This Email has five parts :
Two letters and two commentaries and one summary.
Part 1
John Maynard Keynes - the Giant of Economics. His name is whispered with reverence. His ideas are worshipped in Washington, DC, London and in the dusty offices of international banks. If you recall Ronald Reagan was very keen on Keynes. It is widely reported that President Barack Husein Obama is basing much of his economic ‘rescue’ on the economic theory of Keynes. That would make him a ‘Keynesian’.
A horrible fact that I have never heard mentioned but learned recently is that John Maynard Keynes was the head of the ‘British Eugenics Society’ from the years of 1937 to 1944.
Those are the years that the British Empire was at war with Nazi Germany.
Eugenics is the applied “science” which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a human population. Abuses include racial hygiene (no intermarriage), human experimentation (cloning, genetic manipulation), sterilization of ’subhuman’ individuals and the extermination of undesired population groups.
Eugenics had its origins in the theory of the ‘Survival of the Fittest’.
Keynesian economic policies also boil down to ‘Survival of the Fittest’ with the emphasis on the ‘fittest’ government.
It seems clear that doubts and concerns about the radical and baseless economic ideas that Keynes advocated against common sense are of the same coin as the insane and heartless ideas that are part and parcel of eugenics.
The name of John Maynard Keynes has taken on for me an ominous and dangerous tone. I cannot believe in Economic Eugenics. Can you?
Part 2
I read that Colin Firth, an actor of British citizenship was provided an opportunity by the British Broadcasting Corporation to assign an investigative duty to a reported.
The actor then directed the reporter to determine whether political beliefs are ‘hard-wired’ in the brains of humans. That is – are people born to be a member of a specific political party because of the shape of their brain.
The actor and the reporter then secured the services of a ‘scientist’ – Professor Rees.
Then come two politicians, Conservative Alan Duncan and Labour Stephen Pound. The politicians agreed to undergo a structural brain scan using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI.
The study expanded to include students and post-docs previously scanned at the Institute in other experiments.
These then filled out a questionnaire which reportedly assessed their political values. The answers, it is written, were then compared to the brain scans.
Reportedly Professor Rees concluded that one could deduce political leanings by looking at certain parts of the brain.
Looking inside the brain for patterns is not much different than craniometry – the study of the shape of the skull once used by so-called scientists like Rees to classify humans by race and social class.
The UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience has a long association with an organization known as the Galton Institute.
The Galton Institute was founded in 1908 as the Eugenics Education Society. In 1926 it became the Eugenics Society with the aim of promoting eugenics.
John Maynard Keynes was the director from 1937-1944.
Part 3
I wrote the above letters as a ‘Letter to the Editor’. I have some other things to add, though, as an addendum about Colin Firth and John Maynard Keynes.
First of all, I am amazed that an actor could rise to such a state in England that he would be honored by the British Broadcasting Company to be a guest editor. So Colin Firth had a wonderful opportunity to use the power of investigative reporting on any subject on earth and he chose what appears to be an experiment in eugenics.
Having said that about the BBC honoring an actor in this way, I realize that as an American you can point out the fact that Ronald Reagan was an actor. I can then point out to you that Ronald Reagan also had ties to John Maynard Keynes in that he believed in that man’s version of economics.
Colin Firth made another comment which I believe is an attempt at humor or scorn but it came across rather flat - at least on this side of the pond. He stated that he would like to try his brain scan experiment on some American politicians to see if they have any brain at all.
It is widely known that we do not send the best among us to do the work in Washington, DC. That is why it is often so shoddy.
For example - the war in Afghanistan drags on to no point. It seemed originally intended to be geared towards capturing Osama Bin Laden but after the Pakistanis hid him away the war changed into a ‘Kill the Taliban’ frenzy, which was accompanied by a parallel story line about ridding Afghanistan of Al-Queda.
Great Britain has had extensive experience in Afghanistan - what with setting it up as a buffer zone against Russia in the 19th century. Today the war in Afghanistan seems to have become an American nightmare of the British dream.
What do we need Afghanistan for when Mexico has been sending a steady stream of illegal aliens, weapons and drugs into the United States? At the same time Mexico has been draining off jobs and work from the United States.
It is believed that the drug trade through Mexico is financed by terrorist money and may in no small way be facilitated directly or indirectly by Communist China.
These threats are real while the imagined one in Afghanistan is made the focus of attention. Thankfully - Great Britain seems poised on leaving Afghanistan - but who can say what will happen tomorrow?
Suffice it to say we have some serious problems here in the United States and it is of no help whatsoever that the BBC should be foisting the likes of Colin Firth’s bizarre political views on the situation.
I am only calling attention to his behavior because of the general support he seems to have drawn from many other in Great Britain.
I was surprised and horrified to find that John Maynard Keynes had been the director of the British Eugenics Society during the period of 1937-1944. That corresponds to the same years that Great Britain was fighting against Nazi Germany whose own practice of eugenics was frowned upon.
The Nazi experiment was destroyed yet the British experiments apparently live on - taking new life from the resettlement schemes following World War I (which led directly to the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands while destroying the lives of millions) to the shuffling of governments, weapons, banking, money and mayhem from the day World War II ended up until the present day.
Take British Petroleum for the one fine example - starting as a scheme to move oil and gas out of Iran and Iraq it has turned into a huge international corporation. It’s activities have recently caused deadly explosions and deaths in Texas and Louisiana in the United States. When the American government moved to punish BP it found it was limited in what it could do because - BP is a major supplier of fuel to the United States Military. BP controls 80 percent of the oil production in Wyoming alone. It is half owner with the Japanese on the Alyaska pipeline in Alaska.
You see - Colin Firth has merely brought up some serious issues that need discussion. Will you discuss them? Would you allow an actor to have a reporter have a professor scan your brain with magnetic wave radiation?
Part 4
The remark that Colin Firth made that offended me was the one about scanning the brains of some American politicians to see if they have any brains at all. This may seem like a funny item in passing, and, I have to agree, some American politicians do and say things which could be characterized as ‘brainless’. Often they are well meaning chumps who have not thought out what they were going to say or they are incompetent and these remarks assist us in ending their careers.
I was offended initially because Colin Firth specified ‘American’ politicians and did not broaden his attack. For example – under Colin Firth’s experiment extension then President Sarkozy (the Hungarian Prince who is the President of France) and those French Senators who support the sale of advanced tactical weapons to Russia would be likely candidates.
In general I am offended by his comments because of the wasted use of medical equipment, time and money to support his biased claims and junk science.
Which brings me then to the final point which reflects back on the fact that John Maynard Keynes was the director of the British Eugenics Society.
How did John Maynard Keynes get in this interaction with the repugnant actions of Colin Firth and the BBC? The institute that carried out this insane experiment for Colin Firth has a long association with the Galton Institute which used to be known as the British Eugenics Society.
John Maynard Keynes, as I have stated, was director of that Society between the years of 1937 and 1944. Those are the years that the British Empire was at war with Nazi Germany. In light of this it hard not to come to the conclusion that as Nazi Germany was instructing all levels of society in the dangerous black arts of eugenics that the elite in the British Empire was actually practicing it – and had been for some time.
Furthermore, considering the weight that ideas and concepts about ‘economics’ that John Maynard Keynes put forward and have been readily grasped and put into practice into the United Kingdom and the United States and elsewhere – I am calling into question the actual reason that these economic ideals and schemes have been put into place.
It is no great extension of logic to see that if the twisted ideas of eugenics are forced into the subject of economics that they would fit quite snuggly. The idea of ‘competition’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘culling the herd’ are all part and parcel of the modern market philosophy. But is it modern? Is it a philosophy or is something else at work here?
Consider this quote by Keynes, “The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.”
If one believes, as some do, that this is a recipe for prosperity for all then one need reconsider what is written above and broaden the scope of study to get an understanding of what may be the true undercurrent here.
The result of all this bargaining, buying and selling and rearranging of national boundaries and the forced movement of human populations – what does it lead to?
Consider first of all the forced resettlement following World War I. It was supposed to be a scheme to reduce conflict. It turned out to be devastating for many and lethal for just as many. As peoples were forced out of their homelands and into new areas they died by the thousands of starvation and disease. As the world sunk into the Great Depression these peoples were lost to sight and so – out of sight, out of mind – they perished.
What is the difference between herding people away from their ancestral homelands to die in a strange country or to round them up and kill them in cages? Is it forgivable because the intention was to resettle them but they just had the bad form of ending up dead?
In eugenics this would be described as a culling. It would be described as ridding the general population of unwanted degenerates.
In reality it was referred to as resettlement.
In reality these actions born of eugenics were mass murder – that is, genocide.
It was an economic move that allowed the strong victors to further enhance their winning position for the present and into the future - or so they thought. The actions following World War I figured in the commencement of World War II but still the victors did not learn from their mistakes and populations were cordoned off, separated, removed, put from one place to another and then the herding and migrations were pushed into the nations that previously had been held as property in the form of colonies.
I should not have to reiterate this to you because this is not a foreign history to you it is a history lived by your nation, shaped by your nation and one which you are now living through and as a part of.
Now move forward in examining these points – we come then to the quote by John Maynard Keynes about retaining avarice and usury as ‘our gods’ for a little longer. Why would anyone do that? To increase wealth? That certainly has not been what has been done with them.
Look around the world. International corporations backed by sovereign governments enter into rural and agrarian countries, secure contracts for raw materials or labor that are clearly unfair to the locals and the process begins. The local economy is thrown into disarray. Wealth accumulates to the invaders. Povery, famine and war proceed in the local area – while wealth continues to be extracted – and the local population declines.
Because of the resiliency of humankind these actions do not always denude the land of people – but they do introduce misery, hunger, disease and death for many. War becomes a tool to try to respond to the problems but is often used by locals against other locals as the armies and mercenaries fighting are armed by or financed by outside interests (that might be you).
All of this continues and is allowed to go and encouraged to go because many so-called responsible persons have totally agreed that avarice and usury are truly gods to them.
I am making a broad treatment here and I am going to cease attempting to explain it to you. It is new to me and I haven’t fully comprehended the horrible meaning behind the fact that John Maynard Keynes was the Director of the British Eugenics Society. The ramifications of it and the actions that followed from it and the behavior of people who believed these wicked ideals - it’s just a great tragedy….it’s one that you are taking part in now.
The difference is – now you have been informed of your part.
What are you going to do about it?
Part 5
I have considered what can be done about the present situation. You will, of course, need to come to a conclusion on your own by private reflection and perhaps religious consideration. However you do it I feel that to continue along with what clearly has become a worldwide and powerful religion of avarice and greed would be cruel in the short term and foolhardy in the long term.
The present system appears to be not creating wealth at all but goes to great lengths to claim that it is doing just that. It is not doing much for the greater number of human beings alive today. Great Britain, in the microcosm, provides a good example. The present system is only benefiting a very limited few people while the rest of the population needs to adjust itself to the whatever stringent methods are put in place to secure the continued phantom wealth and prosperity of the privileged few.
As in the United States there are individuals with incredible wealth existing side by side with large parts of the population just getting by and many living in poverty.
Such a system would be bad enough and difficult to correct but when it advertises itself as something other than what it is and degrades those whom it most severely insults and harms then it has become something else indeed. Add to the fact that in Great Britain, as in the United States, that the government is closely aligned with this bizarre system to the point that it has nearly been absorbed by it and is nearly being controlled by it then it is clear that it would be nearly impossible to change it at all - considering that the wealth and military might of established government stands behind it.
I think I need to remind you that established government in Great Britain and the United States is supposed to stand for liberty and justice and not act as a short sighted security guard for corrupt bankers and financiers.
The system of international finance is clearly extracting wealth by force and deceit. In the case of BP for example - they are extracting wealth from the natural resources of the United States (and in many other nations) but are not providing a return to the society they are exploiting. I only need point at the failure of the well off the coast of Louisiana. They polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico. The reason that most people are not as outraged as you would expect them to be is because the magnitude of the crime and the depth of the ignorance, greed and corruption that caused the problem is so great that they cannot grasp it. There is also a lack of volume coming from those whom one might consider responsible parties - like those in the House of Commons or the House of Lords or the United States Legislature. There is not a peep. British Petroleum is still ducking and avoiding responsibility. It’s just another day in the world of international finance and ‘free trade’.
People lose their businesses, their way of life and even their lives - and still - not a peep. Don’t you think that something might be amiss?
Increasing these financial arrangements and business operations are making money or appearing to generate wealthy merely by keeping services, goods and cash away from those who need it. For example - the banks could renegotiate loans but it is more profitable to reattach or repossess personal property or goods rather than rearranging corrupt payment plans that they had put in place. Because they are benefiting from these failures it can clearly be seen that this pattern may have been foreseen and, in fact, this is not a banking failure but a systemic rearrangement of the system by the very players who caused it.
In the case of foodstuffs - it is said that for US 31 cents a day a child could be fed. At prices like that it would be cheap to feed the starving but is it done? No. Why? It is not cost effective. There is no gain in ensuring that another human being stays alive. There is gain from keeping the over abundance that the world is producing away from those who need it. If you doubt me - look at the commodities exchanges and ask the traders there how prices are determined and who makes the most money from them. Ask the buyers and sellers of wheat, gold, petroleum…it should be easy to find these people and the companies they work for - it would be very easy for American politicians to do so because those are the people that primarily finance their campaigns for office. Is it the same in Great Britain? I would imagine it would not be much different.
The present system allows for hoarding of wealth and encourages it. Shortages are created. Millionaires become billionaires - companies become corporations and then international conglomerates - why? Why should Saudi Arabia hoard its oil and work together with other restrictive and brutal governments to hoard their oil while at the same causing poverty, sickness and ignorance to grow within their own borders? Who benefits by this if not the privileged few of whom I have already mentioned.
It seems all bent towards one goal and that is to ‘win’.
The ‘win’ in this situation is accomplished through the systematic destruction of the enemy or of the competition or even the consuming of the enemy and absorbing them and their ‘wealth’.
This is accomplished in the ‘modern’ world brazenly through phantom competition directly orchestrated and loosely controlled by the state - loosely controlled unless there is a problem and then is brought under straitened control until it is corrected and ‘back on track’ for production and the continued amassing of wealth aggressively.
It is nothing more than a change of emphasis on one part of the business or the other. It is nothing more than a continuation of the old empirical attitudes and business behavior of the 19th Century being brought to bear. In this case, however, it is being done from a position that appears to have no leader, no control - there are, after all, no national flags in the mix. I am sure that it has been considered to have been a particularly bad move to have the word’ British’ included in ‘British Petroleum’. That still attaches too much connection to the mother country. It is a little too obvious that the ‘wealth’ and cash flow that BP produces and sends back to the motherland is used to finance large parts of the government ‘schemes’ that are in place and that have come into vogue into the United States.
Take health care reform in the United States, for example. Fingers point and tongues wag and the successful system that exists in Great Britain but in the United States other people ask - ‘How can we pay for this?’ Scheme after scheme have been floated in the United States and it was finally decided that American citizens will be forced to pay for the health insurance. If they don’t pay they will be fined. Americans must also not consider this to be a tax. That is insane but that is another story - the point being missed and the question never asked in the United States is ‘How does Great Britain pay for their national health insurance?’
It is on taxes and fees on international corporations - among them - British Petroleum. That is how it is done. In effect Great Britain is taxing the United States indirectly by taking resources and selling them on the open market and profiting from them by selling them back to citizens in the United States. Part of the profit which is kept away from the poor and disadvantaged in the United States by this activity is used by the government of Great Britain to provide socialized medicine in a system - which I am told, is inferior to the system in the United States.
So - just exactly what is going on there? It is very clever. It is ornate. It is also dishonest and underhanded.
The object of the entire process is dominance - whether it is being carried out by American guns, British money, Chinese fists or Russian boots. It is to be the ‘top dog’ and to gain the illusion of control of it all and to be the center of attention. It is the real situation in the streets outside the kind hearted and entertaining children’s circus going on at the United Nations.
Now it gets ugly because even though it is called the Free Market or the Five Year Plan - whether it is modern capitalism or modern communism the process is war that is persecuted over extended time with no time set for completion - with no set goal except to gather the spoils. It is a kind of total war. The persons persecuting it and executing it and carrying it on have no intention of ending it. It is too profitable for everyone. In fact - it is the only way to be profitable these days as everything has become wound up in it.
This does not change the fact that the weapons used are time, siege, denial of services and goods, unfair contracts, corruption, fraud and logistics (to accomplish the actions necessary to divert and therefore deny goods to the enemy - the modern methods of siege).
Population resettlement or destruction of populations is used when cost effective. There are many examples - as in Cambodia, the Balkans as earlier noted. As for the Balkans - consider the Balkans. Consider the troubles in the Balkans regarding race and religion. A big deal was made about the present day modern problems stemming from things that took place 800 or a 1,000 years ago - when, in fact, the entire filthy business can be directly traced to the forced resettlements that occurred in that area following World War I.
Resettlements which were based on ideals and ideas tinged with concepts extracted from eugenics.
The result of the process is an ongoing cycle of premeditated mass murder and sometimes genocide. The actions of poor Africans against other poor Africans are often triggered less from race or religious problems than from the problems of hunger, disease and ignorance which have been foisted on their weak governments by financially powerful corporations backed by militarily powerful nations. The actions are unforgivable and inhumane but examining the causes of those abominable actions uncover even more heinous crimes. Consider the act of causing a murder.
Consider these two scenarios. The First : Marching people by force into unfamiliar territory or abandoning them in a bad situation that you caused without food, clothing, shelter and exposed to new diseases without medicine knowing that they will die. The Second : Rounding them up and killing them immediately.
If in either case 100,000 people die - or 1,000,000 or more - what is the difference between those two actions?
There does not seem to be a logical reason for why the world economy is being run this way. There does not seem to be any moral reasons for why the world economy is being run this way.
If, however, you consider that it is to satisfy obligations to a religion of Avarice and Greed - then you have reasons - but you still have no right.
To stop it individuals can smile and rejoice in the wonderful happenstance of our existence and in appreciation of the mighty glories of this Universe and all that encompasses it.
One can avoid cooperating with evil when possible - but these days - that is hard. Take heart.
Have compassion.
Give assistance.
Provide aid.
Be a help to others.
Help others.
This is new territory for me. I would like to mention God but where would I put Him? I mean, there seems to be no place for God anymore and yet -
God save the Queen.
I am sure there is a better economic model than declaring a global religion based on Avarice and Greed that is dedicated to killing off random groups of people on an arbitrary basis.
There is more to all this than meets the eye.
There must be - don’t you think?
I think that the two ministers that participated in the brain scan experiment have done a great dishonor to the House of Commons and embarrassed the government of Great Britain.
That is my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment