reboot the republic daily July 8, 2010

The Globalist Power Grab

Posted: 08 Jul 2010 11:18 AM PDT


The G-8 meeting (Friday and Saturday) and the G-20 meeting (Saturday and Sunday) that were held in Canada provided the world’s major political leaders a forum to promise the usual grab-bag of goodies that governments are clearly incapable of providing: (1) economic growth, meaning no double-dip recession; (2) austerity spending programs that are politically sustainable; (3) reductions in deficit spending by 50%, no later than 2013; (4) a percentage increase in GDP to match any increase in debt by 2016. Yet few if any of the leaders who promised all this will be in office in 2016. There is no way that they can assure the public that they can deliver any of these benefits.

The Canadian government had to spend over $1 billion (Canadian) on these two events, most of which went for security. The media were filled with reports on firebombings by protesters over the weekend. What was absent was any clear picture of exactly what the protesters were protesting against. For all their activities, the protesters did not get out their message.

To understand the 27-page G-20 report, you must mentally travel back 45 years to a 1965 Sunday-edition political cartoon by Jules Feiffer. It was a series of panels. Above the crowd was a pair of feet in Texas-size cowboy boots.

Q. What do you see, Mr. President-of-all-the-People? A. I see a land where love reigns. I see great farms and great cities. I see men at work, children at play, women at peace.

Q. What else do you see, Mr. President-of-all-the-People?

A. I see the end of divisiveness and contrariness. I see small men growing large and closed minds opening wide. I see a rich harvest of book-learning and the arts.

Q. Tell us more, Mr. President-of-all-the-People.

A. I see Black and White in final harmony. Rich and poor, young and old, big and little, small and large.

Q. But what of our enemies, Mr. President-of-all-the-People?

A. I see love entering their hearts, I see understanding and good will. I see peace, sound and strong, hewn out of the rock of give and take.

Q. Is there nothing more that you see, Mr. President-of-all-the-People?

A. I see a mandate for happiness. I see the determined faces of millions – fat and skinny, tall and short, bold and shy – crying out as one: “Onward to the Great Society!”

Q. And how will all this come about, Mr. President-of-all-the-People?

A. I shall wheel and deal.

This is my favorite political cartoon of all time. In a series of panels, Feiffer nailed the preposterous theology of political salvation. Lyndon Johnson was the incarnation of this theology – more so than any President in American history. In early 1965, this faith was shared by millions of Americans who had elected him the previous November. Now he would end poverty with the War on Poverty. Now he would end political injustice with the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Also, that tiny nation the voters had heard nothing about, South Vietnam, would remain a stronghold of the Western alliance.

Three years later, he announced that he would not stand for re-election. In January 1969, he departed from the political scene, never to be heard from again.

What the “The G-20 Toronto Summit Declaration” promises to deliver to the world is comparable to what the boots in the sky promised in 1965.


In the Preamble, we are told:

1. In Toronto, we held our first Summit of the G-20 in its new capacity as the premier forum for our international economic cooperation.

I take seriously this declaration – the only sentence in the declaration that I do take seriously. The G-20 is now the forum by which the Powers That Be will communicate the message of international economic cooperation. Twice a year, the public will be told whatever the decision-makers choose to reveal.

Who are the decision makers? On the G-20’s site, we read:

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy. The inaugural meeting of the G-20 took place in Berlin, on December 15–16, 1999, hosted by German and Canadian finance ministers.

This is an accurate presentation. The finance ministers and central bank governors run the G-20 show. The national heads of state show up for photo-ops and to deliver sound-bytes for the voters back home. The national position papers are prepared by bureaucrats. Then these are reconciled by a committee that tries to keep the various national politicians satisfied.

The declaration is a statement of goals, not a description of means. The goals are the equivalent of pronouncements from boots-in-the-sky. The means are not mentioned. Good will can somehow bring forth great results.

Here is the basic package:

2. Building on our achievements in addressing the global economic crisis, we have agreed on the next steps we should take to ensure a full return to growth with quality jobs, to reform and strengthen financial systems, and to create strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.

