The Charity Sham:
The super-rich like to be seen to be associated with “good causes”. Charity? It might as well have been invented by the public relations teams of the ultra-rich. Let’s be clear about this. Charity is an abomination. It should be made illegal.
Someone sent this message to us:
“A question about Inheritance Tax still troubles me: what if the person passes on property while he/she is still living? For example, if Mr. Hilton passes on his property to Paris Hilton before his death. This would be unmeritorious and yet I don’t think anyone would have a right to tell him who he can or can’t give his property to. If he can donate to charity, can he donate to his kids? Please help in clearing this up.”
It is regarded as shameful to have to rely on others to support you i.e. to accept welfare. The implicit moral rule is that it is wrong not to be able to stand on your two feet and support yourself. This is a perfectly sensible moral rule. It’s strange then, is it not, for you to so readily accept the propaganda that it’s OK and moral for an adult to have to rely on others – namely their parents – to support them (in particularby gifting them a property asset that they did not earn through their own efforts and toil). Why is that not shameful too? And what if you don’t have parents who can pass on a valuable asset to you? Why should anyone accept being placed at a massive disadvantage to others, based on the relative wealth of their parents, an issue over which no child has any control?
You have to adopt a much harder line regarding your meritocratic thinking. There’s nothing for which to apologize to non-meritocrats. When you talk about rich parents handing on enormously valuable assets to their children, that is completely unacceptable in any meritocratic society. Full stop. If what you suggest were permitted then every person on their deathbed would transfer all of their assets to a living relative and thus bypass the 100% inheritance tax, thus defeating the central platform of meritocracy.
A person who has a property can sell it in a legitimate transaction for the market price, but it would be against the law for anyone to “gift” property to someone else. A meritocratic society has an absolute right and duty to prevent anti-meritocratic transactions from taking place.
Your question reveals that you are still locked into old-world, antimeritocratic thinking. You still believe that rich parents should be allowed to pass on advantages to their children that are denied to the children of poor parents. It is never acceptable. It is always shameful. If a meritocratic society is brought into being then of course it has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their assets if it may involve the undermining of meritocracy.
It seems that you spend a lot of time looking for what’s potentially wrong with meritocracy in order to support the status quo of rich, privileged people being allowed to keep everyone else in the gutter by transferring wealth amongst themselves indefinitely.
You really have to ask yourself if you are genuinely sympathetic to meritocracy. Your question reflects an alarming predisposition to the rules of our present, anti-meritocratic world where the actions of the Elite go unchallenged. Forget Paris Hilton. How many people in the world have wealthy parents able to give them a lucrative resource? The meritocratic rule couldn’t be simpler. If it’s not available to all then it can’t be allowed to be available to anyone. Why should there be one rule for the rich and a different rule for everyone else? Why\ should there be a two-tier society?
Any political system has victims. In a meritocracy, it is the rich elite who are the victims. Fuck them! They have no right whatever to use their wealth as a weapon against others. Why should they be allowed to flout meritocracy by keeping assets permanently under their control? The whole point of meritocracy is to allow everyone to be given the maximum chance to flourish. You can allow individuals to become rich and enjoy a prosperous life. You cannot allow them to pass on that wealth to their nearest and dearest; otherwise you’ll end up with the privileged, anti-meritocratic world of today. In other words, those people who become rich in a meritocratic society will indeed be “told” that they can’t transfer their wealth to their children. If you think that’s an infringement of their “civil liberties” then become a libertarian.
“And yet I don’t think anyone would have a right to tell him who he can or can’t give his property to.”
You will never be a meritocrat if you don’t think that the laws of meritocracy should instantly make it illegal for anyone to gift their property to family members. The society of privilege enshrines this rule that you apparently hold in such high regard. Whose side are you on? You really have to make a decision. It sounds as if you have succumbed to the thinking of the ranting libertarians who believe that society has no right to tell any individual what to do.
Of course society has the right to define what is acceptable and what isn’t. If it didn’t then anarchy would reign. There will always be rules and restrictions. The central issue of good governance is to find the set of rules that gives the maximum number of people the maximum opportunity in life. If that involves telling Mr Hilton what he can or cannot do with his property then bring it on. I don’t have one shred of sympathy for the super rich, just as they don’t for you.
A supporter of privilege, an anarcho-capitalist libertarian or a member of a republic of meritocratic rules? – it’s your choice. If you choose meritocracy then you will never again ask a question like the one you just did. Such a question represents the antithesis of meritocratic thinking and the essence of privilege/libertarianism.
The response was as follows:
“I was alarmed that my stance on these issues was questioned, especially by you. Let there be no doubt that I stand behind The Movement and all of its objectives. I wish for there to be no doubt in anyone’s mind that I do whatever is in my power (often limited by the tight situation I’m in) to promote our goals. Let me clarify exactly why I asked this question:
I was in a debate, promoting meritocracy. I was able to convince the opposing Old World Order supporter that our view was the fair and just view. They accepted this and yet asked the final question that I asked you in my email: if they can donate to charity, would a person with an OWO mindset use the loophole of charity to pass property on to their children?
I was not able to answer this question with confidence. Either I would tell my opponent that charity would not be acceptable in a meritocratic society, or I’d say charity would be acceptable (with the full knowledge that people would take advantage of it…which of course is unacceptable).
I perhaps presented the question incorrectly, due to the lack of sleep, but what my question should have asked is something along the lines of what is the role of charity in a Meritocratic Govt? I hope you can see how this question was a tough one even for me, a staunch meritocrat whose conscience permits acts of charity. Thus I came to you for guidance, to guide me along the correct and noble path because I was lost at that time.
I am one of the strongest supporters of M, and I will make sure I prove myself through my merit.”
We are totally opposed to charity. If something is worthwhile, government should support it. If it’s not worthwhile, who cares about it? Charity is used as an active weapon by the OWO. All charity events seem to be five-star functions at swanky venues where the “great and good” get together to scratch each other’s backs and make a pretence of caring about others. If they’re so concerned about others then why not spend the night working in a soup kitchen rather than having a luxury meal with copious champagne, and catching up with all their fellow ultra-rich good friends? The whole charity industry reeks of corruption and propaganda on behalf of the rich.
On a technical point, how could a charity donation be compared with passing on a resource to a family member? In one instance you are ostensibly giving your money to a “good cause”, in the other you’re giving it to your own flesh and blood. Those two situations have nothing in common. One could be deemed to be altruistic; the other certainly couldn’t. It’s hard to see how the question makes any sense, unless you were somehow designating children as a “charity”, which would be ridiculous.
Charity has no place in a meritocratic society. It’s up to people how they spend their money, but a meritocratic government would certainly intervene if it reached the conclusion that “charities” were being used to promote privilege and networks of mutual back scratchers. If charities gained no kudos in society, and were of no use to the rich, they would rapidly disappear. Good riddance.
The very nature of meritocracy is to support each other and maximize everyone’s potential. No one should have any need of charity. Charity is what you get in iniquitous societies where millions of people are victims of how the nation is being governed by the rich. There comes a time when questions have to be converted into convictions. Once you are truly of a meritocratic mindset, you won’t be troubled by questions such as the one you have raised. Everything will be different in a meritocracy. There will be no need for charity. The government will support all good causes.
If we sound as though we are being harsh and tough, that’s what the hour demands. If someone like you is going to become all that you can be, you need to make sure that you are a fiery orator full of conviction. If you can’t answer fairly basic questions in your own mind, how will you be able to convince others? You need to find an extra layer of strength. Don’t let others put you off. Once you have meritocracy in your blood, once it’s fully internalised, then go on the attack. Never be on the defensive. It’s those who support the world as it is now who need to be on the backfoot. How could any sane person justify the world we live in now?
It’s worth emphasising a few points concerning charity. In the original Live Aid concerts to help the starving people of Ethiopia, it was discovered that many of the featured bands registered enormous rises in their record sales in the days and weeks afterwards. Some relaunched their flagging careers.
Did all of that extra money get channelled to Ethiopia? Did it hell. And that tells you all you need to know about the real charity sentiments of these people. If they cared a damn they would have given away all of the unexpected extra cash. Instead, they enjoyed the ultimate win-win scenario. They were lauded as great, caring heroes AND they became much richer. That has been the template ever since. Musicians fight to get featured in major charity gigs, not because they care about anyone other than themselves, but because they can get top-notch PR and increased record sales. What’s not to like? It’s astounding how many suckers fall for this cynical game.
