Category Archives: News

Murder on the road to Mandalay

October 10, 2017 Peter Censer

The Toll Keeper

“The Killer awoke before dawn…
He put his boots on…
He took a face from the Ancient Gallery…
and He walked on down the Hall…”
Jim Morrison

Someone must be punished
On October 3rd, 2017…Stephen Paddock rented two rooms at the Mandalay Bay Casino overlooking a concert venue. After hoarding an arsenal of weapons, two days later he opened fire on the concert goers below. The Mandalay Bay shootings were the most horrific in the history of gun violence. Some 59 people lost their lives and some 500 hundred others were injured by a lone gun man.

The only person close to him was an Australian woman, of Philippine decent by the name of Marylou Danley. A few days later Danley entered the United States and promised to tell all, vowing that she had no prior knowledge of such a plan, which was meticulous, and that she deeply mourns the loss of all those lives. She claims that she is innocent, and by all accounts seems to be a carefree person having no malice towards anyone.

Yet, While watching CNN yesterday a commentator swore that he was ninety nine percent certain that this woman is in some way guilty of something or other. And that he is nearly certain that her “guilt” will prove to be the key insight into this man’s motivation for shooting all those people. Someone must have helped Paddock…it was just too complex for one person to amass so many guns over thirty years..and to do this by himself? Someone else must have cooperated…someone else must be guilty.

But in reality it seems unlikely that any other person helped him. The woman seems to me, at least from this vantage point to be innocent. Perhaps she was the only one innocent enough to love a man this troubled.

As for the gun collection, and the planning and she being responsible for it in some way it would seem to me that the ordinary person cannot be expected to pry into other people’s affairs. Guns are legal, gun collection is legal, and unless this guy told the woman that he definitely intended to commit a high crime, there is no cause for hanging this woman.

Moreover it is quite possible for anyone to plan and execute an attack of this nature. Its easy actually. We are so used to conspiracy theories today that we cant possibly accept that some people are real good at killing. Real good at executing mass murder on a grand scale. But Someone must be guilty besides the shooter?

There was a certain vehemence with which CNN pursued this woman right after what seemed to be an innocuous statement by her lawyer, that in effect said she had nothing to do with all this and intended to cooperate in any way she could. CNN’s staff seemed to go ballistic, as if there was no chance that she could be telling the truth no matter what. There was no way she could be an innocent. As if someone had to pay, someone must be guilty, even if they were innocent. Someone’s blood must flow besides the killer’s own.

But this is not what a civilized people should want. They should not want blood for blood, innocent or not. If she is guilty of anything then she should be held accountable, but if not, then she should not in any way suffer for it. If she is innocent, she will suffer a lifetime as it is.

Guilt by Association
The reason I mention this at the beginning is because the manner of assigning guilt to dark events as this has some serious implications on our freedoms, and our moral obligations to the society we live in.

We should not be held automatically responsible for what people we know might do. No matter how heinous the crime. If you know a person, even intimately, and it turns out that you had no direct knowledge, or direct responsibility in the action then you are innocent. And must be presumed innocent. Doing otherwise will in effect make us all guilty by association.

Moreover, and more importantly, we should not be liable for not spying on our friends or countrymen. It seemed to me that CNN insisted that she had some kind of obligation to tell the authorities what Paddock was doing. But the truth is there are many people who collect guns in large numbers- wives, girl friends, daughters, brothers or sisters, or just friends and neighbors should not be in the business of ratting on their relations, even on suspicion. If I know someone who collects guns, it should not be up to me to “inform” the police. This is what would be expected in NAZI Germany, not in the United States. This is not serving the interests of freedom or democracy. We are not obligated to “Spy” on our fellow Americans, and we should all resist being goaded into doing so.

If in effect we are all to become liable for whatever crime someone we know commits, our freedom will be impinged upon, and sooner or later we will be living in a police state dictatorship where any failure to rat on our fellow American may become grounds for our own incarceration. If the woman Marylou Danley did not know directly what Paddock was doing then she would not be expected to inform the authorities of his actions. She cannot be expected to be a rat…even if not being a rat should have terrible consequences as in this case. She cannot be held guilty simply because she didn’t inform the authorities in the way the authorities, or the media demand retroactively. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent that sets our nation on the very slippery slope of constant surveillance and all privacy, and freedom would soon disappear.

The Archetypal Killer
Stephen Paddock was from what we can see now at least-only a few days after the event- an archetypal “Killer”. For whatever reason he was angry. Perhaps he had the gambling blues, perhaps he felt he was losing everything he ever owned and perhaps he blamed the Casinos, or society in general. In this lottery economy we are all either winners or losers, and if the latter, all of us will in some way be angry with the world.

Of course we are not supposed to murder innocent people, and lets make it clear- this is not the mindless point I am in any way adhering to. What I am saying is that our lottery economy is conducive to creating great, fantastic expectations that are more likely to be met with ultimate disappointment, than success(in large part due to general mismanagement of this society.) And I think this archetypal reason is the true reason that Stephen Paddock murdered all those people. He was simply angry at his luck.

The archetypal murder suicide “killer” as a literary theme in Europe goes back three thousand years at least. In Greek mythology, the stalwart hero Aias(Latinized Ajax) who defended the Achaean army in their most dire time of need, was so enraged in being denied the arms of the fallen Achilles that he awoke in a rage, went to the pen where the sheep were sleeping, and began to slaughter them indiscriminately. When at last the rest of the Greeks heard the commotion and found him, he realized that he was not killing his fellow Greeks, as he intended, but only sheep,and so he rammed his sword into his own heart ending his heroic life in shame and tragedy. The cause for the “hero’s” tragic anger was that he had great expectations followed instead by great disillusionment; and perhaps an underlying conviction of a perennial injustice in our society where cunning, and carelessness are prized over true devotion and loyalty. The arms of Achilles were ultimately awarded to the glib and cunning Polymechan Odysseus master of machination, the ultimate schemer who concocted the Trojan horse rouse by which the Greeks defeated the Trojans through utter treachery and deception.

The causes of such violence are often quite simple.
Murder, on the street is often spontaneous. A flash of violent anger. Although the Mandalay Bay shooter planned his violence meticulously, the ultimate psychological cause was relatively “simple”. Which is why no one can find a rational motive, as if its possible to find anything rational in this kind of violence.

Stephen Paddock likely wanted to “get even” with the casinos, and all those who support them. He may have resented the fan fare that surrounds the glitzy outgoing concert goers…feeling perhaps that he could never again be part of that carefree world, plagued as he was by isolation, disease and rage. This was probably the “real” cause of his actions- “simple” and perhaps needing little more in the way of psychological insight. This “simple” rage and isolation seem to be a common thread for all such high casualty murder suicides.

Nightmarish violence, the result of anger, isolation, and resentment long fomenting into a toxic disease of never ending rage which only “the end of all” can cure. Simple.

The Second Amendment
Fifty eight people died in this assault, and some five hundred others injured. There is again debate over the availability of guns.

Yet, we should know this…had the founding fathers been told that some two hundred people a year will die in this kind of violence, -or even a few thousand if we take into account urban violence- in order to guarantee the autonomy of the American people, it is unlikely they would be much moved. Freedom has a terrible price, and only in our day do we dare presume to be rightfully free of that cost, or feign pretend we are immortal and beyond account.

Today many think in curves that slither around corners and disappear behind large buildings. The founding fathers thought in straight lines.

The second amendment is meant to guarantee the sovereignty and freedom of the American people. Having an armed public makes it harder for any government to usurp the power of the people, and this is exactly why the second amendment follows the first: the right to free speech, followed by the right to fight for that freedom if the need arises. It is a kind of insurance. That in the event the government becomes too corrupt to allow for the choice of leaders the American people will have the arms necessary to overthrow that government. We should no longer tolerate the illusions as to why the second amendment came into existence, or why it has survived for so long. Why, even today, there are so many supporters for it. The second amendment guarantees that the American people will remain free under any circumstances, even if violence against the government becomes, in the last resort, necessary.

This is a key difference between the American people and their European cousins. The revolutions in Europe never quite did away with the sovereignty and absolute authority of government. The American people chose instead to guarantee the absolute sovereignty of the people. And this carries with it an awful price…for nothing comes without cost.

Militias may serve to anchor gun owners Before advocating for a general ban on gun ownership we should consider that cars kill tens of thousands of people a year, yet no one would think to ban the use and ownership of automobiles.

Yet it is true that too many people die in these horrific acts of violence. Too many innocent people die in gun violence, too many suffer the life long aftermath.

The key may lie in the wording of the second amendment, “a well regulated militia”. Perhaps we should accept the legality of ordinary people having a weapon or two to protect their property, and the lives of their loved ones at home, but should require that having access to an arsenal of high powered weapons requires a more general authority. Perhaps only those who are members of a private, legally sanctioned militia should have such access. If Mr. Paddock had been a member of a militia it is likely that someone would have noticed what he was doing, someone would have intervened, someone would have questioned him because someone would have had some co-responsibility. Access to an arsenal, even gun collection should require the co-responsibility of a well regulated militia and membership within such a militia.

Moreover the rise and sanctioning of such militias can have great benefits for the nation. It would provide a means for the American people to organize, and to pursue their political objectives and rights. It would involve more people in a common cause. We should note that the majority of “shooters” are loners, even when they are a couple as the pair in San Bernardino. These two, although claiming they were shooting for the cause of ISIS seemed rather to be two very isolated people acting out in anger. Perhaps this archetypal “aloneness” can be alleviated by requiring affiliation in a private militia.

In this way the second amendment would be served, and the risks of indiscriminate violence minimized. Such militias could also help to police the state in some auxiliary fashion. Had for example a private militia had been present at Mandalay Bay, it would have been far more difficult for a lone shooter to kill so many people without receiving return fire from the patrolling militia. Such militias can in some way ease the burden on the local police forces, and make them far more efficient.

Of course we may one day have a “Militia” problem, but it would still be better than to have illegal gangs in their place, as is now happening.

Belonging to a group in many ways addresses the problems of isolation and lawlessness. Militias could act more like organizations once evolved, concerned not with just guns and arms, but also with the well being of the nation. They would in effect take a private responsibility for the health and protection of the national order while minimizing the potential destructive effects of lone gunmen or gun collectors..

Be it said here that if the founding fathers intended by the statement “well regulated militias” they would mean an army, or navy, then they would have clearly said that. They knew what an army was, and knew what a navy was. What they wanted was a people’s army, a state army that would be hard for any external power to usurp. This is one reason it took so long for the American nation to develop an official army and navy. The founders knew that these will almost always lead to some corruption on some level. They intended a people’s militia as a balance to the government’s authority, and as a fail-safe in case corruption rendered any government oppressive and inflexible.