The declaration praises the decisions of finance ministers and central bankers ever since late 2008. We are assured that the largest peacetime government deficits in history, when coupled with the most rapid expansion of central bank balance sheets and the lowest interest rates in history have restored private demand.

3. Our efforts to date have borne good results. Unprecedented and globally coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus is playing a major role in helping to restore private demand and lending. We are taking strong steps toward increasing the stability and strength of our financial systems.

There is, of course, the nagging problem of America’s commercial banks. They are not lending. They are contracting their loans. They are replacing loans with excess reserves held at the central bank. But never mind this. The important fact to remember, according to the declaration, is that massive deficits and massive monetary base expansion saved the day.

There must be more, we are assured. There will be more – much more. There must be black and white. There must be up and down. There must be narrow and wide.

4. . . . To sustain recovery, we need to follow through on delivering existing stimulus plans, while working to create the conditions for robust private demand. At the same time, recent events highlight the importance of sustainable public finances and the need for our countries to put in place credible, properly phased and growth-friendly plans to deliver fiscal sustainability, differentiated for and tailored to national circumstances. Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation. This should be combined with efforts to rebalance global demand to help ensure global growth continues on a sustainable path. Further progress is also required on financial repair and reform to increase the transparency and strengthen the balance sheets of our financial institutions, and support credit availability and rapid growth, including in the real economy. We took new steps to build a better regulated and more resilient financial system that serves the needs of our citizens. There is also a pressing need to complete the reforms of the international financial institutions.

The remainder of the declaration outlines what must be done. It does not say how this can be done, only that it must be done and will be done. This includes the following:

Strong job growth (5)
Social protection for citizens (5)
Full accountability (6)
Increasing sustainable global growth (9)
Sound but flexible budgets (10)
Cutting future debt (10)
International planning (“adjustment”) (10)
More infrastructure spending (10)
More savings in trade deficit nations (11)
More domestic demand for exporting nations (12)
Fewer moral hazards for banking (15)
International peer review of planning (16)
More international regulation of banking (18)
Higher capital requirements (18)
Effective supervision of banks (20)
Restructuring of financial institutions (21)
No more taxpayer bailouts of banks (21)
Transparent international assessment (22)
More IMF and development banks funding (23)
A more resilient monetary system (31)
More money for Haiti (32)
More food security (34)
More foreign aid (“Aid for Trade”) (39, 45)
Rolling back government corruption (40)
A green recovery: sustainable global growth (41)

This is the beginning. We are only at page 9. There is lots more to come. In ANNEX I, we read about these.


Again, the finance ministers and central bankers have done a spectacular job.

As a result of the extraordinary and highly coordinated policy actions agreed to at the Washington, London and Pittsburgh G-20 Summits, the global economy is recovering faster than was expected. Our decisive and unprecedented actions over the past two years have limited the downturn and spurred recovery (1).

Then comes the call for what is essentially a new era of international central planning. It begins with coordinated meshing of national central plans.

We have completed the first stage of our Mutual Assessment Process. As we requested in Pittsburgh, G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, with the support of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, ILO and other international organisations, have assessed the collective consistency of our individual policy frameworks and global prospects under alternative policy scenarios (5).

They plan to do much better in the future. “If we act in a coordinated manner, all regions are better off, now and in the future” (8).

The deficits are too large. The document does not say this explicitly. Nor does it use the word “austerity” with respect to budgets. Instead, it uses the word “consolidation.”

However, it is clear that consolidation will need to begin in advanced economies in 2011, and earlier for countries experiencing significant fiscal challenges at present (10).

The next meeting of the G-20 will be held in Seoul in November. By then, the foundation of the new planning system must be ready.

To facilitate this process, the second stage of our country-led, consultative mutual assessment will be conducted at the country and European level. Each G-20 member will identify the measures it is taking to implement the policies we have agreed upon today to ensure stronger, more sustainable and balanced growth. We ask our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to elaborate on these measures and report on them when we next meet. We will continue to draw on the expertise of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, ILO and other international organisations, as necessary. These measures will form the basis of our comprehensive action plan that will be announced in the Seoul Summit (17).

