The Federal Reserve must be abolished

8 04 2008

I have recently finished reading the book ”The Creature from Jekyll Island“, by G. Edward Griffin. This is a superb book about the profoundly negative effects the Federal Reserve and its fiat money have in our lives. It is also about the dire consequences that await us if we do not abolish both of them (Fed and fiat money supply) as soon as possible.

The importance of reading this book and understanding its contents cannot be overemphasized. Please read it! And if you don’t have time for that, then I suggest that you at least get introduced to the topic by, for instance, clicking on the link above or watching the third part of the movie “Zeitgeist“.

Let me show you here some of the important conclusions the book reaches after a very thorough and compelling analysis. First of all, here are the seven reasons why, according to the author, the Fed must be abolished (for a detailed justification of these reasons, please refer to the book):

R1. The Federal Reserve is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.

R2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest.

R3. It is the supreme instrument of usury.

R4. It generates our most unfair tax.

R5. It encourages war.

R6. It destabilizes the economy.

R7. It is an instrument of totalitarianism.

In connection with this, the author also puts forward a set of five “natural laws of human behavior in economics”, which together demonstrate why fiat money inexorably leads to the enslavement of mankind by the very few men who control the money supply. Here are the laws (again, go to the book for deeper understanding):

L1. Long-term price stability is possible only when the money supply is based upon the gold (or silver) supply without government interference.

L2. For a nation to enjoy economic prosperity and political tranquility, the monetary power of its politicians must be limited solely to the maintenance of honest weights and measures of precious metals.

L3. A nation that resorts to the use of fiat money (i.e. paper money without precious metal backing that people are required by law to accept) has doomed itself to economic hardship and political disunity.

L4. Fractional money will always degenerate into fiat money. It is but fiat money in transition.

L5. When men are entrusted with the power to control the money supply, they will eventually use that power to confiscate the wealth of their neighbors.

In my modest opinion, the last law is the most profound one. Essentially, the whole problem boils down to the fact that our money supply is controlled by these few guys from the Fed and their close associates, and that these people use this immense power (granted to them under very dubious circumstances, as the book explains) for their own benefit and at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

As time goes by, the confiscation referred to in L5 proceeds even further, so we must stop it now before we find ourselves stripped of all our possessions, rights and liberties.


Quotes on Religion

6 04 2008
I just found these quotes on religion by such brilliant men as Thomas Jefferson, Charles Darwin or Voltaire. Let me share them with you:
Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.” [Mark Twain]
Religion is regarded by common people as true, by the wise as false and by rulers as useful.” [Seneca]
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” [Napoleon Bonaparte]
Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” [Thomas Jefferson]
Religion is just mind control.” [George Carlin]
My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it.” [Carl Sagan]
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.” [Voltaire]
Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” [Steven Weinberg]


The bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.” [Elizabeth Cady Stanton]
People should reject God defiantly in order to pour out all their loving solicitude upon mankind.” [Albert Camus]
All thinking men are atheists.” [Ernest Hemingway]
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” [Friedrich Nietzsche]
It appears to me that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.” [Charles Darwin]
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.” [Albert Einstein]
I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul…. No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end.” [Thomas A. Edison]
Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn’t killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?” [Arthur C. Clarke]
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.” [Kurt Vonnegut]
Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” [Bertrand Russell]
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” [Abraham Lincoln]
I hope you enjoyed them. See you next time.

Molten Metal, Thermite and 9/11

27 03 2008

If you watched the videos in the previous post, you already know that large amounts of molten metal were found among the remains of the World Trade Center up to several weeks after 9/11 (hardly what would be expected from the collapse of a building, even after the plane crashes).

It takes very high temperatures to melt steel, and not even jet fuel combustion can account for that much heat. So where did all this heat come from? the most plausible hypothesis is that thermite (or, more precisely, thermate) was used to demolish the buildings (including WTC7, which was not even hit by a plane).

Thermite is a highly exothermic chemical reaction between iron oxide (rust) and aluminum, both of which combine to form metallic iron and aluminum oxide. This reaction generates temperatures of about 2500 degrees Celsius, more than enough to melt steel. Adding sulfur to this reaction reduces its ignition temperature and increases its thermal effect, and in this case the reaction is known as thermate. These reactions are commonly used in controlled demolitions to destroy the steel frames of buildings and, as you will see now, solid evidence indicates that this is precisely what happened in 9/11:    

Who is responsible for 9/11?

19 03 2008

Do you think Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are to blame for the 9/11 attacks? That is what I thought until relatively recently, but videos like this one, together with the sloppiness of the official story, made me change my mind. Check it out by yourself:

(this is 9/11 mysteries, part 1 of 9, you can watch the rest at YouTube).

Check out the links on the (upper) right

17 03 2008

Before I proceed with my blog, let me recommend you some websites and videos I think you may find interesting. Although I do not necessarily subscribe to all that is said in them, I must admit I generally agree with the messages they put forward and I believe they are both thought-provoking and good sources of information.

These are some of the topics covered by these links:

1) The Money Cartel

(Federal Reserve, Central Banks, Fiat Money, Inflation,…)

2) Government Behind the Scenes

(Council on Foreign Relations, The Fabian Society, International Bankers,…)

3) The 9/11 Attacks

(WTC7 collapse, free fall speed, molten metal, controlled demolition, pentagon,…)

4) The Origins of Christianity

(the Jesus myth, sungods, astrology, Roman empire,…)

I will be dealing with these and other topics in future entries, but in the meantime I recommend that you take a look at these websites.

