#0 Common Core, Agenda 21, And Global Governance

Source: Corporation Nation - Clint Richardson

Common Core, Agenda 21, And Global Governance

Who is Clint Richardson?

#0 Debunking the "War is Good for the Economy" Myth

Debunking the "War is Good for the Economy" Myth

The EyeOpener Report- Debunking the “War is Good for the Economy” Myth - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/06/18/the-eyeopener-report-debunking-the-war-is-good-for-the-economy-myth/#sthash.uuhrQ5Dt.dpuf

The EyeOpener Report- Debunking the “War is Good for the Economy” Myth - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/06/18/the-eyeopener-report-debunking-the-war-is-good-for-the-economy-myth/#sthash.1V6q9aSm.dpuf

The EyeOpener Report- Debunking the “War is Good for the Economy” Myth - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/06/18/the-eyeopener-report-debunking-the-war-is-good-for-the-economy-myth/#sthash.1V6q9aSm.dpuf

The EyeOpener Report- Debunking the “War is Good for the Economy” Myth - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/06/18/the-eyeopener-report-debunking-the-war-is-good-for-the-economy-myth/#sthash.1V6q9aSm.dpuf

#0 Felix Martin's Money, The Unauthorised Biography

Source

[In most respects, Eric Lonergan said it far better than I could have done. His comments are reprinted here with my occasional comments.]

Felix Martin tempts fate by opening with a quote from A. H. Quiggan: "Everyone, except an economist, knows what 'money' means." Martin is a former World Bank economist, and at the end of this book, I sympathised with Quiggin

After 260 pages of heavy-going argument, Martin concludes that money is: "not a thing but a social technology - a set of ideas and practices for organising society. To be precise (!) ... [money] is a concept of universally applicable economic value.

Earlier he states that: "Coins and currency ... are useful tokens to record the underlying system of credit accounts and to implement the underlying process of clearing."

Rather than providing a new and counter-intuitive insight into money, which he claims, there is analytical confusion.

A logical fallacy in much analysis of money is repeated here: because debts have often been used as money, it does not follow that money is a debt. Martin's novel version of this fallacy is to argue that because we use credit accounts and a clearing system to net off payments, this makes the credit and clearing system "money". This is a logical error. The standard definition of money - anything accepted as payment for goods and services - is clear, and distinguishes it from debt and the clearing system. This definition does not assume, as Martin implies, that money is a "commodity". The accepted means of payment, as his many examples illustrate, can be physical, or abstract (or virtual).

This is really a history book, which claims to have identified an unconventional and more relevant understanding of what money is. There is lots of history, but the central thesis is unconvincing. Martin goes as far as to suggest that a flawed definition of money, with intellectual roots in Locke and even Aristotle, explains the economics professions' failure to foresee the financial crisis. We know this to be false. Economic policymakers and academics ignored the financial system. The reason is not because they had incorrectly defined money, it is because they focus on the last problem. The obsession with inflation targeting was a prolonged response to the inflation shock of the 1970s and 80s. Unsurprisingly, economists - academics and policymakers - are now producing a vast literature on the financial system, banking and asset bubbles, without any re-definition of "money" (and it goes without saying that the next problem will lie elsewhere). [...we presume he is saying that “the next problem” will likewise be dealt with by them, as arising from somewhere other than the present financial system.]

Consistent with this mainstream response, Martin places far too much faith in the idea that "narrow" banking will save the world. It is a variant of the old proposal that when you deposit money with a bank, it should hold an equivalent amount of cash in reserve. This view re-emerges in some form after every major banking crisis. Friedman was an advocate in the 1950s. The interesting question, which Martin evades, is why it is never adopted. Perhaps it is not such a good idea. [... or perhaps the whole matter needs critical re-evaluation. We suggest, for just one instance, that the credit clearing or transaction clearing functions of a financial system are one activity and that finance is a separate activity and that the two should not be combined as they are in traditional banking.]

I had looked forward to reading this book. Martin's main argument is initially intriguing and there's plenty of history, but ultimately it is unconvincing and confused. For really good histories of money, I would first read Milton Friedman's Money Mischief or Paper Promises by Philip Coggan. The absence of reference to either of these is odd. Even more so is the superficial dismissal of Hayek, without reference to his views on money. Hayek's economics is flawed [we're certainly glad to see this in print as we share this view], but his insights into money, drawing on David Hume, are profound, and close to Martin's. Indeed, Martin's "novel" idea - that money is a social institution, not a physical object - originates with Hume, who is unacknowledged. These omissions, and errors of fact, do not reassure the reader. For an example of the latter, Domingo Cavallo, Argentina's former economy minster and a central figure in Chapter 4, is re-christened "Domenico," an error repeated in the Index. [LOL!]

[I had one major quibble with Martin on page 69. It dealt with his attitude toward those in Argentina who went about creating and issuing their own money. He's clearly a statist; since money is a social institution more than anything else, it should be run by government and banks, etc. We're sorry to inform him, his backers, fellow pundits, etc. that these remarks and attitudes amount to a JEER to all of us who will not be bamboozled by the elites and their shills, including Martin. Those people in Argentina and elsewhere needed to continue their lives and could not be bothered by people who had claims on their national currency due to the actions of people operating well above their heads. Society springs from individual people making agreements among themselves, not from a distant and often disinterested state. All real society everywhere is local, globalism is an illusion and without FORCE would certainly fade away. But while we would agree with Lonergan concerning the book's flaws, it does present a very good description of conditions in ancient Mesopotamian and Greek societies. The ancient bureaucracies of Babylon are back, as is the craze for mass planning of all kinds. Ancient Babylon was a Soviet style state operated by and for an elite. This system will ultimately fail precisely because it has already defied natural laws to scale, size, efficiency and responsibility. We have adequate proof of this in history; since it has happened before it shall with certainty happen again. The only solution; “come out of her, my people” into something better that does not require either governments or banks, awaits serious consideration.]