Then comes ANNEX II. This section (pp. 15–21) goes into detail about the new system of banking regulation.

The financial crisis has imposed huge costs. This must not be allowed to happen again. The recent financial volatility has strengthened our resolve to work together to complete financial repair and reform. We need to build a more resilient financial system that serves the needs of our economies, reduces moral hazard, limits the build-up of systemic risk and supports strong and stable economic growth (1).

The push to international control over banking is now moving into high gear.


The G-20 has no available sanctions. The fiscal policies (deficits) are beyond any central agency’s power. So are monetary policies. So are bank capital ratios. None of the G-20 nations has honored any of the earlier accords.

Yet the document calls for more coordinated policies. It calls for the creation of a new international order, yet without calling it this. ANNEX III devotes five pages to a promise that the IMF and other international governmental agencies will increase money for the Third World beggar nations. This means that lenders will pour billions more into these sink holes, all with government guarantees and taxpayer funds. There is no end in sight. The document ends with these words:

There is still an urgency to accelerate research and development to close agricultural productivity gaps, including through regional and South-South cooperation, amidst growing demands and mounting environmental stresses, particularly in Africa. The private sector will be critical in the development and deployment of innovative solutions that provide concrete results on the ground. We commit to exploring the potential of innovative, results-based mechanisms such as advance market commitments to harness the creativity and resources of the private sector in achieving breakthrough innovations in food security and agriculture development in poor countries. We will report on progress at the Seoul Summit (24).

The central bankers created the crisis of 2008. They are now telling us in no uncertain terms that they are the saviors of the system, and that their work has only just begun.

They talk a good line. The politicians showed up and did the dance of the marionettes. But what the G-20 is all about is the creation of a new international order. Our best hope is that they will not trust each other enough to pull off their plan. That has been true in the past. Let us hope that it will be true in the future. But let us not be naïve about what they are planning. They have posted the outline for everyone to see.


Related posts:

  1. Greece Loses EU Voting Power
  2. The EPA’s Shocking Power Grab
  3. A Global Banking Body With Legal Power Might Be Needed -FSA

And Another Underground Business is Born

Posted: 08 Jul 2010 08:59 AM PDT

From WND

My husband came in from his shop recently and announced, “Well, another underground business is born.”

It seems he heard a news report on the radio that Washington state is now requiring tattoo and piercing parlors to purchase a license before they can conduct business. A separate license costing $250 is required for each activity (tattoos and piercings), and an addition license costing $300 is required for the parlors where these activities take place.

So with the stroke of a pen, a select genre of business is now required to cough up $800 a year for no discernible benefit. “I’ve been hit with an $800 tax, and I don’t even know what I’m paying for,” says one shop owner.

Now, I care about tattoo and body piercing parlors about as much as you do, but why are they getting picked on?

Naturally, the legislators who passed these new regulations did so out of (cough) the goodness of their hearts … meaning they’re sooooo concerned about the health issues associated with the tattooing industry.

“Washington’s new requirements fall in the middle of the road compared with other states,” notes the article. “On the strict end, Oregon requires 368 hours of training at a state-approved school, followed by a written exam. … On the loose end, Delaware’s only regulation is the prohibition of tattooing minors.”

So here’s a question: Are Oregon’s tattoo parlors any safer than Delaware’s? And how many tattoo parlors are going to start operating illegally in the state of Washington because certain shop owners choose not to become regulated? “If people are tattooing illegally, they’re going to keep tattooing,” says one shop owner.

Tattoo and piercing parlors operate on the dark edge of society anyway. All it may take is one little push – like this – and many will slide completely underground. They’ll do piercings and tattoos in their basements or garages. Sanitary conditions may decrease since, of course, they can’t risk any government inspections of their facilities to make sure they’re complying with health codes. All because, yet again, many businesses do not want to be additionally regulated and taxed by the government and will avoid it however possible.

