The Late Great United States

The Decline and Fall of the United States of America

© 2008 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web sites http://www.foundationwebsite.org and http://www.foundation.bw. May be copied or reposted for non-commercial use, with attribution. 23 March 2008, revised 17 December 2008

Max: You know, one thing I can’t figure out is whether these girls are real smart or just real, real lucky.

Hal: You know, Max, brains will only get you so far, and luck always runs out.

-- Thelma and Louise (A Ridley Scott film, 1991, MGM United Artists)

The United States Is Already Dead, and Just Doesn’t Know It

In the 1990s, I wrote the book, Can America Survive?, in which I analyzed the current situation of the United States and the world. I started writing the book in 1994, revised it a couple of times, completed it in late 1998 and posted it on the Foundation website in 1999. My brief answer to the question posed in the title was, “No, – not in its current form for very long, and perhaps not in any form at all for very long.”

In the years since I wrote this book, nothing has changed to modify my prognosis. The problems that I described and analyzed have not been resolved, and not even addressed. They have, in fact, gotten much worse.

It is my opinion that the United States, as a society, is in the final stages of disintegration. The country has allowed the invasion of 12-20 million illegal aliens. The financial system is bankrupt, and the government is now in the process of “selling the furniture” (i.e., selling its infrastructure, corporations and land to foreign interests). The country’s culture is fragmented. The government has alienated the citizens – it now serves the wealthy, not the middle class. The nation has lost its sovereignty to “globalization.” All that lies between its current status and total collapse is the “tipping point” – the proverbial “last straw” that breaks the camel’s back.

When I was a boy, we were taught that dinosaurs were so stupid that even though they were mortally wounded, they would thrash around for minutes before their small brains finally realized that they were dead, and they collapsed. I believe that this perception of dinosaurs is no longer held, but the analogy is an apt one to describe the present state of the United States. Its economic “engine” is so large and powerful that it has a large amount of “inertia” or “momentum,” that carries it along even though its vital essence, its spirit, has died. It is like an airplane that is about to crash into a mountain. Everything seems fine at the moment, but disaster is imminent and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to avert it.

Am I predicting a date for the collapse of the United States? No. In my view, the real collapse has already occurred – there is nothing of significance to predict. As Ariel Durant once remarked, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” The United States has destroyed what made it great. It has abandoned the concepts and principles on which the Founders established the Republic. It has lost its vitality, its life force, its direction, its purpose. The government has turned against the middle class, and, without the support of the people, the country is in the final stages of dissolution. It may continue operation for a while, but it is no longer a vibrant entity in control of its destiny. The car is running out of gas, and the joy ride is almost over.

Reasons Why the US Will Collapse Soon

There is not just a single symptom or sign of the United States’ moribund condition. (By the way, in medical parlance a “symptom” is a subjective indicator, and difficult to measure quantitatively, such as a feeling of nausea or anxiety, or a headache; a “sign” is a measurable indicator, such as a temperature or blood pressure or red blood cell count.) There are many. In Appendix A are listed a large number of specific indicators that suggest why the US is in trouble and will soon collapse. The major sections of this book were determined simply by arranging that long list into groups, or categories, containing related indicators. The following is a list of these categories. In the remainder of the book, I will present a brief chapter discussing each category. The categories are listed in order of my assessment of their importance.

Destruction of the Biosphere. Global industrialization is destroying the planet’s biosphere (global warming, deforestation, mass species extinction). All countries will soon perish. (Note on “global warming”: I am not going to get into the argument concerning whether global warming is happening, or what causes it. With the imminent breakup of ice at the North Pole for the first time in human history, it seems pretty clear that something is happening (although some people point to volcanoes as the cause). It doesn’t really matter very much whether global warming is happening or not, when large human numbers and global industrialization are causing the extinction of an estimated 30,000 species per year – that is a real threat to our existence, quite independent of global warming.)
The passage of Peak Oil. Global production of oil is peaking, and will start to decline. Our society is oil-based, we are running out of oil, and there is not a comparable substitute. All countries will fail as the petroleum age comes to an end and the era of global industrialization with it.
Overpopulation. The world and US populations are far higher than the current-solar-energy carrying capacity. When global oil production starts to decline, a global die-off will begin, concurrent with massive political upheavals.
Fractionated Culture. Because of mass immigration and little assimilation, the country’s culture has become highly fractionated. It is held together only by extreme wealth, rather than by race, religion, language, culture and ethnicity. As soon as global oil production starts to decline, the wealth (glue) holding US society together will dissolve, and the society will disintegrate.
Decline in US Culture. To an increasing degree, US culture has become soft, undisciplined, greedy, selfish, egocentric, hedonistic and materialistic. Through mass immigration from third-world countries, many of which are corrupt and inimical to traditional US culture, US culture is being overwhelmed by those cultures and reflecting them more and more.
Loss of Spirituality and “Manifest Destiny.” Many of the US middle class see no future, no hope.
Globalization. Globalization is destroying the hegemony of the US relative to other major world powers and the nation’s sovereignty.
Low Security: With open borders and massive international free trade, the US is very vulnerable, both on the national and individual levels.
The Politics of Envy. Both within the US and outside of it. (The “politics of greed” is the motivation for people to use political power to accumulate wealth for themselves; the “politics of envy” is the motivation for poor people to destroy those who have wealth.)
Oppression. The US government has adopted systems, programs and policies that have made economic slaves of the US middle class. Debt is a major tool of the government in this system.
Decline in Freedom. Each year, Americans have reduced freedom. Increased crowding from mass immigration and the “War on Terror” are the two principal causal factors.
Alienation of the US People from the US Government. The US government is no longer for the people. The government is waging war on the middle class. Its policies to vastly increase the riches of the wealthy elite have the direct effect of reducing the quality of life and discretionary income of the middle class, and subjugating it. The US government has become the enemy of the people. It is doing to the middle class exactly the same thing that the developed nations, through the international lending agencies, are doing to the third-world countries – miring them so deep in debt (through compound interest and debt-based money) so that they can never escape, are under total control, and are paying all of their discretionary income as interest.
Quality of Life Is Declining for the US Middle Class. It is now necessary for both parents to work in the competitive (paid, formal) labor market to support a family, whereas one person could support a family 50 years ago. Children are in “industrial” day care. Most young people today cannot hope to own their own home. Long commutes; high housing costs; high energy costs; diminished access to natural land; high medical costs; epidemics of disease and obesity caused by the system, stress, and poisoned food. Lower expectations for children. The current system is designed to enrich the wealthy, not protect the middle class. The goal and function of the present US political and economic system of US government is to “privatize the costs and socialize the benefits,” transferring much wealth from the middle class to the wealthy (e.g., via use of “eminent domain” and tax credits for the wealthy for major economic development projects; payment of interest on the national debt using income taxes, most of which come from the middle class; and “bailouts” of the wealthy when their financial schemes fail, also using income taxes).
Increasing Income Gap. Tremendously increasing income gap between top management and average workers, conspicuous consumption and flaunting of wealth. Increasing media attention to conspicuous consumption and flaunting of income. Instant billionaires. The ratio of the pay of top management has skyrocketed from about 40 to 1 a half-century ago to over 500 to 1 today. Heightened sense of economic class (wealthy versus poor). Increased dissatisfaction, politics of envy. Government policies and systems (income tax, the health care system and massive debt based on compound interest) transfer much wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Technical Reasons. (Factors involved in the collapse of complex societies, carrying capacity, economics.)
Political Incompetence. Just as King George III, US political leaders have failed to follow the dictums of Machiavelli, Sun Tsu, Liddell-Hart and others, and have lost the country.

This book is a summary. It is simply an annotated taxonomy of the items listed in Appendix A. It states my views and highlights my reasons for holding them, and presents a brief discussion of each reason why I believe that the US is finished. Most of the points that I make have been made many times before by others, in much greater detail than I present here. In a number of sections, when discussing very important concepts, I will include quotations from works of others, simply to show that I am not the only one making these points.

As part of the discussion, I cite references that provide additional detail. For convenience, the references are also categorized, but the categories used for the references are not at all the categories used to summarize the categories of reasons for my view, since people write books on general topics and those topics are not the categories of reasons for my view. The reference categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, a book on the history of warfare might be placed in “war” or “history.” A book on religion and ecology could be placed in either “religion” or “environment.”

Within each category of reference, I have sorted the items (mainly books) in approximate order of my assessment of their importance relative to the category. Just because a reference is included does not necessarily mean that I recommend it or endorse it. A number of references are included to illustrate views that I consider wrong, or to illustrate examples of bad predictions or poor methodologies. (The references on predictions and prophecies are included simply for interest. None of the information contained in any of those works has any bearing on the views presented in this work – in fact, a review of almost any of the older ones will quickly reveal how wrong and useless most of them are. In general, I am loath to make predictions, and certainly any involving dates – this book is a discourse on the current state of the US, not a prediction of a specific year in which it falters or collapses. Everything in the physical universe eventually dies – in the long run, there is nothing to predict.)

All of the references cited are books or other documents in my personal library. For this reason, they should not be considered to be a bibliography – they are just a list of selected references and sources. I have acquired these books over the years, in a casual way. My views on the fall of the United States are my own, but they have certainly been tempered by what I have read.

One of the principal tools of intelligence analysis is “content analysis,” which is the scanning of documents, such as newspapers or periodicals, in the attempt to identify and understand significant situations or trends. In a sense, this book may be viewed as a “content analysis” of the books in my library, with respect to the status and direction of the US. If the list of references were a bibliography, it would include many “seminal” works, such as Malthus’ essay on population.

Except for a few examples of technical works, all of the references are non-technical, and many of them are “trade” publications (low-cost, popular editions of mass-produced works, such as paperbacks and soft-cover editions). Most of the sources are from the past two decades, since most of the works dealing with topics relevant to the subject of this book were written during this time period.

Almost all of the references cited are “hardcopy” documents (books and pamphlets). With the explosion of the Internet, there are many websites containing information relevant to the thesis of this book. There are two reasons why I refer mainly to hardcopy sources: (1) most of the world does not have access to the Internet; and (2) relatively few books relevant to this work are available from the Internet in their entirety.

The major sections of this book refer to major readily identifiable indicators – symptoms and signs – of the US’ moribund condition. These symptoms and signs are not root causes. In addition to discussing these indicators and the current problems facing America (and the world) attention is focused on the reasons underlying these problems (such as growth-based economics, debt-based money, interest, and globalization) and their causes and nature.

To a degree, each section has been written essentially independently of others. Since there is some overlap of the content of the sections, this means that there is occasional redundancy among the sections.

Destruction of the Biosphere

The main reason why the United States will collapse soon is that the entire system of large human numbers and global industrialization will soon collapse. In the wake of the global collapse, all of the world’s individual nations will collapse. The current system of human society is completely unsustainable, the principal reason being that it is destroying the biosphere on which we depend for our existence. Global industrialization is generating massive amounts of waste that are not readily decomposed by geological or biological processes. It is causing the extinction of an estimated 30,000 species per year. It is causing severe pollution of the land, seas and atmosphere. The pollution of the atmosphere is believed by many to be causing global warming to occur, which is likely to accelerate the mass human-caused species extinction now underway.

Throughout the planet’s existence there have been a number of mass extinctions. This is the first one that is human-caused. The first major book on this extinction is The Sixth Extinction, by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (1995). Mankind’s destruction of the biosphere has been going on for quite some time (since the dawn of the industrial revolution), but began to increase exponentially with the advent of the industrial revolution and the tapping of fossil fuels. The “wake-up” book on mankind’s destruction of the biosphere was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). The publication of her book opened the floodgates to publication of books on mankind’s destruction of the planet, such as Gordon Rattray Taylor’s The Doomsday Book (1970), Barry Commoner’s Making Peace with the Planet (1975) and J. E. Lovelock’s Gaia (1979). Other well-received books on this topic include Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature (1989), Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s Healing the Planet (1991), Gerard Piel’s Only One World (1992), Garrett Hardin’s Living within Limits (1993) and Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance (1992). Recent books on the subject include and Lester Brown’s Plan B 2.0 (2006) and Plan B 3.0 (2008). A good compilation of articles on carrying capacity is The Carrying Capacity Briefing Book (volumes I and II, 1996) by the Carrying Capacity Network. The Social Contract journal is a powerful voice on this subject.

The really interesting thing about the current destruction of the planet’s biosphere is that absolutely nothing of any significance is being done to stop it. Countless books have been written on the subject for half a century, and the process is well recognized and understood. Mankind, however, appears powerless to do anything about it – and this is a lack of will, not of know-how.

The only noticeable actions in response to the planetary crisis are anguish, wringing of hands, and the writing of more books on the subject. Politicians routinely suggest measures that will reduce pollution or energy consumption by ten percent, while the human population increases by ten percent every few years, so that the net result is zero. They continually reiterate that if only economic growth continues, then all countries will experience a “demographic transition,” the global population will level off and decline, and the planet’s environmental problem will be solved. But this has never happened. It has not happened in fifty years of trying. Each year, global human population increases by about 70-80 million people. Each year, planetary deforestation continues and another estimated 30,000 species is made extinct. Continuing with their program will cause no decline in human numbers in the foreseeable future, and will result in the extinction of millions of species. During the past half-century under this program, human population has doubled and the levels of pollution have more than doubled. It is very clear that mankind will do nothing proactive to stop the problem, and that the process of global industrialization will continue to run its course until it collapses by itself.

The planet’s leaders tell endless lies about their actions in response to the crisis. Recently, demonstrators climbed onto the roof of the Houses of Parliament in London to protest the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Jet airplanes are known to be a major contributor to global pollution and global warming from greenhouse gasses. Politicians claim to be doing something about this problem, but this is not true. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. They lie. If they were planning to reduce atmospheric pollution, they would be speaking of closing down a runway at Heathrow, not of building another one. Sheer hypocrisy! This one incident is typical of society’s response to the current planetary crisis. The planet’s political leaders have no intention of slowing global industrialization. They are all calling for increased economic activity and industrialization, not less. They are all calling for improved standards of living, which uses more energy and generates more pollution, not less. With the announced intention of Communist China and India to industrialize and raise the standards of living of their peoples, the destructive process of global industrialization will accelerate.

The major reason why the US will collapse soon is that the system of large human numbers and global industrialization is destroying the biosphere and cannot continue, this process has been on-going for decades, and nothing is being done about it. The situation is a classic example of Catton’s “overshoot and collapse.”

The Passage of Peak Oil

In 1956 the petrogeologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert published a paper in which he predicted that US oil production would peak in about 1969. His prediction was rejected by almost everyone until 1970, when his prediction was seen to be correct. Dr. Hubbert used his technical knowledge of geology and the statistical characteristics of the rate and size of oil deposit discoveries to make his prediction. If you plot a curve showing national oil production by year (a “time series”), the plot (smoothed to remove minor fluctuations) resembles a “bell-shaped” curve that is low in the early 20^th century, rises to a maximum about 1969, and declines thereafter. This curve has come to be known as “Hubbert’s Curve,” and the point at which the oil production is a maximum is called “Hubbert’s Peak.”

Upon seeing the impressive success of Hubbert’s methodology in predicting the decline of US oil production, others applied his methods to predict the peaking of global oil production. Their analysis indicates that global oil production will likely peak this decade. From approximately now on, if global industrialization continues, global oil production will start to decline, and most of the planet’s commercially recoverable oil will be gone by 2050. The peaking of global oil production is referred to as “Peak Oil.” (The average production life of an oil field is about thirty years. For a large area (many oil fields), the production curve is similar in shape to the discovery curve, lagging by about thirty years. Global discoveries peaked in about 1974, and global production is expected to peak about now.)

Many books have been written on the subject of Peak Oil. One of the best is Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, by Kenneth S. Deffeyes (2001). Others on the same topic include Paul Roberts’ The End of Oil (2004) and Matthew R. Simmons’ Twilight in the Desert (2005). A comprehensive history of oil is Daniel Yergin’s The Prize (1991) (also a PBS television documentary). An excellent documentary about the passing of oil is A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash (2006) produced and directed by Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack (available on DVD; excerpts may be viewed on YouTube).

Some people have a difficult time understanding or accepting the concept of Hubbert’s Curve. They point to the fact that new oil deposits are continually being found as evidence that this will continue forever. An example might make the concept easier to understand. Suppose that someone has a container filled with coins – quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies – and that he throws handfuls of the coins across a cornfield (maize field) and plows the field. The field represents the surface of the Earth, and the coins represent oil deposits – the coins of different values represent oil deposits of different sizes. Wherever a handful of coins was thrown there is a large “oil field.” Elsewhere there is no oil at all. Now, each year that the field is plowed for a new crop, look for coins and pick them up. The first year, you will find quite a few. The next year, you will find less. Each year you will find fewer and fewer coins, because there are just a finite number of them and you are removing them – they are not being replaced (unless you subscribe to the Russian’s abiogenic theory of oil creation). After a number of years, you would be able to estimate the relative proportions of quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies. You could draw a curve showing how many coins were found each year, and extrapolate it to estimate how many coins (of each size) will be found each year in the future. From this you could estimate the total number of coins in the field (of each size) and the total value remaining. To do this you do not need to know anything about the number or mix of coins that were distributed in the field. This is exactly how Hubbert’s Curve is constructed.

Since the major source of energy for the industrial world is oil, and since the high levels of food production have been enabled by oil, the decline in global oil production will usher in an era of massive economic and social disintegration. Good books on this topic include Thom Hartmann’s The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight (1998) and Richard Heinberg’s The Party’s Over (2003) and Power Down (2004). An excellent website for source material on this topic is Jay Hanson’s Die Off website at http://www.dieoff.com .

The reason why Peak Oil is expected to result in massive economic and social upheaval is that the major source of energy for the industrial world is oil, and it is not easily replaced. Oil can be used for many things, such as plastics, fertilizers and other chemicals, not just as a source of energy. Also, it is easily transported, i.e., can be stored on cars, trucks, ships and airplanes. The production of synthetic oil (e.g., from coal) requires much energy (e.g., from the coal). Moreover, this is but a stop-gap measure – all coal will be gone within a few hundred years (or much sooner, if much of the coal is converted to oil, since much energy is required to synthesize oil from coal). Electricity can be used for land transport, but only for a stable population (e.g., trolley cars, electric trains, subways). Solar energy (e.g., hydroelectric, biomass, wind, solar thermal, solar cell) can replace only a small fraction of the energy now obtained from oil, and it is not as high grade or as transportable. Believing that solar energy will be a replacement for oil is laughable. If it were, we would see plenty of solar-energy-powered factories producing more solar factories, and there would be no “energy crisis.” (People are finally beginning to write about the folly of turning to biomass as a replacement for oil. See, for example, Walter Williams’ column, “Ethanol’s a scam, not a solution” (Creators Syndicate, 16 March 2008) and the cover feature of the 7 April 2008 issue of Time magazine, “The Clean Energy Scam,” by Michael Grunwald, which discusses, among other things, the effect of using biomass on the destruction of forests in Brazil.) Uranium can provide energy for a long time, but only if used in fast-breeder reactors, which produce plutonium. The idea of having thousands of plutonium-producing “factories” around the globe in this era of terrorism is rather absurd. Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that lasts for tens of thousands of years.

The world population has soared from one billion to 6.7 billion because of oil, and it will decline back to low levels as global oil production falls.

It is worth noting that not everyone subscribes to the inevitability of Hubbert’s Peak. An implicit assumption in the application of Hubbert’s methodology is that the oil deposits were created many eons ago (by biological processes), and are hence of essentially fixed size. An alternative theory is that oil is also geological in origin (“abiogenic petroleum origin”). The Russians subscribe to this theory, and they are finding much oil. It is also worth noting that the methodology for constructing Hubbert’s Curve does not depend on an assumption about the origin of oil – it is based only on empirical statistics (on oil deposit sizes and discoveries), but it does assume that the amounts are essentially fixed.

Many people view the passing of Peak Oil as a disaster. It is in fact a chance for salvation – a chance to save what remains of the biosphere’s species, before further damage occurs. It is oil that has fueled large human numbers and global industrialization, with the resultant environmental destruction and mass species extinction. The sooner the fossil-fuel-energy age is over, the sooner the mass species extinction may come to an end. Switching to other fossil fuels or carbon-based fuels (e.g., coal, gas, oil shale) as global oil production declines simply continues the biospheric destruction. Continuing to use fossil fuel in any form simply allows global industrialization to continue, causing the mass species extinction to continue for a longer time. There are two points here: (1) fossil fuels will exhaust soon, and there is no comparable energy replacement for them; and (2) because large human numbers and industrial activity are causing mass species extinction, finding an alternative energy source, even if it were possible, would simply continue the biospheric destruction and species extinction. Like a drug addict or alcoholic, we may want more energy, but we don’t need it – and it would destroy us if we were to find it.

Economists have been saying for decades that if the price of oil gets high enough, then substitutes for oil will be found. The price has risen from $10 a barrel to over $100 a barrel in recent years, and no comparable replacement has been found. And no matter how high the price goes, it will never buy back the species that have been made extinct. Striving to keep human energy use at high levels is tantamount to striving to continue global warming and species loss.