The price paid
Today we attribute such violent murder suicide events to some shallow cause or other. But in reality most of these killers, whether they kill for no apparent reason in a mall, or in a school, or even as “inspired” terrorists have causes that are most likely primordial in nature. People deeply disappointed with the outcome of their lives, and with society, and perhaps too proud to accept the fate they have been given.

These killers are archetypal incarnations of grievance. Of incurable anger and dissatisfaction.

They are in some ways, the “Tax man” and the “Toll Keeper” of our society. They are a price we pay for our freedom, folly, and our lives.

You can gloss over these phenomena as being only random aberrations of psychology but these killers are what goes “wrong” with our society on a regular basis, and perhaps one of the “tolls” collected by our social order. Its been this way since the beginning of civilization and is unlikely to end by any elementary changes.

There is a price for freedom, and occasional violence of this nature may be part of it. A natural occurrence that is in some ways never to be completely avoided no matter what we do.

Post Script:
P.S. I am not here making heroes of these people, do not misunderstand. But if ever we are to mitigate their effects, we must have some real sense of what they are. White washing these events as being merely aberrations attributable to some shallow political or religious cause or psychological circumstance does not in the end do justice to the phenomenon. To say these killers are “mentally ill” may be true for example, but it gives no usable information as to why they are “mentally ill”. Why are they so “Mad”? Knowing this cause is important. Perhaps seeking solutions on an “individual basis” is simply not enough. In effect they may actually be a naturally occurring phenomenon inherent in the overall primal nature of human social order. They may not be an “individual” occurrence that can be addressed on a case by case basis but a general malady that must be addressed on the societal level which will be far more complex and difficult to contain.

Debt Crisis, Economic Crisis, Economy, Europe, Global Economy, Greece, Immigration, International, Iran, News, PNews, Publish, Russia, Saudi Arabia

Why Rand Paul?

April 10, 2015 Peter Censer

Viewed from left to right: Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Loyd Blankfein, George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Janet Yellen — **Viewed from left to right:**
**Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Loyd Blankfein, George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Janet Yellen. Ron Paul background.**

Why Rand Paul?

Why should anyone really consider Rand Paul as a presidential Candidate?

Rand Paul is a conservative. He is the son of long time Libertarian Ron Paul and he is certainly not a main stream Republican. He, like his father, is not very well liked by the Media, and many Republicans consider his views to be too
radical( though not quite as radical as the father’s views.)

For a long time now both father and son have insisted that the lending policies
of the Federal Reserve, and the increasing obligations held by the American people in lieu of the vast expansions of the past twenty years will become an ever greater burden on our liberties. They have opposed everything from our
wars in the Mid East and our unstable relationship with Russia, all the way to
the enormous power now garnered by the NSA under Geoge W. Bush, and maintained by liberal Democrat Obama. They have maintained that all of this vast expenditure is going to place the nation under the increasing control of the
Federal Government and in so doing compromise the freedom of Individual Americans and their communities.

These two, and their affiliates are standing against the Democratic party, but also against most of the Republican party. They are both, father and son, outsiders, outlanders to
the two main power broker parties in the nation. They are in some ways Revolutionaries, rebels with a definite cause.

Yet in their defense, it should be stated that the only real rebellion they espouse is to return the nation back to the constitution, and to the basic individual freedoms there written by the founding fathers.

But in our rather “Liberal” age, they are indeed radical, and they have little support among the mainstream parties. Anything they would try to do, would be difficult, and their struggle will be uphill and difficult even if they should succeed to cast Rand Paul as president. Then again everything has been uphill for them, so they would not feel all that out of character.

Still we should understand, the first thing someone like Rand Paul would do as
president would be to change the Federal Reserve forevermore. The first major assault will be on America’s Bank, and he will there attempt to change the fundamental wealth structure of the nation. This is a big deal, and its radical. So radical that almost no other candidate will even mention any such intent, even as a joke, much less seriously attempt it. But Paul would indeed attempt to bring the Federal Reserve under the full control of the American people, and
the most powerful bank on Earth would probably lose its independence a few months after a Paul victory. There is probably no change more potentially explosive than this. Such a move would probably change the order of the world
as we know it. It would almost overnight take the world to a firm conservativism unlike any we have seen this century, in fact not since the
Federal Reserve itself was founded in the early 1900’s has there been any kind of fundamental change as what is proposed by Rand Paul.

The United States Federal Reserve is indeed the most powerful bank on Earth, yet it is controlled by a few private independent Bankers with little authority or control vested in the American people whose money the Federal Reserve is actually playing with.

Should Rand Paul succeed in becoming president, we would be looking at nothing less than Revolution. The world’s wealth structure would have major surgery. And Dr Rand Paul is indeed a practicing surgeon as was his father Dr Ron Paul.
They are probably not afraid to cut.

But why now? Why risk supporting Rand Paul who is indeed an outsider and not very likely to have much support from the two main parties? Why risk so radical a change at this time?

The only answer we can give is that the world is in trouble. The real reason its in trouble, in the simplest terms, is because there is too much credit around.

But what’s wrong with too much credit? What’s wrong with a world awash in easy money? What is wrong with lending money around like its thin air?

The short answer is everything!

Too much money creates too much risk

The trouble with lending too much money is that too many things can happen that maybe shouldn’t! Too many risks taken, that perhaps shouldn’t be taken. As we all are aware in our daily lives, there are some things we just shouldn’t try unless we know that they are reasonably certain to have a good outcome.
But when credit is lenient, too lenient, we can try anything at all, why not, the money’s there, its free almost, since no interest is going to be charged, there is really no reason not to take it, no reason at all not to try the fantasy, no matter
how unrealistic it may be. There is plenty of printed money available, there is little standard of credit to uphold, once you’ve made the first payments, the money’s there, and lots of it, just take it- take the easy money, and if you fail,
no problem just take more where that came from, and hope for the best. As long as there is Federal Bank that is willing to lend money for nothing there is no problem for those willing to take endless risks.

And risk has been taken…for a long long time now, its been taken quite liberally.
Almost without respite. Even when in 2008 we had the gigantic housing meltdown, there was still money available for bailout. And it was taken, and we have taken more and more with no real end in sight, no matter what we hear in
the Media.

However, when money is loaned out, there is a price after all- even if interest rates are zero.

The basic assumption is that any money loaned is going to lead to some betterment of the society in general. Some service, some good product, some
long lasting viable new way of doing things will evolve that is good for the society at large and also profitable to the borrower. And if a new productive service or product is attained-that is long lasting and evolutionary- we call the loan a success. If not, then its a failure. After all if we borrow too much, take too many chances that are not suitable, then of course there is a terrible
danger for ultimate failure. If we are not prudent in our choices, we will soon come to grief, as happened during the housing crisis.

Why Rand Paul?

The now bitter truth is that we have not actually attained much good, or success in the way of the world, yet trillions of dollars have been borrowed world wide, with very little hope of it ever being paid back, or of it ever doing anything of
value for the society at large. Except perhaps to prompt us all to consume far more than we can afford for evermore. Instead of to conserve our resources, which are after all limited by nature, we are instead told to spend everything we
have, borrow all we can, and hope there is a tomorrow to speak of. Yet as we all know, the good Earth provides only so much, and resources have always been limited, and forever will be limited. Conservation, both natural, and
existential, is always part of a realistic equation.

Excess availability of money and/or the desire for that available money also leads to other imprudent actions that can have dire consequences for the vitality of nations, and therefore for the Global community at large.

We have started war after war with that borrowed money too, yet what have
we attained? The world is exploding at the seams with strife and instability. Rancor and discontent are everywhere, even in our own homes. The world is more unstable today than it was 12 years ago when George W. Bush started the Iraq war(though we were all promised peace at the onset of the new Democratic regime that replaced Bush.) Moreover there is very little reason to think, no matter what we hear, that anything is about to get better. The disorder
of Pandora, once let out, is difficult to put back in.

On the “productive” commercial side, we have seen developed and produced endless numbers of gadgets, but what real good has been attained? Billions of gadgets sit on the shelf waiting for people to buy them while they accrue more
and more debt. There is still monstrous unemployment, and under employment, and even those who do turn a paycheck each week find that most of it goes to pay some hidden form of tax or other. We have hundreds of millions of people all around the world burning scores of hours a week checking their Facebook status. Yet these same people can hardly get a word
out to a person standing five feet away while under the influence of the “wire”. There is a price for everything.

We have invested trillions of dollars all over the world, but are we really any better off? Or do we simply owe all this money with very little promise of it ever being returned to the ordinary people from whom it was actually borrowed? All
of this lent out money actually comes from the devaluation of the ordinary person’s currency. Will that buying power ever be returned to the ordinary person from whom it was borrowed in the first place?

We have inflated the population of our nation with millions of people-all because that borrowed money needs to be put to use, “laundered”, but is there really any hope that these people will actually prosper, or that we as a nation
will prosper by those vast, less than legal increases in population size? Or are
we simply seeing more and more debt for our children and their children’s children with no real hope of ever paying it back? We have inflated the world’s economy to levels that probably cannot lead to any real prosperity except for the few who control the flow of money at the pinnacle. Meanwhile the rest of us are expected to pay all this money back-but how? Through all sorts of taxation on our meager earnings?

The present policies only inflate the labor market(as well as the renter’s market) leaving little hope of any real gains in wages for the average person. Meanwhile wherever there is a strong demand for any product, inflation roars
no matter what we are told by the Federal Reserve. Just ask the average person on the street if their paycheck today can purchase what it did even five years ago.

Even a good thing for the mass of people, like oil price reductions has turned to a bad thing. Firstly there is devastation to those actively seeking to increase this most fundamental of resources-for energy is, next to water and food, most fundamental to a “civilized” society. Most of the energy producers borrowed the money to risk exploration. It was freely available so they took the gamble. Yet now these companies have seen their earnings drop by fifty percent in a few short months. This was the most profitable business in the United States! How can that be good for the general economy?

Even the ordinary automobile driver sees little benefit. How much of any road trip is really dependent on gas prices? Most of the trip, especially if long is mostly dependent on the tolls and taxes on the way. Indeed, even gas prices
have actually gone up(in order to pay the refiners own debt and taxes) and little benefit overall has been gained, or will be gained save but a severe
depletion of our most valuable resource. And be aware…resources are always limited by nature. And indeed, there will come a time of need and privation.

Resources are limited. Always. What we have used today will not be available tomorrow. That is Nature’s way, and her dictums are inviolable. Today we burn gas that perhaps we do not need to burn. Today’s excesses will almost certainly lead to tomorrow’s privations. This is Natural order, and for us it is absolute in authority.