Baloney detection kit

7 03 2008

In the previous entry I listed the factors that, in my opinion, determine whether or not we actually believe in something. However, I also made it clear that many of those factors are unreliable and, as a result, using them will lead us astray.

So, what should we do to avoid being deceived? The answer is that we should stop utilizing many of the “default” psychological mechanisms we normally use to evaluate statements and we should instead start educating ourselves in the art of “critical thinking”. 

In order to critically analyze the validity of a claim, these are the most important factors to be taken into account (based on the “baloney detection kit“, from Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon Haunted World”):

General principles

  • Wherever possible, there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
  • Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  • Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”).
  • Spin more than one hypothesis – don’t simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  • Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.
  • Quantify, wherever possible.
  • If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
  • “Occam’s razor”: if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
  • Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified. In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
  • Control experiments should be conducted, especially “double blind” experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
  • Check for confounding factors – separate the variables
  • Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

    • Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.
    • Appeal to authority – claims must be proven with facts, not with names.
    • Argument from adverse consequences – putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavourable” decision.
    • Appeal to ignorance – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    • Special pleading – logical reasoning makes no exceptions, not even for god.
    • Begging the question – assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased.
    • Observational selection – counting the hits and forgetting the misses.
    • Statistics of small numbers – drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes.
    • Misunderstanding the nature of statistics – President Eisenhower alarmed that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!
    • Inconsistency – e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers ignored because they are not “proved”.
    • Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.
    • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.
    • Meaningless question – what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
    • Excluded middle – considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).
    • Short-term vs. long-term – subset of excluded middle – why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?
    • Slippery slope – subset of excluded middle – unwarranted extrapolation: If we allow abortion in the first trimester, next thing we’ll know we will be killing newborn babies.
    • Confusion of correlation and causation.
    • Straw man – caricaturing or stereotyping a position to make it easier to attack..
    • Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
    • Weasel words – e.g. use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. As Talleyrand said: “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public

    To believe or not to believe…

    3 03 2008

    What does it take to convince us of the truthfulness of a statement? Here are the factors I think play important roles in this process:

    1. Tangible evidence. We all believe in what we see, hear, smell, touch… While this is a fairly reliable method of cognition, it is not without its flaws. Indeed, while most of the time our senses do not deceive us, hallucinations of many kinds are well documented, especially associated with sleep and certain drugs, and we should therefore be cautious before assuming that something we have seen or heard was actually there.  Finally, even if the evidence is really present, we should not overlook the possibility that it has been falsified or somehow tampered with in order to manipulate us into believing something.    

    2. Remembered evidence. Sometimes we believe things because we think we saw/experienced them in the past. However, it is also well documented that our memories are not always reliable and can be distorted in more or less subtle ways. This is especially true for old memories and memories of dreams we had in the past, both of which can undergo significant changes with time. For a more in-depth analysis of how our senses and our memories can be fooled, I suggest you take a look at the book “the demon-haunted world”, by Carl Sagan.

    3. Authority. We often believe things just because they come from a source we deem authoritative. Therefore, the question becomes: what does it take for us to consider someone a reliable source? Usually, it is a matter of us viewing this person as better educated, more intelligent or simply better connected than us. However, we should beware, since this people (1) may use their privileged position to take advantage of us, and (2) may make genuine mistakes, no matter how intelligent they are assumed to be. In conclusion, we should whenever possible look at the original data (documents, experimental results, witnesses,…) and, if that is not possible, then we should carefully check the previous record of our intended source (Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me).     

    4. Trust. I have also noticed that some of us are much more likely to believe people we feel comfortable with than people we find unpleasant. In other words, we first use our “gut feelings” to decide whether a person is a “friend” or a “foe”, and then we simply tend to believe whatever our perceived friends say, while we are very suspicious of anything our assumed foes tell us. Again, this is a highly unreliable way of getting at the truth, since our decision to believe is not based upon the actual statements but rather on labels we attach to people. Sometimes big truths come from people we find utterly detestable, whereas our best friends may sometimes be dead wrong.          

    5. How it makes us feel. Similarly, we sometimes tend to believe what makes us feel good, and vice versa. I don’t think I need to waste much time justifying the obvious: things are as they are, like it or not.    

    6. Previous beliefs. We may be very open to learn new things in our childhood, but, as we grow up, we increasingly compare the new information we receive with the one we stored in our “hard drives” in the past. If there is a collision between both sets of data, usually the older one prevails (unless there is very compelling evidence for the newcomer). Thus, it is important to examine evidence carefully and, if the new one is better than the old, then we must be ready and happy to relinquish our long-held beliefs and substitute them for fresher, more accurate ones. 

    7. Apparently sound reasoning. Sometimes we are presented with propositions that appear to derive logically from well established premises. In this case, the final proposition will be correct if (1) the premises are correct, and (2) the reasoning is flawless. It sounds very easy, but we will often be faced with logical inferences that, albeit sound in appearance, turn out to be fallacious when analyzed in detail. A great tool to analyze the validity of any such proposition is the “baloney detection kit” which Carl Sagan described in his already mentioned book “the demon-haunted world”.

    There are probably other factors affecting our cerebral belief machinery. If you can think of any other one I didn’t mention, please comment on it.

    In summary, when it comes to believing, we are highly conditioned by how our brains are wired, and this in turn is determined by a plethora of innate factors as well as by our previous experiences. We must be aware of this in order to discount subjective factors from our assessments and try to get as close as we can to objective reality (i.e. a reality that can be shared with and demonstrated to others).

    Brainbow: brain cortex of a mouse whose neurons express a variety of fluorescent markers.