Overpopulation

It is an historic certitude that human populations (and most others) expand to the limit of the food supply. It is also a fact that if the food supply collapses, the population also collapses. The major book on this subject is William R. Catton, Jr.’s Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (1980). A more recent work on the subject is Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005). See also Jay Hansen’s Die Off website (http://www.dieoff.org ). Population collapse may occur for a number of reasons, such as climate change, deforestation, soil fertility changes, overfishing, overhunting and pests. The large size of today’s human population has been enabled by oil. As oil production declines, global food production will decline, and a massive human die-off will occur (from starvation or war).

As the petroleum age draws to a close, human society will return to a solar-energy-based civilization. To be sure, there are some other significant energy sources on the planet in addition to oil. One is nuclear energy. It is not a viable long-term solution because it generates large and intractable amounts of waste. For uranium supplies to last for a long time, they must be used in fast-breeder reactors, which produce plutonium. In this age of terrorism, the presence of a large number of plutonium-producing plants scattered around the planet is not a stable situation. Another source of energy is coal. The planet is estimated to contain sufficient coal to fuel industrial society for several hundred years, but the problem of burning the coal without releasing the carbon into the atmosphere (and causing a lethal greenhouse gas effect) has not been solved. Also, the conversion of coal to oil (e.g., via Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction) requires much energy – if this is done, the coal supply will not last nearly as long as it would if used directly. (A couple of years ago there was much talk about using America’s vast coal reserves to produce oil and more electricity, but those plans have collapsed – the “energy” cost of making oil from coal or pollution-free electricity from coal is very high.) The feasibility of using nuclear fusion to generate electricity has been demonstrated in the laboratory, but despite a half-century of trying, the practicality of this energy source remains elusive. The evidence seems overwhelming that as oil depletes, human society will return to existing on recurrent solar energy.

(The concept of “carbon sequestration” to place the carbon dioxide formed from the burning of fossil fuel is laughable. The carbon is already sequestered – why not simply leave it where it is? Some day, all coal will be gone, and so burning of coal is not a long-term solution to society’s energy requirements. Absent a good use for the energy (e.g., using it to transit to a different system of planetary management, one that is long-term sustainable for the biosphere and the human species), there is no point to using the coal at all – by prolonging the industrial age it simply causes the extinction of countless more species.)

The “awkwardness” of the present situation is that solar energy can support only a small fraction of the world’s current population. At a low level of living, solar energy can support about 500 million people. At a high level of living, it can support on the order of about 5-10 million people. As global energy supplies exhaust, human population will fall back to these numbers (i.e., will die off). The only significant issue is, as Joel Cohen and others have put it, “how many people, at what level of living.” The recurrent-solar-energy budget is fixed. All that may be decided is whether to use it to support a high level of living for a few people or a low level of living for a larger number. In any event, the size of a long-term-sustainable solar-energy-based human population is far smaller than the current human population. (For discussion of human carrying capacity, see, for example, David and Marcia Pimentel’s Food, Energy, and Society (1979, 1996), and Joel Cohen’s How Many People Can the Earth Support? (1995).)

The US has made no efforts to prepare for life in a recurrent-solar-energy-based world. At a low level of living, recurrent solar energy can support (long term) about 63 million people in the US; at a high level of living, recurrent solar energy can support about one-tenth this number, or 630 thousand. The current (2008) population of the United States is 304 million, and it is increasing by about three million per year (from immigration). That is about five to fifty times as many as can be supported by recurrent solar energy, and the situation is getting worse every year. It is interesting to compare the situation for the US to that for Russia. Although Russia has a larger total land area than the US, it has less arable land. At a low level of living, solar energy can support about 44 million people in Russia, and at a high level of living it can support about 440 thousand people. The current population of Russia is 142 million people, and it is declining by about one-half million per year. This is about three to thirty times what solar energy can support, but at least Russia is headed in the right direction (i.e., its population is declining to a recurrent-solar-energy-based level). (The statistics on populations supportable by solar energy are taken from Can America Survive? and related documents at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm , http://www.foundationwebsite.org/PopAnalysisAllCountries.txt and http://www.foundationwebsite.org/PopProfileAllCountries.txt .)

When populations change size for the usual demographic reasons (changes in birth rates, death rates, and migration rates under peaceful conditions), they change rather slowly. Even if the US started today to bring its population into line with solar energy limits by stopping all immigration and adopting a one-child-per family policy (as in Communist China), its population would not start to decline for some time (due to “momentum” of the “population pyramid,” as the current children reach child-bearing age), and would then decline slowly. Unfortunately for those who would like to continue US and world populations at a high level, the decline in global oil production is upon us, and they will soon be declining rapidly. The amount of energy available to support the human population is about to begin to fall rapidly, and there is little that can be done about it (oil can be pumped out of the ground just so fast). When the global oil production decline is in full fall, global population will fall by about one hundred and fifty million per year. Considering that the global population is currently increasing by about 70-80 million per year, this means that an average of about 220-230 million deaths a year will occur from starvation or war over the next four decades.

The US imports more than half of its oil (about sixty percent, according to The Oil Drum (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3233)). For some time, it will be able to continue oil imports by paying a lot for them, and let people in other countries starve to death (or reduce demand by wholesale extermination of the population of other countries). Eventually, however, there will simply not be oil for anyone at any price, and, despite what cornucopians such as Julian Simon may claim, there is no comparable substitute that heightened demand will create. At that point, all nations still in existence will revert to solar-based agriculture.

(There is a famous wager that was made once offered by Julian Simon to Paul Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb (1968)), in which Simon bet that the price of commodities, including grain and fossil fuels, would not rise in price in future years. Here is a quote from Simon’s book, The Ultimate Resource 2 (1996): “The first edition of this book contained this statement: This is a public offer to stake $10,000, in separate transactions of $1,000 or $100 each, on my belief that mineral resources (or food or other commodities) will not rise in price in future years, adjusted for inflation. You choose any mineral or other raw material (including grain and fossil fuels) that is not government controlled, and the date of the settlement. Offering to wager is the last resource of the frustrated. When you are convinced that you have hold of an important idea, and you can’t get the other side to listen, offering to bet is all that is left. If the other side refuses to bet, they implicitly acknowledge that they are less sure than they claim to be.” For many years, Simon bragged that he would have won the bet, had it been made. All it took, however, for the price of commodities to start to rise was for the world to reach Hubbert’s Peak. Now, the price of oil is about $100 per barrel, and the price of grains is also rising (adjusted for inflation). And, of course, no amount of demand increase can bring back the species that have been lost from large human numbers and industrial activity. In the long run, Ehrlich was right. In the long run, Malthus will be proven right.)

Some people do not like to use the word “overpopulated,” asserting that there is no such thing, that there can never be a “surplus” of people. This is a foolish denial of the way things are. The large current US population has been made possible and is sustained by the availability of large amounts of oil. When the oil is gone, the population will fall. That condition is overpopulation.

Fractionated Culture

Massive Immigration without Assimilation Has Fractionated the United States’ Culture and Society

After the invasion of North America by the Europeans and the die-off of the Indians (from disease, starvation, dispossession of their lands and extermination of the buffalo (bison)), North America was a patchwork of different cultures – the Spanish in (what is now) Florida and the US Southwest, the French in eastern Canada and the Louisiana Territory (the middle third of the US) and the British in the eastern US. After the US was founded, it received waves of immigrants from Europe, such as from Germany, Ireland and Scandinavia. Gradually, as English became the country’s principal language and immigration continued mainly from Europe, the US coalesced into a strong nation. It had a single language and was largely white and Protestant. The native American Indians had been decimated. The largest single minority was African slaves (Indians do not make good slaves). As the Industrial Revolution progressed, the country freed the slaves and eventually accommodated the Africans and integrated them into the mainstream American culture.

This process is now being reversed, by mass immigration over a short period of time by alien cultures from around the world. The largest single block of immigrants is from Mexico, and there has been little attempt to require them or even encourage them to speak English. Mass immigration is the result of the Immigration Act of 1965 (The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 or the Hart-Celler Act, which amended the Immigration Act of 1924). Prior to passage of this Act, immigration was restricted to small numbers of people from the same European countries and cultures that had settled the country and made it strong and great. After passage of the Act, immigration swelled to massive numbers, and most were from alien (nonEuropean) cultures. As legal immigration from alien cultures increased, with little assimilation there were now present in the population many people who were obviously foreign, and it became very easy for illegal immigrants to “blend in.” Strong legislation was passed to prevent discrimination against legal immigrants, and it soon became impossible (in today’s politically correct society) to discriminate against illegal ones. Illegal immigration increased to extremely high levels – presently about two million per year – far eclipsing legal immigration. Over time, the US became very fractionated, with respect to all components of culture (“peoplehood”) – race, language, religion, ethnicity and politics.

This process of fractionation has been evident for a long time. The first major book on the subject was Joel Garreau’s The Nine Nations of North America (1981). As the process of fractionation became more extensive and obvious, many more books were written on this subject, including Arthur Schlesinger’s The Disuniting of America (1991), Lawrence Auster’s The Path to National Suicide (1990), Rosalie Pedalino Porter’s Forked Tongue (1990), Brent Nelson’s America Balkanized (1994), Georgie Anne Geyer’s Americans No More (1996), Patrick Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (2002) and State of Emergency (2006). There are many books on immigration, including Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation (1995) and Jean Raspail’s prophetic novel, The Camp of the Saints (1973). A very comprehensive source on immigration is The Immigration Briefing Book, by the Carrying Capacity Network (1994).

In his book, Day of Reckoning (2007), Patrick Buchanan observes, “Is diversity a strength? In the ideology of modernity, yes. But history teaches otherwise. For how can racial diversity be strength when racial diversity was behind the bloodiest war in U.S. history and has been the most polarizing issue among us ever since?” Buchanan quotes findings of Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone on the subject of diversity in America: “His research shows that the more diverse a community is the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from the next-door neighbor to the mayor…. Prof. Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history….’

“…By 1960, 88.6 percent of our nation was of European stock and 95 percent Christian. America had never been a more united nation. African Americans had been assimilated into the Christian faith and national culture if not fully into society. While Jews, perhaps 4 percent of the population, were non-Christians, their parents or grandparents had come from European Christian nations.

“Since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the Immigration Act of 1965, however, the ethnocultural core has begun to dissolve. Secularism has displaced Christianity as the faith of the elites. The nation has entered a post-Christian era. There is no longer a unifying culture. Rather, we are fighting a culture war. And the European ethnic core is shrinking. From near 90 percent in 1960, it is down to 67 percent today, and will be less than 50 percent by 2040.

“Here we come to the heart of the matter.

“Quo Vadis, America? Where are you going?

“If we have no common faith and are divided by morality and culture, and are separated by ethnicity and race, what holds us together? Especially in light of Putnam’s report that ‘diversity’ dilutes ‘social capital,’ erodes communities, and engenders mutual mistrust.”

Buchanan makes a number of other comments on diversity and related topics. Excerpts are presented in the Appendices.

Near the end of his book, Buchanan quotes Euripides: “There is no greater sorrow on earth, than the loss of one’s native land.” The truth of this statement is profound. It has been said that we do not own the land, that it owns us. We are rooted in our land, as much as in our culture. When we lose our native land, we have lost the physical link to our culture and our heritage. We have lost something as significant as our parents and our family. Economic development is destroying the lands that I knew as a boy in Canada and the United States. The wooded areas in which I used to hike are now all destroyed, consumed by highways, housing developments, schools and shopping centers. When I was a boy in Spartanburg, the city water supply was a pleasant little lake called Rainbow Lake. We used to go swimming there on weekends. Family reunions were held in the Rainbow Lake Pavilion. The population of Spartanburg back then was about 50,000 people. Most people could walk to school – certainly to elementary school, and in many cases to high school. Now, with a population of several hundred thousand, Rainbow Lake has been destroyed, replaced by a much larger Lake Bowen (Bill Bowen, who planned the lake, was an uncle of mine by marriage). The amazing thing about this is that we now have water shortages! All that matters to the controllers of the US is wealth, and creation of scarcity is one of the best ways of increasing the value of things. Unfortunately, economic growth destroys nature. It is destroying our native land.

Some Background on the Passage of the Immigration Act of 1965

The drive for the Immigration Act of 1965 came from interests that strove to weaken the traditional, mainstream, dominant US culture, which was white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP, European, Northern European, Nordic, Teutonic). The two principal actors in passage of the Act were Senator Edward Kennedy and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (the Act was sponsored by Senators Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart). Both parties sought to weaken the dominance of Teutonic culture in the United States. The ADL was founded in 1913 after the lynching of Leo Frank in Atlanta. A description of the ADL’s work in promoting mass immigration to the US from alien cultures is presented in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique (1998). A discussion of Senator Kennedy’s role in passage of the Act is presented in Lawrence Auster’s The Path to National Suicide (1990).

(In this section and a later one, there is a fair amount of discussion of Jewish groups and Jewish culture. I have no particular interest in Jews or Judaism, and my discussion of them in this work arises simply from my observations of the significance of their role in affecting US culture and security, in observing the remarkable success of their efforts in statecraft and nation-building, and in comparing the success of their efforts to those of the United States.)

In working together for passage of the Act, Senator Kennedy and the ADL had different motives. Although Senator Kennedy was (and is) a Catholic, his sponsorship of the Act had little to do with his Catholic religion. The passage of time has shown that the Catholics as a group have little interest in “taking over” the US government, culture, or country. (During the era of the Papal States, the Roman Catholic Church was very interested and involved in acquisition and use of political power. While the Roman Catholic Church is still quite concerned with material wealth and still operates a small country (the Holy See, Vatican City), it is not at present involved in major political operations.) Although far fewer in numbers than Protestants, they view themselves (as Christians) very much as an integral part of the traditional US culture, not as an alien people attempting to take it over or assume control of it.

The motives of the ADL were quite different. The ADL is a socio-political instrument of the Jewish political movement, and its motivation and role in passage of the Act were to further their political ambitions in support of the movement to establish the Jewish state of Israel (Zionism). As a Jewish organization, the ADL was in no position to sponsor the Act, and they sought a gentile to “front” for it. Senator Kennedy was mindful of Jewish political power. As a young senator early in his career, he sought to enhance his power by aligning with the wealthy ADL and the “Jewish lobby.” He was quite willing to accommodate this group by serving as a Christian “front man” for the Act. It was Kennedy’s religion as a Christian (not as a Catholic) that served the ADL’s interests. The Act could have been sponsored by either a Protestant or a Catholic, and achieved passage. The fact that Kennedy was Catholic and not Protestant was in fact a weakness, but the popularity of the Kennedy family name compensated for this. Although Kennedy, as a named sponsor of the Act, bears some responsibility for its passage and for the resultant destruction of US culture that it caused, this was not his primary objective. Kennedy’s role in passage of the Act was that of a pawn serving as a gentile front-man for the ADL. With his connection to the Kennedy family, he served the ADL very well in achieving their objective of passage of the Act. His primary motive, however, was advancement of his own personal political power, not of the political power of the Catholic Church (or of the Zionist movement). The fact that mainstream US culture would be destroyed was not a concern to him – in fact, he adamantly insisted that this would not happen.

In serving as a sponsor for the Act, Kennedy was in fact a shill for the ADL. More than any other single event, the Immigration Act of 1965 signaled the demise of traditional American culture. The ADL’s role in passage of the Act was long-standing and with purpose (i.e., the nurturing of the modern state of Israel); Kennedy’s was not – it was opportunistic. He was simply the Judas who betrayed his country for a few pieces of silver. While Senator Kennedy, as a named sponsor of the Act, may claim responsibility for it, and while his name will forever be linked to this signal event in America’s demise, he was in fact not the prime mover, but simply a Quisling, a Benedict Arnold, who betrayed his country and culture for his own personal gain. (The only essential difference between Benedict Arnold and Edward Kennedy is that, whereas Arnold’s cause failed and his treachery was therefore in vain, the goal of Kennedy’s treachery was achieved – he has lived to see the dissolution of the culture of the United States, primarily because of his Immigration Act of 1965.) Senator Kennedy was recently (May 2008) diagnosed with brain cancer. Had he died before sponsoring the Act would have made little difference, for two reasons: (1) the ADL would have found some other gentile to front for it; and (2) as Ariel Durant observed, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” By even considering the Act, it is evident that US culture was well down its path to destruction, and positioning for its demise. From this perspective, even the participation of the ADL per se is of little consequence: had the ADL not been the agent primarily responsible for passage of the Act, some other group or event would have served as pivotal agents in the US’ demise. (This is admittedly a rather philosophical perspective – few of us can control our lives to a great degree, but achieve our life’s purpose or significance simply by responding to the larger environments and situations into which we are born or find ourselves.)

One might reasonably ask why and how Americans could have allowed mass immigration to overwhelm and displace / destroy their culture. The story is a little long, but it is very interesting and illustrates well the importance of culture in determining the destiny of a nation, and so I will digress a little by discussing it in some detail. It also points out some features of Israeli society that contrast significantly with present US culture, with respect to national survival. Prior to the 1965 Act, US immigration had been limited to a few tens of thousands of people, mainly from Europe, for many decades. The ADL and Senator Edward Kennedy convinced Americans that restricting immigration to Northern European cultures was morally wrong. President John Kennedy had recently been assassinated, and many Americans mourned his loss. He had written a book, Nation of Immigrants (1958), in which he praised immigration, and he had attempted to pass an immigration bill of his own, but failed. Robert F. Kennedy, who had been Attorney General under President Kennedy, also pressed for passage of the new bill. President Kennedy’s book was revised and enlarged in a 1964 edition – it is significant to note that the 1964 edition was copyrighted by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Some people, such as North Carolina Senator Sam Irvin, asserted that the new bill would flood the country with immigrants from alien cultures and change the ethnic composition of the country. Senator Kennedy countered that this would not happen, and implied that the opponents of the bill were racist bigots. The bill passed, and the country began its passage to oblivion.

One of the key features of the new Act was the fact that it promoted “family reunification.” This meant that foreigners having close relatives in the US were likely to be granted immigration visas. Since Asians and Latinos have high birth rates, this feature resulted in a phenomenon called “chain migration,” in which large extended families were granted entry. Birthright citizenship was granted to any child born in the US. Relatives of such children, such as a mother or father, were also granted immigrant visas – such babies were called “anchor babies.” (The January 3, 1999, issue of the St. Petersburg Times Parade Sunday Supplement contains a feature (cover) article entitled, “An American Experience: A Report for the Millennium,” by Ted Szulc. It documents the story of how one Mexican crossed the border thirty-two years previously, concealed in the trunk of a car. He evaded police for several years until his wife had two children, who were automatically granted birthright citizenship. With US-citizen children, he and his wife then qualified for a Green Card (a work-permit visa), followed by US citizenship. They went on to have ten children – all US citizens. All stemming from one criminal invader of our country. To further its program of selling of America to generate more wealth for the wealthy elite, the US government has rewarded this criminal alien invader with citizenship for himself and ten of his relatives. The US Constitution requires the government to protect the country from invasion. The government imprisons one percent of its adult male population, while rewarding alien invaders with citizenship. The US government is guilty of high treason, and should be held accountable. It rewards illegal aliens with birthright citizenship for their children, while it imprisons its own citizens at the highest rate in the world. It no longer deserves the support of the governed.)

The Effects of Mass Immigration on US Society

Over the years, many Americans became alarmed at the flood of illegal aliens, and complained. They complained mainly on the basis that the illegal aliens were depressing their wages and taking their jobs. Few people complained that the masses of illegal immigrants were changing US culture, since this argument was immediately labeled as “racist” and “bigoted.” Instead, the argument asserted by the government in favor of mass immigration was invariably that it was good for the economy, and it did not depress wages or employment for citizens. The fact was and is that immigration was good for the economy. It did depress wages and employment to some extent (mainly for lower-wage earners), but the overall effect of immigration is to increase gross domestic product – the country with 300 million people living in it produces much more goods and services than the country with only 200 million people, and the country’s wealthy elite are much better off. Mass immigration was very good for business, and so the government, which now served the wealthy elite, was not about to put the brakes on it. The fact that mass immigration was destroying the culture, the environment, and the quality of life for many US citizens was downplayed, suppressed, ignored, and contradicted by the US government and its economists.

As an example of “Hume’s Paradox” (that the masses have the power to overthrow their governments, but rarely do), US citizens were too timid to stand up for their culture. They let the US government convince them, quite falsely it is now patently obvious, that it was in their economic interest to allow mass immigration. They were dissuaded from standing up for their culture because (1) they were accused of bigotry in doing so and (2) they were promised an increased standard of living. In the end, seduced by the false promise of continued material well-being, they lost both their culture and their standard of living.

Once there were massive numbers of legal aliens from different cultures in the US, it became very difficult to distinguish them from illegal aliens, and illegal immigration mushroomed. It got so bad that in 1986 the US government passed the Immigration Reform Act granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. The government claimed that this would not be done again. It lied – granting of a path to citizenship to the 12-20 illegal aliens currently in the country has been promoted by the Bush administration and is being promoted by all three presidential contenders (John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama).

Machiavelli asserted that there are three main ways to administer a conquered people: (1) annihilate them (as the Romans did to the Carthaginians); (2) overwhelm them with large numbers of your own people (as the Communist Chinese are now doing in Tibet, the Israelis have been doing in Palestine, and the Europeans did to the native American Indians in North America); or (3) back local oligarchs (powerful families) and control the country through these surrogates. None of these approaches was feasible for minorities to overcome the United States, since it had not been conquered and its mainstream culture was too strong. The way that was adopted to conquer it, and, after four decades has proved to be highly successful, was to flood the country with immigrants from alien cultures. This could not have been done, of course, had the country’s mainstream culture not already started to decline and was ripe for takeover. As Ariel Durant once observed, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”

In his book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006), Daniel Dennett relates the interesting story of an ant that laboriously climbs to the top of a blade of grass, falls off, and climbs back over and over again. It turns out that this strange behavior is caused by a parasite, the lancet fluke (Dicrocelium dendriticum), that is striving, as Dennett relates, “to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or cow in order to complete its reproductive cycle. This little brain worm is driving the ant into position to benefit its progeny, not the ant’s. This is not an isolated phenomenon. Similarly manipulative parasites infect fish, and mice, among other species. These hitchhikers cause their hosts to behave in unlikely – even suicidal – ways, all for the benefit of the guest, not the host.” Another parasite that causes similar behavior is the parasitic protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, which can cause rats and mice to be drawn to the scent of cats, rather than to be fearful of it. The recent flooding of the US with immigrants is analogous to the phenomenon of these behavior-controlling parasites. In similar fashion, Jewish culture has taken control of US culture, and America is now a client state of Israel. Jewish interest groups (ADL, Zionists, the “Jewish Lobby,” the “Israeli Lobby”) have played the role of the lancet fluke to induce America to do its bidding. Their primary tool was the Immigration Act of 1965 – which was passed by American lawmakers! With a little help from a cultural parasite, America destroyed itself.

The founders and early leaders of the United States knew what was required to establish and maintain a country. They restricted the vote to landowners and representation in favor of the white race. When revolution was initiated by the secession of South Carolina in 1861, Abraham Lincoln crushed the effort with a bloody civil war – the bloodiest war in the history of the US (close to one million deaths). In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the US government embarked on a genocidal war of extermination of the native American Indians. It exterminated the buffalo, which was essential to the food and culture of the plains Indians. It relocated Indians from their homelands to small, inhospitable reservations, some of which resembled moonscapes. It sent smallpox-infested blankets to the cold, starving survivors. When World War II broke out, they immediately placed all Japanese living in the US in concentration camps.

Jewish Capabilities in Statecraft

While America’s founders and early leaders knew what to do to create and maintain a nation, our current leaders have abandoned their principles, and the nation is disintegrating. It is not that they do not know what is required, but that they are implementing the will of the planet’s controllers (wealthy elite). The same is true for South Africa. The founders and present-day leaders of the modern state of Israel, however, know exactly what to do to found a nation and maintain it, and they have the will, intelligence, and skills to do it. This section describes some of the history and characteristics of Israeli statecraft, which is similar to that of America’s founders but stands in stark contrast to the policies and actions of US leaders of the past half-century and today.

The historical background of the eventual takeover of America by the ADL is fascinating. The Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews who founded the modern state of Israel knew what was required and were prepared to do it, to establish their own country. Prior to the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948, the country was Palestine. The founders of modern-day Israel had no racial or ancestral links to the Biblical Jews. They were Khazars, or Ashkenazim, from Eastern Europe (Germany). Following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, they saw an opportunity to obtain a country of their own, by taking over Palestine. The Arabs were in total disarray, and allowed this to happen. Although the Ashkenazim / Khazars had no historical or racial or ancestral links to Palestine (the Holy Land), they asserted that they had religious ties to the Biblical Jews, and on this basis deserved a homeland in the area then occupied by Palestine. They were in fact not “returning” to the Holy Land, since their ancestors were never from it. The Biblical Jews are not the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazim had no moral or ancestral claim to the land of the Biblical Jews. They had no more legitimate, moral or hereditary claim to Palestine than Sammy Davis, Jr.

The Ashkenazim sought and obtained the backing of British Foreign Secretary Balfour for their cause. In 1917 Lord Balfour sent a letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild in support of this idea – this letter is now referred to as the “Balfour Declaration.” The letter did not suggest the taking over of Palestinian territory, but simply the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people within Palestine. Once the Ashkenazim got a foothold in Palestine, however, they quickly took over.

The movement of the Ashkenazim to take over Palestine is called Zionism. It is a political movement, disguised as a religious one. Religion is the handmaiden of government, and history has shown how it can be a very effective tool in accomplishing political goals. The Ashkenazi Jews had no ancestral link to the Biblical Jews, but they made very effective use of religion to imply that they had a rightful political claim to the Holy Land. In fact, there was no basis to their claim – moral, ancestral, historical, legitimate or other. Neither they nor their ancestors were from that land, which had been occupied by Palestine for two millennia. They had and have no moral right to Palestine, and the country, Israel, that they founded has no moral right to exist – the modern state of Israel was founded on sham and deception – but they backed up their unfounded claim with force. They now have a legal right to it – and a legal right to exist – since they, with the support of the United States, can enforce it.

After the Second World War, the Ashkenazim had the support of Britain to migrate to Palestine and set up homelands. Alarmed at what was happening, the Arab nations in the area attacked the Jewish settlements. To the Arabs’ surprise and great misfortune, the Jews repelled the attack, defeated the Arabs, and promptly laid claim to Palestine as their own country. As they say, “the rest is history.” Ever since then, the Palestinians and other Arabs have been whining (whinging or whingeing, to my British readers) about this takeover. This is a waste of time. Every country in the world was established by conquest, and, under international law, the “rightful” owners are those who are strong enough and clever enough to defend their claim. This is what Britain did in North America, it is what the United States later did, and it is what all nations do. The Ashkenazim had and have no moral right whatsoever to move in and take over Palestine. They did it, and they are able to defend it, and that is that – they have thereby established a legal right to it.

In their conquest and subsequent administration of Palestine, the Ashkenazim followed Machiavelli’s dictums to the letter. Machiavelli identified three means of administering a conquered land: (1) kill everyone; (2) set up puppet local administrators (such as powerful families or warlords), and tell them that you will support them as long as they cooperate with your goals (e.g., in Iraq, give us access to oil); or (3) overwhelm the land with your own people, to outnumber the original inhabitants. The Israelis have applied the third means of assuring their control over Palestine. They flooded the new state of Israel with a massive influx of Eastern European Jews. Here follows a quote from Col. Thomas Hammes’ The Sling and the Stone (2006):

“As early as 1991, even before the Oslo accords were signed, the Likud Party (led by Netanyahu and Sharon) worked to defeat any possible compromise with the Palestinians in the occupied territories. One of their key tools was encouraging the immigration of a million Soviet Jews. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Jews were eager to emigrate to the West. The Israeli government did its best to encourage these people to come to Israel. In doing so, they achieved two goals. First, they reversed the population trend that saw Palestinian [Mizrahi] and Sephardic (non-European [Iberian]) Jews growing rapidly in proportion to the Ashkenazim – Jews of European [Germanic] descent. Second, they provided the people needed to populate the West Bank settlements the Likud Party was rapidly building.”

As a final indignity to the Palestinians, the Israelis (Golda Meir) asserted that they don’t even exist as a people. If they ever did, they have now simply been erased, extinguished, eradicated, exterminated from history – from this viewpoint, the “Palestinian people” is nothing more than a figment of the past, a bad dream, and no longer part of reality. (Actually, Mrs. Meir was essentially correct in her characterization. The people who occupied what is now Israel were not a unified ethnic group, but a loose collection of Semites (Jews, Arabs, Druze), most of whom would have preferred to remain part of Syria or Lebanon. Referring to them as “a people” at that time is rather a stretch of the imagination. While Palestine was certainly a recognized place, it was hardly a well defined “people.” On the other hand, whether they were or were not or are or are not a people is irrelevant. No group of people, whether considered “a people” or not, has any right of self-determination, or any right to anything, except as they establish it and maintain it by force.)

A key ingredient in the Ashkenazim takeover of Palestine was support from the US, the new world power after the Second World War. Jewish interests (such as the ADL) now control the US. The US has become a client state of Israel. The small state of Israel, through the Jewish diaspora in the United States, now asserts essentially complete control of the US. The major event in establishing this control was passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 and the subsequent flooding of the US with alien cultures. Another significant event was the takeover of the US media by Jewish interests. Through this control, much further progress was made in destroying Teutonic culture in the US (through films that promote multiculturalism, inclusiveness, diversity, pluralism, equality, tolerance, openness, permissiveness, political correctness and intermixing of all cultures and ethnic groups except Jews – see the cover of the March 22, 2008, issue of Vogue magazine for a current example (Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen in a pose suggestive of King Kong and Fay Wray)).

How this happened is clear. Why it happened is also clear. America could not have been taken over by Jewish culture had its own culture not weakened so that it no longer strove to defend itself and survive. Jewish culture defends and protects itself. It has survived for thousands of years, and it will continue to survive. America was not destroyed by the Jews or the Catholics, or by any other group. Recall Ariel Durant’s observation, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” American culture chose not to defend itself. Through neglect, it lost its will for self-preservation. It forgot that the fundamental responsibility of any country is to defend itself. Culture is the spirit of a country. The culture that founded and maintained the US is no more. The US no longer has a spirit that strives to survive. America’s spirit is gone, and the country will not last.

In their quest to destroy US mainstream culture, the ADL allied with other minority groups, such as Catholics and blacks. The ADL and Senator Kennedy were very successful in initiating the process that culminated in the fractionation of the United States. Recently, they have been joined in the quest to destroy traditional American culture by Hispanics and Asians, represented by immigration proponents such as LULAC, MALDEF, ACLU, various lawyer advocacy groups and the Ford Foundation – see William Hawkins’ book Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda (1994) for more on this. America is now being flooded with immigrants from every corner of the world. This process of destruction of US Northern European culture is about complete. It appears that when a culture reaches the point at which 25 percent is not of the mainstream culture, it is ripe for disintegration. The US has reached that point – the tipping point – and is now living on borrowed time.

For more discussion of the destruction of US mainstream culture by Jewish culture, see Kevin MacDonalds’ The Culture of Critique (1998, 2002), Separation and Its Discontents (2004) and A People That Shall Dwell Alone (2002). For more on the takeover of Palestine by Israel, see David Icke’s Tales from the Time Loop (2003) or The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (2007); David Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace (1989); John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007); James Petras’ The Power of Israel in the United States (2006) and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire (2007); Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006); Michael Neumann’s The Case Against Israel (2005); Alan Dershowitz’ The Case for Israel (2003); and Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006). Carter and Dershowitz accept, imply, or promote the notion that Israel has some sort of “moral right” to exist, and to remain the occupier of Palestine. They assert that since the Ashkenazim call themselves Jews and a band of Jews once occupied land in the Holy Land 2500 years ago, they have a greater moral right to the land than the Palestinians who occupied it prior to 1948. The “starting point” for their arguments is essentially 1948. No country has any moral right to exist, or to take over another country. Countries are not people – they are simply social contracts – figments of imagination, ideas, set to paper. Countries exist only so long as the social contract establishing them remains in force, they retain a will to survive, and they have the strength and cunning to accomplish and maintain the embodiment of that desire. A “right” is nothing more than a legal privilege granted by those in authority. As long as Israel retains its power, or is protected by the US or the UN, it has a “right” to exist. Palestine does not have a “right” to exist, since no one is willing and able to actualize their desire to exist. The American Indians no longer had a right to North America, once the United States had the will and the capacity to take it from them. The US of today may possess some vague sense of desire to continue, but it in fact has lost its will to survive, and it will disappear quickly. Barring nuclear annihilation by its Moslem neighbors, Israel will continue to exist, because it has the will and the means to survive.

On 14 May 2008 US President George Bush delivered a speech in Israel, in celebration and praise of the sixtieth anniversary of “Israeli Independence.” In this encomium, he made no mention of the fact that the founders of the modern state of Israel stole their land from the previous residents (“Palestinians”), and accomplished their independence as much from deception, assassination and terrorism as by formal military combat on the field of battle. Bush, like Jimmy Carter, appears to take justification for the existence of Israel for granted, never mentioning that all Israeli land was taken, just a few years ago, from the Palestinians. Bush asserts that he wants to provide land for the Palestinians. If he really believed this, why not simply revert to the borders of 1947? (After giving this speech, which was surely an affront to the Arabs, Bush proceeded to Saudi Arabia to ask for an increase in oil production (to help moderate the price). As an accommodation, despite the affront, the Saudis graciously agreed to an increase of 300,000 barrels per day. Bush complains that the price of oil is going through the roof because global production is “flat.” Of course it’s flat – Hubbert’s Peak is passing! Just wait till we start sliding down the back side of Hubbert’s Curve – “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”)

In the current presidential race, the candidates fall all over themselves in declaring their support for the Jewish state of Israel. Why do they support this, and not the Palestine that preceded it? They declare that Iran shall not be permitted to develop or obtain nuclear weapons, when the State of Israel has one or more nuclear warheads targeted on every Arab capital.

The “Jewish Lobby”; The Israeli Lobby; Zionism; Machiavelli

In the preceding paragraphs (and in some to follow), I occasionally use the general term “Jews,” and it may not be clear exactly what group of people I am referring to in every case. “The Jews” are frequently a collective scapegoat, but they are a diverse group, and I wish to make sure that it is clear to whom I am referring. The term “Jew” refers to religious or ethnic groups, not to a racial group – Jews may come from any racial group. As a large group of people, Jews have many interests – some are in favor of Zionism, some against it; some support the ADL’s program, and others do not. In general, perhaps it would be preferable to use the term “Jews” instead of “the Jews,” since the policies and actions of specific groups of Jews certainly does not reflect the policies and actions of all Jews.

In the discussion of the takeover of Palestine and US culture by “the Jews” or “Jewish interests,” I am referring generally to the Ashkenazim (the Eastern European Jews who founded modern Israel), but more specifically, I am referring to what is now called the “Israel Lobby” or the “Jewish Lobby” in the United States, or “Zionists.” The Ashkenazim are from the Caucasus region (the Khazar Empire, or Khazaria – located in what is now southern Russia; the term “Ashkenaz” is the medieval Hebrew name for the region which is now Germany and bordering German-speaking areas.) and later from Eastern Europe. As a people, they converted to Judaism about a thousand years ago; they are not descended from the Biblical Jews. They are Caucasian / Hungarian / Magyar / Russian / Hun / Teutonic / Finnish / Ugrian / Turkic in origin, not Semitic (North African / Middle Eastern). The very interesting thing that many people do not realize is that when these people, the Ashkenazim, expropriated the Holy Land from the previous residents, they expropriated it from all of the previous residents, including the descendents of the Biblical Jews who inhabited the area. These latter people (Palestinian Jews, the descendents of the Biblical Jews) are Semites (just as are the Arabs); the Ashkenazim are not. When the Ashkenazim took over Palestine in 1948, they also assumed control of the Semitic Jews who inhabited the area – in essence, the Ashkenazim “hijacked” Judaism from the Biblical Jews. It is the Ashkenazim who founded modern Israel and remain in firm control of it – not “Jews” in general. The Ashkenazim consider themselves distinct from the Palestinian and Sephardic Jews. As noted above, they flooded Israel with a million of their fellow Ashkenazim (from all over, but mainly from Eastern Europe / Russia), to strengthen their control and dilute the control of all other native Palestinian groups, including Palestinian and Sephardic Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Muslims, Druze and Christians.

To make my position perfectly clear, I do not see that any group of people has any moral right to possess anything. It does not matter whether their descendents “got there first,” or whether their ancestors fought and killed and died to obtain a homeland, or whether they are “making better use of” the land, or whether they “deserve” it more because they have “better” governance, or whether their version of God gave it to them. I do not believe that Israelis have any greater claim to the Holy Land than the Palestinians – neither has any more right to it than I do. All that matters from a practical viewpoint is the current legal (political) right to the land – who lays claim to it and has the power to enforce their claim. From this viewpoint, it may be asked why I spend time discussing the history of the Jews in dispossessing the former residents of Palestine, taking over American culture, promoting passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, and founding the modern state of Israel. The reason is that the Jews (more specifically, certain groups of Jews, such as the Ashkenazim, the Zionists, and the “Jewish Lobby” (or “Israeli Lobby”)) exemplify very well certain aspects of statecraft that have much to do with the future course of America and the planet. Briefly, they follow the principles of Machiavelli, and they are accomplishing their political objectives. The US people once did, but no longer do, and they have lost their country.

The Ashkenazim are not Semites, and so it is amusing to hear them refer to negative remarks about their actions or programs (and the people who make them) as “anti-Semitic.” They identify with the Holy-Land (Palestinian, Semitic, Biblical-descendent) Jews when it is in their interest (i.e., when making claim to the Holy Land), but they are not ancestrally related to them and they consider themselves quite distinct from them and superior to them (e.g., when it comes to allocating housing in Israel).

It is also interesting that, as part of their program to arrogate Palestine and establish full control of it, per Machiavelli they overwhelmed the country with their fellow Ashkenazim, including the immigration of a million Jews from Russia. For decades, Biblical scholars have discussed the fact that Biblical prophecy predicts that in the “last days” Israel would be conquered by people from the “uttermost north,” which is interpreted by many to refer to Russia. From this perspective, when the Ashkenazim flooded Israel with one million Russian Jews, they were fulfilling Biblical prophecy (see Hal Lindsay’s (with C. C. Carlson) The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) for more on this).

In view of this history, while it may be technically correct to assert that the US and Palestine were taken over by “the Jews,” it is misleading. It would be more informative (precise) to say that they were taken over by the Ashkenazim – by Eastern Europeans / Russians / Caucasians / Germans, not by Semites or descendents of Biblical Jews, as the ambiguous term “the Jews” might imply. The Ashkenazim used the religion of Judaism as a tool for founding the modern state of Israel. (This ploy – using religion to further political purposes, is certainly not unique to the Ashkenazim. Religion has served as the handmaiden of politics since the dawn of civilization.)

Because the Jewish Lobby is having a profound effect on US culture and political life, the literature on this topic is increasing. Several recent books on the subject are Michael Neumann’s The Case Against Israel (2005); John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007); James Petras’ The Power of Israel in the United States (2006) and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire (2007); Alan Dershowitz’ The Case for Israel (2003); and Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006).

Some excerpts from some of the references listed above are presented in the Appendices. They discuss the issue of the right of Israel to Palestine, and Israel’s ability to conquer and retain that land. These excerpts reveal how well the Ashkenazim have applied Machiavelli’s principles of conquest and administration to achieve their objective of founding and maintaining the modern state of Israel. (In view of their deftness in politics, the Jews are one of the few groups capable of establishing and maintaining a planetary government, although it appears that they have little interest in this larger aim – their focus appears to be simply the founding and maintenance of a small state (Israel).)

I am in accord with Neumann’s assertion that no “people” has any “right” of self-determination, or right to a homeland, or any other “natural” right – rights are simply privileges extended by those in power. The people of the southern United States claimed to have such a right, and seceded from the Union – President Lincoln put a stop to that. The people of Kosovo recently claimed such a right, and it was supported by those in power, so they in fact had it. The Israelis and the Palestinians both claim this right, and the Israelis are able to establish it and the Palestinians are not. Even defining what constitute a “people” is problematic. You often hear reference to the “Iraqi people.” There is no “Iraqi people” – just major ethnic groups such as the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites. Golda Meir asserted that the Palestinians were not a people. While traveling in 1867 in the area that is now occupied by Israel, Mark Twain found the area essentially void of people.

The point to the above is that the Ashkenazim control modern Israel not because they have any moral right to it, or possess any right of self-determination. They do not, and “the Palestinians” do not. The Ashkenazim / Israelis control it and have a right to it because they claim that right and are able to enforce it. That is the only reason.

The preceding books document how well the Ashkenazim have followed Machiavelli’s dictums in establishing and maintaining control of Palestine. Like the Europeans who conquered America and decimated its former inhabitants, they did what they had to do, and they succeeded. At the present time, it would appear that the Ashkenazim are the only group that is willing and able to do what is necessary to set up and maintain a viable system of planetary management. In view of their ancestry (European / Khazarian / Ashkenazi / Caucasian / Russian / German), they would come by this leadership role naturally.

Alan Dershowitz’ book, The Case for Israel, is essentially an apologia. As did Jimmy Carter in his book, Peace Not Apartheid (2006), he adopts the starting point of his arguments in support of the right of Israel to occupy Palestine as the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948, and he assumes that Israel has some sort of moral “right” to exist and to occupy this land. He promotes the argument that since a band of Biblical Jews occupied Palestine a couple of thousand years ago and the Ashkenazim are of the same religion, they therefore have a “right” to the area. He also asserts that since the modern Israelis have adopted democracy and rule of law and are running an efficient state, they deserve the area more than the Arabs. He asserts the right of self-determination: “Israel is a state comprising primarily refugees and their descendents exercising their right of self-determination. Beginning in the 1880s, the Jews who moved to what is now Israel were refugees escaping the oppressive anti-Semitism of colonial Europe and the Muslim states of the Middle East and North Africa. Unlike colonial settlers serving the expansionist commercial and military goals of imperial nations such as Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, the Jewish refugees were escaping from the countries that had oppressed them for centuries. These Jewish refugees were far more comparable to the American colonists who had left England because of religious oppression (or the Europeans who later immigrated to America) than they were to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English imperialists who colonized India, the French settlers who colonized North Africa, and the Dutch expansionists who colonized Indonesia.” As I have remarked before, a “right” is simply a privilege granted by those in power – it exists only as long as it is enforced by the granting power. Israel has a right to Palestine because it took it from the Palestinians and has the power to keep it, just as the Europeans took America from the Indians. Henry Ford once said, “Never complain, never explain.” Lee Iacocca added, “Never apologize.” The Ashkenazim who conquered the land that is now Israel and are holding it do not apologize. They do what is required to conquer a land and keep it. They will endure.