What this means essentially, is that we are looking at payback in the future, and a long road back to sanity. And it will be painful, of that you can be sure.

We have squandered much, and achieved little. And we owe far more than we can really pay. We are unstable as a Global society, and there is little to suggest that we will be able, under the present system to correct this outlook. For all of us, this is indeed a dire situation as we can see by what is now transpiring all over the world. The growing instability will eventually harm our cause and our economy.

All this was made possible with inordinately loose credit.

The fundamental reason for rebellion is that people find their own personal freedoms restricted.

You see when the central bank prints and lends, by implication it devalues the currency of a nation, therefore ordinary people’s money is worth less because of the “new” money being added to the existing money supply. Loose credit policy greatly increases the money supply while not necessarily increasing the actual value of the underlying society(and this “value” is complex and not quantitative, but qualitative.) The Federal Reserve actually stopped reporting the money supply some ten years ago, yet that money supply is really what creates price pressures-especially the new money created does not have the intended effect of positively stimulating the economy. The higher the money supply goes, the weaker is the underlying currency, the weaker the economic power of the individual consumer, or investor.

That means everybody pays for bad loans by having their buying power, therefore their investment power weaken. So essentially people have to work a lot harder to pay for the same thing they could buy yesterday with a lot
less effort! This is also because inflationary policies do not depend merely on inflating production, but also on inflating demand. This is the real motive behind the increase in population through importation of labor. But increased availability of demand also means increased supply of labor, and a significant additional drop in buying power for the average person is the consequence. The artificial expansion of labor may increase demand as desired, but it also decreases wages. Therefore demand goes up, but actual purchasing power may not.

Greece is not alone!

Like Greece, we are looking at tens of nations round the world that are faltering, that are buckling under the weight of their loans. One of these is the United States itself..(another is Japan)..oh little is said of it, since it is not really
in the interest of the major news outlets or the stock holders that control the media to advertise the Debt problem, but the debt problem is here, and it is a terrible burden and is the real reason that after all this money has been lent out
at Zero interest all over the world, hardly any good economic news can be found! All sorts of taxes, and private debt payments interfere with the price of purchases and make it impossible to hope for real prosperity for the majority of
people.

The return on all this money lent has been little when we take it as a whole. The added complexity alone is expensive and little mentioned. But it takes a great deal more effort to deliver ten pizzas, than it does two. The society as a
whole must pay for that extra service, and if it is not equipped, it will suffer for it (instead of gaining from it overall as might be expected.) Moreover in order to sustain this system till collapse we will need even more money printed, lent out and borrowed from now on. We will not see the end of this system until it actually collapses under its own weight, under our own feet, and on our heads…..but when that happens…its going to be too late! There are no possible bailouts this time, there is no more credit available should the next crisis appear. When that day comes, and it will eventually, we are done.

This is why we need to consider Rand Paul!

As for Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, the most likely candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties?…same ole same ole..possibly worse!

What these essentially promise, if you read the fine print, is still heavily dependent on the privately controlled and “independent” Federal Reserve and heavily dependent on borrowed money charged to the public. You cannot continue profitless wars without charging them to the public, you cannot increase the population without charging its added expense to the general public, you cannot increase services(whether good or bad in conception)
without charging that increase to the working public. Essentially these candidates are saying they will continue to allow the Federal Reserve(and the private-“elite”-interests behind it) to spew out gigantic volumes of money, enriching the few at the top while the rest of the population actually has to foot the bill. But this is not a change- rather this is the “same ol, same ol”.

When we look at all the other candidates what we see is people tied to the same old lending machine that has gotten us to this point in the first place. We see Hillary Clinton with her strong ties to certain sectors of the banking industry, and we see Jeb Bush-George W’s brother – with ties to nearly all the Banking Industry that caused the GREAT RECESSION in the first place. We see the Democrats on the one side promising to continue inflating the population with millions of people while doing nothing to provide a better condition for the people already here…and we see the Republicans who promise us trillion dollar wars to secure our allies’ borders(while opening ours wide open to anyone from anywhere on Earth so they can work for nearly nothing) and then we hear these same Republicans screaming about social disorder while doing everything in their power to continue the social disorder. We see two parties deeply connected to the way things have been for a long long time, and two parties most likely to continue doing business as it has been practiced for a very long time-since their success, as privately sponsored parties, seems to depend on continuing these same policies. We see no possibility of change…everything Hillary
Clinton wants to do is going to require lots and lots of credit from the Federal Reserve and ever more New Debt added to an already prohibitive amount. ……And everything Jeb Bush wants to do is going to require even more new debt than Hillary Clinton’s agenda…and that’s an awful lot of credit and debt to add to our already overwhelming national, state, and corporate debt.

What these main party candidates want is to continue to expand all over the world, while at the same time fighting wars that are of little real profit to those same people actually footing the bill. Though we talk about the mid east as being oil rich, and therefore deserving of all this military investment, the truth is there is probably more oil on the American continent than there is in the Mid East. We dont even import any oil from the Mid East! Most of that oil goes to Asia and Europe. There are actually more proven reserves in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil than there is in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia! So what are we doing there exactly?

Why are we spending these massive amounts of money fighting these destabilizing wars in the first place?

Moreover we have brought upon ourselves a real terror threat from these wars that did not exist before. We are now forced to spend trillions of dollars “protecting ourselves” here at home. All the while we ourselves are being spied upon by the NSA, which threatens the very liberty we are supposed to be defending. To say nothing of the increasing amount of tax that we are liable for,
and threatened by. The tax we owe is indeed a “personal” liability. The Lois Lerner case is notable. The Tea party had been singled out as a target. Was this politically motivated? How much more danger are our liberties now subjected to because of this monstrous debt that we all owe? Moreover where is the benefit to all this? How does this benefit the individual tax payer anyway?

The world is today in economic and political disarray. We all owe monstrous amounts of debt and there seems to be little hope of it ever being dissipated without a very definite loss in personal freedom. Where is the logic in all of this? Where in this “world view”, this “system” , can we see sound, viable policies for the future?

As if that were not enough we are now seeing new war fronts opening in Europe, and Russia to add to the difficulties we are having in South America, and the Mid East! As if dealing with China and Asia, themselves suffering, were
not enough of a burden, we have recklessly decided to make Russia an enemy as well! Where is the reason in this? Where is the sound logic in this? How is destabilizing Europe, heretofore our most loyal ally, going to help our cause?

More to the point, all of this is adding to our already heavy burden as private citizens-both economically and politically as we see both our paychecks and our liberties threatened-to say absolutely nothing about the dangers of terrorism. For what?

We are being burdened for the interests of the few and this burden is not about to cease, but only increase under the policies of the two major parties as they have been sworn to allegiance to the existing private concerns.

Is it time to say Enough is Enough?

Our personal burdens, and liabilities for the future, as Individuals, under the present system are just TOO MUCH! We need some real change…we need someone to come from somewhere else, some other enclave, to give us any chance for real change.

The way to stop this downhill ride is to stop the lax credit, stop the endless supply of easy money and therefore force a more serious consideration of what is feasible, and profitable, and what is not. In essence to make the credit answerable to the people from whom it is really borrowed in the first place.

Yet no candidate is seriously talking about it. All we ever hear are more promises to continue along this present path, and even add to our already nearly unbearable burden. None of the other candidates even discuss the debt, as if it isn’t there at all, as if its not important enough for them to even mention it. But anyone who understands economics understands that it is
important, and if something is not done, we will never be able to overcome our present economic situation. It should be understood that borrowed money automatically adds a potential for general economic contraction at some point in the future, even if it is successful as originally envisioned. Therefore the money that has been borrowed will at some point in time create negative pressure on the economy no matter how much economic velocity is gained.

You cant prosper if everything you buy is taxed ten times before it ever gets to the consumer. You cant prosper if everything you buy is leveraged with the burden of an existing debt. This is the real reason we are not seeing any real change in the economy. No matter how many jobs are created, they will not be prosperous ultimately, if they are created out of nothing but debt, and yet this is the going formula.

Only by controlling the debt can we ever hope to rise above it.

Rand Paul comes from a long line of fiscal “Revolutionaries” willing and able to
actually do what it takes to bring the fiscal, and financial house to order. He derives from the original Tea Party, named after the historical event of the Boston Tea Party of 1773 , where the American colonists rebelled against the British authorities because of too much taxation with very little representation. Rand Paul’s father. Ron Paul, has for decades argued that there is no way to prosper if all we do is borrow gigantic sums of money and pay taxes, though few in the congress, senate or executive branch wanted to listen. Yet, at this point we can safely say he was right. Looking at the present situation, it is unlikely that we are going to overcome these debts with more debt. At some point loose credit policies will have to stop and we will have to begin the long road back to sound economics.

Rand Paul’s Rivals

Rand Paul has supposed rivals of similar tone…but some of his rivals seem to be married to the banks that are the source of the problem. They are not trustworthy because of this. They are not likely to do what they promise because of their strong affiliations to those same forces that
promote loose monetary policy in the first place. Senator Rand Paul, who really is independent of the current power structure just might do what he says….and that’s a risk worth taking – at least it is for some.

Rand Paul can stop this fiscal circus if he does as he has said he will do, for only Rand Paul realistically has even a small chance of returning the world to some kind of sanity and order because he derives from a political clan that has promised to do this from its inception. Only Rand Paul is suggesting he will take any control of the Federal Reserve. Most of the other candidates have promised us more of the same old debt based civilization with no end in sight to increases in taxation and debt burdens for the American people. Oh they all claim they will lower taxes, but they never actually show us any policies that can stop the bleeding. Rather most of them seem to promise grandiose ideas, but never actually say how the voters will pay for them. Leaving out the unseemly details of having to borrow the money from some bank, that first borrowed money from the Federal Reserve, whose money actually belongs to the voters themselves.

Sure, the public may believe in the verbal promises of the politicians, but where
is the substance, where is the real dedication to change? Anyone can promise to redistribute the debt, and therefore make others pay for it, but who among these promises to do something realistic to end the debt monster?

This then, is Rand Paul, this then is the viable cause for his candidacy.

All these thoughts are really what Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul have been harping at all this time. And what they say is significant no matter where you might stand ideologically. Essentially they are saying there is too much movement, too little care about where the movement takes us, and in the end, it has not taken us where we want to be-instead of looking forward to a prosperous society where everyone can live fully and free, we are for the most part overwhelmed with debt and taxation. More than that,they say, if we continue, it will only get worse, for Corruption knows no bounds. The only way to stop the fundamental corruption of our society is to take its money away-no money no honey!

Sobriety is not easily achieved.

But to be sure, any change will be painful. Perhaps very painful and discombobulating…for the entire world. As with any sudden cessation of a toxic substance, there will be severe withdrawal symptoms and a long recuperation to deal with if indeed credit policies are tightened. But such is the price of sobering up, of getting off the credit wagon.

But It has to stop some time, and the only one talking seriously and realistically about popping this credit bubble, this “lottery “, winner-takes-all economy is the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul. Yet if we don’t stop, or at least slow the credit , we cant stop the disorder that’s destroying the nation and the world. We cant say NO to stupid ideas that are just not going to work no matter how much money we throw at them until we actually stop throwing money at them. To correct the problems, we have to stop financing their causes. To say you’re going to end the problem while still financing its cause is not a valid argument.

Rand Paul just might convince this nation, and the world, that something different is possible, something better, if even more difficult. For all the promise, and all the hoopla during the campaigns of 2008 the Democrats failed miserably to deliver any kind of fundamental change, though they had a chance to do so.

Most of the mainstream Republicans are the same stuff as George W. Bush, and for this we need say no more..and we don’t need more of those deceptions as a nation. For many who have been discouraged by the present policies of the Republican party, senator Rand Paul is the only real alternative left. He’s the only real Revolutionary out there, he is the Rebel Right at its universal best, and this time most of the world may resonate with his cause . He’s the only one who offers any real fundamental change, at the very source of power-the United States Federal Reserve, and for any lack he may have he’s the only one serious enough to do it, and he’ll have to do if we are going to have any
chance going into the future.

This nation desperately needs change….if you
are convinced of that…Rand Paul represents real change in a new and fundamental direction. Sure its a risk(as there is always a risk when tampering with fundamental economic policy)…but sometimes you have to go for the risk if you’re going to have any hope of seeing a better world.

At least this is the “sentiment” I think behind Rand Paul. To be sure he is a severe underdog in these campaigns. And most of his supporters probably know that. The media will almost certainly attack him, and try to make him look
incapable of leading the nation. His fate may in the media spotlight be worse than Hillary Clinton’s when she ran against Obama in the primary, as the media absolutely destroyed her. But Paul also represents a more dynamic constituency, long fed up with the foibles of the ruling parties, and those who pull their
strings-these supporters will likely put up a ferocious fight no matter what the Media does.

One thing is for certain, unless something changes drastically, Rand Paul(or at the very least, his sentiment) is going to be around for a long time-one way or the other.

Global Economy, Politics, Publish, Russia, Ukraine

Is Putin a Monster? Or are we trying to make him one?

September 5, 2014 Peter Censer Leave a comment

Vladimir Putin, Bellicose War-Monger? Or just doing his duty? — **Vladimir Putin, Bellicose War-monger? Or just doing his duty?**

Are the Russians the Real Aggressors?

Who is Vladimir Putin?

Putin was born in October of 1952. He is 62 years old. He was born to a Russian family that apparently knew the pain of World War II well. He had two brothers who were older than he, both dying before the second world war. One of the two, Victor, succumbed to Diphtheria during the siege of Leningrad, the other, Albert died a few months after birth . Both parents suffered mightily at the hands of the German dictator. Putin’s father, Vladimir Spiridonovich, was drafted as a submariner, which is about as tough on the nerves as military assignments can get(especially during those times when this technology was new.) He later served as a member of the internal police, demolitions squad and was severely wounded during the second world war at the front. His mother Maria Ivanova was a factory worker.

His grandparents have no notable history other than what is common for Russians who lived during the very difficult times of Stalin’s rule. However, his maternal grandfather, Spiridon Ivanovanich was a chef who cooked for Vladimir Lenin’s wife, and on a few occasions for Joseph Stalin. His maternal grandmother died at the hands of German occupiers during the war; his uncles disappeared at the Russian front, events which would not likely have left the boy Vladimir untouched emotionally by the personal tragedy of that terrible war.

Although he was brought up under the communist doctrine on religion, yet, by all accounts Vladimir Putin is a devout Christian, often professing a deep faith in the Russian Orthodox tradition, a religion which particularly emphasizes compassion as the cornerstone of faith. Though his father may have been a “dedicated” atheist who lived under the stern communist apprehension of mass religion, it seems his son Vladimir was perhaps influenced by his mother’s faith which, apparently, survived the Communists .

As a boy Putin was rowdy, and apparently often tried to emulate a popular screen characterization of an intelligence officer. Putin quickly learned Judo and other martial arts becoming strong and athletic in the process. This aggressive side of his persona is also quite often made visible by his public demeanor, and it seems the Russian voters are impressed since his popularity is quite high; he seems personally dedicated to law and order, and the Russian people seem to have the same desire-perhaps there they feel they can find individual justice -something elusive in their turbulent internal history. Putin strongly opposes the use of capital punishment though the majority of Russians still want it. (you can find much more about him at wikipedia)

Politics

Putin’s political history is extensive- about the only thing he has done in his life is to serve the public. Of importance is that he was a KGB agent fully aware of the international scope of Russia’s history. Whether he was a great KBG agent is disputed. There were times in his career where he seemed to be a menial stamp jockey for the service. Yet he was fully consumed by Russia’s dealings with the West, and especially on the commercial front.

It is notable that he himself seemed to have no confidence in the old Soviet Union, something which is quite evident in many of his speeches- Putin is no communist, and most probably the exact opposite. Yet he was a loyal public servant all of his life, and walked a very fine line at times between loyalist and traitor. We should note carefully that he resigned from the KGB when he had realized that they intended to overthrow Michael Gorbachev on the very next day. From this we must conclude that Putin was indeed prone to a democratic Russian state from a very early point in his career, and though deeply loyal to the KGB, he was still able to maintain a personal conscience and an obligation to what he thought was the greater good of the Russian state.

Even after the fall of the Soviet state, Putin maintained his intelligence activities but this time for the purpose of promoting free enterprise.

For a long time he was hired as a front man for the Mayor of St Petersburg seeking to entice western businesses with an appetite for expansion into the new Russian state. He had gone from an intelligence officer to an international marketing specialist of sorts. Having served in East Germany before its fall he had apparently acquired some skills in the language and customs of Western Europeans and used that experience to help promote closer business ties to the newly capitalist Russian Federation.

Boris Yeltsin’people saw in Putin a man with the right views at the time, and so assigned him to take a position in the lower level of the government. Placed in the Property Management division, he was charged with the task of transferring foreign property from the former Soviet Union to the new Russian Federation. Thus his knowledge of international affairs and systems was once again put to use; his connections to, and knowledge of western entities also probably increased. Later on he would become chief of the FSB under Yeltsin, which was the new incarnation of the old KGB.

It is quite possible that he never actually left the intelligence field altogether. Perhaps he was charged with more than just transferring property while working at the property office, since his assumption of head of the FSB was abrupt and had little precedence in his career path. He went from property manager to leader of the intelligence service, a long jump so it is possible he was doing a little more than stated for Boris Yeltsin, perhaps listening where ears were needed.

From 1997 on, he rose very quickly through the ranks. He assumed full power after the resignation of President Yeltsin while serving in the less powerful position of Russian prime minister in 1999. At the time Yeltsin was accused of corruption and once again Putin would have to decide between the lesser justice and the greater good. He quickly cleared Yeltsin from any possible prosecution.

Being that he was present, and probably working in a quasi-intelligence position of sorts at the time, he was able to see first-hand what was needed to bring the Russian system to a better purpose while serving under Yeltsin during the highly volatile period of Russia’s early formation, when corruption was rampant, and almost necessary since laws were not yet clearly established, or prosecuted in the courts.

In a state like Russia at that time, corruption is sometimes the only way to anything even remotely pragmatic, yet Putin seemed from the start inclined to those principles promoted by Gorbachev, Perestroika and Glasnost, openness and free markets, and kept a long eye on the prize of a free and well regulated democracy.

Much like Libertarian Ron Paul is in the United States, an idealist with good intentions, Putin too must have realized that ideals take time and effort to be put into practice, and as Ron Paul has to deal with a sometimes rowdy self serving congress not usually too idealistic, so too Putin had to deal with the Russian body politic which was hardly in a position to be idealistic, and oftentimes it was easier and less costly in the long run to make do with what was available than requiring immediate change, if even that was the ultimate objective. While Ron Paul’s ideas are targeted towards an advanced democracy, Putin’s ideas and practice was targeted to a nascent, still forming democracy. In some ways we can think of Putin as the Russian counterpart of an American Libertarian from what we can see. He seems to respect personal freedom for as long as it does not impinge upon the sanctity of the Laws which protect everyone’s freedom. Putin however, is dealing with a very young state, albeit a very old people, and so the problems of personal freedom versus the integrity of the state may be quite different than what a consummate Libertarian might face in the United States.

In a nascent state, that is in the early stages of consolidation, personal power, and reach, as well as immediate force is often the determining factor between success and failure of an implementation. Putin’s connections to the secret service with all its apparent powers must have lent effectiveness to his power of persuasion, especially if he really had been listening and noting all that was said while at the property management office. Inside knowledge always gets respect in every government, and there is little doubt that he had inside knowledge to leverage his opinions, and implement his strategies.

What is notable in Putin however, and should not be disputed by this time, is that he really seems to believe in the Free Market system, at least his history, actions and dialogue support this conclusion. But like many Libertarians he feels that this Free Market system-which seeks to be fair to everyone in the market, while giving no one a political advantage- is easily corrupted and that maintaining the Free Market system can only be accomplished by thorough diligence over a very long period of time.

We are not saying that Putin is a Libertarian, but that given time, in an advanced democracy like ours, his fundamental impulse could well evolve in that direction. It is easy to understand his defense of religion, for example, when you consider that under communism it was banned altogether. Putin does seem inclined, despite the bad press in the West, to allow expression, as long as it is not disruptive. He is a staunch conservative by all appearances, at least from our vantage point in the Western hemisphere.

The habit of personal discipline is a trait that takes time to build in any society and only by long insistence can these traits be expected to exist in the Free Market system-you have to train the performers well before they can appear in the circus where their true talents can become visible to all the world-for even freedom must have form, just as all good games, must have rules.

Battles against the Russian Oligarchy

Putin’s first major battles were to be with the powerful capitalists, the so called Russian “Oligarchy” which had laid claim to most of Russia’s wealth, and he was to somehow bring them into law and order however he could. Once again, his experience at the property management office could not have hurt his cause.

