Click on the images for a
The biofuels project is a suicide project by intention, because the burning of agricultural resources that would become animal feed has shut down countless meat producing feed lot operations taking critical nutritional resources off the shelf and off society's dinner table. This plan for genocide becoming suicide, is already on the move, and is far advanced. The critical animal protein in human nutrition is increasingly becoming unaffordable, while nothing is done to stop the genocide that is becoming evermore suicidal. How close are we then already to the final step?
Suppose that an extremely limited nuclear war would break out, perhaps accidentally, in which only a few of the major nations' biggest city were to be hit.
We would face a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, if this was happening. The big cities are among the first-strike high-value targets, such as the cities of Beijing, Tokyo, and New Delhi.
The destroyed cities would most likely also include Moscow, at the heart of Russia, although Moscow does have a defensive shield deployed around it. Moscow is one of the few cities for which a defense is attempted.
The rest of the cities of the world have no defenses, including Paris and London, the big cities of the war-crier nations. In real terms this wouldn't matter as nuclear war cannot be stopped at the minimalistic stage, but becomes total, universal annihilation.
New York City would, of course, be on top of that list of the first targets to be hit, since the USA would likely be the agent that starts the nuclear war in proxy for its masters.
The resulting death toll of the imaginary minimalistic scenario, in the range of 50 to 70 million people being killed, would nevertheless be so horrendous that the consequences would cause civilization to collapse.
I am laying this scenario before you, because the enormous catastrophe of this horrendous scenario would only add up to slightly over half of the murdering that is already being carried out every single year in the silent holocaust that the masters of the cesspool impose on the world with the burning of humanity's food in a starving world, which the masters of empire mandate.
My point is that we have lost far too much of our humanity already, which is evident in our allowing this biofuels crime against humanity to happen, which we willingly participate in at the gas pumps, even while as the result the food prices are going through the roof.
We stand in the world as a defeated humanity - defeated by the fascist cesspool of empire that is totally devoid of the faintest shred of humanity, which hates humanity and demands depopulation, meaning extermination by policy on an ever-wider horizon.
The great pacifist of empire, Bertrand Russell, who lamented that wars don't kill enough people, even the big wars, would be proud of our modern society, which now answers Russell's lament with the burning of its food, with the kind of indifference that has put the whole of humanity on the path to ever bigger things to come, towards its already prepared for self-extinction in a real nuclear war in which not just eight, but 25,000 nuclear bombs would play an active role.
My point is that we don't have a hope of avoiding a nuclear war unless we rediscover and redevelop the humanity that we have already lost. We need this done, to get us off the present path to hell.
The path that we are on, on which the biofuels holocaust is just another step along the way, has an end, and this end is our self-extinction, which is much more immanent than it is generally imagined to be.
The difference from where we are, to the final step, is not radical. It is just a difference in scale of the already ongoing process.
Sure, it won't be easy to get our humanity back, to get off the path to Armageddon where we commit suicide in the end because universal suicide is the master's plan.
The masters want us to stay on track until our extinction is complete. Their plan is thinly veiled. But instead of getting itself off this path, society remains actively committed to every facet of the plan to destroy itself, including committing economic suicide.
The imposition of economic suicide has been on the agenda of empire for a long time already. It is presently cutting deeper and deeper into the fabric of society as the plan moves ahead.
On this path nuclear suicide would then be merely another step 'forward' in the direction already established and committed to. It wouldn't be anything different in principle, in comparison with what is already in progress. It would only be a tad more radical, though the same in nature, and be a bit more effective towards essentially the same end.
China, which is one of the 'smallest' players in the nuclear war game has all by itself enough fire power to eradicate the USA, probably twice over. However, China, like India and Russia, doesn't subscribe to the insane depopulation ideology that the British-centered western empire is intensely promoting and pursuing.
The people outside the realm of empire wish and struggle to survive, which the West no longer does. Thus, the plan of empire is to assure that these nations won't be survivors, but become drawn into the western suicide package.
Kepler would counsel us to be honest with ourselves about the game that has ensnared our sanity, our freedom, our humanity, and our future. "Open your eyes!" he would shout if he lived today. But even then, would anybody listen?
The entire western world is presently fully committed to its economic and financial suicide at the bidding of the masters of empire. The ongoing economic suicide is already having immensely deadly effects at the fringes of the population, while the worst is still to come. The phenomenon is now rushing inwards from the fringes to engulf evermore people. Economic suicide at the bidding of empire has become a national pandemic in far too many nations. It has become a kind of universally accepted death pact, even while it is easily prevented.
