Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Renounce War Now.

by Jerry Alatalo

Cumberland Island

2015

(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)

———-

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are  cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labor, the genius of its scientists, the houses of its children. This is not a way of life… Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging itself on a cross of iron.” April 16, 1953

– DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (1890-1969) General, 34th President of the United States

———-

“You can certainly destroy enough of humanity so that only the greatest act of faith can persuade you that what’s left will be human.” To Ed Murrow, CBS, January 4, 1955

– J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER (1904-1967) American scientist

———-

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

Issued in London, July 9, 1955

In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti- Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.

No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First: any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second: the abolition of thermonuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution 

We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

Max Born

Perry W. Bridgman

Albert Einstein

Leopold Infeld

Frederic Joliot-Curie

Herman J. Muller

Linus Pauling

Cecil F. Powell

Joseph Rotblat

Bertrand Russell

Hideki Yukawa

July 9, 1955

———-

“The power to destroy the world by the use of nuclear weapons is a power that cannot be used – we cannot accept the idea of such monstrous immorality… The time has now come for the nations of the world to submit to the just requisition of their conduct by international law.” No More War! (1958)

– LINUS PAULING (1901-1994) American scientist, Nobel Prize for Chemistry 1954, Nobel Peace Prize 1962

———-

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience… In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Farewell address, January 17, 1961

– DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

———-

“Global war has become a Frankenstein’s monster, threatening to destroy both sides… It contains now only the germs of a double suicide.” Address, July 5, 1961

– DOUGLAS MacARTHUR (1880-1964) American general

———-

“If we are not able to prevent a third world war, we shall go down in history – if history should survive – as the guilty generation, the generation which did nothing to prevent the annihilation of mankind itself.” Quoted in N.Y. Times, November 12, 1963

– U THANT (1909-1974) Burmese Secretary General, United Nations

———-

“The choice today is not between violence and non-violence. It is either non-violence or non-existence.” Nobel Prize acceptance speech, December 11, 1964

– MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. (1929-assassinated 1968) American human rights leader, Nobel Prize 1964

———-

2015

(Thank you to GlobalResearch TV at YouTube)

Post #800: Powerful Ideas For Economic Transformation.

by Jerry Alatalo

“So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent.”

– HENRY GEORGE (1839-1897) American economist, single tax proponent

aaa-42The worldwide economic crash of 2008 which humanity deals with up to today generated a massive conversation about economics and banking, in particular sparking great interest in alternatives offering better outcomes.

What has happened is that people have researched, studied, developed and articulated good alternative systems in the roughly seven years since 2008. The small group of people who control the global financial system have noticed the extraordinary interest in new alternative theory, and, for fear the alternatives will actually gain traction and become implemented, years ago began planning the trade deals called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to effectively kill any alternatives.

The Occupy movement made the phrase “We are the 99%” part of the global culture, for the first time unveiling/introducing the 1% to all people around the Earth, and essentially lit the fire of an ideas-for-the-future war between the 99% and 1%.  One has only to consider that both the TPP and TTIP – the largest multi-nation trade deals in history – have and are being written in secret to understand the immense importance of what is going on here, and why the deals’ details must become made available for examination by every person in nations potentially signing on – before the deals become voted on and/or made the law of the land.

****

Given the more urgent task of fighting for total transparency with regard to TPP and TTIP because of the enormity of consequences a very large percentage of the world’s people will experience if passed, it becomes easily understandable that focus on alternative solutions has been placed “on the back burner” so to say.  If one’s house is on fire, it becomes necessary to put out the fire as opposed to spending time in the vegetable garden. Reports suggest that men and women in potential TPP / TTIP signatory countries are doing commendable work in opposition to the way the trade deals haven’t been presented in full for their consideration, along with strongly expressing legitimate concerns to elected representatives.

Economist Scott Baker gave an excellent presentation recently on highly practical, beneficial economic/financial alternatives for people living in the United States. With hopes of reinforcing efforts around the world for promotion of new and implementable ideas that offer citizens real options for improving living conditions, a video of his presentation is being shared here.

While his talk is directed to Americans the ideas presented are ones that apply in any nation. The four foundational concepts Mr. Baker builds upon and explains in the talk he calls “Super-macro economic solutions”, each when implemented capable of saving governments – the people – trillions of dollars:

  • Sovereign money, aka debt-free money
  • Land value taxation, aka Georgism
  • Public Banking
  • Ending government financial asset hoarding

Other steps for positively transforming  economic conditions include application of proper regulation to minimize criminal behavior in financial sectors, which would result in re-directing trillions of dollars into government revenue accounts.

Mr. Baker explains why citizens should have no problems in accepting the changes he proposes:

  • Because with good, clearly beneficial incentives people can change
  • People are inherently reasonable and open-minded to good ideas
  • People genuinely want better economic conditions

Sovereign Money – U.S. government can issue the nation’s money without the Federal Reserve

What can fiat money do for the economy?

  • Pay for infrastructure
  • Pay for social security
  • Pay for R+D in science, education, foreign aid, new energy systems, etc.
  • Plus any expenditure which has a positive money multiplier effect

The $29 trillion spent on banks after 2008 resulted only in asset bubble inflation.

An example of a positive multiplier is $1 spent on social security that translates into $2 of economic activity. Negative multipliers include tax cuts for the rich and military spending, which most likely result in a net loss in economic activity.

The next question Mr. Baker answers about sovereign money is “what about inflation?” The nation’s money quantity should be kept as close as possible to the amount needed to meet the nation’s productive capacity. In his view, private banks are not producing/creating enough money through lending, while the Congressional Budget Office in its reports asserts that another $trillion in circulation wouldn’t result in inflation.

Next, he asks “why borrow/rent our money when government could create it?” Since 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act that established the Fed, the Federal government has paid the Federal Reserve Bank for money with interest-bearing Treasury bonds whose interest rate is determined by the Federal Reserve Bank itself. The interest is an expense for the American people which becomes eliminated once the conversion to sovereign money occurs.

Federal Reserve notes or United States notes?

The Federal Reserve Bank owns 18% of U.S. Treasury bonds. Japan, China and other nations own significant portions, and by holding those Treasury bonds China has gained a competitive advantage through devaluation of their Yuan, making Chinese exports more attractive to international buyers and American products more expensive.

A very wealthy rentier class makes a lot of money off of interest on Treasury bonds, a situation which would disappear when Treasury bonds become obsolete and unnecessary through establishment of a sovereign money system. Other reasons for converting to sovereign money include:

  • The independent Federal Reserve Bank can neutralize government spending by increasing interest rates, especially when spending becomes necessary – during an economic recession
  • Even during good economic times interest-bearing debt adds up to 50% to the cost of public projects like schools, roads, infrastructure improvements, public safety enhancements, and so on
  • Sovereign money would result in much less corruption
  • Sovereign money wouldn’t result in the government printing money “willy-nilly” as some warn, but an appropriately staffed organization would keep to targeted levels of money for the nation’s productive capacity

****

Land value taxation – Georgism

“There is enough, and to spare.” – Henry George (1839-1897)

Georgists believe monopoly in land is the cause of unjust inequality, and therefore advocate for land value taxation, sometimes called “single tax”. Currently, both homes/commercial buildings and land are subject to taxation, but Georgists propose that only land should become taxed. This view derives from the view that public revenues would best be:

  • Light on production
  • Easy and inexpensive to collect
  • Certain
  • Fair

“The Georgist proposal achieves the goal of ‘left-wingers’ for security and social action, but without restricting liberty. It achieves the goal of ‘right-wingers’ to attain freedom, but without privilege and monopoly”.

Scott Baker describes New York City’s taxation policies, where ‘special deals’ allow luxury condominium complex owners to pay 1/100th the property tax of condominiums costing 1/100th as much; parking lots paying 1/10th the property tax of neighboring properties which are built-upon and efficiently used; and the situation where 60,000 people in New York City are homeless while vacant and under-utilized land are both under-taxed and warehoused.

It is estimated that the average American family would see an annual increase of income of $6,300 if land value taxation became implemented. A single, land value tax would end:

  • Taxes on wages, sales and fixed capital
  • Land speculation – the main cause of boom-bust economic cycles
  • Most rent-seeking activities
  • Causes of most political and other forms of corruption
  • Unjust inequality based on monopoly of resources
  • Urban sprawl
  • Blighted, warehoused neighborhoods
  • Enormous tax breaks for developers, who would then build to sell at more reasonable prices

****

Public Banking

America’s only State-owned public bank is the Bank of North Dakota (BND), chartered in 1919 and now more profitable than all the “too-big-to-fail” Wall Street banks. The main advantage of BND for the people of North Dakota and neighboring states is effective empowerment of economic growth through banking practices that keep financial resources inside North Dakota and the region.

Many monetary reform advocates believe the creators of the TPP and TTIP have as one of their main goals making public banking illegal. Their premise is that nation-states shouldn’t compete against commercial interests in an unfair way or “unfair competition”.  It is self-evident that public banking, while good for the 99%, represents the greatest threat for the 1% in the banking industry, as related to loss of profits – from greatly reduced numbers of high-dollar financial transactions.

Some experts on monetary reform have estimated that 40% of the cost of public projects goes toward payment of interest. State, county and city-owned public banks could eliminate most interest expenses that those governments incur when signing loans made to them by Wall Street mega-banks.  Among the many other reasons for establishing public banks are:

  • New financial rules/laws could cause bond rates to soar
  • Minimal operating costs (no bonuses, fees, commissions / no highly paid CEOs / no need for buildings, branches, tellers / no advertising expenses)
  • Banks have unlimited low-interest credit
  • Counter-cyclical lending allows sustainable growth during economic recession
  • Less corruption, more efficiency, more profitability, less expenses (Bank of North Dakota is scandal-free since 1919)

****

Ending government financial asset hoarding

Scott Baker admittedly kept this last of the four solutions for the end because of the complex nature of the subject. This section of his presentation could be described as more “esoteric” and perhaps requiring further research to reach a firmer understanding, although accountants and finance experts will likely easily grasp his points.

Basically, the point he’s making is that government entities of all sizes from town to city to county to state levels, from fire departments to public pension funds, are required to produce an annual report of their total assets in a “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)”, which includes:

  • Governmental funds
  • Proprietary funds
  • Fiduciary funds
  • Component units

Proprietary funds, fiduciary funds, and component units included in CAFRs are not included in governments’ yearly budgets, and are where most surpluses are located.

Mr. Baker describes a “proper” budget as made up of: 1) Balance forward of the previous year’s unspent revenues, 2) The current year’s projected revenues, and 3) The current year’s projected expenditures.

Apparently government budget processes omit the previous year’s unspent revenues; in other words, certain actual assets are not included in government yearly budgets. Without resorting to a conjecture-based analysis of CAFRs, we will leave it to the reader to read between the lines of Mr. Baker’s words:

“If a process can be made complex and obscure in order to benefit the elite, it will be”.

There are over 200,000 CAFRs in America adding up to trillions of dollars. Scott Baker is asserting that those trillions of dollars, or portions of those assets, could become utilized in ways which result in better consequences for citizens. CAFRs represent a somewhat obscure, unknown governmental finance subject researched by only a small number of citizens.

That said, where trillions of dollars are involved one could safely bet that, like on Wall Street, extensive levels of corruption and “rigging the system” are present.

****

Scott Baker presents four real and solid solutions for building a better economy and financial system in America – solutions of which there is every good reason to believe are achievable.

99% of men and women see that as a “win-win” proposition.

(Thank you to Henry George School of Social Science at YouTube)

We’re Off To See The Wizard… The Wonderful Wizard Of 9/11.

by Jerry Alatalo

THE WIZARD OF 9/11  Behind The Curtain   (Photo: arc-na.org)

THE WIZARD OF 9/11
Behind The Curtain
(Photo: arc-na.org)

The Wizard of Oz book and the massively popular film based upon it were works of fiction. Unfortunately, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 – nearly fourteen years ago – were not. Events that have occurred since September 11, 2001 up to today, for any man or woman who has paid attention, have been equally far too real, overwhelmingly tragic, and very, very painful to witness. 

For the sake of humanity and future generations who will  live on this Earth – home, the time has arrived to pull back the curtain…

(Thank you to Corbett Report at YouTube)

(Thank you to Charles Ewing Smith at YouTube)

(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)

(Thank you to Jesse Ventura at YouTube)

(Thank you to Congressman Stephen F. Lynch at YouTube)

##########

“There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home…”

Corporate Media Officially Dead.

by Jerry Alatalo

keyboard7-1Comcast Corporation, owner of MSNBC, has cancelled “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz, allegedly because Ed Schultz wouldn’t submit to demands that he stop talking about the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) on air.  While one can look at this event as a communications industry/media milestone: the day progressive voices were once and for all effectively censored/banned from American mainstream corporate media, Comcast’s decision could result in a great backlash of increased opposition to TPP  in the United States and potential TPP signatory nations, as well as against the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in the US and Europe.

On the bright side, the trend toward people rejecting corporate cable media and finding the real news on the internet will only accelerate and grow, plus anyone in America looking for good deals on  used TVs will now face absolutely no difficulty finding them.

So it goes…

(Thank you to Ring of Fire Radio at YouTube)

History Will Absolve Me… Fidel, 1953

Originally posted on Tony Seed's Weblog:

july-26-bannerThe following is the reconstruction of Fidel Castro’s four-hour speech made on 16 October 1953 in his own defencc in court against the charges brought against him after he led the attack on the Moncada Barracks. It was published as La Historia Me Absolvera (History Will Absolve Me) and laid out the national and social goals of the revolutionary movement that eventually triumphed on January 1st, 1959. History has vindicated Moncada!

HONORABLE JUDGES:

Never has a lawyer had to practice his profession under such difficult conditions; never has such a number of overwhelming irregularities been committed against an accused man. In this case, counsel and defendant are one and the same. As attorney he has not even been able to take a look at the indictment. As accused, for the past seventy-six days he has been locked away in solitary confinement, held totally and absolutely incommunicado, in violation of every human…

View original 26,135 more words