the world planning orchestrators speaking the “language of force”; these “great men and women” who hold humanity in contempt.

There is, indeed, no reasoning—no negotiation—with this brand of evil.

Larry Chin is an Associate Editor of Intrepid Report.


Posted in black ops, CIA, conditioning, Corruption, culture, divide and conquer, Empire, Geopolitics, History, news, propaganda, Psy-ops, Social Control, society, State Crime, war, war on terror, wasted taxpayer dollars | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments