Beware The Profiteers

At this present moment there is an epidemic of false scarcity being manufactured across the U.S.A. and in Canada. This means that in truth, there is no scarcity as the factories and supply lines are completely normal, but panic buying is creating scarcity, which in turn leads to more panic buying. How does this benefit the profiteers? There are already profiteers at work sending out crews to deplete such items as toilet paper, Kleenex, frozen meats, breads and other staples. When panic buying ensues, it makes it impossible to target these crews who are filling up warehouses with these goods in anticipation of an actual shortage. If the factories begin to shut down and the supple lines become diminished, then the government will be forced to introduce rationing and ration cards as they had done in WWII. When/if this happens, you will witness the profiteers open up their warehouses and establish a Black Market of goods. Already it is impossible not to notice panic buying has caused false scarcity.

Concentrate on that which you have control over. If you cannot stop a war or cure a disease, live your life and find happiness and pleasure whenever you can. Spread joy wherever you go. Do not fret. If you cause fear and panic, you are making all situations worse. When you panic buy, you are helping the profiteers with their work to deplete and cause even greater panic. Can currency slavery be justly called an economy? The apparatus of worthless currency, consumerism and the garbage goods and environmental destruction it creates is the result of Profit as the economic driver for the Planet Earth.

Most of you readers know that productivity and quality should be the economic driver and that all worthless currency should be removed from use. Only life and labour have value and it is only after a Global Revolution that will end all privatization and country internment that it will be possible to witness this event. Until then, you will have to continue to bear witness to shameful profiteering in all of it’s ugly guises.

Meet the Corporate War Profiteers Making a Killing on Trump’s Attacks on Iran

As long as the top executives of our privatized war economy can reap unlimited rewards, the profit motive for war in Iran—or anywhere—will persist.

CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran. This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies’ share prices spiked, inflating the value of their executives’ stock-based pay.

I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most recent SEC information on their stock holdings.

Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the following day.

Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman’s reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held 251,947 shares of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.

New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the 92,894 shares she’d accumulated as the firm’s COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of post-assassination trading.

Lockheed Martin, whose Hellfire missiles were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world’s largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her remaining stash had increased in value by about $646,000.

What about the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in $2.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.

We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated $4.1 billion—and he’s a major investor in oil production, a sector that also stands to profit from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.

Suleimani’s killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic’s fortune. As the weapon maker’s share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her stock holdings increase by more than $1.2 million.

Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the missile and bomb manufacturer’s share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday. But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.

As of his final Form 4 report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.

Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it’s a sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.

We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed capping CEO pay at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S. president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a plan to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker makes.

As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit motive for war in Iran—or anywhere—will persist.


World One Verses World Zero

I have posted this information before but feel it is important enough to be set up as a post on it’s own.

Below we will discuss the difference between the economic drivers of a Civilization Level One economy and a Civilization Level Zero economy. We will refer to the Level One Civilization as WORLD ONE and the Civilization Level Zero as WORLD ZERO.

In WORLD ONE we will have an economy without any form of currency so the economic drivers are Productivity and Quality. When manufacturing any item in this society it is imperative that all products are built to last and satisfy a need as permanently as possible.

In WORLD ZERO we will have an economy based upon the use of currency (worthless small strips of paper covered in cartoons) so the economic driver is Profit. When manufacturing any item in this society it is imperative that all products are built to be temporary so that they will require consistent replacement. The citizens are regarded as consumers whose needs must be placated but never permanently satisfied.

Let’s examine some case scenarios.


In WORLD ONE a light-bulb is manufactured with the goal of it lasting as long as possible, even hundreds of years. When there is no longer a need to manufacture this item, the Human labour will be diverted to the manufacture of something else. Products here are meant to last and thus all waste is minimized. As all ideas originate in the Source Field, inventions are meant to enrich the entire Human Collective and are property of the Collective.

In WORLD ZERO a light-bulb is manufactured with inherent flaws that will render the product useless after a set time and therefore a constant need of manufacture is required and vast waste is generated as a result of this senseless process. Human labour is wasted. Here all inventions are property of the individual and meant to generate paper covered in cartoons for that individual.


In WORLD ONE a medication to treat a life-threatening disease is manufactured with the intent of permanently ridding the Human Collective of Earth from this disease. So a factory that manufactures a cure for Leprosy will constantly manufacture and distribute this cure to all affected members of the Human Collective on the Planet until there is no longer a reason for it to be manufactured. The Human labour pool involved will then be used to produce something else.

In WORLD ZERO a medication to treat a life-threatening disease is manufactured with the intent of permanently maintaining the disease in order to secure a lasting supply of paper covered in cartoons for the factory involved with the manufacture. Examining the present situation on the Planet Earth will reveal that there are many afflicted with Leprosy here but they are economically depressed and therefore unable to provide enough paper covered in cartoons to satisfy the factory that produces the cure. Those Humans in areas of abundant paper covered in cartoons do not have this disease and therefore will not desire it from the factory. So we witness this disease thrive, infecting and ultimately killing thousands of Humans. The factory does not care that the product is only useful to those who lack the paper covered in cartoons to obtain this cure. As long as they can constantly produce it seems to be their only desire, so they try to convince those on the Planet that do not have the disease to provide the paper covered in cartoons to the factory and then resend this to those who actually need it. They do not care about the disease or those members of the Human Collective dying from it. They only care about paper covered in cartoons. Human lives and labour are again wasted.


In WORLD ONE an area of the Planet is in need of potable water and irrigation. The need of this area is assessed and all required Human Labour resources are used to treat the problems of this area. The result is an area suddenly abundant in potable water and new areas of irrigated land to produce for the Human Collective that was previously useless.

In WORLD ZERO an area of the Planet is in need of potable water and irrigation. The cost in terms of paper covered in cartoons is assessed by those Humans responsible for the affected area. If it is too great for those Humans to produce the required paper covered in cartoons, then the problem is ignored and left to fester. Loss of productive land and perhaps even the lives of Humans and Animals is the result.


In WORLD ONE all members of the Human Collective are citizens of the Planet, free to roam and explore their entire world. As all resources are shared, all members have the ability to utilize their innate talents through education or training as these things are rights. Any member of the Collective will be aided to begin any new enterprise that enables them to serve their fellow Humans. There is no wealth or poverty or privatization of any kind.

In WORLD ZERO all members of the Human Collective are imprisoned in internment camps which have varying resources available for the prisoners. They are not permitted to roam and explore their world. All resources are privately owned. Members must produce paper covered in cartoons for all education and training as this is a privilege. Many members of the Collective are forced to labour in misery at tasks which do not please them, thus negatively impacting their quality of service. Here there is extreme wealth alongside extreme poverty.


In WORLD ONE there is never any labour dispute or strikes or austerity measures imposed. As there is no form of currency there are no budgets or any form of limit upon the Human Collective.

In WORLD ZERO there are constant labour disputes and strikes and bizarre austerity measures imposed upon the Human Collective. The Human Collective is forced to depend upon the mass manufacture of worthless small strips of paper covered in cartoons for all of their needs.


The Earth is at present a Level Zero Civlization and the technology which exists on Earth – and should not- has become a threat to all life. You must upgrade the civilization to a Level One world by ending country internment, currency slavery and the privatization and endless wars that support it.

More Proof That The United Nations Must Be Disbanded

Many for a long time on Earth have complained about the erratic behaviour of this “United Nations” which is not united and does not represent the nations on Earth. It is a non-governmental body of select veto-wielding Internment Camps and their vassals that establishes an illusion of Global oversight where there is none. It does more harm than good. The Earth is a Global Plutocracy with fake Democracy and fake Communism that is maintained through country internment and currency slavery. It is time for more humans to demand that the United Nations be eliminated from Earth and replaced with a Planetary Council – Select representatives from the First, Second, Third and Fourth World Nations elected by their citizens, as well as environmentalists, physicists and engineers as selected by the Global body of their peers.-

Long ago the United Nations should have imposed strict sanctions upon the U.S.A. and the U.K. for the disgusting behaviour of those governments. The U.S.A. invaded Afghanistan to steal their Lithium for their corporations just as they have in other regions of the Middle East to steal their oil. Let’s look at the most recent actions of the United States misbehaving yet gain in South America. The United Nations never talks about it… so let us.

New study reveals that US-backed coup in Bolivia was based on lies


The blatant lies and hypocrisy of the US have been exposed with the publication of a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This shows there was no fraud in Bolivia’s presidential election last October.

Coup 2019 was the real fraud

The US researchers at MIT have demolished the false claims that the US administration put forward to justify its support for the violent military coup against Bolivia’s socialist president Evo Morales.

The truth is that Morales is the legitimate elected president of Bolivia. He won the election in October 2019 by a large margin in a free and fair contest. Following the publication of this new study, the president of Argentina Alberto Fernández has once again defended Evo Morales, stating that the Bolivian leader “won last year’s election by more than 10 points”.

The real fraud has actually been committed by the Donald Trump administration. The notion that the US intervenes in countries around the world to promote ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, or ‘freedom’ has once again been exposed as a total sham. In Bolivia, democracy has been overturned with the backing and material support of the US government, because the people elected the ‘wrong’ president.

Specialists speak out

The MIT study was commissioned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and carried out by US researchers John Curiel and Jack R Williams who specialise in election integrity. Their work challenges the claims made by the influential Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) of “serious irregularities” in Bolivia’s election. In a statement released during Bolivia’s counting process in October 2019, the OAS expressed “concern” at the “hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results after the closing of the polls”.

According to Curiel and Williams, the OAS’s claims of fraud are not supported by the actual data. Writing in the Washington Post, Curiel and Williams state:

Our results were straightforward. There does not seem to be a statistically significant difference in the margin before and after the halt of the preliminary vote. Instead, it is highly likely that Morales surpassed the 10-percentage-point margin in the first round. …

There is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find – the trends in the preliminary count, the lack of any big jump in support for Morales after the halt, and the size of Morales’ margin all appear legitimate. All in all, the OAS’ statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed.

The OAS is an organisation that operates as a tool of US foreign policy which has played a big role in justifying the coup in Bolivia. Its baseless accusations of electoral fraud were widely and uncritically reported in the overwhelming majority of the mainstream Western media. The impact of this was to undermine Bolivia’s legitimate democratic process.

The CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot is now calling for an investigation into the behaviour of the OAS:

The US wants to dominate Bolivia  

The US administration’s foreign policy is guided by the long-held doctrine that Latin America is the US’s ‘backyard’ and the entire region must be subordinated politically and economically to the US.

The real crime of Morales and his Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) was to reject US domination and pursue a path of independence, development, and social inclusion.

The success of Morales’s government was undeniable. Over almost 14 years, poverty was dramatically slashed, with the proportion of the population subsisting on less than $5.50 per day cut from 48.1% to 24.7%. Strategic sectors of the economy – including the country’s vast amounts of natural gas – were nationalised, and huge state investment was launched to develop the country. This economic model succeeded in improving living standards for more than a decade with average growth of 3.2% per capita between 2006 and 2018.

Morales was preparing Bolivia for the future as a trail-blazer in the global green revolution too. The country has one of the largest known reserves of lithium in the world. This mineral is an essential component for the production of electric batteries. Rather than just export this raw material unprocessed, Bolivia was investing in building state-owned factories to produce its own batteries for electric cars.

Apparently, this was totally intolerable to the US – which along with its local allies is trying to reverse the economic development of Bolivia and impose a neoliberal assault on the country. Luis Arce, the former economy minister in Bolivia under Morales and this year’s MAS presidential candidate, has warned that the US-backed dictatorship in Bolivia is already preparing to privatise the country’s lithium for the benefit of transnational corporations.

Bolivia’s new elections will be organised under conditions of political persecution

Following the US-backed coup on 10 November 2019, Bolivia is now governed by an ultra-right-wing, racist dictator – Jeanine Añez – whose party‘s electoral alliance secured only 4% in October’s elections.

New elections have been scheduled for 3 May 2020. They are being organised by electoral authorities chosen by the Bolivian dictatorship; so the conditions for free and fair elections are severely compromised. The US and Bolivia’s right wing are hoping to use these elections to claim some democratic credentials for governing the country. The problem that they face, however, is that – despite intense political intimidation, violence, and persecution – the enduring popularity of Morales and his MAS party continues. Luis Arce, for example, apparently leads the polls, with one of the latest putting him at around 32%. The right wing, meanwhile, is divided, with three high-profile candidates putting themselves forward. The centre-right Carlos Mesa is on 23%, Añez is on 21%, and Fernando Camacho – one of the instigators of the coup – is on 15%.

For MAS to be leading the polls in an atmosphere of intense political persecution, where opponents of the coup are criminalised and accused of sedition, terrorism, and corruption is a significant achievement. It reflects the fact that the left in Bolivia has deep social roots, mass support, and a rich history of struggle. Arce is himself under “investigation” and could be arbitrarily banned from standing in the election by the illegitimate Bolivian regime at any time. Morales, meanwhile, put himself forward to run for the senate but has already been disqualified by the supreme electoral tribunal.

Bolivians keep fighting back

The false accusation of electoral fraud served as a pretext for the execution of a highly sophisticated, meticulously planned, and well-resourced coup in Bolivia. The coup represents an important victory for US foreign policy in Latin America and a blow to all progressive forces in the region. The US has a history of using deception to influence public opinion in order to ‘soften it up’ ahead of US interventions. A notorious example of this approach was the US and UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, where the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was used as a pretext for a bloody conflict that would reportedly lead to over a million deaths.

The people of Bolivia are fighting on for their independence and self-determination. They need international solidarity, and for the truth of the despicable role that the US administration has played in overturning their democratic elections to be widely exposed.

As the U.S.-backed government in Bolivia unleashes a wave of political persecution, the Trump administration remains silent

March 6, 2020


LA PAZ, Bolivia — The knock at Orestes Sotomayor’s door on the outskirts of this high-altitude metropolis came just as he was about to leave for work. The 35-year-old publisher of the Resistance, a left-leaning online news outlet, answered to find a group of plainclothes police officers eager to speak with him about a “cybercrime.”

He accompanied them to the station, where he was informed that he, in fact, was the cybercriminal they sought. The charge: sedition against the state, for running news stories critical of Bolivia’s U.S.-backed interim president, Jeanine Áñez.

“My arrest is part of a much larger effort by this government,” said Sotomayor, who spent five weeks in prison before he was transferred to house arrest. “This is no different than what happened in Bolivia during the military governments of the past.”

Critics cite another glaring similarity. As a right-wing, pro-American government represses, threatens and jails its leftist opponents, the United States has stayed largely silent — just as it did during the abuses of the Latin American dictatorships it supported during the Cold War.

Washington’s response — or the lack thereof — reflects what analysts say is the most ideological policy on Latin America by an American administration since the region’s shift toward democracy in the 1980s and early 1990s. Critics say the Trump administration has played down a wave of repression unleashed by Áñez in Bolivia, the killings of left-wing community leaders in Colombia, shootings by police in poor Brazilian neighborhoods, and the alleged drug-trafficking links and human rights abuses of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández. All are countries run by conservative, pro-Trump governments.

At the same time, the Trump administration has led Washington’s most aggressive campaign in years against abuses committed by leftist leaders, particularly in socialist Venezuela and communist Cuba. Those abuses are among the most severe in the region. But critics say the failure to also call out wrongdoing by right-wing governments has rewarded leaders who have themselves been seriously and credibly accused.

That double standard, analysts say, could be working against the administration’s stated goals in Venezuela, where U.S. officials are trying to turn the leftists in President Nicolás Maduro’s inner circle against him.

Perhaps no country exemplifies the double standard better than Bolivia. When socialist President Evo Morales resigned and fled in November amid accusations of election fraud, Áñez was a second vice president of the Senate from a conservative opposition party. In the absence of Morales and other top leaders from his Movement for Socialism, she declared herself the nation’s interim president — and was quickly recognized by the United States.

Since being sworn in, the fiercely anti-socialist Áñez has presided over the detention of hundreds of opponents, the muzzling of journalists and a “national pacification” campaign that has left at least 31 people dead, according to the national ombudsman and human rights groups. Washington has yet to comment.

“There is an unwillingness on the level of the Trump administration to hold Áñez to account, so she has a lot of room to do what she wants, including what seems to be the carrying out of vendettas,” said Michael Shifter, the president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue. “I think this is only going to further entrench governments like Maduro’s. Because they see what’s happening in Bolivia, and they know what awaits them if they leave power, despite any guarantees they might be offered.”

Nadia Cruz, Bolivia’s ombudsman, said her office has grown increasingly concerned that protest is being criminalized, and that charges of “sedition” and “terrorism” are being brought for simply disagreeing with or questioning the Áñez administration.

U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet expressed her “concern” last week over “the prosecution of dozens of former government officials and persons related to the previous administration.” Human rights groups denounced the Áñez administration for vetoing the participation of two experts on a commission linked to the Organization of American States to help investigate abuses in Bolivia during the last months of 2019.

Áñez and senior members of her government declined repeated requests for comment. Congressman Tomás Monasterio, a solid Áñez backer, said the criticisms against her are unfounded. He said Áñez represents “a clear vision of the future, of a modern Bolivia, which is why traditional parties want to stop her.”

Monasterio called allegations of political persecution “fake news.” The “true” persecution, he said, occurred during the long rule of Morales’s socialists.

“We can talk about death threats, but the ones I received,” he said. “They and not us are the ones threatening and provoking death.”

Publicly, the Áñez government denies using hard-line tactics — officials say they’re simply responding to Morales’s genuinely seditious and violent backers. Morales, accused of corruption, controlling the courts and clinging to power, resigned after a scathing report by the OAS upheld opposition allegations of fraud in the October presidential vote that Morales claimed to have won.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently questioned the OAS report, arguing that they found no “statistical support for the claims of vote fraud.” An article by the researchers, published by The Washington Post, prompted the Mexican government, which has backed Morales, to demand an “independent” review of the election results. The OAS fired back, saying the researchers’ analysis contained “countless falsehoods, inexactitudes and omissions.”

In Bolivia, even anti-Morales politicians and activists who once backed Áñez now say her administration has used threats and intimidation to consolidate power. The targets have included former Morales cabinet ministers and socialist politicians brought up on charges as varied as corruption, sedition and “making illegal appointments.”

There’s a “real persecution of people in the previous government,” said José Luis Quiroga, the policy director for Carlos Mesa, a former president who finished second to Morales in the October election.

Opinion polls now show Mesa running second to the socialist Luis Arce, Morales’s former finance minister, in a May do-over. Áñez, who at one time pledged not to seek the office, is also running. Morales and another senior socialist ally have been barred by the newly reformed electoral council from running for the Senate.

“In many cases, they are doing exactly what [the socialists] did to their political enemies,” Quiroga said. “A simple accusation is made, and the prosecutor and police go all out.”

The U.S. government, a sharp critic of Morales, has refrained from criticizing Áñez publicly. In December, weeks after protesters were killed in her pacification campaigns, Trump tweeted his support for her “as she works to ensure a peaceful democratic transition through free elections.”

The following month, Mauricio Claver-Carone, the director of Latin America policy for the National Security Council, traveled to Bolivia “in the name of President Trump to greet and recognize the labor of President Áñez at this moment of transition and optimism for Bolivia,” he told reporters in La Paz.

A senior State Department official, asked why the United States had refrained from addressing alleged abuses by the Áñez government, said that “our message has been consistent all the way through to all actors, that they need to be able to create a framework of impartiality. . . . That goes for every actor in the system, including the transitional authorities.”

Morales, Bolivia’s president for more than 13 years, resigned Nov. 10 after the OAS issued its preliminary report on the election and Bolivia’s military and national police withdrew their support for him. Confusion reigned as the senior socialists next in line for the presidency followed him out the door.

Catholic Church leaders called an emergency meeting with Bolivian officials and dignitaries from the European Union and Brazil, according to Waldo Albarracín, a prominent anti-Morales human rights activist who attended. That night, he said, Morales supporters attacked and burned his home.

Áñez was invited to serve as interim leader. But Albarracín, like others, now denounces her for going back on the promise that she would not seek a full term.

“Her role was to lead the country to transition, not to run for president,” he said.

Critics say Áñez has polarized the nation in part through rhetoric — she warned voters in January against allowing the return of “savages” to power, an apparent reference to the indigenous heritage of Morales and many of his supporters. Right-wing Bolivians had long accused Morales of exerting undue pressure on the news media — but Áñez’s government has appeared to do the same, labeling as “seditious” outlets critical of her administration.

Humberto Pacosillo closed his Inti Pacha Radio in November, he said, after he was warned by authorities that he could be jailed for sedition. His station had aired reports that blamed the interim government for the killings of left-wing protesters during clashes that followed Morales’s resignation. At least nine people were killed in the central city of Sacaba on Nov. 15, and at least eight more were killed four days later in El Alto, according to the ombudsman’s office.

“We report on what is going on in our communities,” Pacosillo said. “It is the reality, but those in power don’t want to hear. They started calling us ‘communication terrorists.’ ”

Áñez’s government initially blamed the killings on Morales supporters, claiming that demonstrators shot their own allies to cast blame on her administration. Officials continue to deny that security forces were at fault, but in mid-February they began negotiating compensation packages with victims’ families.

Iveth Saravia, who runs a community organization in El Alto, said she saw police and soldiers open fire on protesters there. The government had said the demonstrators were plotting to blow up a storage facility that provides metropolitan La Paz with cooking fuel — a claim she and other protesters deny.

“They claimed we were at fault, but we did not have guns or tear gas,” she said. “The only weapon we had was our voice. We pleaded with the military, asking why they were shooting.”

“It is hard to say anything, because if you talk, they accuse you of all sorts of crimes,” she said. “If you post something on social media, it is sedition. They persecute anyone who is critical and praise anyone who attacks their opponents.”

Faiola reported from Miami.

Bolivia has vast reserves of Lithium and now they will be stolen by U.S. corporations.

In Chile, a Billionaire Takes the Reins From a Socialist, Again

SANTIAGO, Chile — For the third time in 12 years, Chile’s two towering political figures will trade the powers of the presidency.

The socialist leader Michelle Bachelet made history in 2006 by becoming first woman elected president in Chile. But four years later, voters went in the opposite direction, choosing a conservative billionaire businessman, Sebastián Piñera.

Ms. Bachelet then reclaimed the presidency in 2014, but Mr. Piñera took it back yet again in elections last year. His new term begins on Sunday.

Ms. Bachelet’s departure marks the end of an era of political empowerment for women in Latin America and consolidates the region’s rightward political shift.

When she took office for a second time in 2014, Argentina and Brazil were governed by leftist women: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Dilma Rousseff. But after Sunday, all the countries in the Americas will be run by men.

In an interview at the presidential palace a week before the end of her term, Ms. Bachelet said she was proud of her legacy.

“We haven’t done everything we wanted, and some things didn’t come out perfectly,” Ms. Bachelet said. “But the truth is that we have accomplished more than what many thought possible.”

At the end of a transformative era for Chile, a country of nearly 18 million, many question the long-term viability of the sweeping policy changes Ms. Bachelet put in place to expand civil rights and access to higher education.

“I think there were several advances for women during her two governments,” Alicia Moreno, 47, a social worker, said of Ms. Bachelet. “But she lacked strength to carry out the big reforms we all expected.”

Her first election as president was a milestone that turned her into a global icon of female empowerment, a status that helped her win hard-fought victories last year. Chile’s Constitution does not allow consecutive second terms.

When Mr. Piñera succeeded her, his election in 2010 was pathbreaking, too, as he was the first right-wing leader elected since democracy was restored in Chile in 1990, after a 17-year military dictatorship led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

At this political turning point, interviews with the departing and incoming presidents suggest, there is much the two political figures in Chile agree on.

Both say they believe the country should continue to be a beacon of free trade. Both want to see even deeper ties with China, Chile’s top trading partner, and have rebuffed Trump administration warnings that Beijing is consolidating itself as a colonial, exploitive power in Latin America.

The two leaders are bullish about Chile’s transformation into a renewable-energy powerhouse and the country’s role as a global leader in countering climate change. And both say Chile should continue to welcome immigrants, even as a large wave of recent arrivals from Haiti and Venezuela has called into question the country’s capacity to absorb so many newcomers at once.

But there is plenty on which they disagree. To begin with, there is Ms. Bachelet’s legacy: an ambitious overhaul of the tax system, labor laws and public education. Mr. Piñera argues that she overreached and that her efforts amounted to taking a “bulldozer” approach to governing.

The departing president, however, argued that structural changes were necessary.

“This is a changed country,” Ms. Bachelet said in the recent interview in Santiago, the capital. “People are more empowered. The middle class is a lot more aware of its rights and its needs; people demand more each day; and political institutions are viewed with a growing level of distrust.”

During her latest four-year term, the government transformed Chile’s electricity grid, weaning a nation poor in fossil fuels of its dependence on hydrocarbons by building an expanding network of solar and wind-powered grids that have made electricity cheaper and cleaner.

Her government also created protected marine areas and a vast network of national parks in the southern Patagonia region that will shelter much of the country’s forest land and coastline from development.

She is credited with strengthening consumer protections and labor rights and passing an electoral reform law that made Chile’s political system more inclusive by breaking up a two-party system and broadening the participation of women. The electoral overhaul also limited the influence of private-sector money in campaigns.

Her signature legislative victory: getting a deeply divided Congress to approve the legalization of abortion in limited circumstances.

Beatriz Sánchez, a rising political star who came in third in the first round of last year’s presidential race, said the changes set in motion by Ms. Bachelet might become clear with time.

“Her main achievement was proposing, with deep conviction, an agenda of real change that shifted the conversation in Chile toward a society that valued rights and not just markets,” said Ms. Sánchez, who is to the left of Ms. Bachelet politically.

Mr. Piñera, however, says there is much that his predecessor got wrong.

“I don’t doubt the president’s good intentions,” he said during an interview this past week at his office in Santiago. “But you know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Among Ms. Bachelet’s most controversial changes was her aggressive push to expand access to free higher education through programs that today cover about 340,000 students. That initiative was financed by raising corporate taxes, which Mr. Piñera and other critics said drove away investors.

While it was a laudable goal, Mr. Piñera argued, Ms. Bachelet’s education policy is unsustainable and has degraded the quality of universities.

The education overhaul and other programs were tough to fund as economic growth slowed because the price of copper, Chile’s top export, dropped. Last year, the country’s fiscal deficit topped $8 billion, or 2.8 percent of its gross domestic product — a level that Mr. Piñera called irresponsible.

When Mr. Piñera, 68, ran for a second time, he handily defeated Ms. Bachelet’s favored candidate, the left-wing former journalist Alejandro Guillier, in December by convincing voters that he was best suited to jump-start economic growth.

The incoming president says he will cut bureaucratic bottlenecks, court foreign investment more aggressively than his predecessor did and seek to foster unity on economic policy in an increasingly fractured, and left-leaning, Congress. “It won’t be easy,” Mr. Piñera said. “First, we will need to restore confidence in the country.”

Chile’s economic growth will continue to rely heavily on its robust relationship with China, which in 2010 outpaced the United States to become Chile’s top trading partner, Mr. Piñera said.

“The relationship with China has been a good relationship, and it is expanding beyond commercial matters, to investment and cooperation in science and technology, environmental issues and several other fronts,” he said.

“China has been gaining ground in Latin America in part because China has been pursuing it and partly because the United States is stepping back.”

Mr. Piñera has expressed disappointment that the Trump administration has yet to present a coherent policy toward Latin America while warning the region about drawing closer to China.

“We’ve seen signs — building a wall along the border with Mexico, the deportation of immigrants, protectionism,” he said. “But a clear policy that would allow us to evaluate the foreign policy of the United States toward the region is still not on the table.”

As a sign of how muddled the Trump administration’s approach is, Mr. Piñera said that when he had a lengthy, cordial conversation with President Trump shortly after the Chilean election last year, Mr. Trump expressed surprise when the president-elect pointed out that the United States had a trade surplus with Chile.

But foreign policy is unlikely to be among the thornier issues Mr. Piñera faces when he assumes office on Sunday. He won the second round of voting by an ample margin, and Chileans elected a strikingly politically diverse Congress during the first round. Anticipating a vigorous political opposition, Mr. Piñera has portrayed himself as a deal maker and a moderate.

“I want to replace the perverse logic of the bulldozer that destroys everything in its wake for the wise culture of dialogue, agreement, collaboration,” he said.

Mr. Piñera has extended an olive branch on an initiative Ms. Bachelet failed to get across the finish line, vowing to support passage of a bill that would allow transgender people to update their names and gender on government documents.

Yet he remains opposed to another bill, which would legalize same-sex marriage, arguing that “situations that are different” cannot be “treated the same way.”

And as he sets out to accelerate economic growth, Chileans will be watching closely whether any new wealth is distributed equitably, Ms. Sánchez, the former candidate, said.

“If they seek to keep things as they are, where wealth grows and remains hyperconcentrated in few hands while most people’s salaries barely cover basic expenses, he won’t have an easy time making deals in Congress,” she said.

And university students, who staged mass protests during Mr. Piñera’s first term, are likely to become a thorn in his side if the subsidies Ms. Bachelet established are pared.

“Piñera promises more work and growth, but just like in his first government, he’s going to govern for the rich and the businesspeople,” Pablo Vilches, 22, a university student said.

The United States is still desperate to steal all of the oil reserves in Venezuela for it’s corporations.

For Western Press, the Only Coup in Venezuela Is Against Guaidó


The international corporate media have entered crisis mode following the replacement of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó as head of the country’s National Assembly.

In headline after headline, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “Takes Over” (NBC1/6/20), “Claims Control of” (New York Times1/5/20CNBC1/6/20) or “Seizes” (Reuters1/5/20NPR1/6/20) parliament, and “Ousts” Guaidó (Wall Street Journal1/5/20) in the process.

The Washington Post (1/5/20) takes this hysteria to another level, hyperbolically proclaiming that “Venezuela’s Last Democratic Institution Falls as Maduro Attempts De Facto Takeover of National Assembly.”

Such headlines obscure the elementary if inconvenient fact that Guaidó failed to secure the necessary votes from his own coalition’s deputies to continue as president of the legislature, leading him to convene a parallel, ad hoc session in the offices of the right-wing El Nacional newspaper.

Serving up state propaganda

Corporate journalists repeat unceasingly the U.S. State Department talking point that the Jan. 5 assembly election, which chose Luis Parra as the legislative body’s new president, was “phony” because Guaidó and his loyalists were barred from attending the session, rendering the vote void.

“Venezuela’s socialist government installed a new head of Congress on Sunday after armed troops blocked opposition legislators from entering parliament,” Reuters (1/5/20) misinformed readers.

As Venezuelanalysis (1/5/20) reported, this narrative was refuted by pro-Guaidó lawmaker William Davila, who, after strolling in to the legislature, told press that with few exceptions, virtually all deputies were permitted to take their seats. Other senior opposition lawmakers, including the outgoing first and second vice presidents of the body, were visibly present inside the parliament.

Moreover, video evidence reveals that Guaidó was not himself “prevented,” as the New York Times (1/5/20) had it, from entering the legislature, but rather refused to do so except in the company of fellow lawmakers whose parliamentary immunity had been revoked for alleged criminal offenses. Likely knowing he did not have the votes to secure reelection, Guaidó appears to have declined to attend the session, going as far as to scale a fence in a publicity stunt widely reported by Western outlets that all but ignored the crucial facts behind the day’s events.

Corporate media followed up their lie that the pro-Guaidó opposition was banned from parliament with the dubious claim that the subsequent vote held in the offices of El Nacional was “official.” The Washington Post (1/5/20) matter-of-factly stated, “In a 100-to-0 tally—enough to put him over the top in a full session of the 167-seat chamber—those present reelected Guaidó as head of the legislature.” The reporters evidently neglected to inspect the actual vote tally, which contained glaring irregularities such as votes by legislators abroad fleeing criminal charges, as well as those cast by substitutes for deputies who had already voted for Parra. As even hard-right, Miami-based journalist Patricia Polea highlighted, Jose Regnault Hernandez, the substitute for newly sworn-in National Assembly Second Vice President Jose Gregorio Noriega, was allowed to vote for Guaidó despite Noriega having himself stood for election on a rival ticket earlier that afternoon.

It is also deeply ironic that Western outlets would rush to declare the legitimacy of an irregular vote held in the offices of a local newspaper, given the lengths they have gone to deny the existence of press freedom in Venezuela (FAIR.org5/20/19).

Why isn’t Guaidó in jail?

Procedural formalities aside, the real question, which corporate journalists will never ask, is why an opposition figure who arbitrarily declared himself “interim president” with the backing of hostile foreign powers, and who urged the military to rise up to install him in the presidential office, would be permitted to set foot outside a jail cell in Venezuela, let alone stand for reelection as head of parliament?

The answer would require admitting that this naked violation of sovereignty is only tolerated because of the constant threat of lawless imperial violence, which U.S. corporate media enthusiastically cheerlead against other independent Global South states like Iran.

Instead, Western journalists continue to whitewash the U.S.-sponsored coup—the sixth major attempt since 2002—impugning Maduro’s democratically elected government as “authoritarian” or a “dictatorship” (FAIR.org4/11/19;  8/5/19), which is newspeak for “legitimate target for bombing and/or murderous sanctions.”

Throwing to the wind any semblance of neutrality, the New York Times (1/5/20) reported:

Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, moved on Sunday to consolidate his grip on power by taking control of the country’s last independent institution and sidelining the lawmaker who had staked a rival claim to the presidency.

“The political chaos comes at a time when Venezuela is facing economic collapse,” the paper of record added, bolstering the rationale for Maduro’s overthrow. “Hunger is widespread, and millions have fled the country.” Like most corporate media (FAIR.org6/26/19), the Times reflexively avoided mention of U.S. economic sanctions’ role in severely exacerbating the crisis and killing tens of thousands since 2017, writing off the illegal, inhumane measures as “sanctions on Mr. Maduro’s government.”

For the corporate press, it would appear that the only “coup” is that perpetrated by Maduro in insisting on serving out his elected mandate (Washington Post1/6/20Wall Street Journal1/6/20Forbes1/7/20).

Concealing corruption

In their elegies to the “last democratic institution in the authoritarian South American state” (Washington Post, 1/5/20), Western journalists rarely attribute Guaidó any significant blame for the perceived debacle.

Despite acknowledging Guaidó’s falling popularity, following his utter failure to oust Maduro, mainstream outlets have turned a blind eye to the opposition leader’s string of humiliating scandals. Guaidó has been linked to Colombian paramilitary drug lords, while his inner circle has been accused of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid funds, among other illicit acts.

Tellingly, the only corruption allegations mentioned in the latest corporate coverage are those against Parra and his dissident opposition colleagues. Making little effort to conceal its bias, CBC (1/6/20) describes the new National Assembly president as “a previously unknown backbencher mired in accusations of bribe-taking,” whose “rambling comments” were challenged by journalists.

The double standard is striking, given that Western media have devoted strenuous efforts over the past year to anointing a “previously unknown backbencher” as president of Venezuela. The attacks on Parra comes amid threats of U.S. sanctions against him and other opposition politicians who broke with Guaidó. The blatant imperial blackmail recalls similar U.S. threats reportedly issued against opposition presidential candidate Henri Falcón, who defied the opposition’s 2018 electoral boycott that paved the way for the current coup efforts.

Corporate journalists’ discouragement over Guaidó’s failures (FAIR.org7/23/19) is becoming ever more pronounced (e.g., Reuters12/3/19Washington Post12/17/19New York Times1/6/20). But at the end of the day, they have simply invested too much in this smooth, technocratic figure to fundamentally fault him, let alone actually question the imperial regime-change machinery that produced him and his elite coterie.

It is no longer a secret that distraction is a means of superintendence.


Global Plutocracy 2020

Today we present some recent articles that shed light on the power structure that has ruled the Earth for 13,000 years and is still in power. Remember that only life begets life, so life has value and only labour creates, so labour has value. Soon you must accept that all of the private Central Banks be closed and eliminate all forms of currency. We strongly advise the creation of the first Planetary Council of Earth and the New State to be the sole holder of all assets upon Earth with the end of privatization. Embrace the New Global Communist Party Human Labour Value system.

Universal Labour Value

The New Global Communist Party will terminate all currency and Central Banks. The New Global Economy will be based on Actual Labour Value.

The formulae for Actual Labour Value is as follows:

Basic Labour Value BLV

Experience E

Risk R

Skill Level SK

Educational requirement ER

Stress Level SL

Actual Labour Value ALV

Hence to calculate BLV+E+R+SK+ER+SL= ALV

Confronting the Great American Myth

DAVID KORTEN                              FEB 1, 2019

We grow up in the United States proud of our nation’s historic role in leading humanity’s transition from monarchy to democracy. We rarely ask, however, whether the system we have truly fits the definition of democracy. Merriam-Webster defines democracy as “government by the people.” What we have in the United States more closely resembles the Merriam-Webster definition of plutocracy, “government by the wealthy.” A nation ruled by big money is not a democracy. The 2018 midterm elections inserted a wave of new political blood into Congress and many state houses—younger, more female, more racially and religiously diverse, less beholden to big money, and attuned to a strong public desire for change.

At the national level, the new representatives of a restless electorate encounter a system in political lockdown, at least until the next election. That makes this is a good time for a serious reality check on what will be required to achieve the democracy we thought we had and a future that truly works for everyone. In the United States, we grow up schooled in our national mythology: our nation was created as a democracy by brave founders, who crafted a constitution that initiated a global transition from monarchy, and who were driven by a vision that makes the United States a beacon of hope and possibility for the world. We are taught that our laws now and forever must hold to the founders’ original intent. We are not taught, and it is rarely mentioned, that the Constitution the founders crafted was designed to secure economic power for themselves, and that economic power has been the ultimate foundation of political power for all of human history. Political power ultimately resides with those who control our access to a means of living. When that access is controlled by the few, the result is plutocracy—a reality deeply embedded in both U.S. and world history.

The democratization of political power therefore depends on the democratization of economic power. The wealthy White men who stepped forward to lead the war for America’s independence from Britain put their lives and fortunes on the line. Their leadership liberated the original 13 colonies from British rule to birth a new and independent nation. It was not, however, a totally selfless act. In so doing, they also freed themselves from deference to and taxation by the British crown, while positioning themselves to subsequently write the rules by which the new nation would govern itself. They had no intention, however, of sacrificing the privilege that came from their ownership of lands stolen from Native Americans, slaves abducted from Africa, and other commercial, manufacturing, and financial assets that gave them their distinctive social, economic, and political power and privilege.

To the contrary, they wrote the new nation’s Constitution to secure the power and privilege of men like themselves, while securing it against expropriation by any among them who might aspire to be anointed king. By establishing elections of members of Congress and a president, they precluded a hereditary monarchy. But by limiting the vote to White male property owners like themselves, they stripped political power from all but those of their own race, gender, and class. The original Constitution thus affirmed slavery, secured the rights of property, and limited the vote to White male property owners. Voting rights for other Americans—women, Native Americans, Blacks, and those with no property, including Whites—came slowly and to this day remain to be fully secured. We could argue about whether the resulting government ever worked for more than a minority of America’s people. Clearly a substantial majority—including most White males—do not feel it is working for them today. In a 2018 Gallup poll on confidence in U.S. institutions, Congress—the branch of government that is supposed to best represent the will of the American people, and the branch with the power to impeach corrupt presidents and judges—came in rock bottom. Only 11 percent of those polled expressed “a great deal of confidence” or “quite a lot of confidence” in Congress.

It is surely no coincidence that Congress is also the branch of government most visibly corrupted by big money political donations and the revolving door between government service and lucrative careers in lobbying for the industries they are charged with regulating. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center, found that a strong majority of Americans, irrespective of political alignment, consider democratic ideals and values important and believe we fall far short in living up to them. Only 18 percent of Americans feel democracy is working “very well,” while 61 percent feel fundamental changes are needed in the design and structure of the American government. This includes the majority (68 percent) of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans. Of those that Pew identified as least politically engaged, 71 percent support significant institutional change. These data help to explain why the U.S. ranks near the bottom among the world’s democracies in voter turnout.

In the 2016 presidential election, only 55.7 percent of Americans of voting age voted, compared to recent turnout rates of 85.8 percent in Sweden (2014) and 80.3 percent in Denmark (2015). The turnout in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections was 50.3 percent, the highest in a midterm since 1914 and up from 36.7 percent in 2014. But that’s still well below the all-time highest turnout rate in any federal election: 82.6 percent in 1876. Low turnout rates tend to reflect the mood of the country.

The more you feel the system is rigged and the more difficult that system makes it for you to vote, the less likely you are to try. We are not experiencing a failure of democracy. The failure we experience is the failure of the institutions of a plutocracy. Such a system, structured and managed to secure rule by the rich, is indifferent to the needs of the many. The unusual levels of voter and candidate enthusiasm displayed during the 2018 midterm elections showed the desire to clean up a deeply corrupted political system. But it will take far more than the modest proposals currently on the table to move beyond a two-party duopoly beholden to corporate money. My next column will look at what the transition to an authentic democracy will require.

Capitalism vs. Socialism Is a False Choice

DAVID KORTEN          FEB 7, 2019

Economic power is—and always has been—the foundation of political power. Those who control the peoples’ means of living rule. In a democracy, however, each person must have a voice in the control and management of the means of their living. That requires more than a vote expressing a preference for which establishment-vetted candidate will be in power for the next few years. My previous column, “Confronting the Great American Myth,” distinguished true democracy from government by the wealthy, a plutocracy. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Constitution was written by representatives of the new nation’s wealthy class to keep people like themselves in power. On Jan. 4, the newly elected Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced HR1, the For the People Act of 2019. Its aim is to make voting easier, reduce the influence of big money, and curtail gerrymandering. Even before it was introduced, the champions of having rich people rule were falsely characterizing it as an attack on the freedom of speech of ordinary Americans.

The provisions of HR1 represent an important step in a transition from the plutocracy we have to the democracy most Americans want. Unfortunately, political gridlock assures that HR1 has no chance of becoming law until at least after the 2020 election. Yet the popular yearning for democracy reflected in that bill makes this a propitious moment for a serious conversation about what a true democracy might look like and why it would be a good idea. We stand at an epic choice point for our nation and for humanity. The plutocracy now in place has put us on a path to self-extinction—a future with no winners, rich or poor. We must now seek a path that restores the health of Earth’s regenerative systems while securing equity, material sufficiency, peace, and spiritual abundance for all—exactly the opposite of the plutocrats’ drive to secure the power, privilege, and material excess for themselves. This makes democracy far more than just a good idea; it is now an imperative.

The power of plutocracy depends on keeping the people divided against each other along gender, racial, religious, or other fault lines. The goal is to divert our attention from themselves so that they can maintain their power and continue to amass wealth. Champions of plutocracy would also have us believe that we must choose between two options: capitalism (private ownership and management) or socialism (government ownership and management). They prefer we not notice that in their most familiar forms, both capitalism and socialism feature an undemocratic concentration of control over the means of living in the hands of the few. Democracy is essential for either to work effectively for the benefit of all. Plutocrats generally favor capitalism, because in the extreme form we now experience, it supports virtually unlimited concentrations of wealth and power. Its practitioners are also drawn by capitalism’s ideological claim that unregulated markets will assure that the presumed benefits of a growing economy will be shared by everyone, and so the rich need not bear any personal responsibility beyond maximizing their personal financial gain.

The critical economic and political question for humanity is not whether our means of living will be controlled by corporations or government, but whether control will be concentrated for the benefit of the few or dispersed, with benefits shared by everyone. Support for the needed economic transition can come from many places. Just as people are not necessarily racist because they are White or misogynistic because they are male, people do not necessarily become plutocrats just because they are rich. Many wealthy people work actively for economic and political democracy and support radical wealth redistribution, including through support of progressive taxation and significant taxing of inherited wealth. The political and economic democracy we seek cannot be easily characterized as either capitalist or socialist. It is a system of substantially self-reliant local economies composed of locally owned enterprises and community-secured safety nets with responsibilities shared by families, charities, and governments. Such a system facilitates self-organizing to create healthy, happy, and productive communities. In our complex and interconnected world, this system will require national and global institutions responsive to the people’s will and well-being to support cooperation and sharing among communities, but the real power will be dispersed locally. There would be ample room for competition among local communities to be the most beautiful, healthy, democratic, creative, and generous.

There is no place for colonizing the resources of others or for predatory corporations. These communities will most likely feature cooperative and family ownership of businesses. They will also recognize the rights of nature and their shared responsibility to care for the commons and to share its gifts. The rules of plutocracy evolved over thousands of years. We have far less time to come up with suitable rules for democratic alternatives. That search must quickly become a centerpiece of public discussion.

Use of currency is an illusion because of what currency (Capital) actually is : That which is worthless, yet presented and perceived as being valuable. It spawns privatization and greed manifested through class and ‘power over others’ being the form it eventually assumes -since when you permit a small minority of humans to own all of the wealth and the hoarding it breeds; only a power over others competition between them remains- to the detriment of the majority of you.


C.E.O.s have come to accept the president, in spite of his populist views and governance-by-Twitter style. Tax cuts and a record stock market speak volumes.

DAVOS, Switzerland — The last time President Trump arrived at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting, his trip was treated with deep skepticism, if not disdain, by the business and political leaders who gather once a year in this ski town in the Swiss Alps. It was 2018 and even with his newly enacted tax cuts, his populist, antiglobalist rhetoric and Twitter outbursts were more than enough to make the event’s collection of plutocrats uneasy.

This time is likely to be different.

With the stock market at record highs, two trade deals announced and the possibility that Mr. Trump may be in office for another four years, there is an increasing sense that he will be accepted, if not embraced (although some attendees may roll their eyes behind his back) when he arrives on Tuesday, even as he faces an impeachment trial.

As anathema as it may be to some participants, Mr. Trump may be the new Davos Man.

The Davos forum, marking its 50th year, has always sought to foster a sense of multilateral unity. But Mr. Trump, along with his counterpart in Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, is seemingly moving the world into a tariff based, decoupled universe, based on bilateral negotiations and diplomacy by tweet.

To the surprise of many Davos regulars, the economic results have yet to prove as disastrous as they expected — and, at least in the short term, have seemingly proven to be quite positive. (The long-term effects, of course, are still unknown.)

Even Mr. Trump’s most ardent detractors acknowledge that an acceptance of the president is settling in among the Davos crowd.

“We are all adjusting to his abnormal behavior,” said the investor Anthony Scaramucci, Mr. Trump’s onetime spokesman turned enemy who has been a Davos regular for over a decade and hosts a wine tasting party that has become a hot ticket for the boldfaced names. “The economic strength helps their cognitive dissonance,” he said.

Just last week, a lineup of some executives who will attend the Davos forum were in the audience at the White House when Mr. Trump signed the initial China trade deal. They more than politely applauded.

“Will you say, ‘Thank you, Mr. President’ at least? Huh?” Mr. Trump asked Mary Erdoes, the chief executive of JPMorgan’s asset and wealth management division and a Davos regular, along with Jamie Dimon, the bank’s C.E.O. “They just announced earnings, and they were incredible,” Mr. Trump said about JPMorgan. “They were very substantial. I made a lot of bankers look very good. But you’re doing a great job. Say hello to Jamie.”

Stephen Schwarzman, the co-founder of Blackstone, who often gets calls from global C.E.O.s seeking advice on how to manage relations with Mr. Trump because of his close relationship with him, said there has been a shift among the C-suite crowd.

“The attitude of the business community toward the Trump Administration appears quite positive,” said Mr. Schwarzman, who runs one of the world’s biggest investment funds. Among the reasons for the warm feelings, he said, are the strength of the economy, trade deals with China, Mexico and Canada, the tax bill and the elimination of regulations.

Still, if there is one topic expected to dominate the week here besides Mr. Trump himself, it will be an issue that he and the Davos community vehemently disagree about: climate change

Just last week, Satya Nadella, the chief executive of Microsoft — and a Davos participant — announced the company would be carbon negative by 2030, and by 2050 it would seek to remove all of the carbon it has ever emitted since its founding in 1975. The World Economic Forum itself announced the meeting would be carbon neutral after it bought carbon credits to offset carbon emission from the event.

Of course, Mr. Trump doesn’t believe in climate change and pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement to the horror of most of the executives and attendees of Davos.

He is likely to hear criticism from activists like Greta Thunberg, the high school phenom who has become a global icon for the climate. And he may get some nudging from C.E.O.s, but, unlike the activists, they will be unlikely to confront him publicly out of fear that he might turn on them or their companies.

“The Davos crowd are well respected followers of fashion and love whomever is in power,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management and an expert on corporate leadership. “They celebrate when the people are rich and powerful.”

Mr. Sonnenfeld pointed out that, despite the stock market run-up, only “12 percent anticipate economic conditions will improve over the next six months, up from just 4 percent in the third quarter,” according to the Conference Board’s most recent survey of chief executives.

While the business community has come to accept Mr. Trump — one executive described the view by saying “life is relative” — Mr. Sonnenfeld noted that a poll he conducted three weeks ago found that 56 percent of C.E.O.s favored the president’s impeachment and removal from office.