Five-star extravaganzas in the name of charity? What is THAT all about? Why not give all the money for the five-star event to charity? Oh, but that would be no fun for the rich, would it? They want to wear their finest designer gear, eat the finest food, drink the most expensive champagne and snort the best Columbian cocaine in the name of “charity”. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Let them eat cake,” cackled Queen Marie Antoinette, when she heard news that the starving hordes in Paris were demanding bread. In fact, she was the one eating the cake, just as all the rich people do while the poor starve.
Charity is a branch of public relations and brand positioning. Celebrities and the super-rich consult with their brand managers before deciding what causes to support. It’s all about business and nothing to do with genuine charity. Photographers and fawning journalists are always on hand at these charity consumption-fests to tell us how wonderful and generous the rich are. Who can stomach the irony of bloated billionaires having five-star meals and then signing cheques for the starving people of Pakistan?
Recently, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and super investor Warren Buffett announced, to great fanfare, The Giving Pledge whereby a number of the Ultra Rich have promised to surrender a portion of their wealth. Well, if you were worth $10 billion, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for you to give away $5 billion, would it? Why applaud?
It’s not as if they’re plunging themselves and their families into penury. What sacrifice have they made? What suffering have they endured? Have their lifestyles changed one iota as a result of their gesture? This is obscene posturing, nothing more. These people have the cheek to call themselves “philanthropists” (lovers of humanity). In fact, their conduct proves the opposite. They despise humanity. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are said to have a combined wealth of $90 billion. Two men with greater wealth than entire countries! How is such a thing possible? Who permits it? Imagine how many kids from ghettoes could have been given the finest of educations, and a real chance in life, if they had been given the $90 billion of Gates and Buffett. What is wrong with people that they think it is good, moral and healthy to allow two men to acquire $90 billion? It’s criminal and obscene. It’s an attack on the poor, and an insult to meritocracy.
In America, charity is a key component of tax planning (!) and allows the super-rich to avoid paying the taxman. When charity is tied to preferential tax treatment, it is no longer charity.
Many charity bosses are paid extravagant salaries – the market rate, they say. Funny, that. You wouldn’t have thought that charities would be quoting market rates. Aren’t they supposed to be higher-minded than that? But no, they’ve got their snouts wedged in the gilt lined money trough like all the other pigs.
“Chuggers” (short for “charity muggers”) is the name for hustlers stopping you in the street to try to get you to contribute to charity. Here’s the way the system works. They approach you in the street and say, “Just 30 seconds of your time.” (Yeah, right!) Or they say, “I’m not looking for any money.” (Yeah, right!). Their task is to charm, flirt, cajole, emotionally blackmail – or whatever else works – to get you to agree to set up a direct debit in which, say, 15 dollars gets removed from your account each month from then on. These people are always wearing a T-shirt advertising a particular charity, but they’re not volunteers for the charity. They are paid employees of a private company, but they never acknowledge that fact. The whole of your first year’s contributions to the charity will in fact get nowhere near the charity. Your Year One contributions all go to the private company, the chief executive of which is a millionaire driving a Ferrari supercar. And this is meant to be about charity?!
These professional hustlers change their T-shirt every day. One day they might be representing a heart foundation, the next a cancer charity, the next a charity for the homeless and so on. They don’t care what charity it is. They use the same spiel every time. They cordon off both ends of a street so you are forced to pass them, and they bound up to you in typical extravert fashion, demanding that you interact with them. Many people have said that they cross the street to avoid them. Many people say that they feel pressured into signing. Many people who do in fact sign up, cancel before the first year is up, in which case NO money reaches the charity. Some charities have stopped using chuggers because of their bad reputation.
This is the true nature of the charity industry – a slick, dishonest con machine using high pressure sales techniques to, ultimately, furnish fast cars for playboy CEOs. No one in their right mind would contribute to a charity.
What about this for a typical charity event: Naomi Campbell (the supermodel) and Mia Farrow (the actress) attended a luxury dining event hosted by Nelson Mandela (the politician). Also present was Charles Taylor, the president of Liberia (put on trial at the Hague, accused of supplying rebels in Sierra Leone with weapons in exchange for “blood diamonds”). Apparently, Taylor was captivated by the supermodel and tried to win her favour by giving her a bag of blood diamonds, or a huge cut diamond (depending on whose story you believe). This is the charity business in a nutshell: starstruck politicians mixing with celebrities seeking “gravitas” and trying to hit on supermodels by giving them diamonds. Where’s the charity in this sleazy little scene? It’s all self-service and no public service.
Charity has nothing to do with good causes. It’s about politics, posturing, networking, brand management and PR. It’s a con job. The whole thing is a racket. Don’t let them fool you. Don’t play their game. These people aren’t helping humanity. They are the problem, not the solution.
Remember the Golden Rule. If it’s worthwhile, it should be properly funded by government. If it’s not worthwhile, who cares? Either way, there’s no need for the charity charade.
Revalue all values!
The Banks versus The People:
Who controls the economy of a democracy? Is it the elected government, accountable to the people, or the banks which are run by unelected, unaccountable, private individuals, offering no representation whatever to the people?
Who caused the credit crunch? The bankers.
Who prospered during the boom years? The bankers.
Who still got fat bonuses during the recession? The bankers.
Who controls the economy? The bankers.
Who has no say in how the banks are run? The people.
Shouldn’t the people be out on the streets yelling, “No taxation without representation!” and “No banking without representation!” Banks should be in the service of the people, their specific remit being to grow the economy in the interests of the people. Banks should not have a separate agenda of enriching shareholders and the senior banking staff as much as possible, with no heed to the interests of the people. Banks are a state within a state, a fifth column that continually subverts government. They are not run by the people for the people, and their agenda is often that of the opposite of the public good, so why are they tolerated by the people?
All banks should be brought under the direct control of the people, and should invest in the people to bring about increased prosperity for all, not for a select group of rich shareholders and bosses (the rich getting richer). Banks are vehicles for the rich. They should become arteries of public financial health and prosperity. No banks should be permitted to engage in any economically destabilising, speculative, casino operations designed to make money from money rather than from real goods and services in the real economy. Banks and the economy should be precisely aligned with the same objectives – the increasing wealth of the entire population through investment in the talents of the people.
Banks that serve the interests only of a privileged minority cannot be tolerated. Such banks are subversive of the public good. If the people want to have control over their destiny, they must have control over the economy, hence they must control the banks. It’s crazy that the banking system, by which the economy stands or falls, is outwith public control. Why is that? Because the Old World Order – the elite, dynastic families that have always ruled the world – deliberately make sure the control of wealth is beyond the reach of the people. The reality of power is the control of money. A democratic government that does not control the banks is not in control of the country, so elections are meaningless. It’s as simple as that.
All banks should be under the supervision of a Supreme Economic Council of publicly appointed economists, accountable to the people. One of their specific tasks should be to prevent any repetition of boom and bust economic cycles, all of which are caused by speculative, “get richer quicker” schemes by the rich. The rich, time and time again, have proved themselves the enemies of the people. Why do the people tolerate being second-class citizens in their own country?
The current banking system is the central instrument of policy, control and strategy of the Old World Order. While they retain control of money, their power can never be challenged. Therefore their control of money must be ended. The people must be in charge of the money. CEOs presiding over financial institutions that degenerate into chaos, destabilising the economy in the process, should be jailed. At the moment, CEOs responsible for catastrophes have walked away with enormous pay-offs. What kind of message does that send out? If people in the real world have lost their jobs because of the gross incompetence and recklessness of bankers then these “masters of the universe” should be prosecuted with the newly defined crime of “reckless endangerment and theft of another’s livelihood.” If hordes of the super-rich found themselves behind bars, their excesses would be curbed instantly.
Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, admitted in an interview that bankers’ salaries were “astonishingly high”. Then he said that RBS could not attract the best staff without paying excessive wages. “If we don’t pay our top people, they leave very quickly,” he added. Of course, just as graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable, so are the corridors of banks full of people who think they’re crucial but who could, in reality, be easily replaced. How can a bank ever know if it has the “top people” or not? If it sacked all of its senior staff, replaced them with new meritocratic graduates and doubled its profits then it would be proof that their original staff were not the top people. But it will never do that, so the question of who is “top” can never be properly answered. It’s no more than a convenient opinion, an untested hypothesis. It’s no kind of objective fact, but it certainly suits bankers to keep perpetuating the myth of how essential they are, and paying themselves accordingly.
It is estimated that lawyers and administrators working on the winding down of the American and international operations of Lehman Brothers will eventually reach $4 billion. Nice money for the vultures feeding on the carcass. Why should any bank be allowed to reach the scale where it costs billions simply to shut it down? All of these banking leviathans should be broken up into much smaller units. Nothing should be too big to fail. When it becomes too big, it is tacitly underwritten by the taxpayer, and that’s just the way the OWO want it. They want to be holding a gun to the taxpayers’ heads so that the taxpayers have no option but to bail them out in times of trouble. The whole thing is a protection racket, a means of extorting money from taxpayers. It’s the Mafia as Wall Street executives. No taxpayer is ever asked if they want to sign up for this. Who cares what the taxpayers think? They are irrelevant in the gangster world of the OWO. Stalin liked to ask how many divisions the Pope had, implying that the Pope was irrelevant without an army to back him up. The super-rich ask how many billions the ordinary person has. If you don’t have any, you are nothing, and no one cares what the hell you say about anything. Isn’t it time taxpayers acquired a real voice and made themselves heard?
If it Quacks like a Duck:
Zionist bankers payroll American politics, resulting in a grotesque level of American support for the State of Israel, which violently stole the land of Palestinians, just as their ancestors violently stole the land of Canaan at the behest of their brutal war god Yahweh. 9/11 was caused by American support for Zionism. There would have been no 9/11 and no “War on Terror” if America had adopted the sensible position of remaining neutral in relation to Israel. Zionism has been a catastrophe for America, dragging it into costly wars that have made it one of the most unpopular nations in the world, just as hated as Israel is for its war crimes against the Palestinians. Gaza is effectively a concentration camp, or a walled-up ghetto like the ones the Jews themselves were once forced to endure by the Nazis.
Unfortunately, the Muslims are as bad as the Jews. “Truthers” often condemn us for not taking their side over 9/11. Let’s be clear about this. Anyone who seriously thinks that Mossad or the CIA/FBI/Special Forces carried out 9/11 rather than fanatical Muslims on a martyrdom operation is a nutcase. The Bush government was an abomination. Zionism is an ongoing abomination. That does not mean that 9/11 was an American or Jewish operation. People seem to forget that Islamic fundamentalism is also an abomination and is one of the most dangerous and evil forces in the modern world. Muslims have carried out thousands of suicide operations in the last forty years. Muslims have hijacked many planes in that period. 9/11 was a martyrdom operation involving planes hijacked by Muslim fanatics. What’s hard to understand?
Everything about 9/11 fitted the precise modus operandi of Islamic radicals. Nothing about it fitted the modus operandi of the CIA/FBI/Mossad. Two plus two equals four, unless you can’t count. Why would anyone in their right mind see 9/11 as anything other than extremist Muslims attacking America for its support of Zionism? Two plus two.
The Muslim extremists who carried out 9/11 had:
1) the motive (hatred of America’s pro-Zionist, anti-Islamic foreign policy).
2) the motivation (a chance to heroically strike back against America and, above, all, to become martyrs).
3) the means (hijacking planes with box cutters and fake bombs).
4) the money (supplied by Osama bin Laden, a very wealthy Arab).
5) the organization (all of the resources of Al Qaeda were put at their disposal).
6) the opportunity (they had lived in America for months beforehand, taking flying lessons).
7) the surprise (no such operation had ever been undertaken before; America was completely unprepared).
8) the track record (thousands of Muslims had carried out suicide bombings; 9/11 simply used hijacked planes as the suicide bombs).
9) the precedent (in 1994 – seven years before 9/11 – Muslim suicide bombers from Algeria hijacked a plane and intended to crash it into the centre of Paris; they were killed by French Special Forces. The 9/11 gang learned all of the lessons of this first bungled attempt.).
10) the prior attempt (in 1993, Muslim fanatics had previously tried to blow up the Twin Towers with a van bomb: this was their No.1 global target).
If that isn’t persuasive enough, what about this list (courtesy of Wikipedia) of Islamic terrorist attacks in the last two decades:
1) 26 February 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, New York City. 6 killed.
2) March 1993 – Bombay bombings. Mumbai, India. 250 dead, 700 injured.
3) 28 July 1994 – Buenos Aires, Argentina. Vehicle suicide bombing attack against AMIA building, the local Jewish community representation. 85 dead, more than 300 injured.
4) 24 December 1994 – Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group of Algeria and another terrorist. 7 killed including 4 hijackers.
5) 25 June 1996 – Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
6) 17 November 1997 – Luxor attack, 6 armed Islamic terrorists attack tourists at Egypt’s famous Luxor Ruins. 68 foreign tourists killed.
7) 14 February 1998 – Bombing in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 13 bombs explode within a 12 km radius. 46 killed and over 200 injured.
8) 7 August 1998 – 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.
9) 4 September 1999 – A series of bombing attacks in several cities of Russia, nearly 300 killed.
10) 12 October 2000 – Attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.
11) 11 September 2001 – 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.
12) 13 December 2001 – Suicide attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organizations, Jaish-EMohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. 7 dead, 12 injured.
13) 27 March 2002 – Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 30 dead, 133 injured.
14) 30 March 2002 and 24 November 2002 – Attacks on the Hindu Raghunath temple, India. Total 25 dead.
15) 7 May 2002 – Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured.
16) 24 September 2002 – Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.
17) 12 October 2002 – Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured.
18) 16 May 2003 – Casablanca Attacks – 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Salafia Jihadia.
19) 11 March 2004 – Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured (alleged link to Al-Qaeda).
20) 1 September 2004 – Beslan school hostage crisis, approximately 344 civilians including 186 children killed.
21) 2 November 2004 – The murder of Theo van Gogh (film director) by Amsterdam-born Jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri.
22) 4 February 2005 – Muslim terrorists attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people.
23) 5 July 2005 – Attack at the Hindu Ram temple at Ayodhya, India; one of the most holy sites of Hinduism. 6 dead.
24) 7 July 2005 – Multiple bombings in London Underground. 52 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.
25) 23 July 2005 – Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.
26) 29 October 2005 – 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings, India. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus, just 2 days before the Diwali festival.
27) 9 November 2005 – 2005 Amman bombings. A series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in Amman, Jordan. Over 60 killed and 115 injured. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved.
28) 7 March 2006 – 2006 Varanasi bombings, India. A series of attacks in the Sankath Mochan Hanuman temple and Cantonment Railway Station in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi. 28 killed and over 100 injured.
29) 11 July 2006 – 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, Mumbai, India; a series of seven bomb blasts that took place over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai. 209 killed and over 700 injured.
30) 14 August 2007 – Qahtaniya bombings: Four suicide vehicle bombers massacred nearly 800 members of northern Iraq’s Yazidi sect in the deadliest Iraq war’s attack to date.
31) 26 July 2008 – 2008 Ahmedabad bombings, India. Islamic terrorists detonate at least 21 explosive devices in the heart of this industrial capital, leaving at least 56 dead and 200 injured. A Muslim group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen claims responsibility. Indian authorities believe that extremists with ties to Pakistan and/or Bangladesh are likely responsible and are intent on inciting communal violence. Investigation by Indian police led to the eventual arrest of a number of terrorists suspected of carrying out the blasts, most of whom belong to a well-known terrorist group, The Students Islamic Movement of India.
32) 13 September 2008 – Bombing series in Delhi, India. Pakistani extremist groups plant bombs at several places including India Gate, out of which the ones at Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Greater Kailash explode leaving around 30 people dead and 130 injured, followed by another attack two weeks later at the congested Mehrauli area, leaving 3 people dead.
33) 26 November 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 174 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India’s largest city and financial capital, Mumbai. A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahedeen claims responsibility, however, the government of India suspects Islamic terrorists based in Pakistan are responsible. Ajmal Kasab, one of the terrorists, was caught alive.
34) 25 October 2009. Baghdad, Iraq. During a terrorist attack, two bomber vehicles detonated in the Green Zone, killing at least 155 people and injuring 520.
35) 28 October 2009 – Peshawar, Pakistan. A car bomb is detonated in a woman exclusive shopping district, and over 110 killed and over 200 injured.
36) 5 November 2009 – Fort Hood shooting, Texas, USA. U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim of Palestinian descent, shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at a U.S. Army base.
37) 3 December 2009 – Mogadishu, Somalia. A male suicide bomber disguised as a woman detonates in a hotel meeting hall. The hotel was hosting a graduation ceremony for local medical students when the blast went off, killing four government ministers as well as other civilians.
38) 25 December 2009 – Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (also referred to as Umar Abdul Mutallab and Omar Farooq al-Nigeri; born December 22, 1986, in Lagos, Nigeria) is a Muslim Nigerian citizen who attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan, on December 25, 2009. He was subsequently charged on six criminal counts, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 289 people.