It’s hard to use tattoo parlors as an example of potentially unnecessary regulation since there can indeed be serious health issues associated with piercings and tattoos. So why not regulate them?

Well, let’s look at another example. I recall a college class that dealt with the economic impact of environmental regulations. Almost to a person, the students in the class were of the liberal, environmentally conscious persuasion who typically looked to the government to pass laws to modify peoples’ behavior. The professor took suggestions from the students on how to encourage people to reduce their garbage output and increase their recycling efforts.

The most passionate and enthusiastic suggestion was to increase fees for dumps and garbage service to discourage people from producing more garbage.

The professor shook his head. “It’s been tried, over and over again,” he replied. “But studies have shown that in places where garbage fees increase, illegal roadside dumping goes up dramatically. You can’t ’sin tax’ people into compliance because they will look for loopholes, legal or illegal, to avoid paying extra money. In this case, increasing fees does NOT make people produce less garbage. It simply means they will take their garbage and dump it on the sides of roads, thereby increasing pollution and littering.”

This made perfect sense to me. But – and I’m not kidding – the students didn’t believe him. Anguished cries of, “Oh people wouldn’t do that!” came from across the class. I believe I remember the professor shaking his head in disbelief.

See, this is called the Law of Unintended Consequences, in which the outcome is not the result originally intended by a particular action. In these examples, the original intentions were to regulate tattoo parlors and reduce garbage output (and increase revenues). The consequences are underground tattoo parlors and increased garbage along the highway.

What it boils down to is people don’t like being regulated, taxed, coerced, bullied, intimidated, or otherwise picked on by the government – and they will do whatever it takes to avoid that punishment by going underground or doing things below the level of the law. And then lawmakers wonder why the laws failed, or why crime increased, or why more people get ill from unsterilized tattoo needles, or why more garbage is tossed on the side of the road.

I’m not an economist. I don’t even play one on TV. I really don’t understand all the subtleties and intricacies of economics. But even I can get the connection between increased government regulations and a decreased compliance and/or tax base. Let’s be honest, it ain’t rocket science.

It staggers me that this connection is not more obvious to those who approve of raising taxes and increasing regulations on businesses. It’s been demonstrated over and over that fewer regulations and lower taxes allow entrepreneurial businesses to bloom. Reverse that, and businesses wither and die. This falls under the category of “No duh.”

And, ironically, tax revenues often increase after tax breaks are put in place because, as I said, businesses bloom in low-regulation climates. That’s why there’s such a “brain drain” in high-regulation places like California, where businesses flee high taxes and regulations and go to states that court them with the opposite.

This isn’t anything new. States, counties, cities and even the federal government impose these kinds of taxes and regulations all the time – and then (apparently) refuse to recognize the consequences.

And the problem is, this is just the beginning. As the recession worsens and tax revenues drop, governments will start imposing even more apparently random taxes and fees on mainstream businesses to get more money in their coffers.

It’s not going to go away. As our legislators and government executives become more frantic with the continuing failure of our regulated economy, it won’t just apply toward tattoo parlors or cigarettes or liquor or other products or services on the margins of society. They will be coming for you next. Count on it.


Related posts:

  1. Why is the Senate in the Tourism Business?
  2. Memo To Business: We Want You To Hire, So We’re Putting More Burdens On You
  3. Book: The Underground History of American Education

Iran, BP and the CIA

Posted: 08 Jul 2010 08:10 AM PDT

From CounterPunch

The offshore oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico brought to us by BP has overshadowed its central role over the past century in fostering some other disastrous events.

BP originated in 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company—a British corporation whose name was changed to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company two decades later. With exclusive rights to extract, refine, export, and sell Iran’s rich oil resources, the company reaped enormous profits. Meanwhile, it shared only a tiny fraction of the proceeds with the Iranian government. Similarly, although the company’s British personnel lived in great luxury, its Iranian laborers endured lives of squalor and privation.