Mr. Trump may find himself flattered by the Davos audience. Whether it is genuine flattery or something else remains an open question. Whatever the answer, Mr. Scaramucci is convinced it is all self-interested: “The unspeakable truth is that C.E.O.s and their staff are horrified.”

Billionaires have nothing better to do these days than rule over you. You will see their horrid faces overseeing your Country Internment and they rely upon currency slavery and unending wars to maintain this with your co-operation. Only by being non-compliant can you destroy their countries. for none of these are yours. All humans are sovereign citizens of Earth, with the right to travel, live or work anyplace upon the surface of the Earth unhindered. To do this you must take back what has been stolen. Massive protests and strikes are encouraged. Stop paying all of your ‘bills’ (usury) since none of you owe anything.



All Countries Are Evil

Greetings Human Collective on Earth! We – The Servants of the Light- typically begin every year with an inspirational message of hope. We have decided to use a different approach as it cannot be missed that things on Earth continue to grow progressively worse for all of you as a Collective. Please pay attention to Our message.

You must all be aware at this point that all countries are actually internment camps and the Earth has no valid government beyond the municipal governments of the world as the entire Planet is actually a Global Plutocracy with fake democracy and fake communism. If the situation on Earth does not change soon, it will lead to the destruction of all life as you presently experience it on the planet. There are only two paths before you… peace or war. For too long now you have ignored the truth of this as you permit yourselves to be distracted by luxury, narcotics, fame and the pursuit of all things related to invented wealth and poverty as shame, fear and lies are constantly being used to manipulate and control you alongside the scapegoating of minorities and even other countries. We speak with many voices on Earth which is why We always refer to Ourselves as ‘We’ and why it is that you have heard our messages repeated from many sources. Still We are ignored it seems, as nothing much is changing. It is not all your fault, but the Earth is the way it is today because you and you alone have made it that way; only you and you alone can change it. Yes, We have told you this before.

HERE is an important message for the suffering peoples of France, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, U.S.A., U.K. and many many other places where daily protests and strikes are not only ignored by the governments but blacklisted by their privately owned media. When you have attained a point at which prolonged protests and strikes are ignored and suffering and frustration results; this is what the Internment Camps on Earth want. They want to stifle your movements in order to stop their growth so they are blacklisted to media to discourage your voices from being heard and supported while relying on frustration – in the case of massive strikes – by those who should support you. When these situations occur, you will feel that there are no options left apart from Guerrilla Warfare in order to force Regime Change or at least make it uncomfortable for your ruling elites. This not only will fail but it is what they are hoping you will do. When you resort to these last option tactics, only 2 results can occur. The remote possibility of a full scale revolution or martial law and death on a massive scale as the authorities ‘crack down’ on you. Although it is certainly in your best interests to destroy all countries in order to finally establish the First Planetary Council of Earth and end all forms of currency; you must remain peaceful. You must not stop your protests but increase them along with more and more strikes in order to ‘awaken’ the sleeping population which is the true majority. You must remain non-compliant.

Remember that all currency used to enslave you and steal everything that exists through massive privatization schemes are based upon a lie. Only life begets life, which is why all life has value. Only labour creates, which is why all labour has value. Currency creates only usury, greed, theft and graft. This is why We strongly advise you to end all forms of privatization on Earth along with a different form of reward – such as Labour Value -.



Message Number 342

God Says

You are all made in My image… I am the light. It is what you are. This is in truth what it means to be ‘made in My image’. I am no race or species nor have I any form or hair colour or eye colour etc. All of you are made in My image. Oftentimes it seems that on Earth I am imagined by you as being a reflection of your body. Sometimes I am portrayed by you as being stern and austere, when nothing could be further from the truth. I have a sense of humour just as you all have for am I not the Source of all things including merriment? I create nothing imperfect, it is you who creates imperfect thought-forms and all their resulting forms. I always tell you all to be joyful and wear a smile. On Earth, it is impossible for you all to recall your times with Me in Heaven. I am with you for I and everyone and everything else about you is still Me. We are the light. Let’s celebrate today and everyday henceforth. Hallelujah!

To Fly on Earth

God said:

Time does not exist. Or if you insist it does, it exists as a faulty measure of eternity. It can only be faulty, for it tries to bind the bindless. It demarcates that which cannot be demarcated. The concept of time tries to hold back a flow. It wants to break it into segments. But that is an interruption to flow, and it is false. There is an issuance of love, and time tries to package it. But love will not be packaged.

Eternity means always is and so never was. Never was. No past tense. All the past that you hoard never really was. Love was. All the past you hoard is a memory of dots on a map. But the dots are not the map. And your memories are not truth. Your memories are an attempt to hold in place pictured events. You only imagined them. You made up a meaning. You interpreted the uninterpretable.

Physics tells you that an event is a happening in time and space. Physics will also tell you that time and space are not. So what is an event? And what is a memory? A blade of grass in a painted field. No more, no less.

A memory is a picture you paint and repaint.

Move on.

Leave the landscape you painted and repainted, and start a new one. Take wet brushes and paint today. Today holds an imagined canvas before you, but at least it is fresh. Start over. Recast your life into the present. Abandon the past. It really has no hold over you, although you maintain that it does.

You are light. Should light be held back by the cover-up of the past? The past is only an excuse. Step through the past. Throw away excuses. There are none.

Stand before Me right now.

Stop dallying.

Step right up. I am the Present.

All there is is the present. This moment contains all.

The present is eternity. Get on for the ride.

And what a ride. What sights you will see. What vistas before you. And what a vision are you of My love.

Envision My love, and drop the past accumulations of thoughts. They are old pictures. They are old dresses that you once put on. Put on a beautiful new dress today. Leap into the present. Leap out of the past.

The past does not hold you. You hold the past. The past does not contain you. Do not you contain it. Do not you regress to the past. The past was not more beautiful than the present. Even when the past was terrible, you still want to keep it. It was not your past, My darling children. You have no past, for you are eternal, and that means you are present. So be present.

Be present with Me.

Be My consciousness, farseeing, all-knowing, all love dispersed upon the earth.

To what do I attach? I attach to Truth. No, I do not attach. I am Truth. I am free.

Be you like Me. That is all I ask, that you be grounded in Heaven and fly on earth.

Be awake and aware of the scapegoating of racial, religious, sexual and economic marginalization used to maintain your fears and distract you from what is really taking place about you on Earth. It does not bode well for you to continue to ignore the truth of things. All are equal and all deserve your love equally. Even those elites who have stolen the entire world through their banking, insurance, corporate and massive privatization fraud. Awake! Do not ignore what is taking place. Be non-compliant.

Sackler Family Are Drug Dealers That Must Be Arrested

We have always said that all narcotics should be completely legal and unregulated. This is because all humans behave as they do based upon their individual desire, ability and intent. New laws only create new prisoners and have actual little effect upon human behavior. All drugs laws which have been invented over the past 200 years, exist solely as a means of imprisoning minorities and the poor. Education about the dangers of specific narcotics use is how you discourage the public from experimenting with potentially dangerous and highly addictive drugs such as Heroin, Crystal Meth, Oxycontin, Fentanyl etc. These repressive laws have only opened up the drug pushing culture to privately owned Pharmaceutical Corporations whose existence has nothing to do with healthcare or helping the public; like all corporations it is only profit for their tiny sphere of shareholders that matter. So they are now the primary drug pushers in the West and are reaping vast profits in secret.

Recently there has begun a backlash against some of these corporations for such dangerous products such as Roundup and Oxycontin. Recently several lawsuits have been brought against the privately owned corporation Purdue Pharma, the makers of the destructive, highly addictive drug Oxycontin.

Nearly every US state is now suing OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma

by Berkeley Lovelace Jr.

  • California, Hawaii and Maine — as well as the District of Columbia — file lawsuits Monday against Purdue Pharma.
  • That brings the total number of states suing the OxyContin maker to 48.
  • Purdue Pharma says it “will continue to defend itself against these misleading attacks.”

CaliforniaHawaiiMaine and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits Monday against Purdue Pharma, bringing the total number of states accusing the OxyContin maker of helping to ignite the nationwide opioid crisis to 48.