A long story short, he cleaned up the Russian Business Oligarchy(in most ways), bringing them under the control of the nation, but at the cost of leaving them with substantial power, money, and influence. The so called “grand bargain” between Putin and the “Oligarchy” left the capitalist elite still very powerful and rich, but managed to channel that power and wealth into the legal system of the nation. Perhaps we should say here that in all democracies there will be those few wealthy elite who direct large sums of money and resources to wherever they have to go, but making certain that ultimately the nation is enriched by these elite capitalist elements, and not undermined, is an absolute requirement for the stability and vitality of a nation. In the end everyone must serve the nation to some extent, even the elite, and if they fail to do so, they too are ultimately expendable-or they must be rehabilitated, which is what Putin managed to do.

The Russian Federation

Russia has suffered centuries of corruption on all levels, and it was no small task to bring the system into a centralized legal system. Putin’s main objectives here seem again to be the establishment of a working, honest market on the way to an ideal democratic state. However, being pragmatic, or so he seems, there are times when he will himself put into law whatever he feels is needed. For example he did not prosecute Yeltsin on corruption charges probably not so much as an act of loyalty to his former boss, but because it would have consumed too many resources at the time, and the Russian nation was already in deep despair.

At around that same time Putin minimized the power of the various states, making certain that the central government was the absolute political entity in the state, as was the wish of Abraham Lincoln for the United States. On assuming power, Putin very quickly canceled any prior agreements with the federated entities within the Russian state. Putin believed in the absolute authority of the Federal Government and intended to make certain that this power was not in any way usurped or minimized by any particular coalition of Russian states. In most ways he had little choice but to pull all states to a center authority, if he was to maintain the Russian state at all, remembering that this state was still in its formative period.

The Russian Federation consists of some eighty smaller states with differing populations and ethnic groups. Keeping a nation like this, with so large an area together, was not going to be easy under any system other than a strong centralized Union. Any attempts at a true federation would have probably resulted in disaster for Russia, fragmenting the nation into small unsustainable elements that would have quickly found themselves at war with one another-it would have sent Russia back to the stone age.

His actions in the West

In his dealings with the West Putin has been forthright but tough and pragmatic. If we remove the propaganda that we are daily bombarded with by private interests we see that Putin for the most part was as honest as he could have been.

When it came to Georgia, his partner Dimitri Medvedev chose to invade and occupy two rebellious Georgian states that had declared their independence from Georgia. But the real reason behind this military move, something not usually mentioned in the press, was that the Georgian president of the time, Mikheil Saakashvili, began to entertain the notion of making Georgia a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO). The Russians have in the two world wars lost nearly fifty million lives. There is absolutely no question as to why they would not want a hostile nation on their border, especially since that whole region is unstable and prone to turn against Russia. Allowing Georgia to turn to NATO gives Armenia and Azerbaijan the same right and tendency, something that would get NATO all the way into the Caspian sea from NATO member Turkey. The Russians were not likely to let that happen as this might entail NATO ships touring the Caspian sea.

This was the strategic reality at the time, and all one would have to do is look to the history of Russia to see why it is that Joseph Stalin himself decided to occupy many of the Eastern European nations. It is well understood that after the German invasion the Russians wanted a buffer between them and their violent neighbors, the Europeans who have thrice invaded Russia with catastrophic consequences for the Russian people. These historic realities may be softly impressed on Western minds, but its not that way with the Russians, who had to endure those slaughters.

The same pretty much goes for the Ukraine. It is not that Russia wants the Ukraine so badly as it does not want the Ukraine to become a threat to Russia. The idea of Right wing extremists of the same mind as Adolph Hitler creating a nation hostile to its neighbor, and armed and supported by the power and might of the United States and Europe did not appeal to Putin. There is no mystery here. What’s more is that in both cases there was little strategic choice for Putin-either act to stop this before it gets out of hand, or explain to one hundred fifty million angry Russians why a troubled partner and sister nation, as the Ukraine is most often viewed by Russians, was allowed to turn into a hostile threat on the Western border. There was nothing presentable in having right wing extremists establish a threatening nation on the Russian border.

Too often free nations who have internal economic problems produce self serving political elements that get the idea that they can auction off their own nation to the highest military bidder, using their strategic geographical location as currency. It was a lucrative idea for Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia and the right wing extremists of the Ukraine to offer to move their respective nations to NATO with all military benefits, but this was seen as a direct threat by the Russians. It might have even been seen as a direct insult-in the latter case- considering the slaughter endured the last time an extreme right wing government invaded Russia.

The Russians could care less if either the Ukraine or Georgia were to develop economic ties with the West, in all probability they would actually welcome this, but this was not the problem. It was unlikely that the Russians would sit back and allow NATO military ties to develop as the underlying price for the western economic support, and this is exactly why Russia is involved in either of these nation’s internal divisions. It is true that in Ukraine there are ethnic Russians to be considered as well, and some Russian loyalists were also to be found in Georgia(not forgetting that Joseph Stalin himself was from Georgia.) But the true reason for the military actions on these nations is that the Russians considered them a military threat, and a nation that has lost so many lives in recent history would not be expected to tolerate any threats of this kind if they can negate them using careful military interventions. In both cases we can see that the Russians have tried to make minimal incursions with minimal collateral damage.

The truth here seems to be that the present leaders of the West do not know the history of Russia, or don’t respect it, but either way that does not seem to us to be a flaw of Putin’s. The West is plagued through and through with special interests. This is the price that all of us who live in the West pay for freedom. These special interests will often develop ideas and objectives that have little in stride with the common good and very often will easily sacrifice large portions of a free nation’s wealth and resources to achieve a special objective of interest.

Putin, to his credit, has stood against the unbridled licence given to special interests. He has spoken against it, and has opposed it openly at times. Though the leaders of many nations in the West profess their loyalty and love of the people they are supposed to be serving through representation you would not know this by their actions. Five wars later and the Obama administration is still fighting in the Middle East as if the United States and its people have endless resources to spare so that a few special interests can have their way.

Yet the United States is deeply in debt, its economy is buckling even as the Federal Reserve is spewing trillions of dollars into the economy, though credit is endless and nearly unregulated, and the cost of this, still not visible, is huge and will come to be called up to account in the coming years-you cant just turn the Federal Reserve loose and not have consequences or a price to pay for those actions. Yet we have no end to any of this in sight, rather, there are endless calls for escalation!

These acts of special interests are mostly not in the interest of the American nation as a whole, no more than they would be for the Russian nation if they were taking place there. Yet while Putin, descended from a people having long and terrible experience with the deleterious effects of allowing special interests unbounded free reign with a nation’s policies and economy has taken action both local and global to stop this, while our representatives are still being chosen by the very same lobbies that are time and again usurping the nation’s objectives, both national and international.

Our own nations in the West, seem to have some serious structural infirmities which all too often lead to uncontrollable urges to act, no matter how inappropriate these acts may be; and its these uncontrollable urges which may be most responsible for Putin’s demeanor towards the West rather than any impulse coming from him or his people.

In the end we cannot fully know what kind of character Putin is, we can only guess, but only advise that our leaders be attentive and cautious, as well as courteous to a man who has so much vested interest in the survival of humanity on Earth. This is common sense. The sad part is that our leaders have often acted as if they were dealing with some school boy in their district. Calls to arm the Ukrainian military are the most immature statements that any elected official can make considering what would happen if the Russian’s were to do the same for our “enemies”.

Putin from all accounts we can see is a technocrat, pro-business, pro-democracy, and pro-world community. However he has an aversion for discordant special interests . So much is nearly certain.

If we treat him with reason, he will probably respond with reason, assuming we are honest about it and self contained. Yes he was once a “snitch” and that is something to worry about. Giving him details about your past personal foibles might not be wise if you meet him.

Immigration, News, Publish

A Possible Solution to the Immigration Problem

July 19, 2014 Peter Censer Leave a comment

**The Immigration problem is a danger to our nation. It must be solved or we risk absolute annihilation.**

see news : Jobs Report Comes in at a Great 209,000!

The Immigration problem must be solved now, or else..

On the one hand you have statements like : “ours is a country of immigrants”

On the other: “ours is a country of legal immigrants”

and : “freedom for all”

and then..”we are a nation of laws“,

Yet what we really have is a serious problem that must be solved if we are to go forward.

Be certain of one thing before you read this proposal. Nothing is easy, nothing is free, nothing comes without some pain and sacrifice and there is always a cost, even for the very best of times. The solution we see is not going to be liked by everyone, in fact it may not be liked completely by anyone at all, but then this is what democratic process is about, this is what civilization is about, therefore compromise and a maximal solution to a difficult problem. This is the best that can be hoped for.

We must understand that everyone is in some way dissatisfied today with the state of the undocumented aliens. The reason is, as we will make clear in this writing, that the problem of immigration has come upon us not because we asked for it, but because a few people saw great profit in it, and where there is an incentive, there is always someone eager to take action, good or bad for all the rest.

As things stand now, everyone is suffering, both the ordinary American people whose resources are indeed being drained endlessly, though they never asked or wanted anymore people in their land, and also the undocumented aliens themselves, who live in a land where they are seen as intruders, and invaders, and where often they are used, and abused, by those who seek to make the greatest profit off their labors and dreams. Many of these people live life in the fringes, and for many, coming to America was more a tragedy than a fantasy come true. They came to a land that in the end did not accept them as anything but intruders, interlopers, and criminals. The vast majority were not hoping for that.

What is clear is that all of these people who are now designated as illegal aliens, or undocumented aliens, have never been really accounted for, and that is the real problem behind the problem. These people have had no special care to process their needs, no real adaptation, and no real conscious effort to assimilate these new comers into our society in earnest for both their benefit, and ours. There has even till this day, even by the best intentioned towards the undocumented aliens, never been a call to make them “Americans” as Americans, and therefore to process them fully and completely into the new land, complete with language and culture. This is a fundamental mistake that if ignored will only result in destruction of the worst kind for all involved. This lack of care and attention has of course had dire consequences on the nation as a whole already, as we can all see. There has been an obvious overuse of our infra-structure, far beyond its intended use, and in general little has been impacted positively. But this can become far worse going forward if nothing is done.

Clearly some reasonable, even if tough solution must be sustained if the nation is to heal properly. It will be painful for all to be sure, but without this sacrifice, nothing good will happen. Only more disturbance, more degeneration of infra-structure, more uncertainty, and very surely more anger and social instability. With the problems we have already, the last thing we need is more instability and division. The nation cannot take any more. The time has come for a solution to the present immigration problem. We cannot afford any more delays. A realistic attitude is absolutely necessary here if we are to go forward. It will not be easy or comfortable for anyone.