39) 1 January 2010 – Lakki Marwat, Pakistan. A suicide car bomber drove his explosive-laden vehicle into a volleyball pitch as people gathered to watch a match killing more than 100 people.
40) 1 May 2010 – New York, New York, USA. Faisal Shahzad, an Islamic Pakistani American who received U.S. citizenship in December 2009, attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square working with the Pakistani Taliban or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.
41) 28 May 2010 – Attacks on Ahmadi Mosques Lahore, Pakistan. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed attacks on two mosques simultaneously belonging to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, killing nearly 100 and injuring many others.
Were these all the work of the CIA and Mossad? If not, then why does anyone think Muslim extremist were incapable of carrying out 9/11? If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it’s a duck! 9/11 bore all of the hallmarks of Islamic terrorism. It was entirely in accord with previous Islamic terrorist operations, it was entirely in accord with Islamic threats against America, and it was entirely consistent with all known data concerning Islamic terrorism. So, why is all of this so difficult for “Truthers” to understand and accept? Why is it more credible that Mossad or American Special Forces did it (as part of an elaborate American-Zionist government conspiracy) given the overwhelming and prima facie evidence that it was perpetrated by Muslim Jihadists who had carried out a host of extremely violent attacks against Western targets?
America believed that its fanatical support for Zionism was consequence-free. America thought it was immune from attack on home soil. 9/11 showed that the American understanding of the global political situation could not have been any more simplistic and deluded. The American government was asking for trouble and got it in buckets. Only people with a pathological hatred of the very principle of government would blame government for everything. If you are an ally of the Tea Party, you are no ally of ours. If you are an ally of Osama bin Laden, you are no ally of ours. If you are an ally of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, you are no ally of ours.
So, make your mind up – whose side are you on? Islam? Anarchy? Capitalism? Libertarianism? Or meritocracy – good government in the name of the people.
American support of Zionism is the real issue of 9/11. The idea that on 9/11 the American government hijacked four planes (via remote control or suicidal agents in no need of a pension) and flew them into three targets (but screwed up with the fourth – great plan, guys) is so comical you would need to have taken leave of your senses to believe it for even one second. Sure, it’s always worthwhile to raise the possibility that the government might have done it, but if the evidence just isn’t there then the conspiracy theory has to be abandoned. That’s the rational approach. But the irrationally minded will cling to the theory no matter what.
Many persuasive arguments were put forward to suggest that the American moon landings were faked, but a scientist went through every single point and refuted them all one by one, showing exactly how the fallacies had arisen. If you are a Gnostic, you pursue knowledge. If you are a “believer”, you don’t care about knowledge, about facts, about evidence. 9/11 Truthers are believers. Whatever happened to their internal Devil’s Advocate?
Never forget Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is usually correct. “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.” The amount of “entities” that need to be multiplied to make 9/11 a government plot is astronomical. Bad governments should be held accountable for the many crimes they DID commit, not the imaginary ones they didn’t.
The Tea Party are crazy, racist, anarcho-capitalist libertarians, obsessed with imagined government conspiracies. They despise government in principle. We despise bad government, but we are not against government per se. We are advocates of strong, effective, wise, meritocratic government. Increasingly, we are repulsed by all mention of conspiracy theories because their most fervent advocates are usually members of the Tea Party. The Tea Party regard government as an intrinsic conspiracy against the people.
The Tea Party are extremely dangerous anarchists who want America and the world to become like the old Wild West. They want a restoration of fundamentalist Christian values, the right to go around armed to the teeth, and the right to engage in unregulated ultra-capitalism where markets and private corporations dictate everything. These people are every bit as dangerous as the OWO. In fact they overlap with the OWO in numerous places.
“Truthers” and the Tea Party are virtually synonymous. Their agenda is to undermine the concept of government in order to replace it with their anarcho-capitalism. Why does no one ask questions about their conspiracy? They are massively motivated to blame the government for everything.
It’s one thing to oppose the corrupt, self-serving Washington D.C. establishment, it’s quite another to want to replace government with capitalist markets based on profit-driven, unaccountable private corporations, to replace “Big Government” with “Big Business”. You’d better make sure you know what side you’re on, and for what reasons. It’s not true that your enemy’s enemy is always your friend. Sometimes they can be your enemy too. The Tea Party, just as much as the OWO, represents everything to which we are opposed.