In 1947, as Iranian resentment grew at the giant oil company’s practices, the Iranian parliament called upon the Shah, Iran’s feudal potentate, to renegotiate the agreement with Anglo-Iranian. Four years later, Mohammed Mossadeq, riding a tide of nationalism, became the nation’s prime minister. As an enthusiastic advocate of taking control of Iran’s oil resources and using the profits from them to develop his deeply impoverished nation, Mossadeq signed legislation, passed unanimously by the country’s parliament, to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The British government was horrified. Eager to assist the embattled corporation, it imposed an economic embargo on Iran and required its technicians to leave the country, thus effectively blocking the Iranian government from exporting its oil. When this failed to bring the Iranians to heel, the British government sought to arrange for the overthrow of Mossadeq—first through its own efforts and, later (when Britain’s diplomatic mission was expelled from Iran for its subversive activities), through the efforts of the U.S. government. But President Truman refused to commit the CIA to this venture.

To the delight of Anglo-Iranian, it received a much friendlier reception from the new Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had worked much of his life as a lawyer for multinational corporations, and viewed the Iranian challenge to corporate holdings as a very dangerous example to the world. Consequently, the CIA was placed in charge of an operation, including fomenting riots and other destabilizing activities, to overthrow Mossadeq and advance oil company interests in Iran.

Organized by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt in the summer of 1953, the coup was quite successful. Mossadeq was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life, the power of the pro-Western shah was dramatically enhanced, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was once again granted access to Iran’s vast oil resources. To be sure, thanks to the key role played in the coup by the U.S. government, the British oil company—renamed British Petroleum—henceforth had to share the lucrative oil extraction business in Iran with U.S. corporations. Even so, in the following decades, with the Iranian public kept in line by the Shah’s dictatorship and by his dreaded secret police, the SAVAK, it was a very profitable arrangement—although not for most Iranians.

But, of course, actions can have unforeseen consequences. In Iran, public anger grew at the Shah’s increasingly autocratic rule, culminating in the 1979 revolution and the establishment of a regime led by Islamic fanatics. Not surprisingly, the new rulers—and much of the population—blamed the United States for the coup against Mossadeq and its coziness with the Shah. This, in turn, led to the ensuing hostage crisis and to the onset of a very hostile relationship between the Iranian and U.S. governments.

And there was worse to come. Terrified by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism on their southern border, Soviet leaders became obsessed with fundamentalist revolt in Afghanistan and began pouring troops into that strife-torn land. This was the signal for the U.S. government to back an anti-Soviet, fundamentalist jihad in Afghanistan, thus facilitating the growth of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who eventually turned their weapons on the United States.

Furthermore, as part of its anti-Iran strategy, the U.S. government grew increasingly chummy with Iran’s arch foe, Iraq. As Saddam Hussein seemed a particularly useful ally, Washington provided him with military intelligence and the helicopters that he used to spray poison gas on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Might not such a friendship, cemented with a handshake by Donald Rumsfeld, have emboldened Saddam Hussein to act more freely in the region in subsequent years? It certainly didn’t improve U.S. relations with Iran, which today is headed by a deplorable government that—consumed by fear and loathing of the United States—might be developing nuclear weapons.

At this point, we might well wonder if it was such a good idea to overthrow a democratic, secular nationalist like Mossadeq to preserve the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now renamed BP). Indeed, given the sordid record of BP and other giant oil companies, we might wonder why we tolerate them at all.

Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).

This essay is distributed by the Oregon Peace Institute.


Related posts:

  1. Top Things You Think You Know About Iran That Are Not True
  2. Repeating History With Iran
  3. AP Pulls Iran Nukes Story After Exposé

‘Perfect Citizen’ Program Places Sensors Throughout the Web

Posted: 07 Jul 2010 11:29 PM PDT

Uhhhh. Why doesn’t our government focus on things that are broken? It’s all about control, people. Oh, and what kind of name is ‘Perfect Citizen?”