The situation as it is now

The nation is entering a critical phase in its development. The United States now has a critical population number and the time for fantasies has come to an end. At 330 million people the United States can no longer afford to think of itself as an expanding nation with the need for more people to work endless reserves of natural resources. The truth is we are now overweight rather than underweight and our natural resources are not enough to satisfy the needs of our existing population. All we need to do is look at the seven hundred billion dollar a year deficit in trade-on average- to understand that we are no longer an underweight nation with more resources than we need. We are an overweight nation that has grown too fat in too few years for our own good, and the last thing we need is to get any fatter.

In fact we really don’t have as yet a good understanding of just how much natural resource we need to import at this population level because we have not fully acknowledged just how many people we actually have living in the United States at this time.

This is especially true since those undocumented aliens who entered the nation over the past thirty years have yet to be processed officially. In reality we don’t even know who these people really are since they have been invisible to the government for most of this time. We do not really know what they do for a living nor how they themselves are adjusting to life in the United States since no official reckoning has been at hand. Thus we know little about them and their actual acclimation to the social order of the United States, and even less as to how much resource they are in need of to maintain a healthy productive life. They are legally “invisible”.

This is a difficult problem, since it makes it hard for us to know just exactly what the state of our nation really is as a whole. To say this is a dangerous situation but not immediately critical would be underestimating the potential for serious problems to materialize quickly and unexpectedly-something that happens after a serious problem has been allowed to go unchecked for a long time. An extremely complex modern nation that does not have a full measure of its population is a nation playing roulette with a partly loaded gun. Any number of developments can result in serious and sudden calamities that can result in catastrophe overnight. But, because these people are now invisible to the law, and because there is much dispute and coercion of facts, we are at present not certain just how large our nation is, nor how it’s behaving in reality, or what the true morphology of this population really is. Yet any well ordered nation must know these things if it is to prosper.

We should understand and admit that the size of a nation is important. How large a nation is, how complex, how dynamic its economy, how dynamic its social structure, how complex its government and regulatory apparatus is to establish the foundation of knowledge concerning that nation’s ultimate function and prognosis. There are a few studies here and there to be sure which ask questions of size and complexity and economy but there is little consensus on how large a nation can become or how long it takes a growing nation to adjust to new growth. We have not as yet really made these questions important in public. We have not yet dared ask the question how large can our nation get before its prosperity is in jeopardy? The assumption is that there are no natural limits, but that’s obviously absurd! Everything has a natural limit given a set of parameters, like population for example, or rate of growth. Yet we stand nowhere near understanding what those limits are in reality.

All we know is that we have grown very large over the past thirty years, mostly due to unregulated immigration. We have little knowledge of who these people really are who make up this extra population in reality since officially they are invisible. All we know is they are there, we see them, we work with them etch. Nor has there been any questions of what exactly is expected of these people. They are there, they will be there, and let’s hope for the best is about the best answer on record. Or an eventual let’s make them legal, or let’s get rid of them. Little in between. But this is absurd. These people are now an integral part of the nation they must be processed somehow. There is really almost no debate on how to acclimate these new-comers as yet, only if they should stay or go, while in reality they have been here for decades, and still keep coming. Yet these are ultimate questions that will determine our viability as a nation going forward.

To make things a little more transparent we might word these questions as follows: How large can a nation become? What are the natural limitations of size? How must the circulation of money work relative to population size? How complex and efficient must the infrastructure be relative to population for a nation to be viable? Specifically these questions must be asked of each nation in question. Is it even possible for the United States to have a population of 330, 340, 350 million people without suffering detrimental structural damage to its fundamental institutions, culture and infra-structure? Were these institutions designed with such population numbers in mind in the first case? All of these questions have really been ignored in the public debate concerning undocumented immigration and therein lies the most serious problem here.

The problem with un-regulated immigration is that no one plans for its ultimate impact.

The real problem with uncontrolled immigration is that there are no pro-active procedures taken to accommodate the new-comers since they are not “expected” or admitted formally in the first place. Therefore, the new-comers that have reached the United States were never planned for, never adjusted for, never was there a calculation taken as to their actual requirements, or impact on the general well being of the public. This is critical. There is really no excuse for this. A nation that simply allows people to enter without taking steps to accommodate and acclimate those new-comers once arrived is playing with its own viability, with its life, and with the life of its citizens. This is especially true of the modern gigantic nations that we see today whose resources are limited by the enormous demands of their citizenry.

Even in ancient days it was well understood that there are limited resources and limited accommodations for any given nation. Yet today, in our own time of extreme technical complexity and maturity of human ideas we have embarked on an unplanned immigration that’s really akin to an unplanned pregnancy for an unwed young girl. No calculus was established for the arrival of all these people in a space of less than three decades, and little to no infra-structure improvements were made. There was as we have already said, no established calculus as to how large or how fast a modern nation can grow in a given space of time. In reality, there was no real objective analysis done on the true impact of such migrations at all. No one seriously asked the question of whether these migrations were actually good for civilization or bad. The truth is they profited large industry and this was enough! But it isn’t enough, as we are now seeing.

Therefore the actual costs of assimilating these new populations was never even considered. No one bothered to ask what impact these new people would have on a nation the size and complexity of the United States. Instead a wink wink policy of legal/illegal immigration was substituted with absolutely no consideration for the ultimate impact on the nation or its people, those already present, or those coming in. The politicians played political paddle ball between the yes and no versions of the immigration issue only to fully cooperate with the captains of industry on the side who were after all their primary political sponsors and without whom the vast majority of politicians stood no chance of being elected at all.

Yet this is an injustice to all involved. This is an injustice to the established population which has had to bear the impact of the new arrivals with no added support or adjustment, and this is an injustice to those people who came here thinking they would have better lives, but who in most cases are living depressed lives marginally adjusted or accepted or accounted for. In the end the receiving nation has mostly been left in a state of disarray because no real adjustments were made for the new comers. Let’s be honest, when East Germany was united with West Germany at first there was a happy party, but then when the costs came up the party died down real fast and rancor soon followed. New populations need new infra-structure, and need a vast expansion of resources. This costs large amounts of money that has to be paid by someone. In most cases this money was never paid, never expended in reality. There was a benefit to a few, but these generally did not assume responsibility for the costs of such expansions, and therein lies the rancor!

The American public is not angry simply because they don’t like other people. They are angry because the impact on their way of life is not being acknowledged and not being accounted for at all. Let’s not simply say that the American people are just racists, or evil, or mean because this is not true. The vast majority are unhappy with the issue for very real reasons. Their way of life has been severely impacted. Their very culture has been impacted and these are real causes for their anger. On the other hand it is not as if much good has happened with the undocumented aliens either in most cases.

Today , there are reports of slavery, child prostitution, and low wage labor among many unfortunate new comers. There are also many homeless aliens who wind up not being able to adjust to life in a new nation where there is no official support system. All this adds to the general lower quality of life for both undocumented aliens as well as the normal population. In most cases the “illegal aliens” are still a phantom people with little to no real legal status. They are, for the most part left on their own, and there too often nothing very beneficial comes out of it in general, although some successes still occur. Yet little else can be expected : they are in fact invisible to the law. For the most part, especially on a federal level, they do not exist. They are “illegal”.

We must first account for the new-comers already here before allowing anymore

The blunt reality is that we have not done anything to process these new comers at all. They are there, they work, they live, they have a significant impact, often significant cultures, but the law says they are not there, do not exist, do not have an impact, and so no new infra-structure or regulation can be made for them. Of course, the popular argument is that they should not be here in the first place! They have according to most no right to be here at all. They came here illegally and without a formal invitation! But if that’s so, why are they still here? If they are invaders, why then did the U.S. government not eject them immediately? Again, this is the fundamental problem. These people have yet to be accounted for at all! This is why they are here, this is why they have become a problem at all. The government has in fact done nothing to stop this migration, and in fact has often actually promoted it, or at least private industry has by giving these people jobs and a way of living, sometimes prospering here. The government has in reality allowed this to happen and we should not in any way be fooled by the intention of the government. The intention was to allow them to come, and it was so from both the Democratic side and the Republican side. Both parties in reality allowed these people to come here, and both sides wanted them here because the power brokers of both parties had a great deal to gain by having them here.

A general principle which is inviolable: A Nation has a right to determine who enters into it.

This is not to excuse the actions of those who came here. Those who came in most cases knew what they were getting into. They knew that the native populations in most cases were not going to be accepting or welcoming, but they came here to struggle on and attain wealth. This cannot be glossed over and should not. It cannot. In their defense it should be noted that the vast majority felt that they were offering their work and if their offer to work was accepted then they should be allowed to stay. Most of those who came knew that the nation was in fact divided, or else compromised. That these individuals sought to exploit that compromise cannot be ignored and must be addressed in any attempt to assimilate and ultimately integrate the new comers into the general society. To ignore the intentions of these people on their way here is to lay down the seeds for endless differences and divisions that will only hurt the nation. The time has come for some reconciliation and an acceptance of responsibility. If we are to accept that a group of people entered this nation on the idea that they were here to take advantage of inherent weaknesses within the nation without reconciliation and some eventual atonement, we open up a whole new level of division that may last for centuries. It will be impossible for the new comers to be assimilated without first acknowledging the breach, and in some way answering for it. If this is not done, then we will introduce a basic division which can only work against the nation, and against the new-comers themselves. This they will have to acknowledge in order for the American people to accept them as legitimate residents eventually. Once this is done, then they can be judged honestly and everyone can go forward. Still the point is that the problem needs a solution immediately and that we have to go forward, this is what is important to everyone.

For as long as there remain unprocessed undocumented aliens in the United States, the government is illegitimate.

Yet when we look at the problem from the highest levels we cannot but affirm that the ultimate failure was with our own government The government of the United States failed. It failed to represent the law as it was and instead played games for the benefit of the few and is now in trouble. The government of the United States, in allowing this problem to grow to these proportions has in fact compromised its authority. There is a question as to whether the government of the United States is at this time legitimate, or worthy of continuing to govern. If the American people were to come to the conclusion that the government now present is itself illegal and illegitimate they would be right and justified. There is no way to justify the breach that was allowed to happen for so many years. A simple law forbidding the hiring or harboring of undocumented aliens could have stopped all this immediately. Such a law was never passed, and never prosecuted. In this respect the government undermined its own legitimacy. The government we have today is compromised for this reason and for as long as this problem remains unsatisfactory in the eyes of the American people. The United States, no matter what anyone might claim, is now a nation without a truly legitimate government and that’s the ultimate danger a nation can face.

One man voiced the situation as follows-if illegal aliens are allowed to break the law, why shouldn’t the rest of us? In effect there is no law, no government no order until such time as this problem is solved. Ignore this, and the nation ignores the immigration problem at its own peril. In reality we are now in a state of instability.