The Philosopher King of the Tea Party is a dead Austrian economist called Friedrich Hayek, a ferocious enemy of the power of the state. His most famous work is The Road to Serfdom in which he argues that under big government we become serfs (he is silent on what we are under big business; worker drones perhaps?). It is now being treated as a holy text. It was a favourite work of the two members of the Old World Order who kick started the recent massive increase in the OWO’s power: Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Thatcher, a truly evil individual, is infamous for saying, “There is no such thing as society.” That is indeed the core position of libertarianism. It’s all about families and individuals operating with ruthless self-interest to try to create a competitive advantage for themselves. It’s the creed of privilege and power. It’s the gospel of hate towards others. In short, it’s the Gospel of Satan. The OWO are two-faced. They support big government if it’s advancing their agenda and controlling the servile masses; they hate state power if it encroaches on their “free market” ideology i.e. their rigged, unregulated cartels. The state is in fact an OWO compromise. If they could get away with doing without it, they would. They need it as part of the illusion of “freedom and democracy”.
Big government is indeed a catastrophe if it resembles what goes on in Washington D.C. – a puppet administration of the OWO, up for sale to the highest bidder, packed with the incompetent beneficiaries of cronyism, nepotism and privilege. But big government of the people and for the people, and operated by the most meritorious of the people is the means to deliver people permanently from serfdom.
Texan Republican Ron Paul, a libertarian presidential candidate at the 2008 election is a huge fan of Hayek. So is his son Rand Paul, Republican Senator for Kentucky. Paul junior is on record as having said that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act that outlawed discrimination against African Americans. His justification was that such an Act contravened strict libertarian dogma because it allowed government interference with private business. If a businessman refused to serve blacks, that was his right. What did it have to do with government? Do you agree with that?
Hayek’s book is often bracketed with Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s monstrous tribute to the super rich. Rand was of Jewish stock and one of her greatest disciples was Alan Greenspan (another Jew), primary architect of the financial meltdown of 2008. Another libertarian hero is the Jewish economist Milton Friedman. Libertarianism is a highly Jewish ideology. For Jews, such an ideology is perhaps understandable since they have a natural revulsion towards state power since it has often been savagely directed against them. Of course, the Zionist-controlled media is more than happy to espouse the libertarian message: more power for Zionist billionaires; less power for any government that seeks to control and regulate Zionist banks and interests. All supporters of libertarianism are, whether they know it or not, serving the agenda of the Zionist super rich against the interests of the people.
Libertarianism is the real mechanism by which the Old World Order hope to seize global control. Libertarianism goes hand in hand with unregulated globalisation: reducing the world’s population to serfdom and slavery in service of the Old Masters – the Old World Order. Everyone who supports Hayek, Rand, Friedman, and libertarianism is an enemy of the people. Libertarianism is a codeword for racism, Zionism, and ultra-capitalism. All supporters of the Old World Order subscribe to it. The libertarians of extreme right wing, racist organisations such as the Tea Party are the shock troops of the OWO, their foot soldiers and water carriers. They are the storm troopers of fascist rule by the Power Elite. We welcome the condemnation of such vile people; if they supported us in any way we would know we were doing something disastrously wrong.
The 9/11 “conspiracy” is the ultimate McGuffin – it’s nothing at all. There’s nothing there. It’s a red herring. Its function, though, is very real. It drives a secondary plot and an entirely different narrative. Its true purpose is to undermine the basis of government – any government, government in principle – and to “reveal” all government as a lethal threat to the people, as an eternal conspiracy. The “Truthers” are anarcho-capitalist libertarians who want to destroy government. They are engaged in a massive and frighteningly dangerous conspiracy to kill government and replace it with enormous corporations acting according to the “market”, and outside any government control or restraint.
In this nightmarish new world, people would be brainwashed drones and droids “owned” by corporate leviathans. There would be no freedom, no hope and no escape. Wake up. See what’s really going on. See past the smoke and mirrors. Ask yourself that ancient question – cui bono? Who will benefit most from the Truthers’ new model of society? The answer is the same one it has always been: big business, the entrenched elite, the privileged few, the men behind the curtain; in short, the Old World Order. It’s the oldest story ever told. Will we go on being suckers forever? Wake up!