Category Archives: History

Asset-Stripping Ukraine

money-163502_150

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | August 20, 2014

Let the ass-raping begin … anyone who has studied the history of the IMF fully realizes and can easily recognize the IMF’s tried and true method of operation when they see it. BTW, the IMF is a tool of the ‘Predominant Power Structure’ which controls the US State Department, Geopolitics and media. Our friendly bankers at the IMF come bearing false gifts of good tidings & money to help needy countries; only to load them up with massive debts that they can never, ever repay. Once they can’t pay back the first traunch, the fun begins. To get more money to help them out of an even more desperate situation, the host country –in this case Ukraine– must then turn over the control of their country to their new money masters at the IMF. History shows that a large portion of the funds go to the private Swiss bank accounts of the heads of state of the host country and rarely to the stated purpose: people or infrastructure. Bottom line is that the bankers create money out of nothing and then use this money as a tool to take control and then asset-strip third-world countries across the globe. This my friends is how the sausage of US Foreign policy is really made. If you don’t have a clue, get a clue. If you can’t afford a clue rent one from me. Do your homework and quit falling for every 10 second headline spewing from the mouths of the gatekeeper press.

Additional Information  …

Who the International Aid Agencies Serve
BFP Exclusive- “The EU and IMF Rape of Ukraine Agriculture”

William Engdahl | August 20, 2014 Ukraine’s rogue regime lifts the ban on sale of farm land and to open its rich agriculture to Monsanto, DuPont & the GMO agribusiness cartel.
Ukraine Crisis Continues — Paul Craig Roberts | August 20, 2014
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (Book) — December 27, 2005 by John Perkins


John Perkins “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”Extended Interview 2008

 

THE SCIENCE OF KISSING

lips-308060_150THE SCIENCE OF KISSING By Brann the Iconoclast

published in 1899 in Waco, Texas

I note that a Britisher named Prof. Bridger has been infringing my copyright by proclaiming, as an original discovery, that kissing is an excellent tonic and will cure dyspepsia. When the o’er busy bacteriologist first announced that osculation was a dangerous pastime, that divers and sundry varieties of bacteria hoped blithely back and forth engendering disease and death, I undertook a series of experiments solely in the interest of science. Being a Baptist Preacher and making camp-meetings my specialty, I had unusual opportunity for investigation, for those of our faith are strict constructionist of the Biblical law to “greet one another with a kiss.” I succeeded in demonstrating before the end of the tenting season that osculation, when practiced with reasonable discretion and unfaltering industry, is an infallible antidote for at least half the ills that human flesh is heir to. The reason the doctors arrived at different conclusions is that they kissed indiscriminately and reasoned inductively. They found on casting up the account that bad breath and face powder, the sour milk-bottle of youth and the chilling frost of age, comprised six-sevenths of the sum total. Under such conditions there was nothing to do but establish a quarantine. I pointed out, as Prof. Bridger has since done, that a health microbe as well as a disease bacillus nidificates on the osculatory apparatus, and added that failure to absorb a sufficient quantity of these hygiologic germs into the system causes old maids to look jaundiced and bachelors to die sooner than benedicts. Kisses, when selected with due care and taken on the installment plan, will not only restore a misplaced appetite, but are especially beneficial in cases of hay fever, as they banish that tired feeling, tone up the liver, invigorate the heart, and make the blood to sing thro’ the system like a giant jewsharp. I found by patient experiment that the health microbe becomes active at 15, reaches maturity at 20, begins to lose its vigor at 40, and is quite useless as a tonic when, as some one has tersely expressed it, a woman’s kisses begin to “taste of her teeth.” Thin bluish lips produce very few health germs, and those scarce worth the harvesting; but a full red mouth with Cupid curves at the corners, will yield enormously if the crop be properly cultivated. I did not discover whether the blonde or brunette variety is entitled to precedence in medical science, but incline to the opinion that a judicious admixture is most advisable from a therapeutical standpoint. Great care should be taken when collecting the germs not to crush them by violent collision or blow them away with a loud explosion that sounds like hitting an empty sugar hogshead with a green hide. The practice still prevailing in many parts of this country of chasing a young woman over the furniture and around the barn like an amateur cowboy trying to rope a maverick, rounding her up in the presence of a dozen people , unscrewing her neck and planting almost any place a kiss that sounds like a muley cow pulling her hind foot out of a black-waxy mud-hole, and which jars the putty off the window panes, possesses no more curative powers than hitting a flitch of bacon with the back of your hand. I prithee, avoid it; when a girl runs from a kiss you may take it for granted either that the germ crop is not ripe or you are poaching on somebody else’s preserves. The best results can be obtained about the midnight hour, when the dew is on the rose, the jasmine bud drunken with its own perfume, and the mockbird trilling a last good-night to his drowsy mate…and on and on it goes.

Note: I thought this was an interesting insight into the real history of the day. Hope you enjoyed this! -db

Opus 016: Do we have a democracy or a republic?

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | October 17, 2009

Democracy VS Republic

What form of government do we have in the USA anyway?

We can always debate the finer points but to put it simply, a democracy is “rule by the majority” and a republic is a “rule by law”. The distinction here is more important than most US citizens realize. Let’s take a look at the difference.

Let’s say Mr. Smith had worked hard as a young man and bought a plot of land 10 miles out side of his home town of Pleasantville. Over many years, he had worked hard and paid for the land in full and had been able to work the land through careful planning and irrigation to build a rather fine grape vineyard producing some of the best grapes, wine, raisins, grape juice and jelly in all the land.

A Democracy (rule by mob):
Seeing how fine the vineyard was and how Mr. Smith had prospered, the town councilmen took a look at their overworked budget and proposed a vote to the citizens that Mr. Smith’s land should rightfully become the property of the town and therefore be divided up amongst the good citizens of Pleasantville. By majority vote, this proposal was passed overwhelmingly and the land became the property of the town. Everyone was delighted and very happy except Mr. Smith. There could be no consoling Mr. Smith and so he had raised such a fuss about all of this the town folk voted to put Mr. Smith in prison for unbecoming behavior which was very unpleasant to the erudite and sophisticated sensibilities of the refined citizens of Pleasantville. Everyone was horrified at Mr. Smith’s words and angry outburst in public and couldn’t tolerate such behavior.

A Republic (rule by law):
If Mr. Smith in the story above lived under the protection of the rule of law or a republic, a simple majority vote couldn’t have deprived him of his property or freedom. The city councilmen would have had their powers limited by the rule of law. Mr. Smith would have been provided certain rights and been protected by the rule of law, due process and the rights guaranteed to him by a constitution and bill of rights.

The US founding fathers were keenly aware of this distinction and that is why the Constitution and The Bill of rights limit the power of the government. These documents are your shield and are there to protect you. When our educators, politicians and news media continually preach about the democracy please remember that this is a representative REPUBLIC and not a democracy.

Do you pledge allegiance to the Democracy or the Republic?

From the American View…

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=11

As the story goes, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

It has been baldly asserted that in a Democracy, majority rules, whereas in a Republic, Law rules. Consider, in a Democracy, there is no need for a Constitution, since the majority can simply change Law at a whim. In a Republic, there is a Law above the government, and in our case there is a written Constitution.

Definitions from Wikipedia…

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the federal government of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government to the states, to citizens, and to all people within the United States.

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.

Opus 003: Communism and the Tyranny of Good Intentions:

karl-marx-155733_640

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | SEPTEMBER 06, 2012

Most of us are familiar with the story of Laissez-faire capitalism and the resulting abuses unleashed during Europe’s Industrial Revolution (1750 to 1850).  To correct these horrific insults to humanity, Karl Marx and his pal Friedrich Engels took it upon themselves to identify the problem and offer a solution…not realizing they would unleash a theoretical construct that would be used to murder, torture and  enslave most of humanity.   Their solution was Communism.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848.  Little did they know that these ideas (hatched in an arm chair in a library) would be used to enslave billions of people and responsible for hundreds of millions of agonizing deaths from starvation and cruelly at the hands of the masters it spawned.  The popular culture in today’s America cannot fathom this since they have not been educated to the evils contained in these well-intentioned ideals still proffered by our Progressive Democrats.

Unfortunately, Marx and most of our fellows today are caught up in labels and thus cannot discern the common elements in man’s inhumanity to man.  Bottom line is that if one man or group of men has unconstrained power over another, there will necessarily be abuse no matter what trendy label happens to suit your needs.

Mr. Marx believed that unconstrained capitalism was evil and it was and remains so today.  He described the class struggles between the haves and the have-nots (Bourgeois and Proletarians).  He also believed that the natural evolution dictates that democracy yields to socialism which in turn yields the final Utopian end state of Communism.  Democracy => Socialism => Communism. You can find this same theology in many of today’s progressives.

Mr. Marx also wrote another book called Das Kapital meant to expose the economic laws of capitalism and how it was the precursor to socialism.

If you’ve ever experienced the mental gymnastics and pain of reading Das Kapital you can appreciate the difficulty Mr. Marx had in explaining central planning of an economy and the socialist mode of production.  You should at least try to read a few chapters to get a sense of its morbid complexity.  What this book and Soviet Central Planning taught me is that central planning of an economy is a fool’s errand and that these decisions should be left in the hands of the individual whose work and toil created the value in the first place.  I think of it as a distribution of power model rather than a distribution of wealth model. When we remove the decision making from the individual who created the value, we create in its place malfeasance, abuse and inefficient allocation or resources not fair allocation as Marx would have us believe.  One example, I remember a friend going to a Russian shoe store to buy a pair of shoes only to find they had only left shoes…no right ones.  This would never happen in a free market, only by way of central control by a ridged, bloated bureaucracy.  Marx also missed the concept of individual motivation and how that impacts supply and demand.  Here again we can turn to our Soviet friends who had very cheap food prices as dictated by the authorities but when you went to the grocery store all the shelves were empty.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)” is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of scientific socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone’s needs. Sound familiar?

The old systems of Feudalism, Monarchies and the newer Laissez-faire capitalism were flawed and needed to be replaced with a well-thought out system to provide the most good for the most people.

Feudalism was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. Monarchies were based on hereditary and unconstrained capitalism– while demonstrably more efficient– did not protect the masses from the abuse of the powerful.

The world has never known a communist government to date. The Soviet Union was not Communist. It was a centrally controlled government run by the powerful few corporate officers. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos are the same. The cheat of Communism is that it seduces the masses into the belief that they will get something for nothing. Once the idea of communism takes hold in the minds of the masses, it has been used by the few to seduce the uneducated into slavery. Hugo Chavez’s takeover of Venezuela’s democracy is a recent case in point.

Were Karl Marx and Fredrick Engles evil doods? Nah. They were just a couple of well-intentioned do-gooders out to save the world.

So what’s better than communism?  A free market economy regulated by a government whose power over the individual is constrained by a constitution which places value on individual rights and freedoms.  As Ben Franklin said…”It’s a republic, if you can keep it.”

Opus 002: On Freedom & Tyranny:

prison-370112_150

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | JULY 23, 2012

Like so many others, it has become clear to me that our federal government no longer seeks to defend and protect individual rights or the founding documents that guarantee these rights. All have sworn an oath to defend and protect these founding principles; yet day after day, this sacred oath is ignored to the detriment of those persons and things sworn to protect. They only seek their own purposes.

“They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

“Experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But this long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”

I have meticulously listed my grievances against this increasingly controlling and deceitful government. I have helplessly watched our protector—the judiciary– ignore and bastardize our sacred constitution. They give pass after pass and acquiesce to the executive and legislative branches of government as the rights of the individual are supplanted with the rights of the state.

I have hoped in vein that the fourth estate, i.e. our news media, would somehow rally public opinion against these forces; only to find they too support the increasing power of our federal masters. These are historical times as we find ourselves perched on the razors edge of freedom or tyranny. We are witnessing the rapid destruction of our individual rights, once sustained by our respect and reverence for our founding documents of still visible scribbles on parchment at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This experiment in the primacy of individual rights 237 years ago created the greatest engine for freedom and prosperity in the history of man. Are we now expected to sit passively by and watch as our treasure is plundered by the Permanent Political Class and their legions of Bureaucrats?

So the question for me is: “Is our government legitimate?” Can a government who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies (foreign and domestic), who is now engaged in the wholesale destruction of these same principals …can this government by any reasonable measure be considered legitimate? The answer is clearly no.

Opus 001: On Race & Dignity:

martin-luther-king-jr-393870_640

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | March 29, 2012

Like MLK, as far as I’m concerned, the color of one’s skin is not as important as the content of one’s character. However, I am fair skinned and am thus generally envious of those with more color than me so you could say I tend to be slightly prejudiced against my pink brethren and slightly more positive towards those fellows who by no choice of their own are blessed with a darker skin.

Notwithstanding the above, I was raised in an all-white family and played with mostly white kids. I had a few friends who were Hispanic in origin but no black friends. Maybe that was the result of segregation, I just don’t know but I never saw any black people during my youth until we ran track in high school against another school that was almost entirely black.

I don’t recall having any negative opinions of black people and I have no recollection of my mother or father making negative comments towards our black brethren, so you could say I was agnostic on the topic of race; really having no experience on which to base any judgment. I was mostly curious.

After high school, I did have occasion to meet and greet a few blacks but just a few. I recall feeling bad for the blacks since they were slaves –or rather some of their ancestors were– and felt okay with my self-appraisal since I knew I was not prejudiced and had no ill feelings toward any person based on color. I would however go out of my way to be nice and friendly as a sign of respect and some misplaced guilt.

My mother dabbled in genealogy a bit and it is clear from her investigation that neither side of my family owned any slaves in the New World. In the Old World, that might be a different story however. My wife dug a little deeper into my family history and found out that I’m a direct descendent of a few ruthless folks including some Roman Emperors; but since the sins of the father generally carry down only seven generations, I conclude that I’m pretty clear in terms of family karma.

The only reason I divert into this little family history lesson is to establish my bona fides that neither I nor my family have ever owned any slaves in America.

So being white as the driven snow in terms of slavery and even whiter by skin color, I could safely say I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body.

Now, do I like thugs, or anti-social people who want to rob, steal or hurt others? Nope. It doesn’t matter if they are white, black or poky dot, I do not like ignorant, violent people and probably never will in spite of any amount of media propaganda that says it is cool to be cruel. Am I suspicious of people who think they are gangsters or dress and act like a gangster? Yep. (BTW, if your mother drives you to school, you are not a gangster.) So if you dress like a gangster and/or act like a gangster or a thug, I will be suspicious and may not like you. And for the record, I don’t want to see your underwear or your white, brown or black butt crack.

Do I owe the blacks anything more than respect and dignity? Nope. Do they deserve equal protection under the law? Yes.

Since my youth described above, I have joined the work force and am happy to report that I have had two managers who were black: one a woman and one a man. Both were excellent human beings and deserved and received my respect and admiration.

Now just because I am pure in terms of racism, is no excuse for being ignorant of the real issues blacks have faced and continue to face to a lesser extent today in this country. To this end, I read a book called ‘Black Like Me’ which had a profound impact on my view of racism in this country. If you haven’t read this book. Do it. It’s a 188 page diary written in 1959 by a white man who dyed his skin black and traveled anonymously as a black man and wrote about his experiences. It will curl your toe-nails and enlighten your brain and disabuse you of many false premises many whites seem to share including myself. This book allowed me to peer into the true nature and brutality of racism.

What this book taught me is that yes indeed I did have some racial preferences despite my proven purity explained above. Why? Because I realized that I never wanted to be black. I would rather be white. If I were to be black that would be okay but I wouldn’t want to be subjected to what many blacks endured in the 60s or prior. It also taught me that I was not sensitive or even aware of the many lasting deep scars this inflicted on our fellow citizens. ‘Black like me’ was proof positive of the soul-destroying, racial hatred and base prejudice that existed during this time. This realization provoked a deeper understanding and genuine sensitivity to the black man’s plight and exposed to my ignorant brain not just the casual, gossamer understanding of the importance of respect, but much deeper, sapient meaning of the word dignity. For the first time in my life the word dignity had salt to it. It had meaning. I realized that our racism had robbed an entire race of their human dignity with racial slurs, put downs, separate drinking fountains, restrooms, etc.

I turn now to Martin Luther King, Jr. to drive home my point from the very emotional and heart-wrenching perspective of a father. If you have no children, you cannot imagine the injury this causes to a father’s heart.

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]”

16 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

…”when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”

So I imagined how one of my children would feel and how I would feel being robbed of my human dignity in front of my children who look up to me and I became profoundly sad. All this became real to me. This experience has helped with my understanding. But does this mean we should further destroy a man’s dignity with a handout and not a hand-up by way of a job? No. Does this mean we should feel guilty? No. Does this mean we should offer up special privileges? No. Does this mean that all men should be treated equally and have equal opportunities? Yes. Does this mean that every man deserves dignity until proven they do not? Yes.

benjamin-franklin-62846_640

So for some wise advice on how to help a man when he is down, I turn to one of my favorite writers, old Ben Franklin:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Benjamin Franklin died in 1790 at the age of 84. He had bought and sold slaves earlier in his life but wrote the following in 1772…

In an unsigned letter to the London Chronicle, he asked readers whether it was absolutely necessary to sweeten their tea with slave-produced sugar. Could such a “petty pleasure…compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men?”

Later at age 81 Franklin signed a public exhortation that declared “the Creator of the world” made “of one flesh, all the children of men.”

constitution-62943_640

As a final thought on race, I turn to the US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”