When the final call eventually comes, to press the nuclear button in order to complete the process, no one will intervene to stay the hand at this final moment. Society has assured itself of that, with its mile-long track record in failing itself in countless lesser cases where it should have defended its humanity. And so, one or the other of the modern Hitlers, or Neros, and so on, of which we now have many, will push the button down.
There is simply no commitment apparent anywhere in the western world towards ending society's commitment to inflicting suicide on itself, which it has become coerced to accept instead of defending itself against.
If we did care about our humanity, as Kepler would suggest we should, we would discover that the current commitment to suicide, thinly veiled as a depopulation ideology, is a political game that was launched as far back as the 1790s in the shadow of the U.S. Constitution becoming established. The American Constitution had for the first time in history set the stage for the freedom of mankind from the control of the empire of oligarchy. This caused outrage in the cesspool. The British Empire had begun in those days to set itself up to become the global world empire. It couldn't tolerate the American ideals. It needed a powerful asymmetric approach to block the unfolding freedom trend that America had begun. The cesspool of Venice came to the rescue.
The depopulation ideology was put on the table by Giammaria Ortes, a Venetian monk. He likened humanity to a bunch of dumb kettle that outgrow their pasture and thereby destroy it, and destroy with it the means for their existence.
This clever asymmetric attack on humanity, became the ideological orientation of the entire empire apparatus to the present day. The invented carrying capacity ideology denies the creative and productive power of the human being that enables a world population to exist that far exceeds what the natural earth could support. Since the masters of empire fear the creative and productive capacity of humanity like the plague, and rightfully so, as it dooms the system of oligarchy and empire to its very core, the masters have always aimed to destroy this capacity of humanity. They found that an effective method towards this end is to lower society's perception of itself to that of an animal. The depopulation ideology has been developed for this goal.
For as long as this insane type of ideology rules, as we find it concocted in the cesspool of Venice, the plan for nuclear war will remain on the table and the doom of mankind is increasingly assured thereby. This outcome is presently precariously close.
The intentional lowering of the human spirit to evermore primitive levels of self-perceptions, puts society onto the fast track to hell, because it no longer guards the button for nuclear war that opens the gate to extinction. External forces control the button. But who are they? And how can society get its control back?
These questions may be the most critical questions in the cultural wasteland that western civilization has been turned into. Indeed, who really owns the button that unlocks the world's largest military machine?
The question of who owns the button is becoming increasingly critical now that war is knocking at the gate, and the great engines of war stand in position on the from line to strike at a moment's notice. So, one needs to ask again, who really owns the button? The answer is uncertain.
In searching for an answer, a great tragedy comes to light, because the man who is authorized to control the American button that ends civilization in the space of a coffee break, is a mentally impaired person with an extreme case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That's how he has been professionally diagnosed. This poses grave dangers for the whole of humanity, because a man inflicted with such an impairment doesn't own himself as a healthy human being would.
The Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a serious mental disorder that is dangerous for society when its leaders are impaired by it. An impaired person has an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a lacking sense of reality. He is thirsting for attention and is easily controlled thereby. Among many other dangerous effects, the impairment causes illusions of omnipotence and an infantile sense of humanity, which when combined with anger, arrogance, a lack of empathy, inner emptiness, insecurity, and so on, produces a person of tough-minded overbearance who is in pursuit of unrealistic fantasies and has great difficulties in maintaining healthy relationships.
The American President falls into this category according to the symptoms of narcissistic impairment. When this happens in individual family relationships the result is often tragic. But when this happens on the larger scene and the impaired is the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, the consequences typically become catastrophic. We have seen the result in the actions of Hitler and of the Roman Emperor Nero, and of others who became infamous for their narcissistic crimes. Except now, with the power of the weapons vastly expanded, the crimes committed with them become gargantuan and genocidal, and infinite in scope.
We face a crisis today of such proportions, because a severely mentally impaired person has been propelled onto the throne of one of the foremost powers in the world, who sitting on this throne has the button at his fingertips to set the world on fire and blow it up.
We live like residents today, of a gleaming apartment complex that has in each of its towers the basement filled with dynamite, and has wires leading from it to the janitors' pad that is occupied by an escapee from a mental ward. In his infantile fantasy the janitor plays games with the button. How long will it take for the detonation to proceed? This is not a hypothetical question.
But who owns the janitor? Who plays on his fantasies? Who has put the man there? These are not really hard questions to answer.
It isn't hidden on the wider scene who aims to be the master of the world and aims to profit by unlocking the gate to Armageddon?
Do the American electorate own the man they believe they have elected? Did THEY put him there? Is he answerable to THEM? - The answer is NO on all counts.
A narcissist is a little man who is owned by whoever plays into his typical needs for aggrandizement, who thereby becomes his master. Apparently, there are a few of those. They own the little man. He plays their game as they wish him to play it. They selected the little man specifically for his impairment. They bought him. The brought him in through the back door. They gave him the richest presidential election campaign in American history, interwoven with a long string of election irregularities that would fill volumes.
He, in all respects that matter, is their man. They own him as a puppeteer, by whom they own the nation like so many puppets on a string.
The American nation has ceased to own itself. It gave up its sovereignty. It gave it up to them. It is, they, who now own the button, who run the game, who make the call.
The final call before the doom may come in the dead of night, and when it comes, this call will be obeyed. No one would prevent it; no one could prevent it as the nation no longer owns itself.
Far too few nations remain sovereign in the western world, if there are any at all. Most play the role of brother-inmates in the zoo of oligarchy, centered on the cesspool.
A nation that has let go of its sovereignty salutes an empty shell. There is nobody there to salute. Few of the citizens themselves, if any, know who their real owners are? Who has requested the four aircraft carrier groups to be deployed that now are poised on the southern flank of Russia, to threaten it? The thread leads to the center of the cesspool where names no longer matter as there is no humanity left to carry those names.
The button for the big war will be pressed in proxy for them, for the masters of empire.
Society rarely ever owns itself anymore in ever-widening circles of regards. For whom do the soldiers die who rush to war today as they did then? Do any of the soldiers even wish to know?
No nation is ever benefitted from war. Peace alone benefits humanity. No war erupts when peace is cherished. War is a failing grade in society's mastering the art of building peace.
Likewise is a society rarely ever defeated by war.
When war is on the horizon, in most cases, society stands already as a defeated nation before the war begins. It stands defeated from within; defeated by indifference and self-denial. Society faces nuclear war on the same platform today, as a defeated society, defeated by indifference.
It is by indifference that a society looses its sovereignty, and subsequently to this loss, looses its life. And so it will always be. Long before a war begins, the society that commits the crime of war has lost its humanity. The dying and the destruction are always subsequent.
We are back on this stage. We stand on this stage with the most deadly weapons ever. We do so, because we lack the humanity in the heart to block the weapons. We say it is too hard. We say it can't be done. We have the means established for us, but we lack the heart to use the means. Indifference demands so much less. However, indifference comes with a price tag attached that in the nuclear-armed world becomes unbearable.
The new chorus of war cries for a major attack on Iran need to be heard against this background. The war cries dominated the stage of American Israeli relations at the 2012 AIPAC conference in Washington. The war cries were over the non-existing threat of Iran building an atom bomb that international inspectors found no evidence for, similar to the hyped up Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction for which no evidence was ever found either. War cries are always built on lies. The lie is the hallmark of empire. Humanity is not warlike, inherently. Empire is the force behind war, and behind the criers who sound the trumpet of war.
There is a strong movement against war in the U.S. military, with some recognition that humanity is not inherently warlike. However, the role of empire behind the scene of the war is not recognized, nor is it recognized anymore that the chief war crier who launched World War II, was financed into power on the credentials of his war cries.
The opposition to war is shallow. It doesn't recognize the nuclear-war danger behind the scene. It focuses on trivial issues.
One of the trivial issues is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to invade Iran. Another view is that Iran has not made a decision to weaponize its nuclear power development, but may instead be looking for a latent capability, like the Japanese, should a need for it arise, which the increasing sanctions would inspire.
Another part of the opposition against war is focused on the economic cost. With the war against Iran being fought in the Gulf, the blocking of the flow of oil and gas through the gulf, would drive energy prices through the roof, up to ten times the present prices, which would wreck all the economies of the world.
No one even hints at the possibility that the masters of the cesspool might be playing for this option in order to be able to steal evermore profits from society, even though the real target would be Russia, for which everything and everyone is on the table to be sacrificed in the vain attempt to keep the system of empire alive, which is presently collapsing by its inner emptiness.
No one in the military has so far officially linked the cries for a big new war with the real objective to stage a nuclear war against Russia, China, and the rest of humanity, to achieve the objectives of empire, just as World War II was staged for the objectives of empire in Hitler's day, which was then to destroy the economic development potential of Europe.
Can anyone imagine what the world would have looked like if the Lautenbach objective of the Weimar Republic of Germany had succeeded, which was focused on the cooperative economic development of all of Eurasia on the basis of national credit creation? The monetarist system of empire would have vanished like a fading ghost and be forgotten. The world would celebrate its Third Renaissance instead of now facing the dawn of World War III.
But this wasn't allowed. Instead Hitler was financed into power and Chancellor Lautenbach was pushed out of the way. As a result all of Europe was sacrificed to be destroyed to save the empire from its impending doom. We are at the same turning point again. Only this time the demanded sacrifice is larger. The sacrifice of 90% of humanity is on the table to save the system of empire from its inevitable extinction one more time. Of course, for obvious reasons, the underlying objective behind the war cries is carefully concealed.
All the war-focused wrangling is concerned with trivial issues, rather than with the underlying issue. Fortunately the trivial issues are strong enough to keep the war-cries muted. In a major effort for war avoidance a number of leading members of the military and intelligence community issued an open letter to President Obama to say No to the war drive against Iran.
The open letter presents quotes from some of the highest officials of the U.S. government and military that counter the war drive, and for good reasons.
Admiral Mullen pointed out that the USA hadn't had a single official contact with Iran since 1979. He points out that the USA had closer contact with the Soviet Union during the darkest days of the Cold War. He doesn't say that the underlying reason why no contact has been made with Iran might be to keep the war potential alive. Evidently, if one talks face to face, one is less likely to talk with the gun, and that if one talks face to face honestly, the deeply hidden reason for the war drive would come to the surface. Still, he warns that the resulting war would be extremely dangerous.
This warning didn't come from just an internet blogger. Admiral Mullen retired in 2011 as the highest ranking officer of the U.S. Armed Forces, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ending a 43-year career of service.
Another quote in the open letter is from General Dempsey. He points out that a strike against Iran wouldn't be "prudent" and would be destabilizing and not achieve the long-term objectives. For this highly reserved statement in defense of peace, standing in direct opposition to his boss, the President who is on the path to war, he has been vilified as treasonous.
General Dempsey is putting his job on the line in speaking against war, as the currently active highest ranking officer of the American Armed Forces, as if to say that war-avoidance is the highest priority of military service for the nation and the world.
Another high ranking official speaking against war is the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. His take is that the only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide that it isn't in their interest to do so.
The Secretary of Defense should have added that this platform that he thereby proposes is is ultimately the only platform on which nuclear war in the world can be prevented and be made obsolete, which is for humanity to acknowledge to itself that it is in its best interest to abolish nuclear war, including the weapons for it, the oligarchy that demands it, and the antihuman politics that keep the game alive.
The acting Secretary of Defense, Panetta, warns that an attack would 'consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict the we would regret.'
The former Commander General of the Central Command, Anthony Zinni warns about putting boots on the ground in an preemptive attack, saying, 'I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you will love Iran.'
The great irony is that the lines of communications with the President are so thin or non-existing, that it became necessary to speak to him via an open letter printed as a full-page add in the Washington Post. But will he listen? His continued war-cries seems to indicate that he is not listening to sanity, but listens to his masters instead, who own him.
The letter itself is far too polite in comparison with what it should have said. It stated the obvious, that military action is unnecessary and dangerous for both the USA and Israel. It should have said that it is a crime against humanity to even consider such actions. The letter urged the President to resist the pressure for a "war of choice" with Iran. It should have demanded the President's resignation for his evident commitment to open the flood gates to World War III, a nuclear war that only a few can survive, if indeed anyone can.
The letter had eight high-ranking names attached who were able to speak out from their retirement.
Two days after the letter appeared, another warning was issued in the House itself in the form of a resolution that warns the President to abide by the Constitution that vests the right to use military force with Congress, and illegal without an Act of Congress.
The resolution states that it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
The American statesman and long-time political activist and scientific economist, Lyndon LaRouche, stated emphatically on hearing about the resolution, saying, 'This bill could save the United States from destruction.'
The LaRouche Political Action Committee went immediately into high gear to mobilize support for this resolution, in addition to its already ongoing campaign to remove President Obama from office immediately, by either impeachment or by application of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, as the most crucial aspect of the fight to prevent a thermonuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Russia and China.
The sad irony is that it shouldn't even be necessary to table a resolution in the House that demands that the President obey the Constitution on which the power of his office rests.
The fact that such a resolution was put on the table indicates that the nation has lost much of its sovereignty, and is therefore in grave danger, and the world with it, because with the loss of its sovereignty that nation looses its control over its immensely substantial military might, which now threatens to set the world on fire as it is immanent to be abused, and is in fact already being abused with the placement of four aircraft carrier fleets in the Middle East region for an offensive posture.
It might well be that the Concurrent House Resolution 107 was sparked by a dawning sense of sovereignty, to reverse the country's subjection to empire that had already cut far too deep.
Vladimir Putin's election to his third term as President of Russia was fought and won on the platform of sovereignty - not the kind of sovereignty that empire seeks over the world to subdue it and bend its will and spirit - but the sovereignty of the human being standing free from subjection to empire.
A 100,000 people crowd had come on election night to hear Putin speak and to celebrate together Russia's victory on the road to sovereign independence as the only nation in Europe still remaining sovereign and proudly so.
Putin was interrupted at one point when the crowd began chanting, Putin, Putin, Putin, Putin.
The people of Russia have demonstrated to themselves that day that it is possible for a nation to believe in itself, and give itself a place in the sun that is evermore being denied to evermore nations under the machinations from the cesspool of empire.
"'We have vast support from the vast majority of our voters," said Putin in his speech.
His confidence reflects the fact that Principle and its idea are One.
Sovereignty is the native element of the human being. In proportion to which this fact becomes apparent and acknowledged, the unity of society comes to light in countless ways; in economic development; in the commitment to the general welfare; and in political unity, both nationally and internationally.
"This was a test whether we are politically mature and independent enough," said Putin. "And we have demonstrated that nobody can impose anything on us - nobody and never.
"We have demonstrated that our people are capable to tell one thing from another - a genuine desire to achieve modernity, from political provocations that pursue only one goal, to destroy Russia as a nation and usurp power."
"Today the people of Russia have demonstrated that such options, such scenarios, will never achieve success in our country, never! - We have won - I would like to thank you all."
Evidently some critical steps on the road to universal sovereignty for all humanity on this planet have been taken in this new old land on this day. Sovereignty is the opposite of empire. It is its doom. It is the path to freedom and a new renaissance. That day there in Russia may have seen the most important election victory for all of mankind that we have seen in our time to date.
This is so, because sovereignty is one of the great foundations for civilization that has been lost sight of in recent decades. It has been lost sight of throughout the entire western world through cultural erosion, scientific degradation, and economic collapse, all intentionally perpetrated by the masters of empire as a means for enabling evermore wars to become possible. Nor will it be easy to reverse this erosion, because the principle of sovereignty is far more deeply rooted than in the political sphere. It isn't rooted in the political sphere, though it should be expressed there, while it no longer is.
The principle of sovereignty, like the principle of love, is so substantial, that if one breaks it, civilization disintegrates. However, both the principle of sovereignty and the principle of love, are hard to define.
I started an exploration of both of these universal principles back in the 1980s at the height of the Cold War. I started writing a novel about it that became a series of twelve novels. I named the series, the Lodging for the Rose. It became an in-depth series. What came to light in the writing of the series is still relevant and may remain so until the ghost of war has faded into oblivion.
This type of exploration became necessary, because it makes no sense to explore war directly, which is illogical and irrational.
I wrote a previous novel to explore nuclear war in retrospect, which can only be explored in retrospect, because in a real war no one would remain alive to explore what went wrong. And even in fiction one can only explore the irrational in the most minimalist context, such as in exploring a sad little plan that should have been prevented, but was allowed to proceed.
But even here, the introspect aspects of exploring the inner dimension of our humanity became the valuable aspect of the work. This aspect, of deeply exploring our humanity is key, to the discovery of our sovereignty as human beings.
Listen to the symphony of our humanity
In this symphony we are One
One with the Universe itself.
Like seeds are we, from an infinite fountain,
Carriers of secrets still unknown
Sentinels of intelligence, forever unfolding
Prophets of the enduring
Apostle of power in en endless landscape of good