For as long as these people already here are not processed the government of the United States continues to be illegitimate. The government of the United States must first acknowledge they are here, and then begin to treat the problem as needed, as required by Law. In this present state of limbo the American people are in fact given a de facto illegitimate government. It has allowed its borders to be breached and did nothing about it. It has allowed people who are not here lawfully to stay here without in anyway addressing their problems. It has failed in every way to maintain the law of the land and the constitution by so doing. It has repeatedly and insistently failed to represent the American people and for as long as the situation remains unaddressed the situation can only get worse and the illegitimacy of the government ever clearer. This is especially true when there continues to be a breach of the border where the government of the United States is allowing Mexico to collude with aliens further to the South and delivering them to the American border and having the government of the American people fail to insist on stopping this.

If the American people were to conclude under these circumstances that they are not being represented by this government they would be absolutely right. It is the president’s duty to protect our borders; if his administration is failing, or if the congress is failing to make that clear to him through the passage of laws he can enforce, then by implication both are illegitimate. There is no other conclusion possible here. Sooner or later the American people will put two and two together here and act on this. For this reason it is absolutely necessary that the government of the United States immediately act to rectify this problem by first addressing and then assimilating those people already here, since there would be no way of removing them without great turmoil and disruption. The U.S. government must act to stabilize this nation, and restore its immediate authority over its borders, or face a possible revolution and overthrow.

But nothing at all can be done until these people here are fully acknowledged and fully accounted for. That means that everything else must stop until such time as these people are processed and made part of the United States. The government must proclaim its authority and repair whatever inconsistencies that remain concerning the immigration policy and its legal implementation. It must therefore deal with the problem of undocumented aliens already living in the US before it can ever again bring in anymore.

The nation has to assimilate these new comers if it is to go forward

The nation is now a relatively large structure which has so far under-supplied itself when dealing with the extra stress that 330 million people will put upon it. This is why many Americans today are in fact complaining. We have neither the schools, nor the hospitals, nor the roads, nor the cities, nor the jobs, nor the proportional wage distribution, nor the general infrastructure required to house the number of people we have within our borders at present. And contrary to what is sometimes offered, there is no easy way of downsizing our population. There is virtually no chance of becoming a smaller nation, no chance of asking all these people to leave in other words. Those people that are here now, are not likely to leave in any great numbers. Trying to force this issue would of course be catastrophic and quite disruptive in itself and again result in the destabilization of the present government. For this reason the time has come to make certain that the nation adjusts fully to this much larger population than we had in the 1970’s and begin to fully compensate the infrastructure required for this much larger population. But this absolutely and irrevocably demands that nearly all immigration be suspended from this point on with no possibility of amendment until all the present population is fully accounted for and fully processed. That means no new immigration of any kind for decades, until all new stresses as a result of the increased population, and the government failures that allowed this to happen in the first place, have been fully compensated for, and fully corrected!

Undocumented Aliens must first become Temporarily Visible to the law

But before this can happen, before we can begin to assimilate these people we must first acknowledge their existence. We cannot simply say that they are sometimes here and sometimes not. We must know who they are, what they are doing, what must be done in their individual cases, and what pro-active structural changes must be effectuated in order to make the nation productive enough, and able to house these people, or to house that segment of the undocumented population that will be allowed to stay.

This can only be done if these people are made visible to the law by granting a temporary legal status to all of them. Only then can actions be taken concerning their individual status. It will not likely be possible to allow all such people to stay immediately. The reaction from the American people may be unpredictable and volatile and this should be respected. However, once all undocumented aliens are made visible to the law the process of assimilation can begin in earnest.

A general unconditional amnesty is not possible

No one should believe that there will be a general and unconditional amnesty. This is not possible due to the antipathy of the American people. After thirty years of informal entry into the United States too much damage was done to the quality of life for most Americans, as well as to the underlying standard of living. There has been a general shock to the public. The impact has not been a rosy happy go lucky affair in most cases. Unfortunately much crime and disorder, and cultural shock has also come along with the new-comers, as can be expected with any new arrivals and large migrations, but in this case was much amplified and made worse by the lack of fore planning and pre-adjustment required whenever large increases in population are allowed. For many Americans the impact has been a bad one and for this reason there is extreme anger and resentment in many areas. This alone will make it difficult to simply white wash the matter without danger of extreme and fundamental reaction, something this nation cannot afford with a debt of 17-20 trillion dollars already hanging over its head. Whatever solution is offered will have to be a well thought out one, with large concessions made to the American public. The American public will have to be convinced that the solution was both reasonable and justifiable in order for any solution to be successful

It is not possible to forcibly remove the undocumented aliens and Americans should understand that

There will be some who will insist that all these people must be made to leave the second anyone proposes making the aliens visible. But this is impossible and would only result in catastrophic damage. It would involve riots, and violent clashes and tremendous instability would be generated that might well result in a civil war that would send our economy and society to the depths of hell itself. So it is not possible for anyone to seriously ask that all, or most of these people leave. It’s not possible without massive destruction. The only reasonable recourse is to make these people temporarily visible in all cases, while their individual cases are examined in detail. There a general process can be applied to each case individually to the optimum benefit of the nation. Those who have established themselves well and show viability will be allowed to stay. Those that have resorted to crime of course will not. But in the end the vast majority will stay, and will eventually be allowed citizenship, but with the guarantee that there shall not be anymore new immigrants until all the new comers are fully assimilated into American society, and this will take decades. The solution will in fact be final.

There will be a price and this price will involve guarantees that no new illegal aliens will be allowed to work, or live in the United States after the settlement is achieved. Once a temporary legal status is granted to those already here, it will be required for all previously undocumented aliens to have papers in order to work, or rent, or exist in the in the United States. In effect this will close down any new immigration after that. In the end some price must be paid. If not then the situation just continues to get worse.

If the borders are not closed, and if papers for work and rent are not required after the settlement, then the first wave of undocumented aliens will have entered into an unstable situation and will have joined the rest of the American population in full jeopardy of their rights. It would mean that these new Americans would eventually see their jobs taken by yet others, and their standard of living compromised by every new wave of undocumented alien. Why should a company hire a new legalized alien for full pay when it can hire a new illegal alien for half that pay? The problem would get geometrically worse!

As to the American people, if we failed to finally guarantee the sovereignty of their land, then we are in effect expanding the existing problem to ever worse proportions. Forcing the American people to accept all the new comers without some guarantee of later stability and national sovereignty will probably result in a destructive reaction that no one will want to live through. The American people must be satisfied that a price was paid, and that their tax dollars are spent justly, and that what is theirs is theirs and that the law exists and understands that. There is no other way but to close all future unregulated immigration, and severely curtain regulated immigration for decades. There is no other way to solve this problem.

The American people deserve a solution to this problem

Some say that we need specialized labor from abroad, but this is just an attempt to keep the door open towards the erection of a Slave State

Recently a group of wealthy billionaires took to an op ed in the Times where they insisted that the nation needs specialists from abroad and that the nation would suffer without them. The United States produces some of the best trained professionals in the world. There is no nation that has a superior higher education system than our own. It is unreasonable to assume that a much poorer nation can produce a superior system to our own with the relative lack of funds ,experience, and technology. It is also dangerous. We need our professionals to be of the very highest grade and have the most supreme education possible. This can only be achieved in the United States and if for any reason at all this is not happening, then we have a critical problem which must be addressed immediately if this nation is to survive. This is the worst of time for incompetence. This argument proposed by these billionaires will only result in cheaper professional labor for their industries but will not in any way profit the American people. If there is a profession required, the American people easily have the wherewithal to supply that professional requirement given the right incentives. If that requirement is not there, then something terrible is amiss somewhere since we have the most technologically superior civilization on Earth. Something somewhere has been grotesquely corrupted and it should be corrected now. If indeed we are not producing the professionals required, then we must do what must be done to produce them immediately and not resort to importing such requirements.

We must at some point in time begin to understand that all our actions have consequences. We cannot live in a perpetual national fantasy for the benefit of a few people at the top. The illegal immigration phenomenon has profited the few wealthy elements who are the primary owners of business and real estate. In effect the admission of so many aliens unprocessed and unaccounted for has resulted in a severe suppression of wages for the entire population. Wages have consistently failed to register gains in the United States and this has been one reason for the struggling economy. Should these conditions remain unresolved, and if indeed illegal immigration continues to be allowed, we as a nation face the danger of a possible slave state where a few people at the top echelons of society have nearly complete control of the rest. This is not a small danger but a substantial one. There is little question but that money and connection are what run the politics of the United States. As more and more people see lower and lower wage growth, and as the population is diluted in principle and cultural determination, effects which have always been the result of large influxes of new immigrants, there is the danger that only a determined few at the top will have control of the nation. Indeed there are indications that this is the case to a large degree even now. For this reason, the immigration problem must have an ordered proportional solution and the nation will not be able to continue without it.

Summary

The reality is that we are a democracy and intend to fully remain a democracy. We have no intention of relinquishing our freedoms, nor are we at any time going to dissipate our individual rights as citizens of the United States so that a few select people at the top can live a privileged life style . Yet, for the past thirty years our rights as a people have in fact been ignored. The nation was allowed to balloon to a population that we were not prepared for, and our standard of living and quality of life had for this reason degenerated in as far as the vast majority of people in our nation are concerned. This failure is due almost solely to the controlling elements at the top of the power structure of our nation. They have allowed for a vague loose immigration policy that suited their own financial, and political needs for more power and prosperity while ignoring the needs of the majority of Americans. The average person’s quality of life, and standard of living has been allowed to grotesquely degenerate so that the few at the highest levels of society could live extravagant lives due to the increased product demand emanating from our unstructured immigration policy. All the while wages have been suppressed due to the availability of cheap labor. Therefore those who held the greatest interest in the economy benefitted wildly while the rest of the population, which is the vast majority, has suffered the consequences. This cannot continue if the United States is to remain a stable nation. If these inefficiencies are not addressed immediately there is almost no question but that instability will very soon erupt and once begun will not be stopped easily. Once a large segment of the population declares its distrust in the government and acts upon this, there will very little that will dissuade that population from returning to normal. This process is probably an imminent event, and the various random shootings are likely the harbinger of things to come if something is not done quickly to take control of a situation that is degenerating by the day.

In the end, the vast majority of new-comers will stay, of this there should be no question, but there will be no others behind them until such time as the nation can actually afford them, or absolutely requires them and these can only be admitted legally and under strict regulation. This will take many decades of assimilating the present group and at some tremendous costs.

When everything is done however, these new comers will have become part of the American nation and be fully integrated and prosperous. The road might be hard won, but in the end there will be success, assuming the sovereignty of the nation is ultimately acknowledged and defended.

No Unilateral action by the President on this issue

It should be added that there has been talk of Obama taking unilateral executive action concerning the immigration problem. This could be suicidal. The American people are going to have to understand what happened, and are going to have to be convinced that this was a just solution that is ultimately in their interest and especially in the interest of the nation going forward. The president can not accomplish this task alone. He may believe the media will assist him in his effort to convince the American people that the right thing was done. But, there is tremendous distrust of the media, and the media cannot be relied upon to convince anyone of the justice of this particular executive action. There will be a reaction and this could make a bad situation much worse very quickly, especially since once again the economy is not well. The American people are largely uncertain of the nation going forward, adding this kind of executive action to a critical problem like this can only make the citizenry even more apprehensive and more likely to act up.

The best course of action is for the congress to take the matter up in January of 2015. Then a newly elected congress can begin to plot a just course of action for the issue of immigration. This can be finished before the end of 2015 and thus take any pressure off the next election cycle. The congress must be careful to understand that any solution will require that the American people are compensated and that they accept that compensation as just and that in the end it is best for the nation as a whole, and that it is especially good for the future of the nation. Only the congress has the true authority to pass such a law, and the president should respect that in order to avoid further lack of confidence in government and a resulting instability.

Global Economy, News, Publish

World War Cyber War is Here!

April 9, 2014 Peter Censer 3,387 Comments

see News Putin Isolated! And it Will Hurt!

World at War CyberTerror — Cyber War World War! Cyber Terror is Here!

We are all under attack!

Here we are in the twenty first century and we live in a great age of new technology. The computer age is upon us and is dominating every facet of our existence. Most of us are highly dependent on our IPhones, or Androids, or Samsungs, or Nokias, that is while we’re away from our main computers at home. And when we are away from them, we are usually at our internet enabled television sets, or when we are away from them, we are our game consoles playing our favorite game, or watching the newest movie. When we are away from all the above, we are sleeping, and usually are not plugged in. But give Google, or Microsoft, or Apple a few more chances and before long we will be wired even while we’re sleeping! However, when we sleep we sometimes see beautiful dreams, but at other times we are liable to see a nightmare. Well, our new found technological bliss is slowly turning into a nightmare in a waking state.

We are at war! And it’s the most general kind of war. It’s a world war Cyber War! My own website is being constantly attacked, I have had two separate break ins, and in fact one guy made himself, or herself an administrator to my own website. Fortunately whoever it was they did not delete my files, or I would not be writing this. However, one thing is very clear to me, nowhere, and no one is safe. For all the money we spend on anti-virus programs and all this extra protection, and all the annoying updates the one truth is that we really can’t protect ourselves from all attacks. Even Norton has to admit that in order to get the worst infestations out, we need their Super Duper Extra Scooper(downloaded separately) which is supposedly able to erase “even the most deeply embedded viruses” according to them, as well as quite possibly most of your own material on occasion. The reality is that there is no out of the box solution to the Cyber warfare we are exposed to. Indeed of late I have become convinced that all these security companies offer little more but their assurances, and a feeling of well being while in reality they know, and we should know that we are never really safe no matter what they all claim. Thus we are in reality at the mercy of anyone who wants to compromise our security. But now things are actually worse than they were even a few years ago.

You see, today, we are in the middle of a world war cyber war. This war has a number of players. These would be individual hackers from various nations, some criminals, some fancy themselves as do-gooders destroying what they see as a menace to society i.e. Computers, and others are actually soldiers, and secret agents. Yes soldiers and agents working for various governments. You see the United States leadership in its infinite wisdom unleashed a number of spy programs against everyone it saw as a possible threat to its most cherished asset, i.e. the one percent. And in so doing started to spy on everyone, including our allies, and their leaders. A woefully brilliant move if we may say so. The United States spied on France, Germany, Britain, and many more who were supposed to be our allies. Well no matter what they may have said publicly, there is no doubt that privately they were outraged, or probably just en-raged. They would no doubt respond in kind, eventually.

Of course we had been both spying -and undermining- our enemies systems, like China’s, Russia’s, Iran’s and others all over the world. This does not yet include the mention of corporate spying, much of it with the blessings of the US government. Thus, in the creation of the Global Economy, we also laid down the foundation for World War by daring to undermine the network systems of our fellow Global “partners”.

Then, of course, the NSA scandal broke out where we found out that we, America’s own citizens, are being spied on by our own government and that companies like Yahoo, Google, and Apple and Microsoft are well infested with all kinds of spy bugs whose sole purpose is to keep track of our own interests, and actions on the web. Add to this the I.R.S. scandal, where the I.R.S. went after the ultra conservative tea party for no other reason than its political opinion, and you have a disaster! We, who use computers every day, almost every hour of the day and night, have enemies under just about every mouse click, or screen swipe, or voice command we make! And the Cyber warriors are not at all shy about going after innocent people. In fact, between the soldiers and the criminals, the agents, the ad-agencies, and our own governments we can safely say that we are the main target of all this Cyber Warfare! We the individual innocent computer users who have done nothing to deserve all this.

Bleeding Heart Virus

Today, a new bug made its way into the global scene and some say it could be a big one. The so called “Bleeding Hear” virus has infiltrated Tumblr and has compromised not only Tumblr, but its users entire array of defenses. Apparently the Bleeding Heart Virus is now able to compromise all networks connected to the original site compromised. This would mean that anyone connected to Tumblr would be compromised as well. So if they get in to Tumblr they can get into any other site you have connected to Tumblr. Including Facebook, or Twitter, or Yahoo. So it would seem. But in reality it may not be that serious since most large corporations do not use OpenSSL because it is Open Source meaning that anyone can work on it. Most will hire other security corporations to handle their security needs and so whatever the Bleeding heart virus may do, it probably will not be bad enough to disable the internet. Although, the truth is that we are on our way to that event.

The fact is that without real cooperation between governments, and between corporations a safe global internet can never happen. The problem we have is that there are too separate standards doing too many things any way they want to. There are too many corporations writing their own version of the software wheel and it has become so that there is no way to regulate any of these under the present structure. One day Microsoft writes its own language, the next Apple writes its own language and so there is little in the form of a standard which might be used to secure the internet. Unfortunately without a universal standard there is no way to enforce strict rules and security protocol. In order for one company to lay claim to another’s customer, they need to drop their security levels and this is an opening that any hacker can fit right through with little effort. In fact the Hackers have their own websites and are able to freely communicate with one another. Hackers may well have more cooperation among themselves, than do Microsoft, Google, and Apple when it comes to security.

No Password is Safe

While the large tech companies try to increase their bottom line, they in effect leave the rest of us open to compromise. Our own governments have failed to set a standard of privacy in their dealings with individual citizens, much less take an interest in enforcing a strong security standard among corporations. Any information you give to the internet is in effect going to be available to the world at large and this no matter what the data may be. People are lulled into thinking that their passwords actually protect them from invaders, but this is an illusion. No password is safe because of the way it is kept at the location where the user signs on.

The fact is that any encrypted password will ultimately fail since the encryption needs only the original formula to crack. That is all you need is to know how something was encrypted originally in order to reverse encrypt, or decrypt the password. With so many loopholes set up for the purpose of getting to your cash and mine it is eventually going to be possible for someone to break in at some level and eventually decrypt any passwords on any site or any computer that is linked to the internet. The only possible protection is a standard that in essence restricts the way in or the way out of any secure location. This cannot be done unless it is in effect ordered from the top down.

The reality is that if someone wants to get into your computer or your phone, or your game system, or your internet ready television set, or game console, they can! It’s just a matter of time and effort on their part. Yet, this could be prevented if a standard official security protocol were to be required. Only no one is playing that game, not even our government which has time and again used internet vulnerabilities to compromise the privacy of anyone it sees fit for the task; this has included diplomats, government leaders, and of course the average person time and again. If the government itself is violating our privacy, who would ever expect them to enforce a standard security system?

Does the Government want a Secure Internet?

If our government says it needs to spy on us in order to “prevent terrorism” they would have no motive to ensure a more secure internet. Having a weak internet security protocol makes the job of the Federal Agent a lot easier since they can use the same vulnerabilities as the ordinary criminal hacker. So why would the government ever demand of corporations to tighten their security? The product that Microsoft makes, or Google, or Apple is by design left open to intrusion for one reason or other. Just as Norton for example will have left itself the ability to “fix your computer remotely” so too might any company that sells you a piece of software on your machine. If the government doesn’t care to enforce a standard of privacy for its own ulterior motives, then what chance does an individual consumer have to secure their own privacy?

We now find ourselves in a world war as just about everyone who was ever attacked by our government’s agencies is now attacking us. The Chinese and Russians, the “terrorists” and the anarchists have made it no secret that they will attempt to compromise any computer system that is in their eyes a “threat” to their own security. That’s fine and dandy, but where does that leave us, the individual, the innocent person who has nothing to do with any of these games that all these entities are playing? The short answer: nowhere. We are here to be eaten by anyone out there who thinks we just might taste good. At the very least I am not going to lie. The reality is that we are never safe.

Can anything be done to keep us safe in the meantime?

However, changing your password often, making it very long including keystrokes like ‘*’ and ‘(‘ or ‘= ‘ with numbers might delay an attacker, or make it harder for them. Making certain that your accounts are well kept, especially since all the tech companies now insist that your account be linked to the internet is a possible obstacle to an intruder as well. Keeping the number of accounts you have to a minimum and not publicizing them will also help. You should always have complex user names, and never tell anyone what your user name is if you don’t have to. Giving your email address to only trusted sources is another must. Running virus scans from more than one company might also help. For example if you use Norton, then you should also, on occasion use another company to scan for viruses. Sometimes hackers find ways to avoid detection from one company but not from all. So it’s a good idea to sometimes use secondary software to clean up your drives. And of course always keep your software up to date with security updates. For as long as your software maker produces them. Can you trust your software company? Only to an extent. A company is only as good as it’s employee. If an employee decides to compromise your computer off work, there is little your software manufacturer can do about that so even then, keep your computer private as can be, even from your software manufacturer, even from your security provider.

But for all that, we are all vulnerable. Unless the world gets together to stop these intrusions into our privacy by setting tough standards of transaction, there is really no help for it. A word of warning to those engaging in these acts. Sooner or later retribution is going to rear its ugly head. If governments do nothing to stop this, it will only escalate, and there is no telling where that might lead us all to. We can potentially go from Cyber War, to real War.

Maxnumbers.com