#0 Agenda 21: The Plan for a Global Fascist Dictatorship

"Climate change propaganda is a No-Problem-Reaction-Solution technique to justify Agenda 21 and its stable-mate the Biodiversity Treaty. This is an internationally-binding document involving nearly 200 countries. The United States signed the treaty, but it was not ratified by the Senate after people like ecologist and ecosystem scientist Dr. Michael Coffman exposed its true consequences and implications. He said that he realized during the 1980s and 1990s that the plan was to use the excuse of protecting the environment to confiscate half the land of the United States. Similar plans exist for every other country. America may not have ratified the treaty, but it is being implemented by the day. Agenda 21 demands the central global control of all land; all private property; all water sources and distribution; all other resources which includes people in its definition; all energy supplies and distribution and all food production and distribution."

Agenda 21: The Plan for a Global Fascist Dictatorship

#13.14 Peace Revolution Podcast 83

2014-05-11: #83 America and the Great Game: A Strategy of Tension

The Great Game, as it has been known among the elite, is elucidated in this episode. After the last one, we thought Richard Grove and associates had perhaps set a record for the possible length of a podcast, but this episode is of about the same length, dependent on the previous episode as a basis. Here, you will get more background information that few know and acknowledge as the facts of history. Many books and sources are provided.

As an idea of history, we see the pattern which can be extended as far back as you may see; the finance of competing terrorist regimes, war as a preferred result. The Great Game itself is world empire; the crass motivations of profit and power matter, human values as they are known and understood by the vast majority of humanity, do not. At the bottom of it all is money; what it is, who controls it, who issues it and who has it.

You'll learn more of how despicable these people really were (and are); famous people that you would have no trouble recognizing. You and your children are encouraged by the prevailing culture to empower and admire these people and as far as possible try and become part of their club as a measure of personal success. But of course, all this is an elaborate charade. Part of our education on this blog has considered the psychopathic nature of these people and their predilections, how they naturally interact with narcissists; the predator and its prey. This is a recurring theme.

Some startling facts are revealed. We suggest that further research be done wherever there can be any shadow of doubt as to the verity of some rather incredible allegations being made by some of the presenters, “allegations” which we confess at this point in time are becoming more credible by the day.

INTERMISSION 

[14 May, 2014:  Mr. Burton.  This episode contains 8 hours of material from a show in 1984 hosted by Dave Emory (see here).  I expect that what he says may be so, but he's relatively uncritical of the communists who ran Russia and Eastern Europe.  I just think you should remind people to draw their own conclusions.

Agreed, and thank-you!  

In particular, I'd point out that all the material dealt with in this episode is statist in both reference and action; all statism leads to war, tyranny, genocide, all the rest and the other point the episode highlights is the power of organized money and corporatism; owning something as an absentee owner, as an investor, even governments using the market for securities in these organizations to raise money for this or that.  

Also recall that all money issued by governments is used to buy what they want, not what you or I want, so they would buy things like spies, thugs, assassins, terrorists, special forces, etc.  You or I have no need of such things and certainly would not buy them if we were using our own money.  Just saying!

Ecotechnics, properly understood, is not a science. It may be characterized as an engineering philosophy, attempting the management of technology, to achieve the balance they believe in. Much of what they say sounds like the blog's proposed VEN. What are the limits to this vision? “Machines of loving grace,” is an actual impossibility, it violates many obvious connections; if people are machines and people are capable of love, then their logic runs, machines are capable of love. In the process, the very definition of love is changed to something like a person's individual comfort level in a computer enhanced perpetual order. Most of us are involved with this philosophy to some degree, whether we like it or not. It seems to me that the idea that any possible human mental picture of the natural world can possibly be accurate or adequate is frankly an impossibility. I'd like to know just how your VEN proposal addresses the fact that people in diverse places may place differing values on the same goods or services? I don't ultimately see one interconnected system as possible.

I think you're answering your own question. The VEN may be the totality of all transactions running through all local exchange nodes and the trades running through each local exchange may represent different price levels for many goods or services based on the usual economic forces of supply and demand. The Value Unit is like a ruler used to measure the value of an exchange. You can take it anywhere and it will measure anything based on its scale; for instance in inches or centimetres. There may be any number of scales. Some scales are best used to measure things based on size; big objects or long distances are measured in miles or kilometres rather than inches or microns. Yes, the balance of nature is an illusion. We are not suggesting that anything like a self sustaining egalitarian world order that supposedly works best for everyone is even a possibility. Money, however it appears or who issues it, remains nevertheless a tool, a very powerful tool, but a tool nevertheless. Offering another tool does not imply that people can or will make the best use of it.]

#0 Origins of the US Intel Community & Spying on Americans

History… The Origins of the U.S. Intelligence Community & Why It Spies on Americans

Source

The promotion of political activism is not this blog's interest: knowledge of the system, on the other hand, should be everyone's business. Everything discussed in this program has many independent sources and cannot be easily refuted. We note in particular that the jeer “conspiracy theorist” was actually anticipated and deliberately chosen for use by an agency of the US government as a standard response to any criticism. Again, per usual, the rule is “follow the money” and gather the names and connections. It is everyone's right to know.

#0 John B. Wells Sheila Zilinsky-Nazi Takeover or Evil Eugenics Plan?

John B. Wells Sheila Zilinsky-Nazi Takeover or Evil Eugenics Plan?

Brought to my attention by a young associate, there is much of interest in this interview.  Whether one agrees entirely with their views or not, Zilinsky and Wells certainly know how to talk.  

John B. Wells