From The Wall Street Journal

The federal government is launching an expansive program dubbed “Perfect Citizen” to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies running such critical infrastructure as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants, according to people familiar with the program.

The surveillance by the National Security Agency, the government’s chief eavesdropping agency, would rely on a set of sensors deployed in computer networks for critical infrastructure that would be triggered by unusual activity suggesting an impending cyber attack, though it wouldn’t persistently monitor the whole system, these people said.

Defense contractor Raytheon Corp. recently won a classified contract for the initial phase of the surveillance effort valued at up to $100 million, said a person familiar with the project.

An NSA spokeswoman said the agency had no information to provide on the program. A Raytheon spokesman declined to comment.

Some industry and government officials familiar with the program see Perfect Citizen as an intrusion by the NSA into domestic affairs, while others say it is an important program to combat an emerging security threat that only the NSA is equipped to provide.

“The overall purpose of the [program] is our Government…feel[s] that they need to insure the Public Sector is doing all they can to secure Infrastructure critical to our National Security,” said one internal Raytheon email, the text of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. “Perfect Citizen is Big Brother.”

Raytheon declined to comment on this email.

A U.S. military official called the program long overdue and said any intrusion into privacy is no greater than what the public already endures from traffic cameras. It’s a logical extension of the work federal agencies have done in the past to protect physical attacks on critical infrastructure that could sabotage the government or key parts of the country, the official said.

U.S. intelligence officials have grown increasingly alarmed about what they believe to be Chinese and Russian surveillance of computer systems that control the electric grid and other U.S. infrastructure. Officials are unable to describe the full scope of the problem, however, because they have had limited ability to pull together all the private data.

Perfect Citizen will look at large, typically older computer control systems that were often designed without Internet connectivity or security in mind. Many of those systems—which run everything from subway systems to air-traffic control networks—have since been linked to the Internet, making them more efficient but also exposing them to cyber attack.

The goal is to close the “big, glaring holes” in the U.S.’s understanding of the nature of the cyber threat against its infrastructure, said one industry specialist familiar with the program. “We don’t have a dedicated way to understand the problem.”

The information gathered by Perfect Citizen could also have applications beyond the critical infrastructure sector, officials said, serving as a data bank that would also help companies and agencies who call upon NSA for help with investigations of cyber attacks, as Google did when it sustained a major attack late last year.

The U.S. government has for more than a decade claimed a national-security interest in privately owned critical infrastructure that, if attacked, could cause significant damage to the government or the economy. Initially, it established relationships with utility companies so it could, for instance, request that a power company seal a manhole that provides access to a key power line for a government agency.

With the growth in concern about cyber attacks, these relationships began to extend into the electronic arena, and the only U.S. agency equipped to manage electronic assessments of critical-infrastructure vulnerabilities is the NSA, government and industry officials said.

The NSA years ago began a small-scale effort to address this problem code-named April Strawberry, the military official said. The program researched vulnerabilities in computer networks running critical infrastructure and sought ways to close security holes.

That led to initial work on Perfect Citizen, which was a piecemeal effort to forge relationships with some companies, particularly energy companies, whose infrastructure is widely used across the country.

The classified program is now being expanded with funding from the multibillion-dollar Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, which started at the end of the Bush administration and has been continued by the Obama administration, officials said. With that infusion of money, the NSA is now seeking to map out intrusions into critical infrastructure across the country.

Because the program is still in the early stages, much remains to be worked out, such as which computer control systems will be monitored and how the data will be collected. NSA would likely start with the systems that have the most important security implications if attacked, such as electric, nuclear, and air-traffic-control systems, they said.

Intelligence officials have met with utilities’ CEOs and those discussions convinced them of the gravity of the threat against U.S. infrastructure, an industry specialist said, but the CEOs concluded they needed better threat information and guidance on what to do in the event of a major cyber attack.

Some companies may agree to have the NSA put its own sensors on and others may ask for direction on what sensors to buy and come to an agreement about what data they will then share with the government, industry and government officials said.

While the government can’t force companies to work with it, it can provide incentives to urge them to cooperate, particularly if the government already buys services from that company, officials said.

Raytheon, which has built up a large cyber-security practice through acquisitions in recent years, is expected to subcontract out some of the work to smaller specialty companies, according to a person familiar with the project.


Related posts:

  1. Cybersecurity Act Returns With a Fresh Coat of Paint
  2. Feds Wasted Millions in Utilities Program for the “Poor”
  3. Obama Internet Kill Switch Plan Approved by US Senate Committee

Video: Market Manipulation in Action

Posted: 07 Jul 2010 09:13 PM PDT

I’m not sure if this is legit or not but I’m posting so you can decide for yourselves. I’m going to ask people who are more familiar with this to get the full scoop.

The criminals use fast and sophisticated computer orders to place outrageously large “bids” to move the price, then pull the bids microseconds before they can execute.

In the real time video example, you can see that bids in excess of 2000 (compared to most bids of 10’s or 100’s) are placed and removed repeatedly. The normal bid numbers are dwarfed by these mega mover bids and the price changes accordingly.

Look at the total executions to the left of the scale to show proof that the large bids were never allowed to be completed.

Watch below…


Related posts:

  1. America’s Growing Black Market: Freedom in Action
  2. Largest Fraud in History: Precious Metals Market Manipulation Whistleblower
  3. Video: Voluntarist/Market Anarchist vs. Socialist Debate

The Reality of Government Aggression in One Page or Less

Posted: 07 Jul 2010 09:09 PM PDT

Exclusive to RTR

Aggression is the use of force on an individual, or an individual’s property, when that person has not first aggressed against someone elses body or property.

Other forms undesirable influence are coercion, propaganda and government statutes, to name a few. I will be focusing on coercion, or the threat of violence/aggression.

At the core of all institutions of government is the threat and use of aggression against is citizens. For example, if I choose not financially support the building of a new park, I will be thrown into a cage or if I choose to defend myself by the means of self defense, I will be shot for doing nothing more than defending property which is rightfully mine. Until we realize this and start using the words such as theft, kidnapping and cage as opposed to tax, arrest and jail, we will be forever stuck in the mud as a human race.

The difference between aggression and coercion are very slight but the end results are the same. If a government agent came to ones house monthly and took money out of your wallet to fund the new government programs that our elected rulers have signed into law, it wouldn’t take long before people started to realize that government was at it’s core a violent institution and it would be abolished in no time. Because of this, governments have to hide the “gun in the room”, or hide the violent nature of the system. Rather than physically showing up and taking your money, government gives the illusion that individuals are free and that private property exists just as long as we all pay a percentage of our earnings to benefit the “greater good.” I mean, who would build the roads if government didn’t exist, right? /sarcasm

Just as government masks the use of aggression to fund itself, it further masks the use of aggression by only threatening the use of aggression. It’s quite a clever system. An individual will largely be permitted to do as he pleases without being aggressed against as long as he stays within the rule of law. This sounds fair, however, we must understand that governments do no operate under the rule of law, governments operate under the rule of force. Trying to explain that governments are based on violence/aggression to the average citizen would be similar to explaining to a fish the water that is all around it. The fish doesn’t see it, but it is always there.

If a prisoner wakes up when he’s told to, does his work as he’s told to and goes to bed when he’s told to, he likely won’t be aggressed against. However, does this mean that aggression/violence isn’t at the core of the prisoners day to day life? Obviously, it doesn’t.

Unlike those of us who live in America who are enslaved by the walls we cannot see, prisoners are enslaved by walls they can see, which obviously makes it easier to explain. Each of us will likely not be aggressed upon unless we decide to challenge the law that rules over us. If only the Jews could have seen the prison walls being erected around them in time all in the name of the law.


Related posts:

  1. My Argument For Drug Legalization in One Page or Less
  2. Non-Aggression Principle and Vice: Where’s The Crime?
  3. Why Voluntaryism Is the Best and Only Legitimate Moral Philosophy