Background on the history of the Ashkenazim is presented in a number of sources, such as David Icke’s Tales from the Time Loop (2003) and The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (2007), and David Livingstone’s Terrorism and the Illuminati (2007). Livingstone’s book includes some discussion of the geographic source of the Ashkenazim. An excerpt on this topic is presented in the Appendices.

Decline in US Culture

The preceding paragraphs describe the fractionation of US culture. Fractionation alone is sufficient to destroy a nation (e.g., the breakup of Yugoslavia, the USSR, Ireland and the near-breakup of Canada). What is just as significant, however, is a weakening of the core culture to the point where it no longer has the will to preserve itself, to survive. For a number of reasons (including mass immigration from alien cultures over a short period of time (so that little assimilation took place), a long period of peace, much wealth) traditional US culture has lost the will to survive. It is no longer willing to make the hard choices necessary to preserve a country and culture.

Apart from having lost the will to survive, US traditional culture has lost many of the attributes necessary for a culture to survive. Many of the recent immigrants are here simply “for the money.” They have no allegiance to the principles of America’s founders, or to Teutonic culture. Many of them, in fact, are inimical to America’s culture.

Just because a group of people has a desire to exist as a defined group (nation, people, ethnic group) does not mean that it will. It needs many things to survive. The main ingredients, of course, are desire, will and ability. These are necessary, but not sufficient. Jared Diamond’s books Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997) and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005) explore the many reasons for the rise and fall of civilizations and nations. Diamond focuses mainly on physical reasons, such as the environment. But other, intangible, reasons are just as important. These include discipline, loyalty, duty, intelligence, creativity, cunning and hard work (action). In recent years, American culture has become soft, undisciplined. Many new immigrants have no loyalty to US mainstream culture, and many native citizens wonder why they should by sympathetic to new immigrants who do not share their core values, are destroying their environment, are crowding them out of their own country, and are diminishing their quality of life.

For a number of reasons, America has lost its core culture. The main reason for this is mass immigration over a short time from alien cultures. But many years of peace and luxury have also taken their toll. An acquaintance of mine who owns a landscaping firm tells me that the reason that illegal aliens get work is that today’s young Americans are simply not willing to work.

A number of books have been written on the subject of the decline of American culture. Two of the best are Georgie Anne Geyer’s Americans No More (1996) and Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (1996). Other books on this topic include Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.’s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (1991) and John Strausbaugh’s Sissy Nation: How America Became a Culture of Wimps & Stoopits (2008).

The issue of people becoming soft from the good life is long standing. In this regard, it is of interest to recall the advice of Artembares to Cyrus, the king of Persia. (The following excerpt is from A Study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee, Abridgement of Volumes I-VI by D. C. Sommervell, Oxford University Press, 1946 / 1974, pp. 85-86. See also Herodotus: The Histories, Penguin Classics, Penguin Books, 1954, 1972, p. 543.) “The Advice of Artembares. Herodotus has a story which is very much to the point in this context. A certain Artembares and his friends came to Cyrus with the following suggestion: ' "Now that Zeus has put down Astyages from his seat and has given the dominion to the Persians as a nation and to you, Sire, as an individual, why should we not emigrate from the confined and rocky territory which we at present possess, and occupy a better? There are many near at hand and many more at a distance, of which we have only to take our choice in order to make a greater impression on the world than we make as it is. This is a natural policy for an imperial people, and we shall never have a finer opportunity of realizing it than now, when our empire is established over vast populations and over the entire continent of Asia." 'Cyrus, who had listened and had not been impressed, told his petitioners to do as they wished, but he qualified his advice by telling them in the same breath to prepare their minds for exchanging positions with their present subjects. Soft countries, he informed them, invariably breed soft men.’ Herodotus, Book IX, chapter 121-122."

Loss of Spirituality and Manifest Destiny

The Founders’ Principles and Goals

The founders of the United States were highly spiritual men. By and large, they were Deists. It is misleading, even incorrect, to characterize the founding fathers as Christians (although they were), and the new nation as a Christian nation. The founders were Masons. Their religion was Christianity, but their spiritual beliefs were not characterized by mainstream Christianity. They had little use for the “magic” and “miracles” of Christian myth. Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the New Testament (in four languages), The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1819), in which he stripped out all of the mythology, such as the immaculate conception, virgin birth, vicarious atonement and resurrection, and concentrated on the moral principles that Jesus taught and demonstrated in his life. This book is called the Jefferson Bible, and a copy of it is presented to every new member of the US Congress.

The leaders of the early US had strong feelings and convictions about their undertaking. They did not grant citizenship or representation to just anyone. As the basis for representation in Congress, non-whites were given three-fifths the representation of whites. The US president had to be native-born. The country was founded as a republic (voters elect representatives who make decisions), not a democracy (voters make decisions directly).

Gradually, a concept of “Manifest Destiny” evolved, in which the country’s leaders and citizens believed that the new nation had been granted a divine right to control the US land area “from sea to shining sea.” The country’s Great Seal includes the slogans, Annuit Coeptis (He Favors Our Undertakings) and Novus Ordo Seclorum (A New Order of the Ages). When the Southern states attempted to secede from the Union, they were brutally crushed by President Abraham Lincoln in a bloody civil war (The War Between the States). The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the US had dominion over the entire Western Hemisphere. The US purchased the Louisiana Territory from France (after France saw that it would be impossible to defend), and annexed vast regions of Mexico (the Mexican-American War of 1846-48). The American Indians were decimated and their lands confiscated.

The dominant culture of the United States was Northern European. In his book, Peaceful Invasions (1992), Leon Bouvier summarizes its view at the beginning of the twentieth century. “At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Anglo-American majority favored the total assimilation of the new European groups into an Anglo-dominated society. (It was taken for granted – indeed, it was ordered – that Mexicans, Asians, and Blacks would remain culturally separate.) Cultural pluralism and even the melting pot were adamantly opposed. Theodore Roosevelt felt nothing but disdain for the hyphenated American and Woodrow Wilson declared that: ‘Any man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American’.”

Cultural and Political Change in America; Comparison to Israel and South Africa

After decades of being taught that any one culture is just as good as another, Americans have come to believe this. They have been taught that one person, family, tribe or race is no better than any other. Why, then, should one stand up for this culture or country? Americans have lost their self-esteem, sense of purpose and sense of destiny. They have lost pride in the principles, values and accomplishments of their ancestors; the only pride that remains is false, hollow, jingoistic pride. They have lost faith in their leaders, who have abandoned them in favor of the wealthy elite. They see that the US government is no longer “of, by, and for the people,” but now functions mainly for the wealthy elite. Through their policies of mass immigration, massive international free trade and open borders, the country’s leaders have severely diminished the quality of life for the US middle class. The government has emasculated its middle class – it has diminishing freedom, and is a slave to the economy and to debt. The US middle class is filled with fear and doubt about the future. It has lost its confidence and spirit.

It is instructive to compare the situation of present-day America with respect to sense of purpose and destiny to the experiences of two other recent countries – Israel and South Africa. Our children are taught that the annihilation of the Indians was a moral disgrace, and that Andrew Jackson was a brutal promoter of genocide. Israeli children are taught of the endless genocides committed by their ancestors in the Old Testament (Torah) as being religious duties demanded by God. Do you think that Israeli children of today are taught that the takeover and ethnic cleansing of Palestine by their grandparents, the Ashkenazim, was a shameful, moral sin? Or, quite the contrary, that it is their God-given moral right and destiny to possess the Holy Land? Our children are taught that the enslavement of Africans by our ancestors was a moral sin. Our forebears, who brought slavery to the New World, were in fact far more moral than we of today. Slavery is promoted and sustained by economics, not by morality – many of the country’s founders were aware of the moral toll that slavery takes on the owners, and freed their slaves (but only after they were wealthy and old). Quite independently of these acts of individual morality, however, slavery died as a large-scale system because the industrial revolution made it economically unattractive. The moral crusades of people like William Wilberforce could only achieve fruition when the economic conditions were “right.” Slavery still thrives in poor places in Africa, and it will return to the planet when fossil fuels disappear. And, to the dismay of some, it will largely be race-based – the Romans found that it is not practical to have slaves of the same race as the masters.

The following excerpt from Milton Meltzer’s Slavery: A World History (1993) describes the economic basis for slavery in further detail.

“C.L.R. James, in his history of the San Domingo Revolution, asserts that the truth about British abolition was long obscured by scholars pandering to national vanity. Britain was moved less by idealism than by national self-interest, he says. Like James, historian Eric Williams, of Trinidad, holds that Prime Minister William Pitt wanted to abolish the slave trade as a means of ruining the prosperity of San Domingo, the French sugar colony so dependent for labor upon British slave traders. Britain could then recapture the European market with the help of sugar from India. Despite the fact that English idealists such as William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson attacked the slave trade on the basis of inhumanity, behind them were merchants and manufacturers who no longer cared what happened to the planters of the West Indies and North America. They had poured the profits of the slave trade into new industries: their economic needs had changed. They were not concerned about finding African slaves because they wanted labor for their factories at home and had to find it inside Great Britain.

“So although colonial planters feared that abolition would ruin them, the new industrial leaders of England didn't care. They and their politicians were ready to listen when the abolitionists massed the popular voice in condemnation of the slave trade. If the political and industrial leaders could suppress the trade, it would allow a broader and more legitimate commerce to develop between Europe and Africa, providing markets for England's young industries. An international movement against the trade had already begun with Danish action in 1804. The Americans made it illegal in 1808, the Dutch in 1814, and the French in 1815. Almost all the maritime powers moved into line eventually, so that by 1842 the Atlantic slave trade was legally dead.

“Legally dead. Good had triumphed over evil with a major assist from business and government, but it was a paper victory….”

The Ashkenazim know how to conquer a country and keep it. They have read their Machiavelli well. In 1948 they launched an intensive program of ethnic cleansing to remove Palestinians from what had been their country. After winning the war against the Arabs in 1948, they adopted a policy of flooding their newly conquered land (now Israel, no longer Palestine) with Jews from around the world – one of Machiavelli’s three ways of keeping and administering a conquered territory. (More specifically, they flooded the country with one million European Jews from Russia, to overwhelm not just the Palestinian Arabs, but the Palestinian Jews as well.) They set up concentration camps into which the former owners of the land – the Palestinians – were herded, just as the United States set up “reservations” for the Indians whom they had dispossessed of their land. The Americans set up reservations for the Indians in the 1800s, and the Askhenazim set up reservations for the dispossessed Palestinians in the mid-1900s.

The successes of the US and the Israelis in conquering a land and assuming control of it is in stark contrast to the experience of the South Africans. White settlers (mainly Dutch and British) conquered what is now South Africa several hundred years ago. With the explosive growth of the black population in the 1900s, the South Africans attempted to set up “homelands” for the blacks in their conquered territory, but they failed. The principal reason for this failure was timing – they tried to do this in the late 1900s, when the world had become too squeamish about this sort of thing. The last country to set up and maintain concentration camps and a system of apartheid was and is Israel, and it is able to do so only because it has the full support of the United States (in the US view, only whites can be racist – it had a problem with South African whites over blacks, but not with European Ashkenazim or Jewish Semites over Arab Semites). The blacks of South Africa garnered world opinion against this, and it became impossible to implement. Unlike the Israelis, who obtained the full support of the US for their program of apartheid, the South Africans failed to garner support from any prominent world power for their program of apartheid, and it collapsed. Their failure is really rather remarkable, inasmuch as the Dutch conquered South Africa several hundred years ago, whereas the Israelis were successful in implementing such a system at about the same time (the mid-1900s) in a land that they had just conquered (in 1948). The South Africans simply made their move too late and, unlike the Israelis, they did not develop and execute an effective plan for doing so (e.g., assumption of control of US culture). The Ashkenazim conquered Palestine in 1948 and promptly set about moving the Palestinians to the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza. They elicited US support, gained via a takeover of US culture (accomplished through the Immigration Act of 1965). The South Africans were as disorganized as the Arabs, and so they lost the country that they had conquered and lived in for four hundred years. If you want to hold onto your country, you had better read Machiavelli and see how to do it. The importance of having a powerful ally, such as the US, cannot be underestimated. Many nations in Africa maintain racist societies today (e.g., Malawi, Zimbabwe, Liberia) with the blessing of the US (South Africa notably not included, since in US eyes only whites can be racist – it is not terribly concerned when blacks enslave blacks or Semites enslave Semites).

American schoolchildren are taught that we should apologize for slaughtering the Indians and taking their land and putting them on reservations. They are taught that we should apologize to current-day blacks for our ancestors’ enslaving their African ancestors. Do you think that Israeli schoolchildren are told that they should apologize for stealing the Palestinians’ land and herding them into reservations (Gaza and the West Bank), and return the Holy Land to them? No way! They are taught that the Holy Land is their rightful homeland. They are taught that it is their manifest destiny to own Israel, just as American schoolchildren were taught in the nineteenth century that it was their manifest destiny to own America. The Ashkenazim taught that their religion gives them a right to the land. Although they had no ancestral or historical links to the Biblical Jews of the Holy Land, they have created a myth that they are the rightful descendents. They have commingled the political movement of Zionism (to create Israel out of Palestine) with the religion of Judaism. They have created and nurtured the legend of the Jewish Holocaust. They have committed acts of terrorism to draw attention to their cause (I once lived on Hassan Sabry Street in Zamalek, the site of one such action). They have assassinated their enemies around the world. They have managed the press and other media so that criticism of Israel is equated to anti-Semitism, to racism, to bigotry. They have corrupted US culture, through decades of films, books and magazines that depict a dissolute US white culture. Through a century of diligent planning and action, they have taken over the United States and made it a client state of Israel. They have worked hard to conquer Palestine and keep it. They will succeed, because they have the will and because they are doing what has to be done. They are taking steps to preserve their culture, and to retain possession of Palestine. They will endure. The white South Africans and the white Americans will not.

The Israelis, Ashkenazim and Jews of today promote and practice blatant racism – but only for themselves. They discourage Jews from intermarrying with nonJews (when I use “they” here, obviously I am not referring to any or every single individual of the groups, but to typical group characteristics). They restrict citizenship in Israel to Jews. They took over Palestine and adamantly refuse to give it up. They flooded the conquered Palestinian territory with Jews from around the world. They herded Palestinians into concentration camps and set up a rigid system of apartheid. The world calls on them to desist, but they thumb their nose at the rest of the world. They waged a century-long campaign to take over American culture (principal tool: assert that restrictive immigration practices are racist – for the US, not for Israel!) and make America their client state, to funnel massive wealth to their new country and to protect them from their much larger and wealthier adversaries. They have commingled and coalesced the political movement of Zionism with the religion of Judaism, to make it difficult for critics to protest their political ambitions and actions without seeming to attack the Judaic religion. They charge critics of Israel with being racist (anti-Semitic). They endlessly promote their losses in World War II as a major world genocide (the Jewish “Holocaust”). How do they get by with this? Through belief in their cause – that it is ordained (or, at least, blessed) by God. Through diligence and hard work. Through following the dictums of Machiavelli. They set their objectives, they planned their program, they worked hard and long, and they achieved their objectives. They have done all of the things listed in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion forgery, and no one can stop them.

The Afrikaners did and tried to do some of these same things. They conquered (along with the British) southern Africa several hundred years ago, immigrated in large numbers, and for a time took control of the territory. For a while, the Afrikaners followed Machiavelli’s principles (and scriptures of the Bible, which are very big on genocidal wars of conquest), but then they abandoned them. They set up a system of apartheid and tried to maintain it. They moved to restrict the native Africans to homelands. When today’s multicultural world criticized them as being racist and embargoed them, however, they lost their will, abandoned their effort, and promptly lost their country. What did the Israelis have that the South Africans lacked? How can the Israelis get by with blatant racism and the South Africans could not? Why was the United States successful in destroying Indian culture, annihilating the Indian race, rounding up the few survivors into concentration camps (“reservations”) and enslaving millions of blacks, when the South Africans were unsuccessful in accomplishing similar (or even less extreme) things, even on a smaller scale? The difference is really very simple. The US and the Israelis had a belief in a “manifest destiny.” They had faith in their cause. They believed that God was on their side. They believed their Bible, and made very effective use of religion as a political tool. The South Africans were and are religious, but somewhere along the way they lost the belief that they were chosen by God to rule. They came to believe that the blacks, not they, were entitled to control South Africa. Like Peter on the Sea of Galilee, they lost faith and they lost their cause.

In Plato’s time, there was no distinction between the state and religion. Since that time, religion has served mainly as the handmaiden of the state – to justify the state (e.g., divine right of kings), to justify its actions, and to keep the people under control. World empires, such as the British, the French, and the Spanish used religion to justify their global conquests. In Biblical times, the Jews used religion to justify their takeover of the Holy Land and genocide of the previous residents. Although very religious, white South Africans did not make effective use of their religion in furthering their cause of retaining the Republic of South Africa under their control.

In his Apocalypse (1931), D. H. Lawrence wrote, “Pure Christianity anyhow cannot fit a nation, or society at large. The Great War made it obvious. It can only fit individuals. The collective whole must have some other inspiration.” It is because the tenets of Christianity and some other religions apply only to individuals and not to states that most states insist on separation of church and state. The white South Africans of the twentieth century forgot this, and promptly lost the country that their forebears bequeathed to them. The Israelis do not have a problem with this, because they have carefully intertwined their religion and the state. Their Torah (the first five books of Christianity’s Old Testament) teaches that God demands that they slaughter their enemies and possess the Holy Land. Today’s white South Africans are praying for their oppressors and for a multicultural Rainbow Nation, when, if they want their country back, they should be praying for their own victory.

In taking over American culture, a key goal of Jewish interests was assuming control of the press. The US media are now largely controlled by Jewish interests. This is one reason why Jewish “excesses” are underreported, and those of others are emphasized. The prime example of this is reporting on the Israel / Palestine conflict. Another egregious example is the case of South Africa. While South Africa was ruled by whites, there was endless reporting of incidents to show whites in a bad light. Under black rule, horrific murders are committed on a continuing basis by South African blacks against South African white farmers, and there is rarely a murmur about this in the US press. Far more South African whites have been killed by blacks since the onset of black rule in South Africa than blacks were killed by whites under white rule. This fact is of no significance or interest to the Jewish-controlled US media. US media reporting emphasizes reporting and entertainment that disparages, denigrates and weakens traditional US culture and the white race (it may be reasoned that the Ashkenazim are European, and therefore “white,” so this may seem a little strange). Only whites can be racist. (For more on the influence of Jewish interests on the US media, see John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007).)

The Appeal of Democracy to the Masses and to Their Controllers

The political system of democracy (or representative democracy) has great appeal for the masses. Even though the wealthy elite control the system, the masses believe that they are in charge. Ultimately (as David Hume observed (Hume’s Paradox)), they are in charge, but most of the time they submit to control by their leaders – government by the consent of the governed. Democracy is a workable system only if the population is homogeneous with respect to important attributes, such as race, religion, language, culture and politics. The founders and early leaders of the US recognized this, and annihilated, conquered or suppressed all non-white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants (e.g., Indians, Mexicans, French, Spanish). The Israelis recognize that they have a problem under “democracy” in harboring a fast-growing minority population – the Palestinians. They will take action to address it, so that their culture will not “lose control” of their country under democracy, by means such as restricting citizenship and immigration to Jews and denying the former-resident Palestinians a political voice (e.g., by herding them into “homelands” such as the West Bank and Gaza – making them prisoners in the very land that was once theirs).

We live today in a world of “virtual” democracy. The apparent system of government is representative democracy, but it is totally ineffective (as a tool of the people). The people think that they are in control and that their elected representative act for them, but their representatives in fact act on behalf of the wealthy. Since democracy works best for the people when the people are homogeneous, the wealthy have no interest in allowing that to continue. With a fragmented, heterogeneous country, such as the US is now, democracy comes to a standstill, becomes paralyzed. That is exactly what the wealthy elite want. That is why they passed the Immigration Act of 1965 – to flood the country with alien cultures, fractionate it, and remove all power from the people. When the people do not speak with a unified voice, they are less of a threat to the controllers. This is a straightforward application of the age-old principle of “divide and conquer.” That is why the corporatist rulers of today’s world are so in favor of uncontrolled immigration, especially for large (potentially threatening) countries or unions (e.g., the US or the European Union). Plato knew that democracy would not work as an effective means of government for the people. The corporatists also know this, and that is why they are so adamant about spreading democracy around the world. Along with debt-based money and compound interest, it is the third major tool of corporatism and global control. (I will have more to say later about corporatism, which is simply rule by corporations.) If the US citizenry were a still a people, it would fight back to defend itself. As a fractionated agglomeration of cultures – a mongrel nation – it now has no cohesion or collective sense of destiny.

The corporatists have no problem with democracy. They embrace it. It is the perfect form of government for total control -- the people think that they are in charge, and so they are easy to manage. Plato knew of the fundamental flaw of democracy as a form of government for the people – that the masses would elect poor leaders who would pander to them. (Indiana’s Governor Rob Blagojevitch is the latest example.) We see this clearly in America today. The world’s most powerful democracy elects some of its poorest statesmen. They are putty in the hands of the corporatists. Didn’t you ever wonder about this? As Franklin D. Roosevelt once observed, “Nothing in politics ever happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Corporatism has three main tools at its disposal – debt-based money, interest, and democracy (I might also add to the list the legal concept of granting corporations the same rights as natural persons). Democracy is a very important tool, and that is why you hear people like George Bush – a pawn of the corporatists – touting it so much. It enables you to rape the people with impunity. They think that they are in charge, and if things don’t work out well, then no one else is to blame but themselves. At least they are right on the last item.

The Decline of American Culture and Will

The descendents of the Northern Europeans who conquered North America, decimated the Indians and placed them on reservations held onto the land until now, but they are no longer doing what is required to hold a country, and they (both the US and Canada) are fast losing it. The founders of modern Israel knew what to do to conquer Palestine. Their descendents are continuing to do what is required to hold onto that land. The Afrikaners and the British conquered South Africa, settled it, and lived there for four centuries. They died and killed for the land, and it was theirs. The last two generations, however, did not know what to do to keep their land, or if they knew what to do they did not do it, and they have quickly lost their country. They have thrown away what their forebears gained for them – a beautiful homeland. The same is true of Zimbabwe. The same thing is now happening to the US, to Canada, to Australia, and to every other country where mass immigration is diluting the culture that founded the country and made it great. In throwing their country away, South Africa’s current generation have shamed themselves and forsaken the legacy bequeathed to them by their forebears, built through centuries of blood, tears and hard work. The United States and Canada are doing the same thing. Australia, England, and the rest of the British Commonwealth are doing the same thing. It must be a British thing. These people no longer deserve the countries that their forefathers bequeathed to them.

Americans are losing confidence in the will and ability of the US government to protect American citizens abroad. America has adopted a “bunker” mentality; US Embassies abroad look like armed fortresses. This was not necessary when America was respected in the world. (It is not necessary today. Protection of foreign embassies is the responsibility of the host government. If any host government cannot protect a US embassy, America should step in to do so, or leave.) Americans who get into trouble overseas cannot take comfort that the US government will come to their aid (e.g., Americans who languish for years as victims of kidnappings in foreign lands, such as the three Americans who were recently (July 2008) rescued by the Colombian armed forces (along with Ingrid Betancourt). Now that the US government offers its citizenship to millions of people from foreign cultures every year (including 50,000 drawn by lottery!), granted citizenship to millions of illegal invaders in 1986 and is trying to grant it to 12-20 million illegal invaders today, it has declared that it places no value US citizenship, other than an means to economic activity.

Many books have been written about the decline of American culture and loss of spirit and sense of destiny. These include: Georgie Anne Geyer’s Americans No More (1996); Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah (1996); Patrick Buchanan’s The Death of the West (2002), State of Emergency (2006) and Day of Reckoning (2007); and John Strausbaug’s Sissy Nation (2008). A new report on the loss of traditional American culture is E Pluribus Unum: The Bradley Project on America’s National Identity (2008). This report observes that the United States was founded as a nation based on ideas, that the current generation is “forgetting” those ideas, and that we are losing our national identity. Ann Coulter’s Treason (2003) discusses the treacherous attacks on America by “liberals.”

Excerpts from Buchanan’s Day of Reckoning are presented in the Appendices.

With due respect to Mr. Buchanan, I do not see that his list of suggestions will ever be implemented. Even if they were, it would make no difference. The US, as a society, has already failed. It is too late. The “point of no return” was passed long ago. The fact that the conditions that motivated Buchanan’s list were allowed to come about demonstrates that the country has already failed. The country has already committed cultural suicide.

Globalization

Free Trade Reduces the Once-High Income of US Workers

It is a fundamental truth of economics that trade promotes economic growth. It generates additional transactions (as people desire material things that are not locally available or are more expensive locally) and it may be more economically efficient (producing more goods at lower cost by taking advantage of comparative advantages). In promoting free trade, the wealthy elite knew that it would increase their riches. At the same time, free trade is an equalizer. The US middle class once had incomes that were far higher than those of workers in the rest of the world. If tariffs had continued to equalize the labor component of goods, the US middle class could have continued to have high incomes. The US would have continued to operate as a closed system, and the difference in wages between the US workers and those in other countries would have been irrelevant. To have done this would have sustained high incomes (and power) for the middle class, but produced much less wealth for the wealthy elite. While the wealthy crave ever more wealth for themselves, they have no concern for the middle class.

(Note that although trade may be more economically efficient, it is often exquisitely wasteful of precious resources, and very inefficient from a non-economic viewpoint. Early in the petroleum age, the cost of oil was low – as low as ten cents per barrel. When the cost of oil was still relatively low compared to today’s prices (e.g., one dollar or ten dollars per barrel, compared to over one-hundred dollars today), the country started importing many things that it did not have to, such as food and toys from around the world (the US now imports forty percent of its food, and almost all of its toys). This practice was extremely wasteful of natural resources (e.g., oil). To economists, however, all that matters is the money – if it is cheaper right now, and then do it! The fact that all of the oil will be gone someday, and this practice is incredibly wasteful and unsustainable, is simply an “externality.” The practice of assigning monetary prices to things (even human life!) or alternatives and making decisions based on economic analysis (e.g., using “cost-benefit” analysis; or condoning the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest since the logs can be sold for money; or promoting “free trade” because it increases gross national product even though it ruins people’s lives), as economists are wont to do, leads to very wrong decisions and policies. The radioactive waste from nuclear power plants lasts for 30,000 years. The fact that this generation’s use of nuclear power destroys the quality of life for the next thousand generations of human beings and causes irreparable harm to the environment is not a concern to an economic model – it is simply an “externality.” But nuclear power is now “cheaper” than oil, so do it!)

Under massive international free trade, there are no tariffs to offset the wage differentials between US workers and workers in third-world countries making pennies or a few dollars per day. If there were, the high incomes of US workers could continue, but there would be much less trade and less profits for the wealthy. So the economists – the intellectual servants of the wealthy – kept insisting that everyone would be better off under a system of free trade. What a lie! A few voices were heard to say that the income of US workers making far more than workers in poor countries would have to fall, but they were quashed. The official line of the economists and the government was that “everyone would be better off” (“a rising tide lifts all boats,” as economists such as Jeffrey Sachs are wont to say). Tariffs and quotas were lowered or eliminated, and free-trade agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the European Union (EU) were established.

Free Trade Has Reduced the Quality of Life of the US Middle Class

After a half-century of free trade, the quality of life for the US middle class has been substantially diminished. The US middle class was placed in direct competition with workers making a dollar a day. As long as we had high technology and most of the third world did not, the productivity advantage of US workers enabled their high wages to continue, even under free trade. But as the rest of the world acquired the same technology that was available in the US, the productivity advantage of the US worker disappeared, and there was no possible way without tariffs for US wages to remain high. And they didn’t. In 1950, a family could be supported on a single income. Now, it takes two incomes to maintain a family. On average, each family has to provide twice as many hours to the competitive labor market as it did before, just to make ends meet. The move to both parents working in the competitive labor market started with the Second World War, and continued for several decades. By sending more and more wives to work, US families were for a long time able to offset the low wages of foreign countries. By now, however, that trend is complete, with both parents working in most families. Over that same period, the rest of the world industrialized. In many places it became as productive as the US. This meant, in a world of free trade, that US incomes had to fall: All of the adults were now working in the competitive labor market, and it was no longer possible for families to offset the wage differential by sending our wives to work – they were all working! It is no longer possible for families to provide more labor, since there is no one left to send to the labor market. The US middle class are therefore now seeing a real decline in their individual wages and in their quality of life. The wealthy are far better off than before, but US middle class workers are much worse off – both parents must work in the competitive labor force, and now that all of the wives are working, real family (not just individual) incomes are falling. The US government declared war on the US middle class, and the war is almost won. Both parents of almost all families must now enter the competitive labor force, must work longer hours than ever before, and the children are raised in “industrial” day care centers.

Free Trade Has Decimated the US Manufacturing Base

The US has given its technology to the world, has shipped its manufacturing capacity overseas, and has outsourced many of its jobs. Because of the massive difference between US wages and wages of workers in poor countries, there was no way under free trade that US firms could continue to pay high wages, once all countries had access to technology. Without tariffs or quotas to offset the low wage rates of poor countries, US manufacturers could either close up shop or transfer their operations to low-wage-rate countries, which they did on a massive scale. (The import of millions of low-wage illegal aliens was also a response to this.) The US lost its manufacturing in shoes, textiles, steel, consumer electronics – virtually everything except exotic weapons. The US no longer manufactures what it uses, and it is now purchasing massive quantities of products from countries such as China, to whom it has exported its manufacturing capacity. The problem is that it does not have sufficient production of its own to sell to these countries, and so the trade deficit has exploded. The US is the world’s largest debtor nation, in thrall to the rest of the world. Its main exports are arms (military equipment). It imports most of its consumer goods and about 40 percent of its food, when it was once – and could be today – totally self-sufficient in these areas. It is no longer self-sufficient, and has left many of its citizens with little meaningful work. The US government has caused all of these things to happen, at the behest of the wealthy-elite controllers of the country and the world.

Globalization Destroys Local Cultures

“Globalization” refers to the fact that the entire world has become an integrated industrial / economic system. This system is an economic powerhouse, a juggernaut. It consumes everything – labor and natural resources – to produce material goods. It is a remarkably productive and efficient system (“efficiency” in the economic (money) sense, not in physical (resource) terms). Under the policies of free trade, inefficient technologies, firms, and societies all “go out of business.” This fact is now becoming very clear to Moslems. Under global free trade, they are no longer able to keep their wives at home if they want a high material standard of living, like the West. It is still possible to maintain this cultural practice in some countries, which are flush with oil riches. But in poorer Moslem countries, both parents will have to work, just as they do in the US. Moslems must now send their wives off to work, to be seduced by their bosses and given the financial independence to raise the divorce rate to 50 percent, just as in the West. Essentially, under free trade, Islam – Islamic culture, which places a high value on protecting its women – must go out of business or adopt Christian practices (which is about the same thing). And that is the essence of the rising conflict between Islam and Christianity. The two religions are, in essence, mutually exclusive. In a tightly integrated world, both cannot exist side by side. Today’s Christianity is the religion of capitalism. Christian nations have sent their wives to work, and Islamic nations do not wish to do this. In the absence of protective tariffs (in this case, to offset the comparative advantage of countries in which both parents work), however, it is not possible to continue this practice. If Islamic nations wish to continue to protect their women, by keeping them out of the industrial labor force, then they will have to abandon free trade – the “great homogenizer.” But the owners of the world – the wealthy industrialists – will never allow this. And for this reason, global conflict between Islam and Christianity is inevitable. It will not cease until free trade ceases, and this is not likely until massive change occurs, such as the end of free trade, the end of the petroleum age, global war, or the annihilation of Islam or Christianity.

Much has been written about the destructive effects of globalization. Globalization has been the direct cause of much environmental and social destruction around the globe. Some of the books on this subject are: Robert D. Kaplan’s The Ends of the Earth (1996), Joseph Stiglitz’ Globalization and Its Discontents (2002), John Pilger’s The New Rulers of the World (2002), Kevin Danaher’s 10 Reasons to Abolish the IMF& World Bank (2001), Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza’s The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization (1999) and John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004). Thomas Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree (1999) is an encomium for globalization.

Globalization Is the New Colonialism

Kevin Danaher’s 50 Years Is Enough: The Case against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (1994) is a little dated, but it is an excellent compendium of examples of the massive environmental destruction and human misery caused by international finance and “development” organizations. Here follows an excerpt from this book.

“Despite the steady decline of Third World economies under the tutelage of economists from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), these institutions keep insisting that their wise men and their ‘free market’ policies will eventually foster development. Third World leaders are told that, in order to get more loans to pay off the old loans, they must implement ‘structural adjustment’ reforms. These include:

selling state enterprises to the private sector in order to make governments more efficient
raising producer prices for agricultural goods so farmers will have the incentive to grow and market more food
devaluing local currencies (in line with their world market value) to make exports more competitive in foreign markets
reducing government budget deficits by cutting consumer subsidies and charging user fees for social services such as health care and education
encouraging free trade by dropping protectionist measures and by reducing regulation of the private sector
creating incentives to attract foreign capital.

“Yet the central question that is consistently avoided by the enforcers of these policies is, do they work?

“Look at the case of Africa. Thirty of the 47 governments in sub-Saharan Africa have been pressured into implementing structural adjustment reforms. The effects have been devastating to the poor. As early as 1988, the United Nations concluded: ‘The most vulnerable population groups, in particular women, youth, the disabled and the aged, have been severely and adversely affected.’

“Though western economists claimed that these policies would reduce debt burdens, by 1992, Africa's external debt had reached $290 billion, about 2.5 times greater than it was in 1980. The record of the IMF/World Bank gurus is also dismal in Latin America and Asian debtor countries such as the Philippines.

“Asian countries such as Japan, China and South Korea that have experienced high growth rates have done so not through a dogmatic ‘free market’ strategy as espoused by the Bank and the Fund, but through highly state-directed economies.

“Usually, we are exposed to analyses from people in the top 2 percent of the world's income pyramid. In contrast, the book you are holding includes strong representation of Third World voices explaining the many damaging effects of the neoliberal economic strategy imposed on them by ‘experts’ from Washington. As Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network in Malaysia, sums it up:

‘Structural adjustment is a policy to continue colonial trade and economic patterns developed during the colonial period, but which the Northern powers want to continue in the post-colonial period. Economically speaking, we [countries in the South] are more dependent on the ex-colonial countries than we ever were. The World Bank and IMF are playing the role that our ex-colonial masters used to play.’"

For a discussion of the impact of free trade on reducing the quality of life for the US middle class, see John Culbertson’s The Dangers of “Free Trade” (1985). I have not read Ravi Batra’s The Myth of Free Trade: The Pooring of America (1996), but I see it referenced from time to time. Lou Dobbs’ books, Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping Jobs Overseas (2004) and War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back (2006) are popular recent books on this subject.

The Destructive Effects of Free Trade and Globalization Are Denied and Covered Up

The general public is aware that the quality of life is declining for the US middle class, but it is not highly aware of the reasons, and of the role of globalization as a source of the decline in its status. Similarly, there is awareness that the number of desperately poor people in the world has skyrocketed from one to five billion over the past century, all the while that the world leaders and their economists were proclaiming that economics would improve things. The fact is that free trade is responsible for the destruction of the quality of life of third-world countries and for a decline in the quality of life for the US middle class: it serves only the wealthy well. A few books have been written on the subject for the mass reading public, such as Stiglitz’ Globalization and Its Discontents and Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree, but they do not explain well why the current system of globalization is so destructive socially, environmentally and economically for most people, and yet persists. John Perkins’ book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, explains very well why and how the system works in the international arena, but it is not taken seriously because it appears to be some sort of “historical fiction” (since anecdotes about Perkins’ recruitment into the “system” cannot be verified). Books that describe the world control system rather well, such as Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy are generally dismissed as “conspiracy” theories – people simply don’t believe that the world system can possibly be as sinister as it appears to be – and is!

The perception that globalization is destroying the quality of life for many and greatly increasing the number of people living in direst poverty is growing. The level of dissatisfaction with globalization is increasing, and being voiced with increasing force. Large public protest demonstrations now accompany international meetings on world trade. Kevin Danaher and Roger Burbach’s book, Globalize This!: The Battle against the World Trade Organization and Corporate Rule (2000) describes this growing movement.

I picked up three small books some time ago that describe well what is going on. They are items in Seven Stories Press’s Open Media Pamphlet Series: Kevin Danaher’s 10 Reasons to Abolish the IMF and World Bank (2001); Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza’s The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization (with introduction by Ralph Nader) (1999); and Juliet Schor’s A Sustainable Economy for the 21^st Century (1995, 1998). While these books present a good description of the situation (the books are a little dated now, but the message is still valid), their audience is very limited, so that most people have never been exposed to them. They confirm the thesis set forth by Perkins that the international financial institutions work to control third-world countries to transfer wealth from those countries to the wealthy elite of the economically developed nations. A few excerpts from them are presented in the Appendices.

Globalization Destroys Nations

As globalization increases, there is a corresponding decrease in nationalism and the power of nations. Globalization is at the same time increasing the income gap between rich and poor nations, while making the wealthy ones very homogeneous. The leading world corporations are now economically more powerful than many nations. The oil-rich nations of the Middle East are now so wealthy from oil that their “sovereign wealth funds” control a large and increasing portion of the world’s financial firms and markets. See James McPherson’s Is Blood Thicker than Water? (1998) for discussion of the decline in nationalism in the globalized world. Other books about nationalism in the era of globalization are Richard Worzel’s Facing the Future (1994), Robert Birrell’s A Nation of Our Own (about Australia, 1995) and Peter Brimelow’s The Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited (1986).

In the environment of free trade and globalization, the relative position of the US was bound to change. A book that discusses this is Eugene McCarthy’s A Colony of the World: The United States Today (1992).

The era of globalization will come to an end as the petroleum age draws to an end. In fact, globalization will not last until global oil exhausts. The global industrialized world will start to collapse as soon as the world starts down the back side of Hubbert’s Curve (the decline in global oil production) – just about now. Until now, the globalized world has been held together by economic power and industrial wealth. As the petroleum age comes to an end, this power will disappear, and global industrial society with it. As global wealth evaporates, the forces of ancestry, language, religion and customs will move once again to the fore. The importance of ancestry, language, religion and customs in structuring civilizations is discussed, for example, in Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).

With the rise of globalization, there has been a move to a single world government. There is much fear, resentment and anger over this trend, as well as an abundance of conspiracy theories. Books on this subject include David Icke’s Tales from the Time Loop (2003), The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (and how to end it) (2007), Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy (2000), Daniel Estulin’s The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2007), Gary Kah’s En Route to Global Occupation (1991) and Holly Sklar’s Trilateralism (1980). The single world government is a popular theme of eschatology and “end times” fiction (e.g., Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ Left Behind series (1995 and later)).

The argument (frequently seen) that globalization is preventing democracy from protecting the environment and quality of life for people is laughable. Democracy is simply a tool of corporatism, and even in the absence of globalization and corporatism, democracy alone is historically seen to also be very destructive of nature. In fact, all three systems work synergistically to maximize the environmental destruction.

Low Security

There are two basic levels of security – personal security and national (state) security. Both are crucial to the individual’s quality of life, and both are currently at low levels in the US. While much has been written on national security, less has been written on the subject of personal security. (The reason: The level of national security is a direct concern to the wealthy elite (since they don’t want the country to be conquered by another sovereign power), but the average level of personal security is not, since they can afford to purchase security protection, and it matters little to them that most individuals cannot. In fact, it is to the distinct advantage of the wealthy elite to have a low average level of personal security, since they make much money from production of security systems and provision of security services. It also justifies the government’s maintaining a large police force to monitor and control the general population. This situation has been commonplace in the third world for a long time, but is new to the US, as it absorbs third-world culture and attributes as a direct result of mass immigration from third-world cultures.)

Personal Security

Fifty years ago, the level of personal security was very high for most people in the United States. Most people lived in relatively small towns. It was not necessary to lock your house unless you went on vacation. A 1955 Chevrolet automobile ignition could be turned in a permanent “on” position, and the key never used again – my parents-in-law had just such a car. They key was never used. The car was left unlocked at all times. Theft was not a concern – either for the car or its contents. You could walk safely in any area of town. Vagrancy and loitering were not allowed. Children could walk to and from school without fear. Blacks and other minorities had to be back in their neighborhoods after dark. Schools were free from violence and fear. Teachers and principals were respected.

All that has changed. Everything must now be under lock and key. Thefts and break-ins are a common occurrence. There used to be gangs in big cities, such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, but now they are everywhere. A police office told a neighbor of mine recently (in Spartanburg) that the Bloods and the Crips were active in a neighborhood about a mile from our neighborhood. MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) is powerful, violent and widespread. This past week, a local gang cut off the hands and feet of a local young mother. You cannot walk safely at night in virtually any US city. Break-ins and burglaries are commonplace. Random violence is increasing, as civil society breaks down. The security of the country has been lost to violent criminals.

The security situation has changed in the US mainly because of mass immigration, which has destabilized the social fabric of the country. Another major factor is criminalization of drugs – in order to support an illegal drug habit, many drug users must steal thousands of dollars of goods every day (and sell them to fences for ten cents on the dollar). Another factor is that much crime is committed by immigrants from third-world nations and blacks. Fifty years ago, the country was essentially free of immigrants, except for a relatively small number from Europe. Now, the country is overrun by immigrants from all cultures and the police are prevented from using “profiling” to apprehend them. Every year, the number of deaths to US citizens caused by illegal aliens is greater than the number of deaths to soldiers in the war in Iraq (this is of no concern to the US government, because the number of illegal aliens arriving is vastly greater than the number of Americans that they kill). Because of America’s failed welfare system, the unemployment rate for black males is 50 percent, and 70 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. Sixty years ago, black crime against whites was relatively rare, since blacks were required to be back in their neighborhoods by dark.

Murders of people by random attackers are now common. Previously, most murders were for crimes of passion, fights and robberies. Now, random violence is common (drive-by shootings, casual murders of random victims by violent gang members).

The level of violence in public schools is very high. This violence includes not only assaults on students by other students, but also assaults on teachers and administrative staff as well. School massacres, such as in Columbine, Colorado, were unheard of until recent times. The violence against Americans is perpetrated not just by aliens and other Americans, but by the US government itself, as in the case of the Waco Branch Davidian Massacre and the murder of Randy Weaver’s wife and son in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Discussion of local crime is presented in Wayne LaPierre’s Guns, Crime and Freedom (1994) and in Jonathan Karl’s The Right to Bear Arms (1995). Duplicitously, the US government blames the decline in security on “terrorists,” when it is in fact its own policies (of mass immigration, massive international free trade and open borders) that have caused it.

State (National) Security

At the national level, the decline in security has been profound. When I was young, all people, luggage and vehicles entering the country were searched. Now, most people and goods entering the country are not inspected. The “9/11” attack on the World Trade Center Twin Towers was carried out by 11 Egyptians who were in the country legally, and who received training in flying large airplanes quite legally from a US firm, here in the US. Because of mass immigration, massive international free trade and open borders, the country is very vulnerable to attack. It is just a matter of time before a nuclear “suitcase” bomb is exploded on a US city. The technology is available, the desire and will are strong, and the ease with which such an attack could be carried out is high.

The US government publicly decries and condemns the 9/11 violence, but in fact it relishes it. Under the capitalist political / economic system, the total cost associated with 9/11 (reconstruction and new security systems) is a positive contribution to the fundamental measure of the system’s status and the success of the country – gross domestic product (GDP).

Through its policies of mass immigration, massive international free trade and open borders (all in support of globalization), the US government has destroyed the security and stability of the US population. Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon to leave homes and cars unlocked in most US towns. That is now out of the question. Because of these policies, the US is now quite vulnerable to attacks such as those on the World Trade Center, and its own citizens – who can no longer be readily distinguished from foreigners – are now submitted to onerous security measures at airports and other public places – even to enter their own public buildings. Every year, illegal aliens kill thousands of native US citizens, by murder and road accidents. Every year, the deaths of US citizens caused by illegal aliens exceed the deaths to US soldiers in the Iraq war. All of this has been caused by the policies of the US government, aimed at generating massive wealth for the wealthy elite. Why do the US president and many members of Congress support illegal immigration? They support it because it is good for business. US politicians are in thrall to the wealthy elite who control America, and they will promote virtually any policy that increases income and wealth for them. The US is in fact a fascist state – one in which government interests are aligned with those of big business. It is a plutocracy, in which the rich rule. It is an oligarchy, in which a small group of wealthy elite rules. It is a country managed by a government of the “ruling class,” who do the bidding of the wealthy elite. It is no longer a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It is a part of the global corporatist complex.

Books that discuss the issue of national security include Russell Howard and Reid Sawyer’s Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New Security Environment (2004) and Bruce Hoffman’s Inside Terrorism (2006). Both of these books discuss the major role of religion in causing terrorism and violence. They do not discuss the fact that the low levels of national and individual security have been brought about by the plutocratic policies of the US government.

The Politics of Envy

The “politics of greed” refers to the use of political power to acquire material goods or services. The “politics of envy” refers to the desire of “have-nots” to destroy the wealth of “haves.” The wealthy elite make good use of the politics of greed to increase their riches. It is the basis for the current system of business in the US and the global economy. The politics of envy is the motivation for rebellion and revolt by the poor. It has been the basis for numerous revolutions and uprisings, such as the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Luddite uprising in England. The politics of greed is not a major concern of the poor – it is expected that political leaders seek political power to amass wealth, and are highly motivated by greed (and lust for power and illicit sex).

The politics of envy is being nurtured both at the global level and the national level. At the global level, it is the basis for the hatred by Moslems of Christianity and the materialistic West. At the national level, the politics of envy has been at a low level for many years, because, although the position of the middle class was deteriorating, the quality of life was in fact still very good – the best that mankind has seen in the history of civilization. The poor had no reason to rebel, because of the massive and generous US welfare program. Now that the fortunes of the middle class are about to plummet, the situation will change drastically. The middle class will become poor, and very anxious and stressed. The wealthy will continue to be comfortable. As soon as the US economy collapses (and this will happen soon, as Hubbert’s Peak passes), the middle class will turn on the wealthy. They will turn on them for two reasons – motivation by the politics of envy, and knowledge that the wealthy willfully created the disaster by promoting population growth to a level far in excess of what solar energy could support.

A people depend on intelligent and wise leaders for guidance (in keeping them safe from conquest by foreigners). They also hope for a measure of honesty, fairness, decency and loyalty. They are quite willing to tolerate a certain level of greed and lust for power. America’s founders were committed to providing a framework for promoting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for the common man, but America’s current leaders have abandoned that framework and betrayed the American middle class. They have replaced government “of, by and for the people” by a government and economic system that generates fabulous wealth for the wealthy elite. They have subverted the founders’ concept and country. They have turned against the middle class. They have sacrificed the high quality of life and security of the middle class simply to generate massive wealth for the wealthy elite. When collapse occurs, the middle class will turn on the government and the wealthy with intense anger and hatred, for having knowingly deceived them and betrayed them and robbed them of the founders’ heritage. They will exercise their “right of primacy” and turn on recent immigrants (but not with hatred – why should they hate the immigrants? – today’s immigrants did not invade by force – the US government induced them and allowed them to enter and stay – they will attack immigrants as a soldier does his duty to attack the enemy, or as a white-blood cell attacks an alien virus). They will turn on all minorities (defined by any observable distinguishing characteristic, including race, religion, language, politics, ethnicity), simply because they are different, and there is no longer space or resources sufficient to support the entire population.

When the economic situation deteriorates and it is clear that, with the passing of fossil fuel, industrial society will never recover to its former levels, the American people will rise up in rebellion against the system that caused this to happen. It will be “mad as hell, and not going to take any more.” It will totally annihilate the corrupt system that destroyed the planet’s ecology, boosted human population to unsustainable levels, and caused “overshoot and collapse.” This convulsion will end the old system and make way for the new.

Oppression; Slavery through Debt; Compound Interest

The United States Is No Longer “For the People”

The average American has lost much of his freedom, even though, compared to people throughout the ages (of civilization), he still enjoys an incredibly high level of freedom. With the closing of the US Land Office in the late nineteenth century, the country declared that all of the free land was gone. A man could no longer stake a claim to 160 acres of land and support his family off the land. This was the last time that the country could support itself on current solar energy (about 63 million people at a low level of living). The population was about 50 million people (24 million in 1850, 44 million in 1875 and 76 million in 1900). From that time on, increasing population could be supported only through the use of technology and energy from fossil fuel. Before long, most people of average means could survive only by participating in the competitive labor market in an industrial economy. With the shift from a rural agricultural society to an industrial one, the American people would never be independent or truly free again.

The United States was a remarkable experiment in democracy. The founding fathers created a government of, by and for the people. This is an incredible thing for political leaders to do. It is not surprising, however, that it did not endure. Most politicians, such as the present leaders of the US, have little interest in using government to serve the people. The very idea of using political power to serve the common people is surely an absurd notion to most of them. It no doubt makes much more sense to use political power to serve the wealthy, as had been done through the ages. Over time, America’s leaders abandoned the lofty ideals of the country’s founders, and “regressed to the mean” of venality and corruption. With generation after generation of political leaders chipping away at the freedoms of the common man, it was just a matter of time until he returned to serfdom. The common man is no match for ambitious, crafty leaders – the leaders of any society will always be its most able. The US citizen was blessed with a high level of freedom because the US founding fathers – Masons – Plato’s Guardians – willed it and established it. Recent generations of leaders do not relate to this concept. Masonry has about died in the US, and with it the Masonic ideals and principles on which the country was founded. (It should be remembered that not all of the founding fathers were in favor of establishing the US as a democracy. These included James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, who strongly opposed democracy. They sided with Plato.)

Today, most people are slaves to the economic system that controls and operates the US. There is no alternative. You do as the system requires, or you will be imprisoned or killed. While this has been the case for most of humankind throughout the ages, what is different now is that the proportion of the production of working people used to provide wealth to the wealthy elite was for a time low but has risen dramatically in recent years. In a world filled with population and a destroyed environment, there is absolutely no alternative – there is nowhere else to go. The option of escaping from this environment (industrialization) does not exist – put up with it or change it are the only options. It is rather ironic that although the quality of life is declining for the US middle class, the level of wealth of today’s Americans is higher than in all of human history – the US middle class has a higher level of material comfort than the kings of the Middle Ages. The problem is not that the quality of life is low for the US middle class – in relative terms, it is very high. The problem is that it has been declining, that the direct cause of the decline is US government policy, and hope that future generations will enjoy a good life has been lost. “What have you done for me lately?”

Slavery Through Debt

Most Americans – most citizens of the world – are slaves to the industrial economy. And this economy is a cruel master. It has destroyed much of nature – certainly at the local level where many people could interact with it on a daily basis. In an industrial society, most jobs are repetitive, mind-numbing jobs that are not satisfying. With the exporting of most of America’s manufacturing capacity to third-world countries, many people in the US do not even have the option of a manufacturing job. Labor is now nothing more than an international commodity. The lack of meaningful work and well paying jobs has manifested itself in serious social stress, discontent, anxiety and misery. As a result of the lack of meaningful work, many people have become ill or dysfunctional, and turned to drugs and crime. The US now imprisons one percent of its adult population, and one black man in seven is in jail. This is both a reflection of the lack of fulfillment associated with life in US society and the fascist nature of today’s America.

The major tool that the government uses to enslave the poor and middle classes is debt. Since 1971, our currency and banking system has been backed by debt (debt-based money). This system, a fundamental component of “growth-based economics,” has the perverse incentive that it must always grow (by a rate equal to the discount rate charged by central banks on money that is borrowed from them by private banks), or it will collapse. While corporations in the developed world have the skills to manage debt, most private individuals and third-world countries do not. The interest scheme on which the debt is based is compound interest. Under this scheme, the accumulated interest is added to the principal of the loan, so that interest is now charged not only on the original principal, but also on any previously-calculated interest (and on accrued “fees”) as well. If the debt continues for very long (i.e., is not repaid promptly), the amount of the loan grows to astronomical levels. With simple interest, the amount of interest on an unrepaid loan grows linearly in time. With compound interest, the amount of interest on an unrepaid loan grows exponentially. Eventually, if the debt is not repaid, under compound interest the debt grows to unmanageable (and before long, astronomical) levels and the borrower becomes a slave to the lender.

The Amazing Power of Compound Interest

No (closed, finite) system based on exponential growth – such as the world’s currency and banking system – can continue for very long. (I am not speaking here of price inflation, and the general decrease in the value of money over time. The value of money is arbitrary, and the monetary unit can be devalued as desired. What I am speaking of here is the physical growth that the system of debt-based money and compound interest causes (via its inducement of economic growth).) An economy using a money-and-banking system based on exponential growth keeps growing, faster and faster. If a borrower does not promptly repay a loan based on compound interest (such as in the case of maintaining an unpaid balance on a credit card, or a third-world country that has taken a “development loan”), eventually (and very soon at high interest rates such as are common now (e.g., 20 percent)) he cannot possibly repay the loan. At that point, he is under the complete control of the lender. If the individual can declare bankruptcy, he will. The lender may forgive the debt or a portion of it. In practice, just enough debt is forgiven to keep the borrower alive, so that he continues to pay as much as he possibly can to the lender. This is the mechanism by which the developed nations of the world keep the poorer nations in perpetual debt, and perpetually under their control.

Many people do not understand or appreciate the power of compound interest to explode the size of a debt, if it (or even just the interest) remains unpaid for very long. Many years ago (starting in 1926), US businessman George S. Clason wrote a series of pamphlets about being thrifty and how to achieve financial success. His system was based on compound interest. His pamphlets narrated parables set in ancient Babylon, and a number of them were compiled into the book The Richest Man in Babylon, which became very famous. Clason understood the power of compound interest. So did banks and insurance companies, which distributed his pamphlets to their customers. Compound interest is contrasted to simple interest, where interest is not added to the principal (i.e., there is no compounding).

It is no coincidence that Clason used Babylon for the setting for his writings. Babylon, the Book of Revelation’s “Great Whore of the Earth,” is considered by many to be Globalism – debt-based money, interest, democracy – the Iron Heel of Jack London. (It is interesting to note that in Christian eschatology (doctrine about end times), Babylon is destroyed in the last days of the age. Babylon was located where the current modern state of Iraq is today. The war in Iraq has destroyed that country. Is this a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Or is the collapse of globalization the predicted destruction of Babylon?)

Because of the explosive effect of compounding, the predominant form of interest in finance and economics is compound interest. Why? Because it is exquisitely advantageous to the lenders, who are the rich. Educated businessmen who use credit generally understand the malicious nature of compound interest. They can manage debt well, pay it off quickly, and compound interest is not a problem. These people rarely allow compound interest to enslave them. Even if their business venture were to fail, they would typically insulate themselves from personal ruin by ensuring that the debt was incurred by a corporation that they could dissolve, rather than by themselves personally. If they are big enough (e.g., a bank “too big to be allowed to fail”), then the government simply bails them out. The system is set up so that the rich can always avoid the trap of malicious compound-interest debt – it is set up so that the rich can incur massive debt without danger of personal financial failure. But for the poor, who tend to be uneducated and lacking in resources, the story is quite different. Almost none of them understands the exponential-growth nature of compound interest. Even if they incorporate, few lenders are willing to lend the money to a small-business corporation without the personal guarantee of the owner. They are often granted loans from a lender who knows that they will likely not be able to repay, in full knowledge that the compound interest will explode, the debt will become massive and unmanageable, and the government will enforce the collection. The poor often fail to repay their loans on time, the burden of debt under compounding quickly explodes, and they are lost. These people cannot manage debt well, and they cannot possibly afford to take out loans based on compound interest.

Both the US Government and Christianity Promote Usury

The US government has abandoned its people, standing by as they become slaves to banks, credit-card companies, and consumer-loan companies. In 2006, the Bankrupcy Reform Act (“Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005”) made it much harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy. Most of the credit-card and consumer-finance loans in force today should never have been made, either because the borrower was not creditworthy or because the high interest rate and compounding virtually ensures that the debt will explode in size to unmanageable levels. If the government would restrict interest rates to low amounts, such as a few percent at simple interest, then lenders would not make most of these loans, and that would be perfectly fine, since continued economic growth cannot continue without destroying the biosphere. The US government enthusiastically promotes usury. It supports the use of compound interest. It endorses the enslaving of its citizens in oppressive debt. It is beyond contempt. The country’s leading religion, Christianity, used to stand in opposition to usury, but not any longer. Today, to its great shame, it stands by as the state enslaves its people. It is beyond contempt also. Much to its credit, Islam still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. (Islamic banking functions with similar “participatory financing” schemes, but it does not allow interest, and hence compound interest. It is the only major religion to do so, and hence the only one whose fundamental doctrines are compatible with long-range sustainability of the planet’s biosphere.)

The United States government allows banks and credit-card companies to induce poor and middle-class people to assume large debts. Many people cannot pay this debt off. Under the system of compound interest and high interest rates (e.g., 20 percent), the debt becomes unmanageable. The intense assault to foist heavy debt on the US population has been ongoing for about half a century. Young families are provided with credit cards and no-down-payment mortgages. They are induced to purchase all sorts of goods, such as appliances and automobiles, with incentives and “easy credit” inducements such as no-money-down, no payment for months, and free gifts. The sales contract is immediately sold to financial organizations, and the process of charging compound interest begins. Many people cannot afford to repay loans quickly, and eventually, the interest and fees far exceed the amount of the original debt. The US government becomes an integral part of the process, not only in operating the exponentially-growing-debt system, but also as a debt-collection enforcer. This same process is applied to third-world countries. From this point on, there is a never-ending transfer of wealth from the borrower to the lender.

Credit-Card Debt

The amount of interest charged on credit-card debt is truly astounding. Credit-card debt is based on compound interest. Additionally, there are many “fees” imposed, such as late-payment fees or “over-limit” fees. The credit-card industry is impoverishing the US middle class. On May 2, 2008, Jim Abrams of the Associated Press released an article about the predatory lending practices of credit card companies, and plans to introduce legislation to address them. Here follow some excerpts from that article:

“The Federal Reserve and other regulators are moving Friday to crack down on ‘unfair and deceptive’ practices in the credit card industry that have added billions in debt to people already struggling to cope with the economic downturn.

“In the most far-reaching crackdown on the credit industry in decades, the Fed and two government agencies are proposing rules that would stop credit card companies from unfairly raising interest rates and make sure they give people enough time to pay their bills.

“The banking industry is expected to fight the new rules.

“Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, said that while he hadn't yet seen the details, the rules ‘appear to address some of the most significant abuses in the credit card marketplace right now.’”

“The agencies said the new regulations could be finalized by the end of the year.”

“Plunkett said his group estimates that credit card debt is now about $850 billion, with households that don't pay their credit card bills in full every month owing an average $17,000.

“The proposed new rules would prohibit:

Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;
Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;
Unfairly raising annual percentage rates on outstanding balances;
Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;
Unfairly computing balances;
Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;
Making deceptive offers of credit.”

“Ken Clayton, senior vice president of card policy for the American Bankers Association, said the industry will fight the new proposals, describing them as ‘aggressive regulatory intervention in the marketplace that will result in higher prices and less consumer credit.’

“He said the change ‘basically says that we can't price for risk’ and that if higher risk borrowers don't bear the costs, those costs will be passed along to other consumers.” This is blatantly false – the “other consumers” don’t need to make the loan!

The very significant thing to observe is that the proposed changes do not address the principal evil associated with credit-card debt – compound interest. As long as the lenders can retain that tool, they will continue to enslave the US middle class – correcting all of the abuses listed above will not change this at all. Every month, the US middle class is transferring massive amounts of compound-interest earnings to banks and credit-card companies. This continual drain on the US middle class is totally unnecessary and severely diminishes its quality of life. The same situation applies to third-world debt. Compound interest is the only thing that really matters in the long run. Without it, debt is manageable; with it debt is not manageable. By keeping the middle class in debt, under compound interest, the debt will continue to grow exponentially (until the borrower can no longer pay), and the credit-card companies and other lenders will continue to enslave the borrowers and suck them dry. (Note that in the long run, the fees are irrelevant. All that matters is the compounding.)

Mr. Clayton’s comment that the proposed government regulations will result in higher prices and less consumer credit is a gratuitous joke. If all credit-card debt were eliminated, the middle class would be much better off. (Fifty years ago, credit cards were in very limited use, and certainly not available to the masses. Most consumer-loan debt (for refrigerators, ovens, washing machines, televisions, cars) was held by local merchants, and if someone got into trouble and could not pay, the debt was cancelled. The only long-term debt most families had was a home mortgage, and this was well regulated by the government (low down payment only for well qualified buyers for government-insured loans, 20 percent down payment for commercial-bank loans). The loan was structured to be amortized in 15-30 years at a fixed interest rate and fixed monthly payments (including principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI)).)

Examples of the Power of Compound Interest

Compared to the power of compound interest, none of the above measures will cause any change in the ability of moneylenders to enslave borrowers by overwhelming them with debt. The following table shows how a balance of $17,000 will grow under an interest rate of 20 percent, compounded annually (many lenders compound monthly (or even daily or continuously), in which case the debt grows even faster).

Year (n)	Factor	Size of debt after n years, with initial debt amount of $17,000 and an annually compounded interest rate of 20 percent
1	1.2	17,000 x 1.2 = $20,400
2	1.2 x 1.2 = 1.44	17,000 x 1.44 = $24,480
3	1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 = 1.728	17,000 x 1.728 = $29,376
4	2.0736	$35,251.20
5	2.48832	$42,301.44
10	6.191736422	$105,259.52
20	38.33759992	$651,739.20
30	237.3763138	$4,035,397.34
40	1469.771568	$24,986,116.66
50	9100.43815	$154,707,448.60

The preceding table dramatically illustrates the power of compound interest. After five years, the initial debt of $17,000, if not repaid, has exploded to $42,301.44. At the end of a person’s adult life (say, a span of 50 years as an adult), an initial debt of $17,000, if not repaid, would have grown to over $154 million dollars. Who cares about additional fees, when compound interest alone is sufficient to completely overwhelm the debtor? The government’s “red herring” proposed legislation is focusing all of the attention on addressing practices that, even if totally eliminated, will have no effect on the final outcome, which is driven by compound interest.

With simple interest, the amount of interest owed each year if the loan is not repaid is always same, equal to the annual interest rate times the principal (original loan). In this example, that would be .2 times $17,000, or $3,400, each year. While this is bad enough, after 50 years the total debt would just be $17,000 + 50 x $3,400, or $17,000 + $170,000, or $187,000. This amount, while substantial, is manageable. It is within reason that an individual could conceivably pay it, no matter how long he was unable to repay the original loan. The amount of $154 million, under compound interest at the same nominal interest rate, is not. The charging of 154 million dollars for a debt of 17 thousand dollars after 50 years serves no socially useful purpose. Compound interest is a vicious, evil practice. The charging of any interest at all was originally proscribed by all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), but Judaism and Christianity now allow it.) Why modern Christianity approves this practice is beyond comprehension. Christianity asserts that it is against slavery, when in fact it is not.

Christianity, if it served the poor rather than the rich, would take a stand against usury and return to its original position. It is impossible not to include compound interest within any reasonable definition of usury. Indeed, Christianity of today – the handmaiden of capitalism – never addresses this insidious practice, and works actively in this and other ways to promote globalization (e.g., in its efforts in support of illegal immigration).

One of the fascinating features of compound interest is that the time period required to double the amount of interest is a constant, depending only on the interest rate. For a compound interest rate of 20 percent, the “doubling time” is 3.80 years. (An approximate formula for determining doubling times is the so-called “rule of 78”: the doubling time for a compound interest rate of r percent is approximately equal to 78/r. For example, if r = 20, then the doubling time is 78/r = 78/20 = 3.9, which is close to the correct value of 3.80.) In the physical world, it is not possible to double things very many times. The following table shows the amount obtained after a specified number of doublings.

Number of Doublings	Amount
0	1 (the initial amount)
1	2
2	4
3	8
4	16
5	32
6	64
7	128
8	256
16	65536
24	1677216
32	4294967296
40	1.0995 x 10^12
48	2.8147 x 10^14
56	7.2058 x 10^16
64	1.8447 x 10^19

The notation 10^n used in the table denotes ten raised to the power n. For example, the last entry, 1.8447 x 10^19 denotes the number 1.8447 times 1 followed by 19 zeros, or 18,447,000,000,000,000,000, or over 18 quintillion. This is a very large number! There is an Indian legend about a rajah who was tricked by unwittingly agreeing to give a subject one grain of rice for the first square of a checkerboard and doubling the amount for each successive square (i.e., two grains for the second square, four grains for the third square, etc.). The rajah quickly learns, to his consternation and dismay, that there is not sufficient rice in all the world to accomplish this. In one version of the legend, the rajah has agreed to give the hand of his daughter in marriage to the person who tricked him. In another version (David Barry’s The Rajah’s Rice, W. H. Freeman, 1994), the rajah offers to give the calculated amount of rice back to the people. The point to this fable is that it the process of doubling leads to astronomical amounts very quickly, and cannot continue for long (very many times). This is the power of compound interest (or any other exponential-growth process). At the compound interest rate of 20 percent (a typical rate for credit cards), the doubling time is approximately 3.8 years. In fifty years, there are approximately 50/3.8 = 13 doublings, to 8192 times the original amount (the exact number is 9100). Compound interest quickly leads to extremely large amounts.

The fact that exponential processes such as compound interest double in a fixed period of time means that they “explode” very quickly. Explosions do not last very long – once an exponential process starts to approach the limit imposed by a finite world, the “end” is over very quickly. Many people do not appreciate just how fast exponential processes come to an end. Lester Brown illustrated this well in the title of a book that he wrote, The Twenty-Ninth Day. The question he posed is, “If algae starts to grow in a pond exponentially, with a doubling time of one day, and the pond is half-filled with algae after 29 days, how much longer will it be before the pond is filled with algae?” Without thinking, many people intuitively respond, “Another 29 days.” But the correct answer is obviously one day. It seems that the human mind instinctively avoids accepting an exponential-growth process, as being “unnatural.” While there are many natural processes that grow exponentially for a short time, in a finite world they all terminate quickly. This is often very desirable, such as in the case of a decomposing animal or the fermentation of wine or beer – we don’t have long to wait until the dead animal is gone, or the wine is ready to drink. Unfortunately for mankind, however, it has based modern global civilization fundamentally on exponential growth, and so it of necessity will fail very quickly. As we will discuss later in detail, the world’s economic system (growth-based economics) is based on exponential processes (compound interest, debt-based money). This system is now starting to show signs of stress: financial markets are becoming very volatile and the biosphere is showing increasing evidence of collapse. Bailouts of large banks are occurring. The end of this system is very near.

(The above “doubling” table applies to any interest rate and any principal amount. For example, at the compound interest rate of 20 percent, the doubling time is 3.8 years, so each successive row in the table corresponds to an additional 3.8 years of the loan term. In the table, the initial amount has arbitrarily been set to 1, so that the successive entries in the Amount column represent factors indicating by how much the original debt / loan increases for each successive doubling. For example, for a debt / loan amount of $17,000, simply multiply each table entry in the Amount column by $17,000. To determine the debt amount in this example after three doublings, for example, simply multiply the factor given in the Amount column for three doublings (8) times the original debt amount. In this example ($17,000 at 20 percent compound interest rate), the debt amount after three doublings (3 x 3.8 years = 11.4 years) is 8 times the original amount, or 8 x $17,000 = $136,000.)

Compound Interest Growth Is Like Cancer, and the US Government Endorses It

Compound interest is an insidious trap. Almost no one can imagine the massive debt that can quickly arise from compound interest. It should absolutely be proscribed under any humanitarian form of government or religion. To agree to a loan based on compound interest is playing with fire. It is a principal tool of the corporatists for enslaving unwary individuals and countries. They induce the poor to take out loans that they cannot afford. They offer them incredible inducements to accept compound-interest loans, such as no money down, no interest payments for several years, adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”) with seductive initial terms and free gifts (such as, in my neighborhood, large-screen digital televisions and home appliances) just to get the “hook” in. As soon as the debt is contracted, the spider has trapped the unwitting fly, and compound interest starts to work, like an insidious cancer. Don’t do it! Just say no!

If the US government cared about the welfare of its citizens, it would outlaw the charging of compound interest and require the refunding of all compound interest paid to date (or, which would be more practical, simply cancel all outstanding credit-card debt). It would move to prohibit interest rates or loan terms that can result in interest amounts that exceed the principal amount during the expected lifetime of the borrower. Sadly, the government no longer serves the people, and it will never consider such actions. Compound interest is the most powerful tool for transferring wealth from the poor (individuals and countries) to the rich, and the US government will never move to eliminate it. The debt that the US middle class and third-world countries have was foisted upon them by greedy bankers and other moneylenders making endless exhortations and inducements to accept credit. Many of these individuals and countries are poor or struggling financially, and cannot possibly manage compound-interest debt – it was just a matter of time until they were overwhelmed by it. Compound interest is the linchpin, the keystone of the wealthy in their scheme for enslaving the poor and sucking them dry. It is a pernicious and deceptive practice that eventually enslaves most borrowers who, in difficult times, succumb to the relentless solicitations to accept credit-card and other consumer-credit loans.

The Wealthy Elite Can Escape the Trap of Compound Interest

The wealthy elite, who can manage debt and can avoid personal responsibility for the debt of their business enterprises (through incorporation or government “bailouts”), are not concerned with compound interest as a danger to their well being. As long as the interest is paid promptly (at the same frequency as the rate of compounding), the debt does not grow exponentially – the amount of compound interest is the same as the amount of simple interest (at the same nominal rate), if the interest is paid off as it accrues. The wealthy are the lenders, not the borrowers. Even the small businessman who borrows tends to be a recipient of the benefits of compound interest through his consumer loans to customers (unless he sells the debt to someone else). For the skilled businessman who borrows for business purposes, compound interest and simple interest work about the same, since the loan is promptly repaid. Furthermore, the wealthy normally conduct business through limited-liability corporations, which can be dissolved if they go bankrupt, with no losses to the owners. (Non-wealthy owners of small corporations must back the corporation’s loans with personal guarantees.) The insidious effects of compound interest become manifest only when someone cannot repay (i.e., owes an “unpaid balance,” and pays the “minimum amount due”), at which time the debt begins to explode. It is a ticking time bomb, ready to destroy and enslave the unwary, such as the poor or middle class who are induced to assume compound-interest debt by the unscrupulous moneylenders who use this tool (and in today’s nonIslamic society, that is all of them).

Why would the government allow (much less endorse and promote) a system that leads to enslavement of the poor through insurmountable debt? For people who can manage debt, simple interest and compound interest are not much different. For people who cannot, compound interest is a terrible trap – a catastrophe waiting to happen and is likely to happen. It is a treacherous trap intended to destroy anyone who gets in debt over his head – individuals or third-world countries. President Bush has declared that he does not want to help or “bail out” people who made imprudent or unwise financial decisions, such as the millions who purchased homes (under compound interest, with incredible inducements such as adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), with two- or three-year “teaser” rates)) that they could not afford on the assumption that home prices would continue to rise. But why would he support a system that destroys anyone who gets in over his head? One slip (an illness, an accident, a lost job, a family crisis) and the interest explodes, and you are wiped out. If compound-interest debt gets out of control (which is quite easy at a 20 percent nominal compound interest rate, especially for lower-income people who have been seduced into debt), at 20 percent nominal compound interest rate it quickly becomes impossible to pay it off.

The only people who agreed to ARMs with interest-only payments at the beginning were “subprime” borrowers who could not qualify for conventional (fixed-interest rate) loans. If they could not afford the terms of a conventional loan, they surely cannot afford an ARM loan as soon as the interest payments begin (since the interest will exceed those of a conventional loan). The only way the ARM loan can be handled is in a housing market of ever-increasing prices. And in our world of “free-market capitalism,” this never happens – economic expansions and contractions always occur. In our economic system, ARMs are virtually certain to end in default.

Returning to the table presented earlier, what possible rationale can there be for an interest charge of 154 million dollars on a loan of $17,000 for 50 years? Certainly none that promotes social harmony. The only reason for allowing the use of compound interest is to ensure the financial destruction of anyone who becomes unable to pay the loan off. The only reason why the US government endorses compound interest is that it wants banks and other moneylenders to enslave poorer individuals and countries. Compound interest is a system designed to destroy and enslave anyone who gets in debt over his head. It is predatory and punitive – how else can you describe an interest system that balloons the size of a $17,000 debt to $154 million dollars in 50 years? Compound interest is like cancer. It grows exponentially and destroys. Poor people who are induced to take on compound-interest loans are like moths drawn to a flame – they cannot resist offers of credit (since they are always living from paycheck to paycheck, and financial emergencies will always occur), and they perish quickly. The US government is a vile promoter of this pernicious practice. If it cared for the American people, it would abolish compound interest, which serves no purpose other than to enslave the poor in hopeless debt.

(The government’s policy of promoting of compound interest is very similar to its policy of promoting of miracle drugs at prices that people cannot possibly afford. People will do anything that they can to extend their lives or reduce pain and suffering, but they cannot possible afford many of the new drugs. As a result, the government pays for most of them, by transferring tax revenues from the middle class to the medical establishment. The ubiquitous inducements to accept compound-interest loans and television commercials touting wonder drugs are very similar – they are both programs designed to enslave the middle class in debt, and transfer much of their income to the wealthy elite.)

(The debt-based money system puts tremendous pressure on banks to extend loans. Without loans, there is no money, and no income for bankers. A deposit made to a bank is in fact represented as a liability on its books, and a loan is represented as an asset. Banks cannot bear to have unloaned deposits. That is the reason why so many bad loans were made by international banks to noncreditworthy countries following the OPEC oil price increase of 1974. The Arabs deposited their massive amounts of newly acquired wealth in international banks, which were then under great pressure to lend the money out.)

The Dynamic Duo: Debt-Based Money and Compound Interest

Debt-based money is destroying the biosphere, and compound interest is enslaving poor individuals and countries. With these two schemes, bankers are destroying the world – both the natural world and civil society. These schemes operate under government aegis – the government authorizes the banks’ creation of the money that represents debt, passes laws that allow compound interest, and enforces payment. In earlier times, governments allowed the keeping of human slaves and colonies. Today, individuals and third-world countries are enslaved by compound-interest loans that they are induced to take and cannot handle. Slavery is alive and well today. Today’s economic slavery is every bit as oppressive as the slavery of yesteryear.

The US government bends over backwards to keep the system running. If problems arise, the government “fix” is always in favor of the rich, to keep the system running and the wealth flowing from the poor (individuals or countries) to the rich. Examples of this are the savings-and-loan crisis, the bailout of Long Term Capital Management, and the current mortgage crisis. All of the bailouts in these failures are for big business, and they are all paid for using taxes, most of which are collected from the middle class. The government caused the current mortgage crisis, by promoting the extension of no-money-down mortgages to people who could not possibly afford them (under the system of “debt-based money,” more debt means more money, and a growing economy). When the system started to collapse, e.g., with the collapse of Bear Stearns, the government rushed to bail out the lender, Bear Stearns (with a guarantee of up to 200 billion dollars to J P Morgan to purchase Bear Stearns and prevent its failure), but not a penny for the borrowers, the home mortgage holders. In the quintessence of cynicism, the government declared that “market forces” should be allowed to “take care of” the individual home owners (who lose their homes, and may still be stuck with the mortgage), but not the moneylenders. The government takes care of them. The US government is now for the rich, not for the people. President Bush reaffirmed this in his comments that the government was not going to rescue homeowners who made bad decisions. Of course not! – he wants to spend all of the bailout money for the bankers who made bad decisions. Of course, the bankers really didn’t make bad decisions at all – they deliberately made bad loans in full knowledge that the government would bail them out using taxpayer money, just as it did previously in the S&L scandal.

While difficult conditions have been the lot of the average person since the dawn of civilization, what is different now is that that the masses have great freedom (opportunity) and means (knowledge, technology, communications, weapons of mass destruction) to attack and destroy their masters. The government has provided weapons to the rabble. At the founding of the country, the masses had no motive to turn against their masters – their masters were founding a government “of, by and for the people.” Today’s government now serves the wealthy elite, and has turned against the middle class. In the past, the US middle class possessed the means and opportunity to overthrow the rulers, but they did not have a motive, since the government served them. This situation has changed radically in recent times, to the point where the US middle class now has strong motives to turn against the governing class: the government no longer serves the middle class; the government has introduced policies (mass immigration, massive international free trade, and open borders) to destroy the quality of life of the middle class; and, with the passing of Peak Oil, there is no hope for a better or even a good future for themselves or their children. Means, motive and opportunity – the stage is set for a revolution.

Hume’s Paradox

In his The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993), Noam Chomsky describes “Hume’s Paradox.” “…the general population has lots of cards. That’s something that David Hume pointed out a couple of centuries ago. In his work on political theory, he describes the paradox that, in any society, the population submits to the rulers, even though force is always in the hands of the governed. Ultimately the governors, the rulers, can only rule if they control opinion – no matter how many guns they have. This is true of the most despotic societies and the most free, he wrote. If the general population won’t accept things, the rulers are finished.” In earlier times, religion was a primary tool for enforcing control of the leader over the population (“divine right of kings”). Today, the major tool of government is debt (with religion playing a supportive role, in view of its abandonment of a stand against usury). As the burden of debt on Americans increases to intolerable levels, the level of freedom and the quality of life is plummeting. The current system that is America is a rotten, corrupt system that is not at all what the founders established. It is just a matter of time until the American people realize that the system is designed to put them deep into debt, to keep them in debt, and to perpetually transfer as much wealth as possible from them to the rich. At that point they will rebel. If you are in debt, you are not free. If you are hopelessly in debt, and the system created this problem, and the system will not let you escape, then there is only one alternative – destroy the system.

(This same logic applies to third-world countries. Through the global currency and banking system (debt-based money, compound interest), the developed nations have burdened the third world with massive debt, from which they can never recover. The leaders make the debt, and the people pay the price. From time to time, a country reneges on its loans, at which time the international banks forgive just enough debt to keep the country in business, and its poor paying the rich banks forever. How long will the world’s poor put up with this corrupt, evil system, this devil’s bargain between their leaders and the international banks? Probably until the oil starts to run out – just about now.)

Decline in Freedom

Loss of Free Space

Many things that were once free are no longer available except at a high price. Economics commoditizes everything. The average man has lost much of his freedom. The only way that most people can enjoy the natural satisfactions and pleasures of life now is to earn large amounts of money from the industrial society and purchase them. Open, natural, free space is no longer available for most Americans on a regular basis, if at all. Most of a person’s life will hence be invested in performing meaningless work in a crowded industrial environment to enjoy a few moments of simulated freedom (“vacation”). There is no escape, since the planet is now totally populated by human society and overcrowded. The only way out is complete destruction of the political, economic, religious and industrial system that has made a living hell out of human existence for most of the world’s population and threatens to bring about the extinction of most species, including mankind.

On the topic of freedom, it is relevant to recall a quote from Edward Abbey (cited in Christopher Manes’ Green Rage): “If we can draw the line against the industrial machine in America, and make it hold, then perhaps in the decades to come we can gradually force industrialism underground, where it belongs….Why settle for less? And why give up our wilderness? What good is a Bill of Rights that does not include our right to play, to wander, to explore, the right to stillness and solitude, to discovery and physical freedom?”

It should be recognized that although the average American is losing his historic freedoms, he still has a higher level of freedom than human beings have had for almost all of human history. His loss of freedom is relative – his freedom is declining relative to that of his parents and grandparents, but it is in fact still very high. Everything is relative, however, and today’s middle class see their level of freedom declining relative to that of their immediate ancestors.

Loss of Freedom from Crime

One simple freedom that the average American has lost is the ability to walk around his own town at any hour, without fear of being assaulted. Canadians have lost the right to free speech – anyone convicted of “Holocaust denial” will be imprisoned (or killed, if you resist). Loss of personal security is not a concern for the government, since crime increases gross domestic product (via the increased production required to replace stolen or destroyed property, the cost of security service, and the cost of medical treatment).

Because our society is becoming so crowded, the dysfunctional ills that are associated with overcrowding are increasing. As a result, violence is rising. Consequently, the government continues to place restrictions on the ownership of guns. It is just a matter of time until US citizens lose the right to own guns entirely. The irony of this is that the government is ostensibly taking this action to protect the citizens from violence. The citizen will, at that point, be defenseless to protect himself in a violent society that has been spawned by the population policies of the government.

Because the government has promoted mass immigration and open borders, the Islamic extremists who pose the current major threat to US security are allowed to roam free within the US and on airplanes. Sixty years ago, it was relatively easy to spot a foreigner, since there were very few of them in the US. Now, it is still easy to spot someone from an alien culture, but the government has passed laws making it illegal to act on this information (“profiling”), for fear that citizens’ rights might be infringed on. As a result, everyone is now a suspect – strangers in their own land – and subjected to the same security checks. The application of Bayes’ rule to profile terrorists is prohibited. All of the traditional-culture Americans are now subjected to security checks at airports and other public places. The average American has lost his freedom to board a plane without the major hassle of intrusive security checks, simply because his government has flooded the country with people from foreign cultures. This suits the government fine, since the construction, operation and maintenance of onerous security systems generates much wealth for the wealthy elite.

Loss of Free Time

Because of mass immigration and overcrowding, many US workers face very long and expensive commutes to work. This was not true sixty years ago, when the country had two-thirds the population that it now has. Because of massive population growth and overcrowding, the price of housing has been pushed to astronomical levels – the median price of a modest home near Los Angeles or San Francisco is now about a half-million dollars. This is out of reach for most people. The massive increase in the price of housing and commute times are almost solely due to mass immigration and overcrowding. Middle class workers have lost many freedoms and opportunities because of the government’s policy of mass immigration, such as free time (now that both parents must work outside the home and make long commutes); qualification for many jobs (now that Spanish is required for many); enjoyment of nature close to home; owning a nearby country cottage; eating fish from many lakes; access to reasonable-cost medical care; freedom to breathe unpolluted air; the freedom to serve, to sell to whomever one wants; and the comfort of living among and associating with one’s own culture.

Loss of Freedom from Hassle

The loss of freedom in our everyday lives is really apparent to a person of my age (66). I was in the Chicago O’Hare Airport recently, and I stopped in an airport restaurant (the O’Hare Bar and Grill) for lunch. I ordered a beer, at which point the waiter asked to see some form of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport. I refused, saying that this was ridiculous. I am 66, have gray hair, and there is no waiter in the world who could possible think that I am under 18 or 21 (whatever the drinking age is in Illinois). I asked him how old I thought I was. He guessed 50. I was not sure whether I should be flattered because he thought I really looked 50, or whether he was simply a poor judge of age. He told me that he was just following the rules, and that he could not serve alcohol to anyone without demanding and seeing documented proof of age. I told him that I was unwilling to play this silly game, and I had no beer with lunch that day.

De Tocqueville’s Astute Observation on Freedom

In his book, Liberal Fascism (2007), Jonah Goldberg makes the point that while freedom may be restricted by the state in “large” areas, it is very important to allow much freedom in “little” things. (He quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, “It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think that freedom is less necessary in great things than in little ones.”) I don’t mind being told that I must have a passport to re-enter the US without a hassle, but I really resent being told, at age 66, that I cannot order a beer with lunch until I provide documentary evidence of my age. It is galling that paper documents are more important than my word. This is just one more piece of evidence that our society is unstable, disintegrating, oppressive and no longer civil. As Joseph Tainter observed, societies tend to become more and more complex, until they collapse because of the complexity. I must now show a government-issued ID to purchase a beer with my meal in Chicago. How sad, and how revealing.

It is nice that the world is not totally under fascist control to the point where personal freedoms are tightly restricted. When I arrived in Monrovia, Liberia (via Brussels, after leaving Chicago), I handed the hotel desk clerk a security wallet (containing a credit card and over a thousand dollars – over two thousand on my earlier trip) for him to place in the hotel safe. I asked, “Do I need a receipt?” He responded, “No, of course not, we know you.” How refreshing that a man’s word is his bond, and that there was trust that when I claimed my wallet, my spoken word was all that was needed. Because of mass immigration and the resulting social instability, this level of personal trust has disappeared in the US. Everything must be documented, even down to the level of ordering a beer with lunch. When I was in Haiti some years ago, I checked into a small hotel in the town of Jacmel. There was no lock on my room door – no lock, no key, no deadbolt, no chain – just a simple doorknob. I asked the lady who was showing me to my room about this. She laughed, and told me that there was no need for a lock on my door. There wasn’t. Life in a stable society is comforting.

Loss of Freedom from Confiscation of Property without Due Process

Since the establishment of the personal income tax in 1913, the government has made good use of the “Tax Court,” which can strip US citizens of their property without due process. A friend of mine recently had his property confiscated without due process over a tax dispute. The government sent him a notice that he owed $5,000 in taxes. He did not, and so he refused to pay. The government then proceeded to freeze his bank account and take the $5,000. His bank account was not accessible until the government had confiscated the demanded amount. With respect to tax disputes, the burden of proof is on the individual – you are assumed guilty until you prove your innocence. Do you keep your money in a bank? If you do, you had better plan for a contingency plan for the day on which the government freezes your bank account and you have no access to your funds until you do as it says. See former Congressman George Hansen’s book, To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power (1985), for a lot more on government abuse of power.

Alienation of the US People from the Government

Over the past century, a major shift has occurred in the relationship between the US government and the US middle class. This section discusses this change in some detail. The section is divided into a number of subsections presented in approximate order of importance. The discussion is not intended to be comprehensive, but simply to highlight a number of major areas.

This section identifies a number of ways in which the quality of life has been impaired for the US middle class by US government policies. Since government policies have had a dramatic effect on diminishing the quality of life in many different areas, many of the topics mentioned in this section are also addressed in other sections, in a more general sense (relating to the decline of the US, but independent of their effect on alienation from the US government).

A considerable portion of this section deals with the subject of mass immigration. The reason for this is that mass immigration (legal or illegal) has been the principal cause of many of the ills facing the US, and is a primary reason for its imminent collapse. Many works have been written on this topic, and the references cited at the end of the book represent but a small fraction of the total literature on this topic. The subject is a fascinating one because most Americans do not want mass immigration and recognize it as the major factor contributing to the decline in their quality of life, yet the US government has persisted for decades in cramming it down their throats. (Mass immigration may be viewed simply as an aspect of globalization, or it may be considered separately as a part of the larger problem of destruction of US environment, culture and quality of life of the US middle class.)

The US Government No Longer Obeys Its Own Laws

The US Government Refuses to Obey the Constitution’s Mandate to Defend the Country from Invasion

The US government no longer obeys its own laws. It picks and chooses which ones it wants to enforce. This is not just a minor infringement, such as ignoring fraternity-house drinking, or failing to collect sales taxes from a neighborhood garage sale, or failing to enforce “no-loitering” signs. It is a flagrant, blatant violation of fundamental laws and responsibilities. The major example of this is massive illegal immigration, which is destroying the quality of life of the middle class and the country’s security. Illegal immigration is illegal – against the law – but the US government chooses not to enforce this law. In fact, many of its policies encourage and promote continued and increased illegal immigration. The US president takes an oath to uphold the US Constitution and defend the country from invasion. He is bound by oath to prevent the invasion of illegal aliens, but he does nothing. The current US president, George W. Bush, is guilty of treason in his inactions and actions with respect to illegal immigration. He could immediately stop virtually all illegal immigration in a week or so by taking any number of measures, such as by placing machine guns along our southern border with Mexico. Instead, he does nothing. He refuses to enforce laws against illegal immigration, he condones giving social and economic benefits to illegal aliens, he supports the jailing of border patrol agents who are effective in doing their jobs, he supports birthright citizenship for babies born to criminal alien invaders of our country, and he supports giving illegal aliens amnesty and a “path to citizenship.”

It is not just George W. Bush who, as US president, has condoned, supported and encouraged mass illegal immigration, but every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is not just the US presidents who support illegal immigration, but also most members of Congress. Our recent presidents and congressional leaders have condoned the invasion of the United States by millions of illegal aliens. An estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now reside in the US, plus millions more of their birthright-citizenship children. This is a massive invasion. It is destroying the culture and the country. And the US president and most political leaders condone it or actively support it.

The US Government Aids and Abets Illegal Aliens

Recently, former-Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York attempted to give New York driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. This is completely illegal, since it aids and abets the staying of illegal aliens in the US. The federal government took no steps to stop him or even oppose him. Once again, the motive for this move was money. At the present time, businesses cannot use illegal-alien drivers for their vehicles, since standard automobile insurance does not cover them. But if the illegal aliens are issued driver’s licenses by the state, then insurance claims cannot be denied by the insurance companies for accidents caused by illegal-alien drivers. As is the case in many other sectors of the economy, the government is placing US middle class citizens in direct competition with foreigners earning a fraction of their wages. Spitzer’s attempt to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens was not only blatantly illegal, but it would also have caused serious economic harm to US citizens who are professional drivers. It could have led to massive voter fraud, since a driver’s license is now accepted in many instances as proof of residency (following passage of “motor-voter” laws by many states). Apart from being of direct benefit to illegal aliens, including terrorists, it benefits only the wealthy elite.

The economic harm that would have been caused to US citizens was bad enough, but that would have been a minor cost compared to the fact that the governor of New York was flaunting the law in aiding and abetting illegal aliens, and the federal government was quite complicit in his actions. Our leaders (political, religious and other) are in thrall to the wealthy elite and want illegal aliens to stay in the US. They want to continue to provide them social and economic benefits (paid for mainly by the US middle class), birthright citizenship for their children born in the US, amnesty for their crime, and a path to US citizenship. Illegal aliens cause much economic harm to US citizens, who must compete with their low wages. They cause much harm to the quality of life of US citizens, through overcrowding and the destruction of natural land caused to create space and provide infrastructure for them. Each year, illegal aliens kill more US citizens (by murder and accidents) than US soldiers die in the war in Iraq.

Spitzer pressed hard for driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, and the US government did nothing to deter him. Public anger grew over this outrage, however, to the point where the governor eventually had to back down. An important voice in bringing attention to this issue and continuing to focus on it was Lou Dobbs, on his television program CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight.

In its campaign in support of more illegal immigration, the government tells many lies, promotes many deceptions, and engages in many subterfuges. One of Spitzer’s deceptions was that the roads would be safer if illegal aliens were licensed. This is so misleading! In his assertion, he is implicitly assuming the premise that the illegal aliens should be here. The roads would be far safer if the illegal aliens were simply deported, as, under the law, they should be! If the illegal aliens were not present, the issue of granting lenses to them would be irrelevant. Considering the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens is absurd. Can you imagine how many other countries in the world are considering this issue? None! In the eyes of the world’s nations, the US a bizarre laughing stock for allowing this to happen – the US people, that is, whose culture, environment and quality of life are being destroyed – not the US government, which is willingly throwing all of this away in its quest to serve the wealthy elite. (See Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation (1995) for more on this.)

It was recently reported (CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, 7 April 2008) that law enforcement personnel in Arizona have a policy of releasing illegal-alien drug smugglers caught with less than 500 pounds of illegal drugs in their possession. It was reported that, under this policy, 99.6 percent of all drug smugglers are released – a prosecution rate of .4 percent! Once again, the government is simply refusing to enforce the country’s laws. Can you imagine – all this in the face of the imprisonment of two Border Patrol agents on the testimony of an illegal-alien drug smuggler, and President Bush’s stubborn refusal to pardon the imprisoned agents. The criminalization of drugs and the resultant “war on drugs” generates massive amounts of economic activity, and the government works hard to keep it alive and well.

If the world situation had instantly changed dramatically, you might expect that, in an emergency or knee-jerk reaction the government might temporarily fail to enforce some laws. But the blatant refusal of the government to enforce immigration laws has been going on for decades on a massive scale. The most serious aspect of it is that it is being done solely for the benefit of the wealthy elite who run the country, at the expense of the middle class. The quality of life for the rich continues to rise, as they become ever more wealthy, and the quality of life for the American middle class is being destroyed as a direct result. The most important wealth that the US middle class possessed was a low population density in a land abundant in natural beauty. The joy from that wealth – the land and nature – could have lasted for eons. But it is now largely gone, and frequent enjoyment of it is out of reach of the average citizen. The US government and the wealthy who control it have destroyed this for the US middle class.

Civil Rights and Affirmative Action; Malcolm X

Some History of Affirmative Action (Racial Preferences)

In 1964 the US government passed comprehensive civil rights legislation. In the years that followed, it passed an elaborate and oppressive system of “affirmative action,” or “positive,” or “reverse” discrimination. The objective of this legislation was to give blacks an advantage to “make up for” the oppression and discrimination that they or their ancestors had experienced in the US over the past centuries. At first, the concept was to provide equal opportunity for the blacks (and other minorities, as the law was extended to include about every group except able white heterosexual males). As time passed, it became clear that equality of opportunity did not translate into equality of outcome, which is in fact what the government wanted. When it turned out that blacks made limited progress under the “equal opportunity” concept, the system was changed to a de facto quota system – if a firm did not have proportional representation of minorities, this situation was taken as prima facie evidence of discrimination – the firm is guilty until proved innocent. At that point, whites saw a noticeable number of jobs, contracts and college admissions being awarded to minorities, including some who were less able, and resentment mounted.

When affirmative action began, the largest minority in the country was blacks, and they represented about ten percent of the population. Affirmative action had the immediate effect of alienating 90 percent of the population, to provide special privileges to ten percent. Because of the small numbers of blacks, however, this situation was “manageable.” Under mass immigration, however, the proportion of minorities began to swell. Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and other groups were included in the definition of protected minorities. When females were defined to be “minorities” for the purpose of affirmative action, white males became a small minority themselves, forced to “stand in line” behind all others. The system of affirmative action caused massive resentment, and among the country’s most able – and aggressive – class.

Today, while the economic picture has improved dramatically for blacks, they still lag behind whites in income and wealth. (As Noam Chomsky has pointed out (in The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993)), much of the “racial” difference is in fact attributable to class differences, but it is not politically correct to acknowledge class differences in the United States.) Despite almost half a century of affirmative action, blacks have still not achieved parity, and the government’s program of reverse discrimination continues. They stand out among all other racially or ethnically defined minority groups, such as Jews and Asians, in this respect. An unfortunate aspect of this is that they assert that their continued inability to achieve parity, even after two generations of affirmative action, is due to racism and racial discrimination. Senator Barack Obama’s recent speech (March 18, 2008) on racism in America added fuel to the fire. After a half century of standing aside to provide special privileges to blacks, white America is fed up. It does not want to hear continued whining about racism, when the US government has discriminated against the once-dominant majority (white males) for half a century. Enough is enough.

The United States was not founded for blacks, Asians, Hispanics, French, Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Asians or any other minority. It was founded by and for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. As Chomsky observed (op. cit.), “Thomas Jefferson’s goal, at the very left-liberal end of the spectrum, was to create a country ‘free of blot or mixture’ – meaning no red Indians, no black people, just good white Anglo-Saxons. That’s what the liberals wanted. They didn’t succeed. They did pretty much get rid of the native population – they almost succeeded in ‘exterminating’ them (as they put it in those days) – but they couldn’t get rid of the black population, and over time they’ve had to incorporate them in some fashion into society.” The white citizens of the United States have done much to accommodate other minorities. They abolished slavery. They have given them equal representation in Congress. They have gone to great lengths to include them in the economy. They have granted minorities special privileges and grants-in-aid that are not available to themselves. As the controlling majority in a country founded by their ancestors, they did not have to do any of these things. No one held a gun to their heads. They were gracious to do so. It is high time for the whining to stop.

US blacks have not fought for their freedom. They did not force whites to set them free, and the “fight” for black civil rights was in fact a peaceful supplication (nonviolent protest / demonstration). Haiti’s blacks rebelled in the early 1800’s and slaughtered their former masters, the white plantation owners. Their former masters had no choice in granting the slaves’ freedom – the slaves took it. Their freedom was gained on the field of battle, and was unequivocally earned. The message from this history that anyone who tries to take their freedom away will be killed. The Mau Maus in Kenya acted similarly – they slaughtered their white masters until they got fed up and relinquished control or left. US blacks, in contrast, did not gain their freedom from slavery by their own efforts or will, but were granted freedom by the whites. The US blacks gained their freedom not from their own combat, but from whites fighting whites in the US’ bloodiest war – the War Between the States – in which a million citizens died. Because they did not establish their freedom by forcing their former masters to set them free, they will never feel free. They can take pride in many things, including their suffering and endurance, and they can take pride in the fact that their race has survived for a million years, but they cannot take pride in having been granted freedom instead of taking it. (At some point, they may take pride in inheriting the Earth – along with the Jews? the Russians? the Synarchists?) If you take your freedom by force, your former master will respect you. If he grants you your freedom, he will always remember that you are free by his choice, not by your will, power, or action. You will never have significant respect, either from your former master or from anyone else.

When I worked in Zambia a few years ago, the local people took pride in the fact that their ancestors successfully resisted Shaka’s Zulus, in the latter’s war of conquest in the nineteenth century. This is a defining characteristic of their culture. They make sure that you know it. The descendents of Shaka’s Zulus make sure that you know that they defeated the British in the first major engagement. In today’s pacifist world people may speak disapprovingly of war, but all peoples take pride in the courage and battles of their ancestors.

The key to respect is being willing to kill and to die to acquire and defend your freedom. It does not necessarily have to be on the battlefield, but this is an unequivocal way of establishing your will and ability. The Jews conquered America by cunning without the use of arms (which would have been ineffective), but they are demonstrably willing to kill and to die for their cause (Zionism). Their approach was very effective, and they can take pride in their accomplishment. They wanted Palestine and they took it. They needed the US to further their cause and defend it, and so they conquered it, too. They do not beg for their homeland – they kill for it. (While I have admiration for their Machiavellian ways, I have contempt for their hypocrisy. They have no problem in visiting genocide on others – a practice which is enshrined in their holy books – but they whine when genocide is visited upon them, as in Hitler’s Germany. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They founded the modern state of Israel using the tools of assassination, terrorism and ethnic cleansing but they complain bitterly of the use of terrorism by others against them. They make use of assassination and apartheid as tools to further their state, yet they cry “foul” at the use of these tools by others against them. They pressed for mass immigration from all cultures into the US (the Immigration Act of 1965), but adamantly refuse to allow mass migration of non-Jews to Israel (or allow any level of migration of non-Jews to Israel).) (See references in the section on Fractionated Culture.)

Malcolm X’s Views on Affirmative Action

In the twentieth century, US blacks gained additional civil rights by passive means, under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X had a lot to say about this approach. The following quotations are from Malcolm X’s speeches from the recording (tape cassette and compact disk) Malcolm X: An NPRâ Presentation (P) 1992 by Dove Audio, 301 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210).

“No Negro leaders have fought for civil rights. They have begged for civil rights. They have begged the white man for civil rights. They have begged the white man for freedom. And any time you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something that you have to do for yourselves. And until the American Negro lets the white man know that we are really really ready and willing to pay the price that is necessary for freedom, our people will always be walking around here second-class citizens, or what you call twentieth-century slaves.”

“It’s not so good to refer to what you are going to do as a sit-in. That right there castrates you. Right there it brings you down. What goes with it? Think of the image of someone sitting. An old woman can sit. An old man can sit. A chump can sit. A coward can sit. Anything can sit. Well, you and I have been sitting long enough, and it’s time today for us to start doing some standing, and some fighting to back that up.”

“This is part of what’s wrong with you. You do too much singing. Today it’s time to stop singing and start swinging. There’ll be a hot time in the old town, with regret, with great regret…. It looks like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet.”

Malcolm X realized that a culture can never be truly free, be unequivocally proud of its heritage, and command general respect unless its ancestors earned their freedom on the field of battle. If someone “gives” you your freedom, it is assumed that he can just as well take it away, and you are not free at all. You are free by the grace of your former master, and at best, you are “conditionally” free – apparently free, but not unequivocally free. But other US Negroes did not want to hear this, and so they killed Malcolm X. He was the most charismatic, powerful, on-the-mark Negro leader ever to emerge in the US, and he was gunned down by his own people (or would it be more correct to say by black Islamists?).

Americans are chagrined at hearing charges of discrimination and racism from American blacks, who have been the beneficiaries of reverse discrimination – economic and political largesse – for over four decades. Two full generations of US blacks have been given tremendous opportunity and assists, and yet some of their leaders continue to complain of their shoddy treatment of yesterday and poor station of today. One cannot help but notice that some other nonwhite minorities, such as Jews and Asians, have done just fine, with or without affirmative action, and despite earlier oppression (e.g., the use of Chinese coolies to construct the US railroad system). Perhaps it is time for black leaders to start pointing a finger at current black culture, or at continued participation in an emasculating and family-destroying affirmative action program, as possible reasons why US blacks as a whole continue to fare poorly after decades of affirmative action. Over the years, I have worked with many blacks in Africa who were quite capable – and proud. I know that they are to some extent puzzled and chagrined and embarrassed that, after forty years of affirmative action, their brothers and sisters in the US still complain of their poor treatment and station in the US. (They cannot be too vocal in this criticism, however, in view of the fact that most “black” countries are heavily dependent on international economic and humanitarian assistance (most of it caused, of course, from the massive debt resulting from compound-interest loans from the developed world).) Today’s US blacks would do well to look to the example set by Malcolm X. He didn’t complain – he blasted! He heaped scorn on sit-ins and other passive-resistance actions. He commanded respect. In any event, the US government’s handling of civil rights, and its implementation of affirmative action, has generated much hostility among the once-dominant culture of white Protestants.

(Malcolm X had interesting views on the divine nature of the races. He attributed the problem between blacks and whites to the fact that the white race is inherently evil. This would appear to align with the views of Zulu sangoma (sanusi, shaman) Credo Mutwa and others that the whites are Nordic or Nordic-Reptilian aliens (mzungus), and the blacks (mudugavus) are true natives of Earth.)

The US Government Punishes Native US Citizens and Lets Illegal Aliens Flaunt the Law

Illegal aliens are criminals. They are criminal invaders. They have willfully violated US law and invaded our country. Not only does the US government refuse to deport them, but it welcomes them, provides them benefits, and encourages them to come and to stay. Police are routinely forbidden to ask people their legal status. Border patrol agents such as Ignacio Ramos and José Compean, who are effective in doing their jobs, are jailed – in this outrageous case on the testimony of a criminal alien-invader drug smuggler who was given immunity from prosecution to testify against them. Illegal aliens are given medical care at our emergency rooms, and nothing is done when they do not pay for these services. They have babies by the hundreds of thousands in our hospitals. Not only do they routinely not pay for the medical bills, but our government grants their children – the children of criminal invaders of our country – birthright citizenship. For years, illegal aliens have entered time and time again, and they are simply released. They were deported only for crimes other than illegal immigration! If they were deported and they returned, they were simply deported again. No effective action has been taken by our government to stem the flow of illegal aliens.

But what if a US citizen breaks the law? This is quite a different story. He is punished to the full extent of the law. An illegal alien invades our country and is ultimately responsible for the destruction of an acre of natural land, through its conversion to infrastructure to accommodate his presence. The US government rewards him by granting birthright citizenship to his children born in this country. An illegal alien is a heavy-duty criminal, but the US government rewards him with free economic, social and medical services – as well as living space and use of infrastructure and citizenship for his progeny. But a US citizen who breaks the law and is caught is invariably punished – he is expected to obey all the laws. The US government treats illegal aliens better than its own citizens. Why would it do this? Because this benefits the wealthy ruling elite. The US has adopted a policy of growth-based economics. It wants the population to grow by about one percent every year, because this generates more income and wealth for the wealthy elite. It wants untrammeled immigration because this supports globalization. It does not matter to the government or the wealthy elite that the land is being destroyed, that American culture is being destroyed, and that the US middle class is being destroyed. All the government and its wealthy masters care about is the money, and more illegal aliens mean more money. Every quarter, the US President crows about increased employment and other measures of growth, such as new-home starts. Growth, growth, growth. That is all that matters to the government and its masters. Growth that is destroying the biosphere. Growth that is placing billions of people in abject poverty. Growth that is leading the country and the world to total destruction. How long will this insanity continue?

The US government maintains a double standard. It refuses to deter, apprehend and deport illegal alien invaders, while hunting down, prosecuting and punishing US citizens to the fullest extent of the law. Figure that one out! It would appear that the general policy of the US government is that only citizens can be lawbreakers. (This would appear to complement its policy that only whites can be racist.)

The government wants mass immigration period, whether legal or illegal. It actually prefers to have a certain level of illegal immigration, because this serves US business interests (illegal aliens are criminals-on-the-run and as such are much easier to control and may be paid less). In any event, the government has adopted a population policy of a population growth rate of about one percent per year, or about three million per year, of which two thirds is currently illegal immigration. If the electorate is in fact able to shame the government into cracking down on illegal immigration (e.g., because it is such a blatant, hypocritical and contemptuous display of total disregard for the law on the part of the government), the government simply boosts the amount of legal immigration or implements amnesty (the current euphemism being “a path to citizenship”). It has been following this policy for decades. Our immigration system is an open doorway – actually, a revolving doorway for those few who are deported, since they easily return. The US government processes immigrants, who destroy our country, environment and culture, as fast as it possible can. It is hard to imagine that the US government could process legal immigrants any faster than is currently being done – about a million a year!

US citizens are being imprisoned for terms of many years – up to life imprisonment – for crimes such as having sex with minors, operating poker machines, and using psychotropic drugs such as marijuana. It even imprisons Border Patrol agents who are effective in doing their jobs.