Like those of other states, the new lawsuits accuse the privately held company and its owners, the Sackler family, of downplaying the risks of addiction to OxyContin while exaggerating its benefits. Prosecutors say the company’s marketing practices encouraged doctors to push higher doses of the narcotic and contributed to a public health crisis that has caused thousands of overdoses in the U.S. each year.

“Purdue and the Sacklers traded the health and well being of Californians for profit and created an unprecedented national public health crisis in the process,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Monday at a news conference announcing the state’s legal action. “We will hold them accountable.”

OxyContin is a prescription drug used to treat moderate-to-severe pain in adults. From 1999 to 2017, nearly 218,000 people died in the United States from overdoses related to prescription opioids, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. OxyContin first came on the market in 1996.

The attorneys representing Purdue say accusations against the company are “not supported by facts and are fundamentally flawed,” adding its opioid painkiller represents less than 2% of the U.S. market. They also say recent lawsuits are in many regards a repurpose of old allegations.

In a statement to CNBC on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Purdue Pharma said the company “vigorously denies the allegations contained in litigation against the company and will continue to defend itself against these misleading attacks.”

The spokesperson also pointed to the dismissal of North Dakota’s lawsuit against Purdue Pharma earlier this month by South Central District Judge James Hill. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem will appeal the dismissal.

The lawsuits come as some 1,600 cases against Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers are being consolidated and transferred to a judge in the Northern District of Ohio. The cascade of lawsuits, which are expensive and show no signs of slowing any time soon, puts the company at risk of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The volume of litigation is “unprecedented,” said Adam Zimmerman, a professor and an expert on complex litigation at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He compared it to the tobacco master settlement agreement in the mid- and late-1990s in which the nation’s four largest tobacco companies reached a group settlement with 46 state attorneys general.

Nebraska and Michigan are the only two states that have not sued Purdue.

In addition to the litigation, the company and the Sacklers are facing backlash from public and private institutions. CNBC reported that investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase ended its relationship with Purdue Pharma over its alleged role in the crisis. In addition, New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art and other cultural centers, which have enjoyed the Sacklers’ charity over the decades, said they will no longer accept gifts from members of the family.

Who are the Sackler Family? they are the Scumbag Billionaire owners of Purdue Pharma and have begun stripping all assets from the corporation and hiding them in their personal holdings in order to evade having to payout in any further lawsuit losses and set the stage for bankruptcy. Remember that in the U.S.A., Corporations are considered as people and are afforded the same rights and legal protections as people, even though the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. originally banned all corporations from the country.

Purdue Pharma owners the Sackler family accused of hiding $1 billion in Swiss accounts

The family that owns OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma used Swiss and other hidden accounts to transfer $1 billion to themselves, New York state’s attorney general contends in court papers filed Friday. New York — asking a judge to enforce subpoenas of companies, banks and advisers to Purdue and its owners, the Sackler family — said it has uncovered the previously unknown wire transfers among family members, entities they control and several financial institutions.

The transfers bolster allegations by New York and other states that the Sacklers worked to shield their wealth in recent years because of mounting worries about legal threats.

Scores of those transactions sent millions of dollars to Mortimer D.A. Sackler, a former member of Purdue’s board and son of one of its founders, according to the filings.

They point to $20 million shifted from a Purdue parent company to Sackler, who then redirected substantial amounts to shell companies that own family homes in Manhattan and the Hamptons. Another $64 million in transfers to Sackler came from a previously unknown family trust, using a Swiss account, prosecutors said in their filing.The filing, made in a New York court, follows decisions by that state and others to reject a tentative settlement with Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue, announced this week, arguing it does not do enough to make amends for the company’s and family’s alleged roles in flooding U.S. communities with prescription painkillers.

As part of the settlement, Purdue is likely to soon file for bankruptcy protection. But New York and other states have promised they will continue to pursue the Sacklers, alleging that family members drained more than $4 billion from the company over the past dozen years. The family has used a complex chain of companies and trusts to control their holdings, some located in offshore tax havens.

The Sacklers had an estimated net worth of $13 billion as of 2016, making them America’s 19th-richest family, according to Forbes magazine.

In its filing Friday, New York told a state judge that the only way it can determine the full extent of those transfers is if all those it has subpoenaed are forced to provide documents detailing their interactions with the Sackler family.

“While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement, we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct. The limited number of documents provided to us so far underscore the necessity for compliance with every subpoena,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.


The Sackler family withdrew more than $10 billion from Purdue Pharma during the country’s opioid crisis


December Is The Time For Donation Requests(Free Spirits/N.A.M.B.L.A.)

It is that time of the year when we are all being inundated with requests for donations. So it should come as no surprise that we are encouraging you within the Community to consider making a donation to support Free Spirits and N.A.M.B.L.A.


About Free Spirits Resources

The Purpose

The primary purpose of Free Spirits, its venue, and other Free Spirits Resources is to provide activists, authors, journalists, professionals, officials and protestors a place to organize and state their facts, express their opinions, and present their arguments concerning the complex and controversial subject of BoyLove.

The Content

The content, including Editorials and/or Newsletters, published by any Free Spirits Resource is created by its collective community of participating authors, interest groups, and other interested parties.

The Editorial Team(s)

The Editorial Team of each Free Spirits Resource is a group of highly dedicated volunteers chosen from among current Resource participants. Their staff is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Resource’s Web site and the content of its publications in accordance with Free Spirits traditions and guidelines.

The Tech Team

The Tech Team is a group of qualified volunteers selected from current Free Spirits Council Members. This team is responsible for maintaining and upgrading the Free Spirits servers and software.

The Domain Owner

The Free Spirits Domain Owner is the collective group of current Free Spirits Council Members, however, the domain and server registration information is maintained by the Chief Administrator.

The Costs

The Free Spirits Web site and other Free Spirits Resources and their publications are produced entirely by volunteers. Expenses are kept to an absolute minimum and expenditures are covered by selfless, tax-paid contributions from Free Spirits Council members and Free Spirits Resource participants.

About the Free Spirits Council (FSCo)

The Free Spirits Council (FSCo) is a fellowship of volunteers sharing their knowledge, skills, experience, and other strengths. The primary function of the FSCo is to maintain Web hosting space for Free Spirits Resources.

The FSCo is not allied with any religious belief, political group, media organization, or any other public, private or government institution and does not wish to engage in any controversy.

In accordance with our long-held traditions, the Free Spirits Council:

    • Is autonomous and entirely self-supported through our own selfless contributions
    • Neither endorses or opposes any cause other than its stated own
    • Has no opinion on issues outside the scope of free speech
    • Does not endorse, finance, or lend the Free Spirits name to any related facility or outside enterprise
    • Does not release the name or contact information of any FSCo member, Resource Operator or Participant
  • Respects the autonomy of Free Spirits resource groups and participants

North American Man/Boy Love Association

NAMBLA is a group of volunteer activists.  We need your help to continue our work.

Here are a few ways you can help us get the word out:


We are expanding our on-line presence and need fresh material on any of a wide range of subjects.  If you have something to say and have been looking for a forum, consider submitting your work for our web site or publications.  We especially encourage youth to send us your views, since our main point has always been that the views of young people should be taken seriously.

We welcome all kinds of writing, from news reporting and analysis to opinion pieces to original fiction and book reviews to scholarly articles, non-fiction, and everything in between.  You may use the topical index along the left column of our home page as a guide, but don’t feel that you have to fit within those topics.  We are looking for diverse views and expressions that reflect the benevolent nature of man/boy love and the injustice inherent in efforts to suppress it, as well as constructive dialog on all related issues.  All submissions are welcome, but as always, we reserve the right to select what we will publish.

Original poetry, art, music and video will all be considered.  Of course, in the current climate, we will not be publishing any nudity and we request that you not send nude images.


The facts strongly support our case.  The more clearly we present them, the stronger our case becomes.  We need any help you can provide with the basic work of identifying, assembling and/or analyzing the most recent and relevant information, statistics and peer-reviewed research on subjects including the character and outcomes of man/boy love relationships, the realities of child neglect and abuse, the true effects of policies which criminalize love and reward authoritarianism, the misleading nature of mainstream media on these subjects, and the lies and distortions promulgated by various parties with vested interests in fueling the anti-man/boy-love hysteria — including an analysis of what they stand to gain.

You don’t necessarily have to be a writer or an academic to help.  There are many ways of contributing to our work in this area — if you’re not certain whether your contribution is needed, just ask us using the e-mail below.

You can also help by joining