

### The Free Market has soon turned 99 % of us into Miserables.

### by H.Anderberg.

Copyright © Håkan Anderberg, May 2012.

Published at Smashwords

All rights reserved. Copying for personal and educational purpose allowed.

This is a translation made by the Author. If anybody feels that they want to participate as proofreader of the book, you are mostly welcome to participate.

**Please contact on this e-mail:** hakan_anderberg@hotmail.com

Introduction.

What really made me understand how bad it is in the world of today, a decade in to the 21st century, was when I read a book which was written in the end of the 19th century – "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo.

The first time I heard the word "Miserables" was in Brazil. I asked several times, I remember, and at last I got the explanation – it was the step below poverty. Where you lose your value as a human and you loose the hope to become a human being again.

Maybe our thoughts goes to the people that in different ways have been stricken by catastrophes and therefore fallen into that – state. But it wasn't them that came to my mind when I read "Les Miserables", it was not them I saw so clearly in front of me, described by Victor Hugo. It was our social outcasts in the western societies, mentally handicapped, homeless people, and drug-damaged people. Them the representatives of our society had stripped of their human dignity and condemned to become "Les Miserables", because they didn't fit into the system.

Nothing has happened since the mid 19th century if we see to them who are below the last step on the social ladder. They are not chained as galley slaves though, but they are in anyhow without human dignity in our society in the 21st century! After almost 200 years nothing has happened for them down under.

I am also talking about Sweden who until now has had a social security system at least for them who knows their legal rights, but it is getting worse. It hasn't been that bad since the 40-ties that it is today. In the 60- and 70-ties we didn't have homeless people. They showed up when our economy was "on all its cylinders", at that time the Evening news start to run their 5-minute feature on economy. They showed the Stockholm Stock Market Exchange and got ordinary people to put their savings into shares. Then the homeless people start showing up. What was it that kicked the poor down from the last step, to a life as "Miserables" in Sweden? The land of "Utopia" to many people in the world.

At the same time the workers union stopped talking about 6-hour workday and a few years later the information were that everybody have to work more than 8 hours a day in the near future. From the same channels we were told how good everything was going for Sweden.

I didn't understand a lot from the contradictory data and probably didn't care a lot either. I had enough of my own efforts to get as much as possible of the existing cake, especially the black one. I lived outside the community and after the motto" Guard yourself and don't care about what others do" and it functioned well – some years.

It works out fine as long as you only have to think about yourself but when there all of a sudden is a child in the house which one day shall manage by itself? When you have responsibility for somebody else then you change thinking and discover that it is almost impossible to get back into the society. It means unemployment, down low on the social ladder for long time, infinitely long time. Then thoughts start coming about how bad everything seams to function even in our little duck pond Sweden, at least for some? Many questions accumulate and all of them seemed to be without honest direct and simple answers.

In the end it was too much unemployment and since I had taken full responsibility for my son I gave him the confidence to take the last steps by himself. I went travelling to find out why it is like it is and this is my answer.

Over time I have understood that nobody of our "prominent" persons in the society should be able to write this book because it would make them impossible in the roles they are playing in the society.

Adam Curtis, freelance journalist from England which mainly has been working with BBC England and Noam Chomsky, professor in linguistics at MIT, USA, are my main sources to this book, together with Erich Fromm, social psychologist and humanistic philosopher.

Instead of lining up these people's background and references I do recommend the reader to investigate the credibility on internet.

None of them has ever been involved with conspiracy theories. Chomsky have been looking into some conspiracies and reached the conclusion that since you never will find an answer it is a waste of time.
Chapter 1. We and the World.

First we must have the understanding that humans has a higher value and that this value is equal to each human being – independent of ability. Only to be born as a human being means that we have the same right as anybody else to participate, at the same degree, in decisions that affect our person. Otherwise certain persons would have a higher value than others and then there is no more to say. Then it is ok with slave societies. Period.

The only "politic" I considered as reasonable is that decisions in a democratic way are made at the lowest level meaning where you work and liveAall institutions have to show that they are necessary for the society. That is my political agenda and my policy might be that – "small is best".

We might think that you have to be a professor to reveal or understand how the world's powerful men control us – the mass. To a certain extent I accept that, but after these knowledgeable persons has shown us their logical explanation, with reference to where they got the data, then it is enough to have normal intelligence to understand if it is right. People's intuitions about fundamental things are normally just on the spot. People has for example for hundreds of years felt that an equal society is the best for us. People are clever, friendly and have a lot of intuition when they are left without being manipulated.

The economical systems of John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman are totally contradictive. Keynes system gives the politicians the power to control the capital and he was the first to test his system which had great success during the 50- and 60-ties, those years that is called "the golden age of the capitalism". Most systems has its flaws, also this system, but it kept the world economies going from the end of the 40-ties until the beginning of the 70-ties, without any major crises.

Friedman theory is to take away all form of economic restrictions, so-called _laissez-faire_ -economy, and today it is this theory that controls the world's economy. A country today is more than ever depending on what is happening in the world. Therefore you must look on the whole world to understand what is happening in one country. Economically almost all countries today are depending on the "markets" reactions.

The change started 1971 when Nixon deregulated the so-called "Bretton Woods" system by decontrol the currency and at the same time took away the gold standard. Multinational companies grew to enormous giants and can today be compared with many countries in size. This and other measures caused what we today call the globalization.

(1) 1970 when the Bretton Woods system regulated the economy 90 % was trade with goods and 10 % speculations. 1990 these numbers had been reversed and only a few years later, 1994, 95 % was pure speculation and 5 % on trading goods.

We have in most countries today, lost the possibility to rule over our economy and that goes for all countries in the world – also USA. Decisions that give advantage to the citizens are considered as inflationary which immediately forces the market to redraw its investments from that country. Taxation of companies gives the same reaction.

It is not out of evilness but it is economically right to do so in the system we have. The system that is the cause to food crises in the southern hemisphere and financial crises in the northern hemisphere. It is called "The Free Market" by most of us.

So were to begin to logical explain how we ended up in the mess we are in today? I think that it gives a rather good image to look into the development during the 20th century. Three major factors are significant for the development of the democracy during this century, namely:

1. In the beginning of the 20th century the right to establish in more or less any industry is widely extended. The guilds have more or less disappeared.

2. The Corporations grows both in power and in amount.

3. The private corporations want to get rid of as many restrictions as possible that can inhibit their development. That means that they start campaigns to impact the average citizens in several ways to give them consent to weaken the democratic control of the companies. The knowledge from Freud's scientific research is used to fabricate information that "brainwash" the people and get them to do what the corporations want. Newspapers became an important tool which later was taken over by radio, TV, the film industry etc.

During the latest centuries, since the capitalistic system was introduced, there has been a constant struggle between those which works and them who owns about whom is going to determine the distribution of the wealth in the society. Those with capital in the society do everything to become richer. Moral and conscience was adjusted to what they were doing, to protect their assets. They paid as low price as possible for the labour which led to that workers were living on the limit of starvation, and under the limit. Diseases, infant mortality and hunger became everyday life for hundreds of years.

Subsequently and slowly the workers won different rights that were built on the strongest of weapons and the powerless' only weapon – the truth. The weapon that the child carry and we take away from them, when we deprogram them from a natural critical thinking, when we teach them that you don't have to always tell the truth. With honesty as a fundament a society were founded that was built on dignity.

The rich and primarily our middle class could never have done this since they are prepared to sell themselves to any price if they and their assets are protected. Their moral is to get more cunning and more inventive to protect their "Precious".

Here is an example how those forces works and at the same time we will get an explanation what the word "liberal" stands for. This word has today a double meaning. The classic liberalism (when the word was used the first time) stood for people's right to have control over his work and to decide over his way of living without interference from outside. The word totally dissociates from wage slavery and as clearly from capitalistic thinking. A word that signifies freedom to determine over ones life and also means tolerant, open, freethinking and generous is dangerous for them who want to control society. That's why they change the meaning of the word to signify the opposite. Since they control the press and media they can succeed in impacting the significance of the word. Today the word "liberalism" means a system who wants control over the production by controlling the work and the workers in a super capitalistic system. But in US it means the worst socialist society you can imagine, much worse than the horrible communism. So they killed the word, liberal, which was founded by John Locke, and was used to write "The Declaration of Independence" in United States of America.

They do this to confuse ordinary people who struggle to learn the fundaments of what different words stand for. They do it so people will put their votes in the wrong ballot box. They who want to vote for a liberal party because it gives the workers more freedom to rule over their lives will put their vote for a party which is the most conservative.

Adam Smith was a classic liberalist. Noam Chomsky says in his book "Class Warfare" following:

" _People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of_ _The Wealth of Nations_ _where he talks about how_ _wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn them into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits._ _"_

Adam Smith made a solid work, "Wealth of the Nations", were he describes how an economical system can come in balance. Corporations in the meaning of today were only in its infancy at the time of Adam Smith and he was strongly critical to what he saw coming. He was especially critical to the "Business Men". Adam Smith criticized England in a harsh way for what they did and had been doing in India and he saw the liberations of the colonies way before anybody else. He is described together with von Humboldt by Noam Chomsky in the book "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" as socialist-anarchist that is strongly against what capitalism stands for. Smith couldn't have made any anti-capitalistic statement at his time since the capitalism only was in the forestage of its development.

Milton Friedman took this system, 200 years later, and did the same thing what had been done to the word liberal. He remakes the system so the corporations was given unrestricted power and the workers became totally powerless'. The first he cooperated with was dictator Pinochet in Chile. A couple of years later Friedman received the Nobel Prize Award, the same year he helped Argentines new dictators to implement the system. Country after country which has by any reason got into chaos were forced to assimilate Friedman's theories and today we are all slaves under the system, called "The Free Market". The method to implement it with has been described by the Canadian journalist and author Naomi Klein in her book "The Shock Doctrine".

The 18th and 19th centuries are interesting from several points of views. The textile industry in England which needs wool to its industry make people loose their land – which they have lived on since ancient times. They are bunched together around the factories were child labor is considered as natural.

One surprise is that from 1815-1914 there were no wars in Europe between the big nations – those nations we read about in school (which was more or less about wars). The nations that normally tried to exterminate each others succeeded to negotiate to peace when it was heating up in the politics during 100 years? The 20th century will give back far more than the "missed" wars in the 19th century though.

A major part of us with the attitude that people do not have the same value has often big economical assets. Their meetings with like-minded is not "advertised". Secret decisions and implementations in the signs of surprises is regular, everything to protect and increase their capital. New polls and referendums are forced through year after year – until the propositions at last are accepted by the workers. Then "the lid is put on" and it will be impossible to have a new vote or a change. The worker is by his nature honest and believes in the equality of man, so he accepts the fact that he was tricked to put his vote in the wrong ballot.

To protect the capital or assets can mean any irregularities, just look into our history. There are no limitations since they disappear at the same moment we adopted the view that humans do not have the same value. After that it is only differences of degrees and they change over time when the surroundings allow or demand it.

There is a logic explanation how the people got the view that people have different value. They have to protect their capital and has time after time being forced to give up their moral in different ways. In the end their conscience will challenge this behavior and then there are only two answers. Either that I am wrong, or that there is something wrong with the one that I have been using for my purpose. If I admit that it is me that is wrong then I will improve and the behavior will disappear. If not, I have to say that it is them that are stupid, lower class people or something similar to defend my actions. I will use them for my own purpose and that shows my disrespect of equality between people.

In a similar way is the racist created. At some occasion he have, unintentionally maybe, violated a person or a group of people and instead of changing behavior he chooses to continue the violations (to prove that he was not wrong the first time). When the bad conscience comes up he gives an explanation built on, that it is the others that are wrong. They deserve the treatment he has given them since they have a lower value because of what they are. Chomsky expresses it in this way:

"In a situation of occupation or domination, the occupier, the dominant power, has to justify what it's doing. There is only one way to do it -- become a racist. You have to blame the victim. Once you become a raving racist in self-defense, you've lost your capacity to understand what's happening."

In some mysterious way, Sweden wasn't run over 1992 when the economical crash left the country open for rape. The Socialdemocratic Party which took over soon after the crash was still weak after the lost of their ideological leader and Prime Minister Olof Palme, who was shot a few years before. The Conservative and Liberal Parties would probably embrace the neoliberalism but were severally maimed after they lost the political power in a humiliating way. Göran Persson, the new Socialdemocratic Prime Minister, pallor illuminated the TV screen when he announced "that the one who is in debt is not free". He had return from Wall Street and their unofficial partner IMF to ask for a loan to cover the debt on 1000 billion SEK (110 billion euro). What maybe saved us was that Wall Street was fully occupied to plan how they were going to empty Russia on all its wealth.

The economists knew that it wouldn't be easy to defeat the Swedish worker unions and they could not afford any prestigious losses before the slaughtering of the Russian Bear. The unions were probably the only organisations who were strong at this time, despite the huge unemployment that had been created. Nothing scares the capitalists more than organised workers. They know that the risk is big that they might loose everything they own. Sweden had during a half century been the country in the world that the hawks in the US economy wanted to crush – especially during the time of Palme – because of the good example Sweden was to other countries. Sweden had the most equal society in the world and their Prime Minister (Olof Palme) took the right to make statements to the world about American foreign politics, about the wars.

The Union has had their defects and sure a lot can be said about Malm at LO and "Hoffa" at the Transport union but it must not come to be a cause to leave the union, in particular with the "Chicago Boys" waiting around the corner. The first thing they try to eliminate in all countries that they will implement the free market system in is the power of the unions. Without the union the workers have no organisation which can negotiate and bring forward their rightful demands. For sure there are some unnecessary people at the union cabinets that cost a lot of money from the hard labored salaries that is paid from to the union every month. The only thing and the right thing to do is to participate in the internal work of the union and make a change from inside. But never leave, that will everybody bitterly regret one day. Now in 2012 when we see the numbers of member decreasing we must ask and try to understand what is behind. The Union is our last, and today it is a fact that there are no other outposts to keep up our right to "everybody's equal value".

Opposite to the Bretton Wood system Milton Friedman's "Free Market" have had three (3) major crises and more than hundred "smaller" financial crises since the 80-ties. If we look on all the suffering the Russian, Chinese, Latin-Americans and Europeans has been forced to go through at the implementation of the "free forces of the market" then you wonder how long this madness will go on.

The answer isn't very hard to find and Angela Merkel touched the subject in a weak moment when the EMU crises was on the agenda. What she said was "we will have a fund that our member countries can lend from and when the money is spent the corporations has to take the rest".

It is always the people that have to pay, first when the taxes are rising to support the companies in different ways and after that through increasing tax even more to pay the debts that have been created by the companies that utilized the system to enrich themselves until it collapsed. As long as the politicians can take the workers tax money and give them to big business we will become poorer and poorer, but in the end there will be no more to take and then, if not before, the "house of cards" will fall together.

A good example is that the taxes in Sweden have paid the national debt from the crise -92. We rescued the banks first by giving them money – not lending. We gave them money since they had so high debts already that they couldn't sign for any more loans.

So we rescued the banks and at the same time we let the banks keep the rights to require payment from the costumers that couldn't pay their loans in the chaos after the financial crash -92.

The banks were first paid by the people because the people could not pay their loans and after that the people still had to pay the loans. The banks got paid twice and consequently the people paid their debt twice. The right ting would be that the unpaid loans went into the Treasury of the country or that the debts just were removed from payment.

The most people had basically been "tricked" to lend money from the bank since it was the only way to keep the banks going before everything collapsed. They literally dragged people from the street into the bank to lend money to them, without or with very low security. At the same time with the help of more or less criminal economists they emptied companies that were not active from investment funds. It could never been done without the involvement of the major banks.

One year after the Big economical crise 2008 Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett publish the book – "The Spirit Level". They show that economically equal society has higher health and less social problems than societies that have unequal distribution of income.

(2)"The Annual Review of Sociology 2009 the authors reports that statistics that show violence, homicide, obesity, imprisonment, drug- and alcohol abuse, teenage births, etc increases correlating to greater income inequality. Greater income inequality results in more social problems. In general higher average income for a country do not give higher health or less social problems than in a country with lower average income. The authors have been looking on societies with 20.000 – 40.000 US dollar in average annual income, from Portugal to USA.

The essential factor is the distribution between different group's incomes. Japan with generally high income and with the least income differences has the lowest social problems and the highest health numbers. Sweden is consistently on second place while for instance Canada, that often is compared with Sweden, is relatively far down in the statistic. The country most far away from good health and good social conditions are USA. They are totally alone without any contact with the rest of the world on the problem side in the statistics.

Norway is on the level of average income as USA but is at the same time on the third place in the world with high health and low social problems, only because of more equal distribution of income. USA is as told before on the last place. Japan and Sweden are the countries with the highest life expectancy and with the most equal distribution of income between their citizens.

You could speculate if Canada has been more affected of the neoliberalism because of its location close to USA. In USA where Milton Friedman had his nursery, "The University of Chicago", also called the "Chicago School". Where economists were educated for those countries that later should come under the shadow of dictatorship or by any reason will get into some kind of sever crise. It wouldn't look good if the country who is bordering the residence of the new _laissez-faire_ economy has a well functioning economical system with socialdemocratic values. It hits you that when you cross the border to Canada the possession of a firearm goes down to almost zero, imprisonment to less than 10 % of the numbers in USA, etc. The average American who doesn't get a lot of information about Europe can probably not be kept in the dark as easy when it comes to Canada ... or?

The unrestrained power of the corporation's over the market has caused imbalance in many important fields. One is the food production which today is controlled by very few companies. Only four (4) corporations control generally all production of beef meat in USA. They all use unnatural methods that lead to diseases and directly kill people, mainly children.

They do not breed the cows on grass, but on corn and soybean proteins. This leads to that the cow develop for the humans dangerous e-coli bacteria's that end up in the meat, by mistake it is said, but it is impossible to avoid. From time to time we are being warned and mountains of meat are taken back for destruction. Children dies totally unnecessary because our politicians do not have power, knowledge or courage to stop this kind of production.

Food is composed with different constituents from corn, soybean or wheat and then is flavored with some fruity taste and finally given a flashy name. It is sold with an impression to be healthy for us but is in fact just a mixture of soy, corn or wheat that they have extracted different parts from like fat, sugar, fiber, etc and then flavored with something sour, bitter, sweet or salty. Pure Witch Dough.

The big multinational corporations that today control our food have locked them self up to this kind of fabricated food and prefer to see us eating less vegetables and fruit. They don't invest in vegetables and fruit which the increase of the price clearly shows and are today so expensive that low-income workers can't afford this luxury anymore. At the same time they are lobbying to get the government to pay fruit farmers to saw down their old fruit trees? So the investment is in corn, soybean and wheat that can be stored for many years. Then the corporations can make higher profit without any risk. The method used is built on large scale agriculture and oil depending.

(3) In USA today, 30 % of the arable land is only growing corn. The corn is used mainly for meat production on animals that are natural grass feeders. The rest of the corn is then used for making "Witch Dough" for average people. The question is how we got into this upside down world and the answer is simple? It is this type of products that has been subsidized by the society for a long time – by the workers tax money. The big banks are heavily involved as they also are in the pharmacy industry.

Since the 80-ties it has been possible to patent life and that has lead to certain corporations such as Monsanto in USA has patent on soybean, corn, rapeseed etc. That means that you must buy your seeds every year and are not allowed to use the last year seeds. If you do, you will be sued for patent infringement. Monsanto has managed to manipulate plants so that seeds, such as cottonseed, can not "survive" until the next season. The risks are of course that it will spread to other plants and what happens if all the cottonseeds die before the time of plantation? – The Monsanto share will go up on the stock market of course.

160.000 Indian cotton farmers has during the last 10 years committed suicide because inhuman contracts with Monsanto.

Another and bigger question is what will we do if corn all of a sudden gets severally affected by something that we can't handle? The food production has of course been streamlined as much as possible to not have overproduction and capital losses. The wheat crise in Russia showed how easy it is to get into a tuff situation. To let corporations rule over our food production shows how naïve our politicians are – all over the world.

The investors from Wall Street Corporations are involved on all levels but absolutely in the top. Psychopaths that has no feeling for other people's sufferings. They control our children's food.

Sources:

(1) Noam Chomsky, Class Warfare.

(2) Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009. 35:493–511 First published online as a Review in Advance on April 6, 2009 The Annual Review of Sociology is online at soc.annualreviews.org This article's doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115926

(3) Film: Food Inc Limited, by Participant Media
Chapter 2. The Liberalisms first experiment.

" _The experience of all ages and nations, I believe,_ _demonstrates_ _that the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance is in the end the dearest of any. A person who can acquire no property can have no other interest but to eat as much and to labour as little as possible. Whatever work he does beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own._ _"_

Adam Smith continues:

" _The pride of man makes him love to domineer, and nothing mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to persuade his inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and the nature of the work can afford it, therefore, he will generally prefer the service of_ _slaves to that of freemen. The planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expense of_ _slave cultivation. The raising of corn, it seems, in the present times, cannot. In the English colonies, of which the principal produce is corn, the far greater part of the work is done by freemen._ _"_

Wealth of the Nations – Adam Smith.

It involved a lot of costs keeping slaves. The slave owners were forced to arrange the housing and the food. Each slave was a big investment that couldn't be wasted. A large part of the year the slave was not active in profitable work and during high season they were often understaffed? It was many problems involved about the slavery but was maybe the only opportunity that was offered locally to get business to function. To employ free labor had disadvantages, but one great advantage was that you only had to pay for the work that was done. And the cost for food and housing the free workers had to arrange themselves. De biggest advantage was that they worked significantly more effective than the slave.

One disadvantage was that it was hard to know for sure if the workers would show up next season. There was not much sense in not having workers to harvest what had been sown earlier in the year. When the workers organized themselves in unions they got possibility to demand higher payment. The work force often moved to where the work was but they preferred of course, like all free men, to work with their own business. So the employers had to "bribe" them with higher salaries.

The old rulers in England that had have the power for long time must have felt the demands from them further down the social ladder in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The 19th century had been a big experiment with the "self-regulating market" which not the least affected India very hard.

Three or four times they were hit by famine during the second half of the 19th century. It would have been possible to get rice and grain transported by the well functioning railway system but the real problem was that the villages didn't have money enough to pay the grain with and because of the self regulating markets construction the prices went up. The villages had in the earlier system put aside enough to survive if the crop failure.

The market had primarily changed the labor relations and the land ownership in the village. That meant that the whole harvest had to be sold according to the "self regulating market" rules. The English did not do any more than watched while the market regulated the number of population in India by starvation.

In England things were a little bit better. They tried by laws to reduce the effects of the unemployment but without any success – they at least tried to make an impression of it. Land and Capital was first controlled by the free market while the Labor resisted of different reasons. One reason was the Labors immobilization according to the existing laws. You had no right to leave the community you were registered in.

1795 "Speenhamland Law" was introduced which was built so the salaries were knitted to the purchasing power. Certain basic commodities control the wage setting. Under the banner "Right to Live" the workers was protected regardless if they were unemployed or had a low income, and a kind of minimum salary covers the families that earn under that limit. Despite that, different powers in society try to get the right to move the labor across the country as they like. It takes until the 1830-ties until it is implemented.

1834 come a new law. "Poor Law Reform Act", a suiting slogan would have been that "no one have the right to live more than what he could get together on the labor market". In the end, with force, they get the labor to accept the demands to become a commodity that the market regulates the price on.

Only the one without any work have the right to a miserable support from the state. After 30 years hard struggle the workers get a form of union in 1870.

In Karl Polanyi's book "The Great Transformation" he writes the following:

" _To antedate the policy of laissez-faire, as is often done, to the time when this catchword was first used in France in the middle of the eighteenth century would be entirely unhistorical; it can be safely said that not until two generations later was economic liberalism more than a spasmodic tendency. Only by the 1820's did it stand for the three classical tenets: that labor should find its price on the market; that the creation of money should be subject to an automatic mechanism; that goods should be free to flow from country to country without hindrance or preference; in short, for a labor market, the gold standard, and free trade."_

Since the _laissez-faire_ -economy caused an enormous oppression of the workers an opinion were created, _anti-laissez-faire,_ which was designated as "The Collectivist Opinion" in the beginning of the 1860. The liberal economists see the theory as a science coming directly from nature and accordingly the Collectivists ideas was against the nature.

After one hundred years of economic liberalism it reaches its peak in the 1920-ties. The liberalism has "afflicted most people in one way or another throw the self-regulating market. Societies and cultures which were several hundred or generally thousands of years old had been destroyed and the confusion was total when they all of a sudden were struck by starvation or deep poverty and had no means to mitigate the effects.

Inflation hits the world and to save the countries economies – still under the liberalisms mantle – there were not too small sacrifices. Constitutional liberties and lawful rights are sacrificed and at the same moment the citizens are left without any support. Big corporations and especially the big banks devour the smaller ones in tens of thousands, in scenarios that they themselves have orchestrated and in exceptional circumstances were accountable for when it was discovered.

(1) Several countries don't pay their international debts and all of a sudden the rich and wealthy people don't want to hear anything about liberal _laissez-faire_ economy anymore. In the middle of the thirties France and some other countries still have their currencies knitted to a gold standard but are forced by Great Britain and US to give it up – by them that had guarded the liberalisms doctrines so closely earlier.

In the 1940-ties the liberalism suffers even worse defeats. Great Britain and USA keeps the liberal _laissez-faire_ principle and its methods concerning industry and business, the "backbone" of those countries.

To let the liberalism as such, to take the credit of the 100 year of peace between the great nations is probably an excess. The most important for this peace seems to be that there was a gold standard which guaranteed the monetary value internationally. We could take a look on how many lost human lives the liberalism was the cause to during these 100 years. The famine which was the worst killing machine took probably as many lives as wars would have done at this time. The after effects in destroyed cultures all over the world will create suffering in incalculable time in the future.

In spite of that there are new _laissez-faire_ -economists waiting for a new chance to repeat the experiment. They say, with the same voice "government measures, trade union involvement and the greed of the corporations destroyed the last experiment (that was going on for 100 years) and now they want to do it once more". It is of course no paupers or anybody down low on the social ladder which can afford a repetition of the experiment but the prosperous who wants a new chance to pick of the normal people what they have managed to save up since the last time. Next man in the laboratory will be Milton Friedman, who 1976 got Nobel Prize Award in Economics.

Sources:

(1) Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation.
Chapter 3. A new slave system.

The last 15 years the saving interest in the Swedish banks has been a fraction above zero percent. On a bank account with 100.000:-, the annual interest distribution has maybe been 250:-. If I on the other hand would lend 100.000:- from the bank the interest would at least be 5 percent. So, if I put in 100.000:- and somebody lends that money the bank would make a gain on 4.750:- in a year. Not that bad but also not true, it is a lot better than that for the bank.

The international bank rules says that the bank only needs to have 10 % in the bank, of the sum they lend out, as security. So, I put 100.000:- in to my bank account. Fresh money from the mattress.

Then the bank writes a loan contract to Mr A promises to pay back the amount plus an annual interest on 5 %. The bank put aside 10% of the money they just lend out from the money I have put into my saving account. So if Mr A lend 100.000:- there will be used 10.000:- from my saving account to secure the loan. The bank then lends out 100.000:- to Mr B, Mr C etc and with the same procedure to all these gentlemen it comes to that the banks annual gain is not 4.750:- but 49.750:- on the 100.000 I put into my bank account. I get, should we call it gratification on 250:- as interest. To me it seems to be closer to theft or at least a scam?

Let's ask a simple question, "where does all money come from?" The answer is, from the bank and the one that has the best answer might say the Central bank. Svenska Riksbanken is the Swedish Central bank that is responsible of the money printing, that they control by putting the interest high or low on the money the give out. Right now it is not important how it is made in detail, what is interesting is how the working people are getting trapped in debts for all future in the economical system we have had for at least the last 100 years.

Let us say that the answer in general above is – The Bank. The money that comes from the bank is always in the form of a loan. And all loans have, without exceptions, an interest rate. So let's look on the 100.000:- example again.

When the bank lends out 100.000:- they want 105.000:- back. The question is how will I be able to pay back 105.000:- when the bank have only given out 100.000:-? The 5.000:- is not paid into the system. How are you then going to be able to pay back the loan?

The same situation is also the fact for the other gentlemen in the example above. They all need to find 5.000:- that has never been paid in to the system and in fact do not exist! If you take another loan to pay the 5.000:- you have to pay that plus interest so it does not help at all, it makes it worse.

This means that we will never become free of debt. The money does not exist. I can of course try to put one of the gentlemen in a worse situation and use their money to get a solution on my own debts. – And exactly that is the thought behind the economical system we are living in. That the deficit will force us to sell ourselves – sometimes to any price – and at least as wage slaves.

There might be somebody that hopefully thinks that it is the Central banks role to look after that there are enough money in the market and that is probably a half right answer. The Central bank takes care about that money is poured into the system so the wheel does not stop totally. They do that by putting the interest rate higher or lower on the money they supply to the market. They do not give out money for "free", most of the time there is an interest rate involved. You can postpone the payment for a while by getting a new loan.

The interest is as always a future debt that is in principle impossible to pay since there is not enough money. Again a deficit which makes us lowering our demands and adjust ourselves to be a slave in the monetary system. It is smartly calculated but not in any way – scientific. Economical system is calculated to do certain things but that does not give them the right to be compared with gravitational- or electromagnetic laws. The latter is by nature built in phenomena that were created in the moment that is popularly called "Big Bang". Economics is in the best case a bit like alchemy, a dream to find gold in a grain of sand. In our case a fraud were people are put into debt and are being enslaved, and regularly are robbed of what they have been managed to save up.

Something else our economical system creates is inflation – and deflation. When more money is poured into the system it is called inflation.

The money that is in the system – in this very moment – has a value that is the same as all the goods available in the same moment. The new money that the Central bank manufactures from where do they get their value?

In the same moment we mix those newly manufactured money with the old, then "the old + the new" money has the same value that only "the old" was worth before – calculated in goods (and that is what it is all about). The goods are exactly the same as before. Earlier the old money could by all the goods but now they have to give a part to the new money. The old money has therefore a lower value; you get fewer goods for the same amount of money. That is inflation.

Without going to deep into how deflation functions you could say that it is the opposite to inflation, which means that instead of putting in money to the system you redraw money from the system. If there are less money it will be harder to pay loans or to get loans and therefore we will not be able to buy things or pay our debts etc. Sometimes that suit the banks and then they will diminish the flow of money to the society. Then it is only the banks that have money to buy for.

The most obvious example is what happened after the Stock Market Exchange crash in New York 1929. During the first years in the 30-ties there was a lack of money in the American society. The Central bank, Federal Reserve Bank (FED), owned and controlled by private bankers, refused to let enough money into the system. There was therefore not enough money to lend out to the industry or the business world.

There was no lack of educated work force, effective industry or of infrastructure. After a tremendous development since the end of the First World War everything was on its peak in the industry. It was only the lack of money supply that put a stop to the society's function.

FED did not let in any more money and at the same time they demanded that loans had to be paid. Therefore there was soon a lack of money and many could not pay the loans which led to that people lost their belongings, to the bank. In this way the banks took over the lifesavings of the people, their homes, companies etc. And they took it at the lowest price since nobody had money to bet a higher price with.

It was not the first time the banks did like this but it was the first time they did it over long time and the reason that they could do it was because the system with a central banking system who decided how much money that should be printed, and that everything was controlled by an interest rate.

USA had in the beginning of the 20th century tested some different governmental system that directly had been used by the dominating banks and therefore, one by one, had to be dismantled after a while. JP Morgan, Warburg, Rockefeller and Rothschild was the dominants at this time. Let us look back some decades to see how we at last ended up in what is called "The Great Depression", but let us first look on the reason to why America wanted to get free from England.

The decisive reason to the revolution against and the liberation from England was the demand to create their own monetary system, to have the right to print their own money. England forced them to accept the English system which was a system built on interest. This they refused to accept. When Benjamin Franklin was questioned about the poor and what it was that paid for the almshouses if they did not tax the people. Franklin answered that "they did not have any almshouses and if they would have there were no poor people to in them since everybody had job. He explained it like this:

_"It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay."_ **Benjamin Franklin.**

Thomas Jefferson expressed himself in the following way in the beginning of the 19th century:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

When the political freedom from England is achieved the banks tries continuously to get in control of the American economy. They are a continually threat throughout the years in their attempt to control the politicians and to get the public to trust them, so they can get established for good with legal actions. If they only can deceive the public ones then it will be enough – if they just can create and control the Central bank the goal is achieved. The European and American bankers understood that the old physical slave system was on the way out, and 1862 the following "secret" document was distributed among the aristocrats and prosperous citizens:

_"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that the capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money. To accomplish this, the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the Greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we can not control that. But we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues."_ **Hazard Circular of 1862.**

There is something that the bankers are thoroughly frightened for – the Greenback –, what is that? Today we hear that the US dollar is called the "Greenback", but that is only to get people confused. It's been done to make people believe that "Greenback" is and have always meant US dollar, but it is not so.

"The Greenback" was a monetary system that Abraham Lincoln got the Congress to issue so the war against the Southern States could be implemented. "United States Notes" was the name of the money that was going to be called "Greenback". The system was without rent and therefore a threat against the bankers in America and Europe and in the long run a threat to all investment banking in the world. Many believe today that this was the reason that Lincoln was murdered.

The bankers manage to hold out against "the Greenback" and they do what they can to influence the public while the government tries different central banking system. Those systems the bankers manage to destroy and at the same time they enriched themselves. The key to the power was to control the Central Bank in a monetary interest system and 1907 takes JP Morgan advantage of the confidence he has with the public. He spreads a rumor that a large bank in New York is on the way to bankruptcy making people in panic to redraw their deposits from the bank. Since the bank can't handle the situation it must recall loans which affect other banks. JP Morgan does everything to support" the crise and in the end the public has lost their fate in the way the government handle the economical system. The Congress makes an inquiry which is led by Nelson Aldrich who has close bonds to the bankers. He is later on getting married into the Rockefeller family.

The inquiry reached the conclusion that a Central bank should be implemented so the Panic 1907 never was repeated again. The bankers put up a proposition "The Aldrich-Vreeland Emergency Bill" which was defeated. Some years later, a couple of days before Christmas 1913, there was a vote on the same proposal but under a different name, "The Federal Reserve Act", and it was approved.

Most of the Congress representatives had gone home for Christmas celebration and it look like a financial coup d'etat had been implemented but now they had the power for all future, the private bankers. The Federal Reserve Bank, a private bank, now controls the worlds greatest economy and latter all the worlds economies.

Woodrow Wilson who was president had been promised economic support if he supported the proposition and he signed. When he realised his mistake he wrote the following:

" _A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world. No longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government of conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."_ **President Woodrow Wilson.**

1914-1919 they printed and increased the money supply to the double. They gave huge loans to smaller banks and to the public. In 1920 occurs the same scenario that was in 1907 which put more than 5.000 independent banks, outside the Federal system, bankrupt. When FED (Federal Reserve Bank) calls in loans in advance there arise a shortage of money and a lot of companies and private homes were lost. Congressman Charles Lindberg accused the bankers that they with the help of "the Federal Reserve Act" had calculated how they were going to create the panic and enrich themselves.

1921-1929 they do the same thing again? A new loan has been introduced "The Margin Loan". A loan that is manly used in the business were the borrower only have to put up 10 % of the purchase price for the goods purchased, the rest he can lend. But there is a catch and it is that the loan can be recalled within 24 hours and then the whole loan must be paid with compulsion to sell the inventory to the current price.

A few months before October 1929 the big bankers sell out all their investments and redraws from further speculations. The 24 of October 1929 a huge amount of Margin Loans are recalled for payment within 24 hours. It creates mass hysteria and a sale on whatever can be sold within 24 hours. Wall Street felt the panic when the shares fell catastrophically in a few days. 16.000 banks fell into bankruptcy together with a huge amount of companies that was bought for a few percent of its earlier value. The greatest robbery in the history of the United States.

Congressman Louis McFadden was together with Charles Lindberg one of the bravest critics of FED. After two attempted murders they succeed to poison Louis McFadden before he could prosecute the board of the Federal Reserve. McFadden's speech the 10th of June 1932 to the Congress begins as follows:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks, which have cheated the government and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt several times over..."

The years that follow after 1929 have been described above where Federal Reserve created the economic depression that affected the whole world. JP Morgan and the other with inside information from Federal Reserve bought more than 20.000 banks and with the buy they could require these banks borrower on their companies and homes since they did not have any cash to pay their loan with. That was FED:s plan, to strangle the market on cash.

In the beginning of 1933 FED demand people to give in their possessions of gold to the FED. They will get paid in cash and since there was a gold standard the cash was as good as gold? The owners of gold bullions are threatened with up to ten years prison if they don't change them to cash money. In the end of the year the FED takes the decision that America will leave the gold standard! They had now effectively emptied the country of gold and put it in the vault of FED, their bank.

Today the Federal Reserve is more powerful than ever and their decisions have affect on all countries economies. It becomes a little calmer on the surface when for instance the Bretton Wood system is introduced but after the "free market" takes over they take back by a wide margin what people have manage to save up during the years before.

The executives of FED have the last two decades been people from Goldman & Sachs. The same persons have occupied the highest position in Goldman & Sachs and FED and after that they have entered the role as "Secretary of the Treasury" for the US administration. Independent if it has been a Democrat or Republican as president. So who is ruling? The Crise 2008 shows clearly how FED worked together with the president and large parts of the Congress to take away the lifesavings from the American people. A lot of people lost parts or everything of their pension money and many became homeless, millions and millions. In the end of 2012 more than 46 million Americans are living on food stamps. Tent cities are built outside many cities to house homeless people in, meaning people from small children and up.

Even if the most countries do not have a private owned central bank it doesn't make that big difference. The problem is that the monetary system is built on that you are going to pay interest and that the interest can not be paid since the money have not entered the system. The inflation makes the money you saved up loose its value and in deflation times you can't pay your debts.

It makes us to slaves. A lot more effective slaves than the ones before, since the other slaves the owner had to get food and accommodation for. To control our "will" to work is now controlled through a system that continuously lower the value of our money we have been struggling so hard for during the years. To save what you have, you must work even harder. To get out from the system is essentially impossible since you need money to buy at least food for. That is what the bankers are talking about in "the Hazard Circular" when they say "that capital shall control labor by controlling wages".

By control of the money value they have control of the workers assets. If the workers saves up too much they just lower the value in one way or another.

Them who are most afraid of inflation are the ones with a lot of cash. Them who have lend out money on a fixed interest rate without consideration taken to inflation. A long term loan with fixed interest rate can be disastrous for the lender and can result in a cheap house for the borrower. If the inflation exceeds the interest with one percent or less it will end up badly for the bank but good for the house buyer.

In that way it is cheaper to borrow during times of inflation than during the times that has been the last 25 years when the inflation has been very low. You have been told that you will get a "cheap loan" with low interest rate but in the end it has been very expensive for the borrower and today most people has given up the dream of owning their own house. The banks own more or less everything today and we pay rent to them every month, just to survive.
Chapter 4. Creation of the Monsters. (1)

Great Britain was after the Second World War impoverished and its time as a Great Power was over. War is costly for countries, but profitable for corporations. War is paid by loans with interest which the state buys weapon for from arms suppliers. USA went into both World Wars in a later stage than other countries so the American corporations could therefore provide both sides in the war with products.

German AG Farben was for example depending on American products from Standard Oil. Other great deliverers to Germany were GM, Ford and IBM just to mention a few. Does anybody believe that the deliveries stopped after US went into the war? The German airplane couldn't fly without the products from Standard Oil. It is business and nothing else, more or less open depending on what is at the moment right to tell the people.

Sweden sold their products to both sides and Wallenberg got the payment in teeth gold from the Nazis. USA was leasing the war material to their allies. War is paid in to ways to the corporations. First by destroying the country and then by building it up again, many times by the same companies. Today the corporations has developed the rebuilding of the country so the future incomes ends up in the corporation, tax-free outside the country.

At last Great Britain did not manage to economically keep up their colonies around the world. They became very costly and affected the economy in a negative way. Adam Smith was the first to express the anti-imperialism and he saw what was coming in North America. The independence for the colonies came one after the other after the end of the Second World War and during the 60-ties all the former British colonies were liberated. The British era ended as it began. The first Elizabeth cooperated with the pirates Morgan and Blake while the second Elizabeth saw her self cooperate with the legionnaire David Sterling and his SAS, Special Air Service.

SAS carried out informal services and this private army became very useful to Great Britain, during and after the Second World War. In the long run it provided a wide number of weapon contract all over the world for England, above all with the former colonies new rulers. SAS was as profitable and faithful to their Queen Elizabeth as the pirates had been.

Less faithful to the old conservative England was the pirates that attacked the economic establishment. An establishment composed by old gentlemen from the aristocracy which saw themselves as born to lead and "take care of" the people. Out of habit they had the ruling power in the "family business" but they in fact only owned a fraction of the shares in the companies. The pirates therefore bought enough shares, often to very high prices, to seize power. They then sold out the company after they had been stripped of their assets. It was very lucrative but didn't provide any job.

The stock market gave shortly an impression to be very profitable and the middle class therefore invested what they could, which blow up the share prices even more. This enormous destruction of companies was only for personal gain for themselves and the investors. If fast money was in the land were the companies were situated then the buildings was demolished and the land was sold, also with profitable companies.

Before the Second World War 23 % of the goods in the world was English products, 30 years later those figures were down to 9 %. It ended up in a lot of economical problems which lead to frozen salaries, prices and profits. Shortly after gave the oil crise the message that nobody can predict or control the market any longer. Everything plummeted like in the 20-ties but faster? Keynes system, also called Bretton Woods, did not function any longer as barrier. Several of the "pirates" did not sell out in time and some tried to fake the value of the shares. But reality catches up on them in the end and they had to sell out, and move to new markets.

Now the politicians saw a chance to take revenge on the big guys and maybe furnish their reputation. They thought that de could use the stock market to make companies profitable and for a short while they copied the most successful pirate, Jim Slater. The whole society was affected by the Medias information which was built on the image that it was a necessary operation and in the long run something good for the society.

Pension funds had a lot of money and when they decided to go into the stock market they understood very fast how to "cut up" and empty companies on their assets. The Pension Funds became the biggest on the market and nobody could compete when they put out a bid on a company and in 1989 the Pension Funds owned 70 % of the British industry?

Now they didn't have to "cut up" or down seize any longer since those who was in charge of the companies knew very well what the owner wanted – high profits and cutting costs. This led to that "superfluous" personnel were fired. If the management didn't manage that, the shares were to be sold.

In retrospect we can clearly see that no companies have become more efficient and an incredible destruction of wealth has been carried out to make a few persons richer. Amounts of jobs disappeared which was still profitable but in the short run it was more profitable for the Pension Funds that people was dismissed since it raised the share value significantly. But something had happened that nobody calculated with in the beginning. A Monster had been created.

The stock market eventually became extremely big and it took over the economical power in the society. The shares were owned almost entirely by the public and their newly acquired economical strength gave them power to directly have an impact on the society, instead of going through the politicians. A Monster had been created that was driven by greed. According to the rules of the Pension Funds the only thing that was counted for was as high profit as possible.

They didn't have to take any considerations like a responsible political agenda would have to. The shares that were most profitable they invested in, regardless of the consequences. The ones that show the best results at the financial market are in fact persons who are slightly brain damaged. Persons with no empathy have better results since their decisions are not affected by the suffering they put on other people. They always take the decisions that are best for themselves. So, Wall Street employed this type of persons to protect the capital. The Pension Funds policy was perfect for them since it said that highest possible profit should be made – without any thought how it was made or if it damaged the society on short or long term.

You could say that USA, without going into details, is in the same position of economical stagnation like England. When Ronald Reagan after 1981 started to deregulate the US economy there were given possibilities to make "hostile" attacks on US companies exactly in the way it had been done in England. Reagan embraced, like Thatcher had done a few years earlier, Milton Friedman's ideas about a "free and self regulating market" and 1984 the first hostile attack was made.

It was an old pirate from England, James Goldsmith, who got the "honor" to start his second career by the American pirate, Michael Milkin. His ideas started the American Revolution. A well off elite which had ruled the big corporations since the 30-ties should soon been replaced by new leaders. Leaders that could only remain as long as the market accepted them.

The system they now were leaving was built after the economical crise 1929. It was at that time decided that the ones that ruled the companies should not have any interest in them and the ones that owned the shares in the companies should not have any saying about how to run the companies.

Deliberately there had been created huge powerful companies and now the economy were on the way back to a system that had caused the crash 1929 because of those giants. The politicians gave the power to the market in a few years only. It was like England when the Pension Funds trustee's came into the game. Since their capital was extremely huge it was them that took the huge profits they "stripped" the companies of. The companies complied with the stock markets daily reaction. The management of the companies tried to give a picture as good as possible to keep their job. The ones that focused on anything else than raising the profit and lower the costs soon were sold out by the investors who bought somebody else's shares to make more profit. The Pension Funds in USA became of course extremely powerful.

Ronald Reagan was in different ways a sad chapter in US history that Noam Chomsky gives a good description in his book "Understanding Power". He designates it as a time when USA didn't have any president. Reagan's role was to read from a script which is clearly visible especially during his second term. They talked about that the "free market" should be introduced but it could not be done immediately according to Friedman's theories because then USA would have lost all their industry to Japan. The US market had to be protected by import restrictions that were slowly deregulated over the years. At the same time taxpayers money was poured into the industry – so Reagan could win the reelection showing a good picture of the country. Pentagon has always received huge sums by the American people's tax money that has been used to buy products from the American industry, but this time the industry was directly supported by the state.

All social programs were cut down or cut out with the explanation that it was against the "free market" policy. When Reagan's time ended, not only the power of the politicians was given to the market but the American people had a huge deficit. That would stop any politician that would try to go back to a system who took more consideration about people's demands for jobs and a decent income than the free markets policy.

The wars that were started during Reagan's time as "reader" contributed to the big deficit but at the same time it was very lucrative to some corporations, as always. A crazy thing that cost enormous sums was the "Star Wars" project. Chomsky writes in "Understanding Power":

" _Nobody believes that it's a defense system-I mean, maybe_ _Reagan_ _believes it, but nobody whose head is screwed on believes that Star Wars is a military system. It's simply a way to subsidize the development of the next generation of high technology-fancy software, complicated computer systems, fifth-generation computers, lasers, and so on._

And if anything marketable comes out of all that, okay, then the taxpayer will be put aside as usual, and it'll go to the corporations to make the profits off it."

Bush Senior continued the politics of Reagan and he knew very well what it meant. Chomsky explains in "Understanding Power" following:

" _Actually, Bush, technically speaking, is not really President – because he refused to take the Oath of Office. I don't know how many of you noticed this, but the wording of the Oath of Office is written in the Constitution, so you can't fool around with it-and Bush refused to read it. The Oath of Office says something about, "I promise to do this, that, and the other thing," and Bush added the words, "so help me God." Well, that's illegal: he's not President, if anybody cares."_

1991 Bush starts the war against Iraq to drive Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait, the old friend of US since many years.

The Pension Funds continued to create wealth to the retired people by cutting down the level of the salaries often in the same factories that they had been working for decades. The worse the conditions were for their followers the larger pensions for themselves. Speaking about Monsters!

Them who were responsible for the stock market exchange generally and therefore had inside information showed a façade of reputable, honest businessmen. After they closed the door, everybody did "inside business" – on all levels – in the hierarchy. The whole system was built on bribes, in fact. And there was so much money that everybody was pleased and silenced. When the bluffs were revealed, most of the people did not get prosecuted and the ones that were convicted got extremely low sentences. In England they did more or less nothing – only four (4) persons were convicted.

Sources:

(1) The source for this chapter is mainly journalist Adam Curtis from the serial "The Mayfair Set" part 1 – 3, which was showed 1999 on BBC. The complete program, four (4) parts on one hour each can be downloaded from YouTube.
Chapter 5. The market takes control of the economy.

So, what happened to the banks? They are always around were easily earned money can enrich themselves.

Their chance came a bit later in England. When Thatcher was reelected 1979 and she give up control of the currency. Before there had been restrictions on importation and exportation of currencies. That didn't function any longer and Thatcher gives green light to market to move currencies in and out of the country, on the advice of Milton Friedman who now was her economical advisor.

Now the banks had the possibility to get capital from foreign banks to speculate with on the Stock Market Exchange. Hired consultants did the down seizing and hostile take overs of the companies. Small investor's fund- and share purchases are mainly handled by the banks which put on fees and takes percentage of the investors gains for its "services". Some banks probably understood after a while what a dangerous world the "free market" was and the more careful ones let the costumers take the risks and pleased themselves by providing from their gains and losses. But during the beginning of the 80-ties the banks contribute to the growth of the stock market and several banks ends up very wealthy. A new crise designated as "The Black Monday", the 19th of October, crashes the English Stock Market Exchange.

The Pension Funds has taken over more and more power which in hard numbers show that – 1989 they control 70 % of the British industry. In USA the deregulations of the rules, that have been protecting the people's lifesavings since the end of the 30-ties, will lead to the Pension Funds getting more and more power over the countries politic – more than the politicians themselves.

Aldous Huxley writes in his book "Ends and Means":

" _The rulers are generally actuated by love of power; occasionally by a sense of duty to society; more often and bewilderingly, by both at once. Their principal attachment is to pride, with which are often associated cruelty and avarice."_

Something very interesting and frightening happened with the English Parliament Members when they lost their power of the economy to the "Monster". Several of them all of a sudden become corrupt and they start asking openly for bribes in various situations. Most of them followed this trend and many now search for power by sitting on the boards of private industry instead of in political committees. Greed replaces the lost satisfaction of power in the world they can't control anymore. They have nothing important any longer to make decisions over.

1990, John Major takes over after Margaret Thatcher. He has challenged the market with the promise that it is the politicians that shall rule over the market and one important step then is to knit the Pound to the value of other currencies, mainly the German Mark. The market challenge directly and after a short but intense struggle Major must let the market decide the price of the Sterling. The market had made billions on the transactions that had been made and the English people had lost as much.

Milton Friedman is on the way to implement his whole experiment. Poland is the first country from the East that he can overrun by the help of International Monetary Fund IMF. This is only a foretaste compared what will happen in Russia – incredible wealth and starvation.

The workers from the west are going to be put in line by taking away their working places. The _laissez-faire_ free market economy has demolished the politicians control over the economy and therefore succeeded to take away all political power. Friedman's first step was achieved – globally. The next step was to implement "Free Trade" – globally.

" _The colonization of the World Bank and the IMF by the Chicago School was a largely unspoken process, but it became official in 1989 when John Williamson unveiled what he called "the Washington Consensus." It was a list of economic policies that he said both institutions now considered the bare minimum for economic health —"the common core of wisdom embraced by all serious economists."_

The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein.

IMF and the World Bank that was founded after the Second World War never functioned very well by different reasons. The important now is that they have a new framework that is used as an instrument to direct countries in the direction that Milton Friedman wishes. The strategy is to force countries to sell out their wealth cheap to get loans from IMF or the World Bank. The countries that are in such bad situation that they will accomplish to the rules and sellouts will not get any loans.World Trade Organization, WTO, put an end to thinking about any relief to the people who suffers.

The debts to IMF or World Bank are used as "bats" and in the end you must ask "how do they dare?" But they have reasonable god control that people will not go out on the barricades since they are normally so shocked by some catastrophe that has afflicted them before IMF enter the scene. The "Chicago Boys" that Friedman has educated at the University of Chicago are well trained negotiators and know how to give as little as possible and as big hope as possible.

Countries that functions normally must also be persuaded to enter the WTO and they will – after the politicians have been "processed" in different ways. It is political viable to an open trade so with conservative governments it is easier. When the treaties have been signed it goes by automatic with the help of the "Monster" to implement the changes that is wanted. The Pension Funds again gets the CEOs of the corporations to create higher profit for them.

Work cost is a big expense for a company. Wage increase is inflationary and the inflation is the capital investor's greatest threat, therefore also for the Pension Funds. So the jobs are moved to the Third World. The stock market reach new heights at the same time countries loose major parts or their whole production industry – the unemployment rate in the west increases to the highest level since the 30-ties. In those countries where the companies establish, there are no unions. The most important now is to keep this status quo, since the unions are against the ideas that the free market are built on. The government in those new countries willingly helps by hitting hard against any sign of organizing the workers. Murder and torture is regular and many journalists are killed and newspapers are bombed out.

The salaries are kept so low that in many cases it is only enough for the worker to get a few bowls of rice for her self. Earlier it had been enough to support the families if the worked in a factory. The Media from the West shows chained workers by the machines. They eat, sleep and live with their children around the machine. They are treated as cattle and child work is often the only form of job available. Their small fingers are better suited for the type of production, for instance in the electronic industry. At the age of 25 they are dismissed. The backside of the Pension Funds is several and all are inhuman.

An old sinner has awoken, him who was in England and USA from the beginning – James Goldsmith. He is one of the very few who managed to save his fortune, two billion US dollar, which makes him to one of the richest in the world. Now he all of a sudden can see "how dangerous the free market is for the society and for the whole planet". He engage himself in different ways in the English politics – partly to take revenge on the Conservatives – but also with a great belief that Tony Blair will take back the power over the economy. In May 1997 Blair wins the election and he gives away the economical power directly even if he said something totally different during the election. Now is the last and ultimate control lost – the control of the interest rate.

The politics has lost all possibilities to influence the economy and a disappointed Goldsmith returns to Mexico were he has built a castle in the jungle.
Chapter 6, Bernays and the Inner Self.

In the beginning of the 20th century the American industry had come up with a lot of useful products for the people's household. From porcelain to sewing machines is mass produced, and the selling is very good. The commercial ads are important to show the products. The advertising aims to describe the usability and advantages about the products. The usefulness of the product is the main message. There is an underlying worry in the industry – what will happen when people have bought all their useful things? If you have got one sewing machine you don't need another.

At this time a certain Edward Bernays appears. His ideas are going to change the world – maybe more than any other person have throughout the history. He is a nephew to Sigmund Freud and he is going to use Freud's theories to sell products for the industry and later on to form the thoughts of ordinary people in different contexts and ultimately to create a new political idea.

Bernays understood early that it was not necessary to pledge to the conscious rational mind about the products (the usefulness of the product). Instead it was possible to see what people in their hidden subconsciousness, the irrational mind, had for feelings to what was presented for them. The subconscious provokes emotions outside the reach of the people's conscious control and if you could provoke those feelings by advertisement you could create a need for people to buy goods that they might not have any practical use for, but still urged for. If people felt happy, strong or special in any way so they bought the merchandises, then the goal was achieved. And that information was hidden in the subconscious and it could be deciphered with the help of psychoanalyze which Bernays learned from Freud.

(1) One of the first mission Bernays got from the industry was to investigate the women's stubborn resistance to smoking. After psychoanalyzing the women and finding out the reasons, a strategy was put up how to reach all the women in the society and all of a sudden the tobacco industry had a new targeting group that they for decades had been trying to get to start smoking. Soon a lot of the corporations stood in line at Bernays office to seek advice how they were going to sell their products. The banks saw enormous opportunities and therefore financed different Department Store chains that were rapidly built up. Through the supermarkets the flow of goods should reach the new consumer – the one that bought to satisfy his Inner Self. Bernays was the man who set the scene for these meetings.

His methods to create consumption still apply today. He did right from the beginning. Bernays understood early that there was a need for a word to describe what he helped the corporations to achieve. The word "Propaganda" was the original German designation but it had a negative connotation in US because of the connection to the First World War. Bernays replaced the word with "Public Relations". He connected, with the help of media, products with famous persons that the public dreamed about and wanted to mimic. Lies was produced and presented as facts which the public gulped since it suited so well in their satisfaction of their inner needs.

In the end this concept affected the stock market exchange to a tremendous rise. Bernays therefore influenced people – with his methods – to invest in shares and the wealth of the stock market become enormously big. The banks, that Bernays worked for, willingly lend out the money. The success of Bernays was also tremendous and 1924 he was contacted by the president to take care of his reelection campaign. The Presidents was in a hopeless position but Bernays successfully connected his person with different famous artists that the American people admired and the election turned into a triumph.

When Freud a few years later had a crise economically Bernays helped him out, particularly by publish Freuds books in USA. Bernays used what he learned from Freud and got the American people to buy (and read) the books. The public accepted Freud's theories as absolute truths through the selling technique of Bernays.

Freud was not in any way interested to use his knowledge in the way Bernays did. He wasn't even interested to do any commercial for his books. Freud had the interest to find the inner soul of the human being and what he saw – clearly – was that human being was by nature an evil creature that had to be controlled; especially in groups were they were totally unpredictable.

He had been affected by the First World Wars horrors and believed that the humans could not become better. When the American people was shown by journalists and intellectuals fantasies what could happen to a on the surface calm society, it affected them strongly. Many had read Freud and when they now were influenced to connect the events in Russia with these theories it became more and more absolute truths for everyone that the fundamental human being must be controlled.

A leading political writer, Walter Lippman, was indulged by these ideas which of course implied that democracy built on the participation of ordinary people to form their future, politically, was impossible. Instead the masses had to be controlled and Bernays came up with a solution how it could be done.

By satisfying the peoples inner uncontrollable feelings with consumption of goods they could feel a happiness that could make them perform the tasks the society needed them for. In that way it would be possible to get people to do the right things in the society. Get them to elect the system that the leaders knew were the best for them and therefore avoid the violent elements that certain political parties stood for. A common denominator for Freud, Bernays and Lippman was that they saw the public as dumb and ignorant. Another common denominator was that nobody of them had any experience, what so ever, of the working class more than they had read or seen on distance.

Everything went well during the beginning of the 20-ties and it really takes of when Herbert Hoover is elected to president 1928. He gave his whole support to the new phenomena – Consumption – and he called the people "Happiness Machines". Happiness created from the satisfaction of their inner desires. A new political idea was born built on a form of "democracy" were those "happiness machines" should keep the economy going through their insatiable consumption and they will also be so stupefied and numb by their inner satisfactions that they will do what was expected from them, without any protests. However, the common man is as far from participating in decision concerning his life as ever before. He is still slave, now under his subconscious feelings which is effectively controlled by them who owns the society. He was back to were the human race always has been, one ruling and one ruled class.

As proof of how little control powerful men like Bernays in reality have over what they try to give an impression of – knowledge how to build a society system- is shown the 29th of October 1929 when the biggest crash in history occurs. The world will come to a stand for 10 years with unemployment on normally 30 %.

It is probably a huge exaggeration to give the impression that Bernays was interested of community building. He was of course influenced by all the power he had and had his inner self satisfied by the richness he had built up. In fact he functioned extremely badly together with humans on the personal plane. When he saw people, he saw them in abundance – the masses. He was a lonely man in his own world who prostituted himself to them who paid and he used all means to reach his goals. The simplest explanation is probably that he could manipulate people in every possible way without a thought about the victims suffering. In fact the worse they suffered the easier they could be controlled. When, in the leading circles in the US, in the beginning of the 50-ties it was suggested that maybe they should try to actively work to diminish peoples fear of Communism Bernays protested and meant that they should instead increase the fear so people became terrified of Communism. In that way they would be much easier to control and when United Fruit 1954 contacted Bernays this fear of communism should com to play a central role.

Guatemala had for the first time got an elected president that was on the side of the people and he was now on his way to confiscate the land that United Fruit had the owner rights for given by the former dictators. In fact, United Fruit owned Guatemala and they now asked for the help of Bernays.

Bernays created a scenario that showed to the American people that the Communism had now spread all the way up to Guatemala and Guatemalas plan was to attack USA. All of a sudden United Fruit was out of the picture and now it was about foreign politics and the security of USA.

The truth was that president Arbenz, who was a democratically elected social democratic president, did not have any contact with SovjetUnion. How the manipulation was done you can read about in the books of Noam Chomsky or briefly see on Adam Curtis "The Century of the self" part 2 "The Engineering of Consent". Bernays had his own little press agency were he created fantasy news which was distributed to the news media in USA and the rest of the world. The art piece to get the people to have the right opinion that was needed to carry out the plans is what Bernays was going to name "Engineering of Consent".

A method had been created that was going to be used several times in Latin America and in the rest of the world by USA. Bernays proposal to create fear for Communism was genial. Terrified American people has after that leaned safely to the presidents who has been brave and been fighting the Communist threat all over the world. A person that is terrified has lost his ability to think rationally and therefore he is easily manipulated to accept what ever is put on him or her.

Dr Herbert Marcuse protested loudly and warned the public that Freud's theories were devastating for the society. He meant that the humans were not evil or dangerous fundamentally and that they could control their irrational feelings. But the pressure that the society did put on the public made them dangerous. In fact, the people were adjusted to a corrupt society because this society manipulated its citizens; made them into "Happiness Machines" who lived in their own world of self-satisfaction, controlled by an upper class. And that was, according to Dr Marcuse, what made them dangerous. Therefore it was important to challenge the society as a right thinking person while they who were submissive to the manipulation of the society were fundamentally evil.

Dr Martin Luther King expresses it like this:

" _Modern psychology has a word that is probably used more than any other word in psychology. It is the word maladjusted. There is a ring of cry in modern child psychology, maladjusted. Of course we all want to live a well adjusted life in order to avoid neurotic and schizophrenic personalities. But as I move toward my conclusion, I would like to say to you today, in a very honest manner, that there are some things in our society and some things in our world to which I am proud to be maladjusted. And I call upon all men at good will to be maladjusted to these things until the good society realise. I am as honest to say to you that I am never intend to adjust myself to racial segregation and discrimination. I never intend to adjust myself to religious bigotry. I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. Leave millions of God's children smothering in an airtight cage of poverty, in a mist of an affluent society."_

Freud's ideas became after some time heavily criticized and people denounced his theories about the role the society had given man. They who had the power in the society did not change their fundamental views of course – they just continued to manipulate the public politically and economically.

In the beginning of the sixties it came to active protest movements originated on the American universities. The focus was on the multinational corporations that was accused for brainwashing the American people, which in their apathy – by consumption and political "engineering of consent", gave the politicians mandate to waging war for instance in Vietnam.

Finally, at the Democrats Convent in Chicago 1968 the polis and the National Guard were released to assault the demonstrators. Therewith had the state brutality against the "new leftwing" started and it didn't stop before it had crushed all form of protests which resulted in four dead students from the university in USA.

What is happening after that is extremely interesting. Since the movements' hade failed to take away the state control of the individuals by using force to make the state and the corporation to change their politic, the new tactic was instead to change the individual so she was no longer receptive to the control the state tried to put on her.

If it was possible to get a majority of the people to participate in a movement that liberated them from the control of the state or corporations it would not be necessary to use activist methods to change the society. The change would just spontaneously come out of the people's awareness.

To get liberated from the problems Freuds theories had created it became natural to turn to his opponents to find the methods for resolving the knots. One of those was Freud's former student Wilhelm Reich whose ideas were gathered in an organisation "Esalen Institute". Reich theory was to release all the inner forces – them that Freud tried to suppress and control by society since they were dangerous for society.

The new ideas were tried on different groups of people in society with variable results. Thus it showed clearly that their methods created more liberated and self conscious individuals. Already in the end of the sixties and the beginning of the seventies the corporations felt the changes by lost costumers and sales. The selling of life insurance to young people who just finished their university education went down dramatically.

They who buy a life insurance are prepared to sacrifice something for the future. They who live in the present do not feel that urge since they do not worry about the future and then have no interest in life insurances. It showed that a fundamental change of the "new liberated individual" had occurred. A mentally healthy person lives in the present without any greater disturbances for the future or about the past – it is only the present that is possible to influence.

The young accepted this new way of experiencing the world extremely fast. They are no longer a depending part of the society but independent individuals. From outside it seems like they are radicals in political groups, but they are only expressing their own personalities.

The psycho analytics understood that behind each expression there is something far more important – the need to give an expression of their inner Self. The analytics also can see that they have the same urge to consume as other people but there is one big difference – the selling technique has to be done in a different way.

The products must be individual and not mass-produced, that will give them a feeling that they express their true inner self. A problem is that the production is built on mass-production to have a reasonable price. Soon there will be a solution to this problem for the industry. A new instrument will make short production series as profitable as the mass-production – the computer – which entered the market exactly in time to resolve the problem.

Another mass-production entered at the same time, the mass-production of the new liberated individual. Erhard Seminar training, EST, had developed a technique which in a few days got people deprogrammed from the society's control on them. One therapist could treat hundreds of persons at the same time. The technique was copied by others and in a little more than 10 years 80 % of the American people had been deprogrammed.

The basic idea was that there is no firm ego. After reaching the core of the Self, it was understood that it was totally meaningless and empty there inside. It gave an enormous freedom since there were no strings or restrictions attached. Therefore you could become what you wanted – since you were deprogrammed and empty you could create what you wanted to be. Reinventing you!

The conclusion was that the highest that existed for the Self – was the Self. Egoism was something that the society had put on us. Instead was the truth that the highest feeling was to care about yourself. There was no responsibility for others but you should fulfill your own life by doing what you felt for.

What had started the whole liberating process was the belief that the individual could be freed from the society's control and that they thereby should challenge the power and change the society fundamentally to something good.

But what now came to expression was that the humans could be happy within themselves and therefore it was not important any longer to change the society. In short, there was no longer any real interest of the injustice in the society or a feeling that solidarity was important – not if it was compared to develop and express their inner self. They had become more uncaring than them in the middle sixties that they had been so critical to. The politic was therefore totally lost.

They had become voluntary slaves in their own inner worlds. Except those who was situated in the bottom of society - single mothers, prisoners, drug addicts, and poor pensioners. They were now without popular and therefore political support.

To find the way into the souls of the new individual consumer "Stanford Research Institution, SRI" was contacted. They had among many things been involved in the development of the computer in the very start. They worked for the industry and the state as for the military. 1978 they start to develop methods to measure the inner desires that each human being has. Computers analyzed the responses that ordinary people had sent back answering the forms that had been sent to them. People willingly participated totally unaware of what the results would lead to.

The results showed that there were limitations in the different ways humans express themselves and therefore SRI managed to map people's inner desires and wishes. The categorizing was named "Values and Lifestyles". The survey methods became later more effective and by answering only 30 questions people could be categorized.

With the new analytic methods and with a population which were looking for opportunities to express their personal self's to each other, the manufacturing industries got a new speed to cope with. The greatest boom in the history started. The men were as big consumers as the women always had been since half a century back. The modern man also wanted to show the world his personality and the generation that earlier was so much against the consumption society were now for it, it gave them the possibility to express themselves and show who they really were.

The new consumer seamed to be unlimited in their purchasing behavior. During the earlier era of mass production the manufacturers often did make a loss because they had produced too much of some merchandise. This did not happen any longer – everything was sold. The reason was that the new market did not have any limitations since it continuously created new needs for the costumer.

Next step was to test the method to impact people's inner self in politics and be able to control them to elect the "right" president – by principle selling presidents as hair shampoo or cars – by analysing the inner feelings of the people.

The first president who got elected with this method in USA was Ronald Reagan. Margaret Thatcher used the same method in England. Their political message was that the state should not interfere in peoples affairs and that it was the individuals who should control the state. Reagan's political message was that he wanted to be in the lead to "take the government of the backs of the American people and turning you loose to do what I know you can do". They who settled the election normally voted for the Democrats but since the Republicans had used the right words and slogans that fitted this group's inner self, they voted for Reagan. The same phenomena occurred in England. What have actually had happened was that they had pledged to the inner egoism of the people and it worked to 100 %. The technique should later be embraced by the Democrats, by Clinton in the US and by "New Labours" Tony Blair. But the English elite which had always known what was best for the lower classes did not feel comfortable with a technique that was built on that people knew what was best for them.

Now they had to listen to the voters during ongoing election with the help of opinion surveys and change the message from the politicians according to that. Probably were the leftwing politicians that desperate that the totally neglected the fact that the system they used was designed for controlling people and not liberating them. They had earlier strongly criticized the rightwing politicians for using a technique that used the greediest and most selfish sides of the persons. They knew what the system they now used was capable of.

The message from Clinton and Blair was the same that Reagan and Thatcher had used "that they would give ordinary people the opportunity through politics to form their society". The difference was that the leftwing thought that they could put some of the worst changes the rightwing politics had made back to how it was before. Reagan had made it fully acceptable to refuse to share with them who was unemployed, sick or in any other way was in need of support from the society. He had "communicated the impression that those people were parasitizing on them who worked hard and that they had chosen to stay outside the society themselves. Thatcher would never have dared to do that kind of statements but Blair would later on.

We must not of course forget that "Iron Lady" Thatcher was the first to introduce Bernays technique in Europe to facilitate the "free market" to be introduced in the English economy. She got the advertising industry to take the lead and with American experts at their side they at last got the economy going. "Focus groups", where the people's inner desires and wishes were revealed, was the most important tool the analytics had. During Tony Blair's election campaign, the "Focus groups" should prove invaluable instruments to check out the reaction from the people on statements that he made.

And don't forget the impact that Milton Friedman had on the economies of USA and England. It is his _laissez-faire_ system that lays in the bottom, which in practice, together with the monetary system, transfer a lot of capital from the masses to build an enormous wealth for a few. They are well on the way to destroy the security for the workers that President Roosevelt built up after the crash the 29 of October 1929. But that which was named "The New Deal" never got the economy started but gave the workers a social security system and worker unions. John M Keynes system entitled Bretton Woods got at last the economy going after the Second World War, but now both the social security system and the unions was shattered in US and England after the free markets economy had been introduced.

The last fragments of the social security rights should be taken away by Clinton in US while Blair did what Thatcher would never have dared in England – to impoverish the English people and transfer their assets to the richest class. They who consists of one percent of the people. Today, 2012, this one (1) percent owns more than the 95 % of the rest of the people owns together. Both in England and United States of America.

From the middle of the 80-ties the private business community took the role to fulfill the people's needs in different areas. The state had no interest any longer to engaged itself for instance to ensure that the country produced enough food domestically to its people. The food production was therefore built on the same premises that any business inside the free market. Scarcity of merchandise creates high prices while abundance makes it unprofitable. The industry now tries with all means to "tailoring" the food production in a world with increasing natural disasters, which ultimately will increase the risk for food shortage and starvation for the citizens in those countries that no longer can afford to buy food.

Clinton won the election in November 1992 after he promised the middle class to lower the taxes. Immediately, after the election, he get the message from Federal Reserve that the national debt was now 300 billion dollar and if he took some more loans the market would redraw their investments from the country.

The earlier described Monster puts a stop to any attempt to ease the burden for them who had the hardest time in the American society. Clinton then chose the traditional infrastructure investments to create jobs and at the same time he announces to the middle class that the promised tax relieves must be postponed. He tries to give an honest picture of a healthy society for the middle class, which meant that the most exposed must get a social support with the help of tax money from the middle class. As obvious evidence how egoistic the inner self in this class is shows two years later when the Democrats lose their power in the Congress election.

The Republicans forces Clinton to redraw his proposals and fail the groups that are in need of support. A sacrifice to satisfy the middle class so he will get re-elected is done when he removes the last legal rights to social support for the American people. Rights that had been since Roosevelt's New Deal. To have a chance to get re-elected 1996 Clinton have to accept facts and sell out himself like any consumer goods with no political ideals. The merchandise that the middle class' egoists want to have is the one that give them back the money they have paid in tax, and nothing to them who have chosen to parasitize on the society. The politics is dead.

The politic is now controlled by a middle class that only think about their own satisfaction. To get mandate to carry out any political issue they are forced to appeal to a group in the society which is totally numbed of their lust for shopping and their insatiable desires, and that shall now be transformed into some kind of politic? But politics is something totally different. Politics is to understand that the humans are so much more than her own egoistic desires and realise that through contributing to others needs we can all achieve goals which we would never do on our own. The politics is dead.

The same strategy goes for Blair when he is elected a few years later to form the government. He had to accept that the same egoistic, politically ignorant middle class had to be listening to in detail, before any decisions were made. The result was chaotic since they preferred to pay as little as possible in tax and therefore had no interest to pay maintenance of the society's infrastructure. When it latter broke down and created chaos they blamed on the government to not been foresighted enough. Like small children who want to eat the biscuit and save it at the same time. A middle class which always had been ruled by the elite from the upper class and latter by a workers party which after a few decades became as elitist as the former one. The voters sensed a kind of relief that they were listened to and that it was them who put up the agenda.

Blair gave the business community the role that the politics had before and that meant that the capital had free reign and therefore the ownership became concentrated on a few. The average man was given the impression that, since all regulations now was abandoned and the free market ruled it would lead to that peoples decisions where they made their buy's would form the society. Then is a reasonable question why do we have political parties, with the shown point of view. It is of course better to let the capital run the whole society then? Let Friedman and Bernays triumph together with the world's greatest banks and sell out the Monster cheaply.

The system Blair believed in was entitled "Continuous Democracy" "meaning that you constantly examine what people want to have done. It resulted in chaos because it was built to follow people's whimsical egoistic inner desires. Since people was controlled and enslaved by them who manipulated them, to put it mildly, it was insane to let a group like that decide the "politics". An overwhelming majority was clearly aware of that they lived unhealthy and exposing themselves including their environment for big risks. Despite that the behavioral pattern was repeated for decades or their whole life. The definition for insanity is that the individual can not break patterns which are dangerous for her but constantly continuing to repeat them.

Blair's new technique was built upon computers and mathematical methods to secure the changes that had been done within the society. In that way an objective method which excluded the human manipulation to gain own advantages in the administration was built.

The methods were built on John Nash's game theories for which he got the Nobel Prize Award 1994. The methods was originally designed for how to anticipate different nuclear cold war scenarios and how to counteract, but had then been redesigned to fit in social transactions between humans. The whole concept had the basic assumption, together with Bernays, Freud's theory that the human was an egoistic creature. It's really quite amazing that the humans still exist on the planet. Given that the theory built on a paranoid attitude (Freud) of the humans was used by a person who became schizophrenic (Nash was 10 years in mental hospitals) to control decisions if nuclear missiles should be fired against the enemy. This theory was now going to be used within the psychiatry.

Psychiatrist RD Laing had in England used John Nash's methods to show that the general violence in society was linked to the ordinary family. Among other things, schizophrenia in families was shown to be connected to violence.

But there were fundamental problems with Nash's methods. It was assumed that the human was egoistic and the complexity of the human had to be modified so she became "computable". Laing assumed probably that the method was neutral and the result at the first glance seemed relatively logical. The advantage of the system was that it excluded personal interpretation from interviewers if it instead was a computer which processed the data the participants had given.

It was therefore recognized that the family was not built on love but for each family member to gain their own advantage and try to keep the power they usurped over other family members.

This was also shown to be valid to those institutions in the society that was supposed to give their citizens security in various forms. It was considered that a gap had arisen in the community between bureaucrats and citizens because man was by nature selfish and willing to make any manipulation at any time to gain own advantages.

When Thatcher gained power she takes these ideas from RD Laing to cut in the states bureaucracy and she manage to eradicate most of the institutions in the society. A certain truth is, of course that the bureaucrats think of their benefits in the system and that the client comes in second. Then the question is what alternative is there?

RD Laing took the new methods to USA to attack the American medical and psychiatric establishment. Laing started to challenge the psychiatry and accused them to be a false science and that they let themselves be used by the rulers to detain people that were protesting against the order of the society. A planned action was carried out with the help of supporters to Laing. They contacted several psychiatric institutions were they told that they heard a special word repeated "inside their head". For the rest there was given truthful answers to all other questions asked. Everybody was classified as insane. When they told the doctors that it was a planned action they were not believed and all of them were detained as sick patients, seven were diagnosed as schizophrenics and the last one with some other serious mental disease. The treatment was strong psychiatric medicines. The only way for them to get out was to go along with the doctors and give them an impression that they became better with the treatment.

After some months when all persons had been released and everything was revealed one of the hospitals responded with the challenge that they were welcome to send more volunteers and they promised that they would expose them, all. A month latter the hospital announced that they had revealed more than 40 of the volunteers that was sent out while the truth was that nobody had yet been sent out?

The Psychiatry lost its entire confidence to the American people but they managed to come up with a surprising alternative – an alternative which excluded the human factor in the diagnose process. It was based on that computers could decide the psychic diseases after the patients had answered a number of simple questions that not needed to involve any doctor. All diseases got new names and were to a certain extent new diseases. In the end of the 70-ties and the beginning of the 80-ties this new system came to the public's knowledge. A great part of the American population was tested and the result showed that in average 50 % of them had some psychic disease?

To many it was a relief that their depressions were confirmed or their panic attacks or other mental sufferings. But something else happened that wasn't expected – a model had been created of how a normal person should be and therefore people tested themselves to fit into the model. And if they didn't fit in, the doctor had to fix them so they did – to a model that took away feelings.

A woman could ask for medicine to get away from her "deep" sorrow after her mum had past away, 85 years old. Or a 14 year girl could ask for the same medicine to get over that her boyfriend had ended their relation. The human became more machine like and she seemed to have lost the creative fantasy that had brought her historically to new stages in the development. The control was now made by the individual herself with the help of the checklist that the computer program used to see if they were "normal". The checklist did not take any consideration to how a person's life was in relation to the data that was asked for. More or less, if the dog or the daughter had died the list didn't take any consideration to and that is enough to doubt the method.

A lot of people had of course the wrong diagnose and took Prozac and similar medicine that adjusted the serotonin in the brains synapses were the information flows. The drug companies had promised that all problems could be treated in this way. "The Happiness Machines" now was double as happy as before and in relation to that just as easy and predictable, totally tailored to the economic model Milton Friedman had worked so hard for. Everybody was just focused on "curing", to get the human to fit to the system – instead of changing the system to fit the human natural needs.

Politically, economically and finally biologically the same explanatory model are used – the mathematic "cold war"-method, carried forward by John Nash to fit to the human beings. They seem to easily "forget" from where the mathematic explanatory model originates and starts to believe that it is something natural and scientific that gives the true picture of reality. The human is no longer needed as observers since we now have a 100 % scientific method?

What had been forgotten or neglected was that John Nash had not only believed but was in fact forced to adopt, that the human was a simple automaton who in all situations continually calculated what was best for himself. Otherwise the model did not function. If somebody had the attitude that they at first hand worked to help somebody else, and if that was their motive, they were either naïve or should start looking for another job that fitted them better. People could at the most have some considerations about their closest relations but never for a second believe that they did something for altruistic reasons.

The people in our society that function most like the model is in fact economics and psychopaths, the others has often a social pathos and is a lot more than calculators.

John Nash gives finally the impression that he strongly doubts the explanatory model when it comes to explain how human beings function. After being treated for schizophrenia for 10 years he gives, with a little smile, the expression that the human beings complexity can not be described with any model.

Scientists which has used the machine model for the human to explain that it was a machine which by genetic information was only interested in reproducing itself, had to give up when it was understood that DNA is affected by the cell to activate the parts that is best in relation to the surrounding environment.

(2) One example is "the Dutch winter hunger" 1944. Holland became without food and the starving women that were pregnant in the second and third month gave birth to children that in the rest of their lives had to fight with obesity and high blood pressure. The hard coded DNA had been "overwritten" by new information that suited the life outside better. That is called an "epi-genetic effect".

(3) According to Dr James Gilligan shows a study from New Zeeland that there is a genetic mutation or abnormal change of a gene that can be connected to violent behavior but only if the individual has been subjected to severe abuse during his childhood. If nothing serious has occurred during the childhood they have no violent behavior, in fact they have a lower tendency for violence than persons without the mutation.

Tony Blair did after the election 1997 built more or less his politic on mathematical controlling system. In that way the society would get freed from the elite-driven system it lived under during all time. Everyone got fixed targets that should be achieved if bonuses or wage increase would be permitted. Since man is significantly more complex than what the system could have predicted, the system was manipulated in all imaginable ways to achieve the goals. The police rated the crimes differently and could therefore achieve the goals by a wide margin. The hospitals renamed their localities and all of a sudden a corridors had been transformed into rooms. People without education received the new patients and the statistics gave an impression that the treatment had started. Simpler operation was put up in line and the cancer cases were put down the line. Many patients got their minor problems fixed while those with cancer died before they saw an operating table, and the queues declined dramatically.

When the government got the reports about what was going on, they responded by putting in even more and more controls. Everybody that normally worked out in the field with clients and patients nowadays sat in front of their computers filling in statistics, so they could be controlled. The system had led to a continuously control of them that the system was suppose to liberate?

People of course read the statistics that was presented and soon had the areas that showed best statistic over the schools quality a migration of the richer middle class. That lead to that the housing prices went up in that area and the segregation began to be obvious all over the country. The schools primary goal was to do well on the tests, which the government gave out a couple of times in a year, to keep distance to other schools. The education became therefore aligned to pass this contest and not to give the students a broad and thorough education. It affected the poorer most because students from richer homes often comes from an environment with a lot of books and other information channels and they can afford to let their children go to new educations.

Statistics from 2005 showed that England had become a highly segregated society. We have to look at statistics before World War II to see similar results. The gaps between the classes are extreme, as suspiciousness and lack of transparency – the 99%-society was about to be implemented. A system where one (1) percentage steadily increasing their wealth whiles the rest of society has stagnated economically. Infant mortality is twice as high in the poorer areas and life expectancy is steadily declining well into the 2000s. 2009 the book" The Spirit Level 'by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett is published. They show that greater inequality in a society causes serious social problems lower health statistics for all groups in society - not only for the poorer groups.

(4) A short description of Wilkinson and Pickett show that in 2009 has England the worst health and social problem-statistics in Europe entirely dependent on the creation of an unequal society. A family with lower income in a more equitable country has better health statistics and fewer social problems than those with greater income in the extremely unequal England. Once again the people are ruled by elites. An elite who believed in a system that now have failed them. The politics had been sacrificed to gain power. There was no politic that was worthy of the name anymore. Jobs that had been promised were moved to the "free market" to low-wage countries. The middle class had sacrificed those who needed the support of society and now they stood there themselves with the "bad card".

The Nobel Prize in economics has was never instituted by Alfred Nobel and is not in reality a Nobel Prize. If Nobel intended to do so does not the story tell, but that he instituted the prize for scientific progress shows perhaps that he did not consider economics to belong to what we mean by science? That economy would be a science born of nature as the laws of physics in the moment of creation of the universe is probably the most of us skeptical about.

The fact that powerful people influenced the Swedish Academy to deliver this new prize hardly surprises. The first time it was given was 1969, sixty eight (68) years after the Nobel Prize Award was founded.

Several of those who created our current economic turmoil and a tremendous waste of the earth's resources have been awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. Thankfully, it has since the beginning of the 2000s been given to their opponents.

Sources:

(1) Adam Curtis "The Century of the Self", part 1 (Happiness Macines).

(2) Dr Robert Sapolsky, professor Neurological Science, Stanford University. From the film "Zeitgeist Moving Forward _Official release 2011" at YouTube.

(3) Dr James Gilligan. Former Director: Center for study of violence, Harvard Medical School.

(4) Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009.35:493-511. From arjournals.annualreviews.org.
Chapter 7. Genes, myths and inequality.

(1) The function of our nervous system is directly related to our personal relations throughout life. In first hand the relations to the parents and in second hand to other important persons that have influenced our life. De culture of society we are raised in is largely important. It is not possible to separate or isolate the human being from what she has been influenced by during the life process, and it is of course most obvious in the early ages. Daniel Seagull, researcher in psychiatry at University of California phrases this as "Interpersonal Neurobiology".

We have known for quite some time now that the nervous system needs a stimulating and safe environment to develop optimally. A pioneer in this field was Maria Montessori who was undoubtedly aware of the consequences if that could not be met. She declares as follows:

" _The child who has never learned to act alone, to direct his own actions, to govern his own will, grows into an adult who is easily led and must always lean upon others. The schoolchild, being continually discourage and scolded, ends by acquiring that mixture of distrust of his own powers and of fear, which is called shyness and which later, in the grown man, takes the form of discouragement and submissiveness, of incapacity to put up the slightest moral resistance. The obedience which is expected of a child both in the home and in the school – an obedience admitting neither of reason nor of justice – prepares the man to be docile to blind forces. The punishment, so common in schools, which consists in subjecting the culprit to public reprimand and is almost tantamount to the torture of the pillory, fills the soul with a crazy, unreasoning fear of public opinion, even an opinion manifestly unjust and false. In the midst of these adaptations and many others which set up a permanent inferiority complex, is born the spirit of devotion – not to say of idolatry – to the condottieri, the leaders."_

Maria Montessori.

(Comment: Dr Montessori might have added that the inferiority complex often finds expression in compensatory brutality and cruelty. Aldus Huxley)

A new knowledge has arisen the last few years, thanks to the results of the genome project that start mapping the human genes some decade ago. Today we see that the earlier presumption that the human being was more or less a machine with an unchangeable set of genes is totally wrong. We thought that the genes was the dictators, but today we realise that genes adapts to the surrounding environment, both on cell level and on higher levels. This confirms the theories of Maria Montessori that the surrounding environment is crucial for a child's development. We see that if things happen in the childhood that normally should not happen, or if a thing that should happen but is not, increases the risk of physical or psychical problems or damaging behaviour in the future.

The Humans are without exceptions the most advanced and complex creature on planet Earth and her variation in culture, language and religion is infinite. When it comes to her fundamental needs we find that they are very few and exactly the same for all. These needs are to be loved and seen for who we are, to have close contact with other people in comradeship relations or at least belong to some group of humans and to be physically touched. If these needs are fulfilled we will become engaged and cooperative individuals with empathic ability. If the needs will not be fulfilled then the development will lead us in another direction and today we begin to see where – it comes to expression in violence and different sufferings. The genes confirm with its "mutations" what has happened in the different environments we have been influenced by.

It is crucial to understand that genes only in extremely few cases are programmed determinedly to give us a specific disease that we will be hit of to 100 %. The idea behind the Genome Project when it was initiated was to map the genes – so we in the future would be able to cure cancer, diabetes, heart diseases, schizophrenia etc. First of all they had to find the codes that were firmly programmed in the gene structure. That has become a total disappointment. Even if they found for example a cancer gene in the case of breast cancer it is only 7 % of the women who gets cancer that has the cancer gene. And even if we take only women with the gene, not all of them will develop a cancer. Maybe we should be grateful to the Nature that it is not functioning in the simple way that was hoped for, since we do not know where we would have ended up morally. After we had relocated the resources with consideration to the new knowledge, would incurable violent persons get a different solution than a prison cell or an electric chair? Would it be defendable that, rather unnecessary, treat incurable diseases or just let them die as cheap as possible?

The rulers of our society would have had a perfect argument to keep their creation of this society outside all kind of critics since it had been clearly shown that it was the Humans DNA that needed to be coordinated – and to what? To a society that we probably should be grateful to, who gave us the opportunity to improve ourselves? No other society in history has ever been able to offer such sophisticated technique to it's citizens. They might have found a new system inspired by the old racial theory from the thirties. Yes where would we end up? Let us look into the wonderful reality of the Humans again.

The brain of the Human has two possibilities to store memories; the "Explicit" and the "Implicit" memories. The explicit memory is stored in – Hippocampus – in the brain, and is possible to actively recall. It contains stored facts like pictures, episodes, dates and so on. The implicit memory is of a totally different kind and is stored directly in the brain structure. It is an emotional memory which is present without recalling – and in fact, can not be actively recalled, it is just there – and has impact on our emotions. Another fact is that explicit memory begins its development after 18 months age which means that we can't "remember" anything before that age. But the implicit memory stores "emotion traces" in the brain from the birth (and probably before). We can see that a child that is separated from its mother in early age, before 18 month, gets strong emotional disturbances in the form of separation anxiety and similar problem in their future. The facts show that the child has recorded a memory of the separation. The implicit memory does, of course, continue to record or store "emotional memories" throughout life as the explicit memory does. They are both needed in the meeting with the different environments that we will experience.

Dr Gabor Maté (2) says _"that according to research literature and his own experience the persons that are addicted to drugs generally has been significantly abused as children or had suffered sever emotional lost. Their emotional or implicit memories are those of a world that is not safe and not helpful. Humans are not to be trusted and relations are not to be trusted or to open up to vulnerably. They keep them self separated from really intimate relationships and not to trust doctors or other people that tries to help them. They generally see the world as an unsafe place. That is strictly a function of the implicit memory that sometimes has to do with incidents that they can't even recall._

A study made in Montreal with suicide victims looked at the autopsy of the brains of these people. It turned out if the suicidal victim, that is normally young adults, had been abused as children, the abuse actually caused a genetic change in the brain that was absent in the brain of the people that had not been abused. That is an epigenetic effect – "epi" means "on top of" – so the epigenetic influence is what happens environmentally and will either activate or deactivate certain genes."

(3) Professor Richard Wilkinson says _"that genes are not just things that make us behave in particular ways regardless of our environment. Genes gives us different ways of responding to our environment and in fact it looks like some of the early childhood influences affects gene expressions – actually turning on and of different genes – that puts you on a different developmental track that may suit the kind of world that you got to deal with. A lot of these differences are structured very early in life. The parental experience of adversity – how tuff life can be (or how easy) – are passed on to the child, whether through maternal depression or parents being bad tempered with there kids because they had a hard day, or just being to tired to the end of the day. These have very powerful effects - programming children development – not only about now. Early sensitivity isn't just an evolutionary mistake, it exists again in many different species – even seedlings have an early adaptive process to the kind of environment they are growing up in. To Humans the adaptation is to the quality in social relations and so to early life how nurturing or how much conflict, how much attention you get, is a taster of the kind of world you may be growing up in. Are you growing up in a world where you have to fight for what you can get, watch your back, think on yourself, learn not to trust others? Or are you growing up in a society where you depend on reciprocity, neutrality, cooperation where empathy is important, where your security depends on good relations to other people – that needs a very different emotional and cognitive development. And that is what the early sensitivity is about and parenting is almost, quite unconsciously, a system for passing on that experience to children of the kind of world they are in."_

(4) Dr James Gilligan has been working for 40 years trying to understand the most violent people that the societies produce _. "I discovered that the most violent of the criminals in our prisons had themselves been abused in a degree of child abuse to be beyond the scale of what ever I thought was possible to apply the term child abuse to. I had no idea of the depths of the depravity to which children in our society are all too often treated. The most violent people that I saw was themselves survivors of their own attempt of murder, often at the hand of their parents or of other people in their social environment. – Or they are survivors where the family members had been killed by other people."_

I have in an earlier chapter discussed the following by Dr James Gilligan but I believe that it could be looked into once more. According to Dr Gilligan shows a study from New Zeeland that there exists a genetic mutation or abnormal change of a gene that can be related to violent behavior, but only if the individual also has been severely abused as a child. If nothing exceptional happened during the childhood they do not show any sign of violent behavior, they have in fact lower level of violent behavior than people without the genetic mutation.

Dr Gilligan also sees that the violence variations between different societies are very different. Some society does in fact destroy them selves while others, like the Amish people, do not even have one homicide registered – ever. Another good example of the latest is the Israeli kibbutz societies where there is almost no violence represented.

(5) Dr Robert Sapolsky says _"that we are amply shaped by society. Our society, in a broader sense, including our theological or metaphysical or our linguistic influences etc, helps to shape us whether or not we think life is basically about sin or about beauty. Whether our after life will carry a price how we lived our lives or if this is irrelevant. In a broad sort of way different large society could be termed as individualistic or collectivistic and you get very different people with different mindset and I suspect different brains coming along with that. We in USA are in one of the most individualistic of societies and with capitalism being assistant that allow us to go higher and higher up on a potential pyramid which results in fewer and fewer safety nets ... A world with fewer reciprocal partners is a world with a lot less altruism."_

Dr Gabor Maté continues, _"In a society built on competition and really very often on ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering on other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appealing to some fundamental and inalterable human nature. So the myth in our society is that the Humans are competitive by nature, that they are individualistic and that they are selfish. The reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about the human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs. We have human needs for companionship and for close contact, to be loved to be attached to, to be accepted, to be seen, to be received for who we are. If those needs are met we develop into people, who are compassionate, cooperative and who have empathy for other people. So, the opposite that we often see in our society is in fact a distortion of human nature, besides that, so few people has their needs met. Yes, you can talk about the human nature but only in the sense of basic human needs that are instinctively evoked or certain human needs that leads to certain traits if they are met and different traits if they are denied."_

Environment does not begin with birth. It starts in the moment you were created and more direct information you get from outside through the mother you have in a sense been connected with the outer world by the mother. One example was the "Dutch Winter Hunger" 1944. Holland was left without food by the Nazis for three months and the fetus that were in the second or third month development were going to change their metabolism to become more effective – since the information they got through the mother was that "there is almost no food outside there". That led to that they had to fight with obesity, high blood pressure or metabolic syndrome the rest of their lives.

In short Dr Gabor Maté tells us it is _"a myth that it's because of genes we were given in the moment of creation that makes us predisposed to become addictive to certain behaviors. That is not scientifically tenable; instead we should look to what happened in the environment that we were brought up in. We can see that a woman who has been stressed during pregnancy has a higher level of the stress hormone Cortisol in the placenta when she gives birth to her child."_ A significantly higher number of children with that background shows signs of addictive behavior when they become about 7-8 years old. Another example is an Israeli research of children to women that were pregnant when the 1967 war was initiated. The women that felt sever stress gave birth to children that later in life had an abnormal rate of schizophrenia. The child to women that's been exposed to sever stress during pregnancy gets biologic changes in the brain. In laboratories animals that have been stressed during pregnancy - their offspring is more likely to get attached to alcohol or cocaine as adults.

It is important to understand that there is nothing in it self that is addictive. It is the person's susceptibility in combination with the potentially addictive stuff or behavior that actually makes the addiction come through. Because people can drink alcohol, go shopping, eat etc without getting addicted. So what is it that makes people susceptible? To understand that you actually have to look on the persons life experience.

By the discussion above we understand that violence is a factor that changes our born or unborn children deep inside and that threat or fear for the unknown can become the cause to the same kind of changes. Those persons that have been affected will then transfer these changes on to the society. The person that has influenced our society most was Edward Bernays and his fundamental ideas still rules in the 21st centuries. Bernays technique is to control people by manipulating their irrational feelings and then sell products or politics to them. We remember his protests against those who wanted to decrease peoples fear for communism. His proposition was that they should do the opposite so people became terrified for communism - that would make them easier to handle. It led, expectedly or not, to total obedience and the leaders was looked upon almost like gods. Presidents who started war against communism won their reelection – it never failed.

So it is obvious in what direction Bernays thoughts aimed when something new, or maybe more regularly, when he was asked to come up with suggestions for solutions to different problems. Milton Friedman has not only followed this concept of terror, it became his most important instrument when he had developed it into the devastating "Shock Therapy"-concept that stroke wherever some catastrophe hit – or had been created purposely to hit – us. The system that Keynes built contained less violence but we can read the following about his thoughts in the book "Small is Beautiful" by EF Schumacher:

" _In 1930, during the world-wide economic depression, he (Keynes) felt moved to speculate on the 'economic possibilities of our grandchildren' and concluded that the day might not be far off when everybody would be rich. We shall then, he said, 'once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful.'_

" _But beware!" he continued. 'The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."_

Hand in hand with the _laissez-faire politic_ and introduction of "the free market" worldwide the inequality in the societies increased. We could see it in Europe already in the middle of the 80-ties but it was obvious 10-15 years later when the 20/80 percent system was introduced - worldwide. The system transfers 80% of the total income to the 20% in the top of society, while 80% of the population shares the other 20%. Even if my country, Sweden, hasn't reached there yet we have during this period of time seen that low status groups in society have lost the most. Divorced mothers, followed by immigrants, low paid pensioners and not to mention all people that have become homeless. Nobody would imagine these changes in the end of the 70-ties or in 80-ties. Inequality has increased in all countries all over the world today. There is still a difference related to different countries of course; the relative difference follows the same pattern as before the introduction of the _laissez-faire_ system, but in general it has become a more unequal climate everywhere.

Inequality is shown in the way people express themselves to others in the society and today the possibilities to do that are huge with all the merchandises that the "free" market serves us with. The way we dress has at least the last hundred years shown what we are and stand for – consciously or unconsciously. And today it's not only the branded clothes that show our status but also the brand of car, the clubs you are associated with and the schools that the children attend - a kind of manifestation of the inequality right in front of each other. While time passes by, the differences become more obvious and the probability that persons will mingle or attach to other groups than their own becomes less and less liable. This leads of course to greater insecurity about what "type" of people the others are. The information you'll get will become more distant and in the end it might only be what you read, see on TV – or on a video – that will be available. The only "live" experience might be what happens in a queue somewhere or seeing each other on distance in a park. Newspapers and TV sell mainly with the help of violence and even if the intention is not deliberately to create fear to control people we should not forget that that technique is deeply imbedded in the system since almost a century. The teenagers (far from all) and youngsters is probably the ones that has most contact between groups but after a while they are led back to their cage and when it is time to form a family and have children they has since long been customized to the values of the group they were born into.

The myth that poor people are dangerous will live in a world where you don't have contact with any poor person and because of that haven't got a clue about how he thinks. You'll create a fantasy from the impression on what you see, and that is of course totally wrong. A homeless person becomes a monster since his appearance gives a harsh impression, which has been outlined by nature's ruff treatment. My own experience after traveling the last five years in South East Asia and South America is that the Europeans (the 20 % ?) who belong to them that has a better economy than the average man, but not being rich, gives a kind of terrified expression if you start talking to them just by accident. They try to redraw with a pale smile. A taxi driver in Malaysia gave me a good description, "They are nice and honest people and many times they give a tip – but they are afraid of everything – all the time?

So, what is the chance that their children will get these genetic changes we saw above related to that these persons are continuously afraid. The most likely answer must be that the probability is quite high that these changes will appear.

Wilkinson and Pickett have looked on countries with average income from 20.000 US and up. (6) "There is nothing which supports that health is related to material standard when we compare countries. The level of health can be lower in countries with double as high income if the inequality is greater. Within the country the poor health is finely spread over the whole scale of income. Not only as a difference between the poor and the rest of society, but as a contribution to all levels of income. On the national level, inequality has great impact on health but not average income. If we look on smaller areas the contrary is true – average income has impact but not inequality. But the reason that a small, poor area – has lower level of health – in a rich country is not because of inequality within that _neighborhood,_ but because the _neighborhood is under-privileged to the rest of the society. Its low socioeconomic status in relation to the rest of society is indicated by its relatively low average income. "Thus, income inequality measured across whole societies may be predictive of population health because it serves as a measure of the overall burden of stratification relative to others within each society."_

" _The recognition of the importance of psychosocial factors working through chronic stress is one of the most important developments in our understanding of the social determinants of health in recent decades (Brunner & Marmot 2006, Sapolsky 2005). It has led to much greater attention to the social environment—particularly to low social status, difficult early childhood, and weak friendship networks—as sources of chronic stress and determinants of health (Berkman & Glass 2000, Marmot 2004, Marmot & Wilkinson 2006)._

_Exposure to chronic stress shifts physiological priorities. Processes that are not essential when responding to immediate threat or danger— such as tissue maintenance and repair, digestion, growth, and reproductive functions—are all down regulated in favor of processes that improve reaction time and provide energy for muscular activity. If the stress is over quickly, no harm is done. If it lasts more than about an hour, immunity is also down regulated. When we worry about things for weeks and months, the effects, including wear on the cardiovascular system, are so widespread that we become more vulnerable to a wide range of health problems."_ (From Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction, Wilkinson and Pickett.)

Table 1 in "Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction by Wilkinson and Pickett" shows the increase of different social problems in society when the inequality increases. We find increase in homicide, violence, conflicts between children, overweight for adults and children, teenage pregnancy, children's well-being, drug abuse, mental illness, imprisonment rate and decrease in math and reading scores, trust, social mobility and the status of women. How high the increase is, it doesn't say in the table, but it can be much more than the double in an unequal society compared with an equal society. If we look on the imprisoned people the rates soar even more in unequal societies. (Wilkinson & Pickett 2007, 2009.) The gradient is spread right across the society and not only over a few groups. If it was, then the poor would have as much as 30-40 years shorter life span if the negative impacts would only hit them. We should maybe also add that equal society has a much higher level of inventions than unequal societies. The myth says that a society built on competition is best for the creativity of man – that is pure nonsense without any scientific or statistic ground.

The diagram that shows different countries health and social problems shows clearly that the countries (figure 1) with less inequality in income also has less social problem and the highest health. Japan is far ahead of all other countries in the good aspects while USA is far out on the other side of the scale with an extremely unequal society and gigantic problems. Sweden is generally on second place on the good side even if the average income is relatively low. Norway is one country that manages to divide the enormous wealth - the oil industry provides - equally between their people and they are on the third place according to lowest social problems and highest health in the society.

Richard Wilkinson finally _says "I think people often are puzzled by the contrast between the material success of our societies, unprecedented level of wealth - and the many social failings. You know if you look at the rates of drug abuse, violence or self harm amongst kids or mental illness there is clearly something going deeply wrong with our societies. What the data that I have been describing does – it simply shows that the intuition that people have had for hundred of years, that inequality is divisive and social corrosive. That intuition is truer that we ever imagined. There are very powerful psychological and social effects on inequality. More to do I suppose with feelings of superiority and inferiority, that kind of division, maybe going with the respect, disrespect. People feeling looked down on at the bottom, which by the way is why violence is more common in more unequal societies. The trigger to violence is so often people feeling looked down on and disrespected. Increasingly we recognize that chronic stress has an important influence on health but the most important sources of stress are the quality of social relations. So what we are looking at is a sort of general dysfunction. It's not one or two things that goes wrong as inequality increases, it seems to be everything whether we are talking about crime, health, mental illness or whatever."_

Dr Gilligan says _"If there is one principal I can emphasize, that is the most important principal underlining the prevention of violence it would be – "Equality". The single most significant factor that affects the rate of violence is the degree of equality versus the degree of inequality in that society."_

So it is quite obvious that the underlying socioeconomic system for example in the form of the monetary system – which is built on that we never are going to be able to pay our debts, since the interest was never paid into the system. – And when new money is poured into the system, the money that was there before will loose the same amount of value – that means that we can never secure our value of money. So we can never be free – it doesn't matter how much we work – we are slaves under the monetary system. And the monetary system stays independently of what economic system we have.

It is also obvious that it continuously transfers money from down under to the upper classes which clearly is shown in the UN report 2006. It shows that – one (1) percent of the population owns 40 % of the planets wealth. –And even worse, that – 50 % of the planets adults own only one (1) percent of the wealth. If we count these adults children, who own nothing, the figures are more terrifying. This is built into the monetary system and can be categorized as "Structural Classicism".

Since we now know how lousy all our lives are, a relevant question is:

"Are we stupid??"

Sources:

(1) Zeitgeist Movement MOVING FORWARD_OFFICIAL RELEASE 2011. Free download on YouTube.

(2) Dr Gabor Maté, Physician, Author, Portland Security. From Zeitgeist Movement MOVING FORWARD_OFFICIAL RELEASE 2011. Free download on YouTube.

(3) Richard Wilkinson Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology, University of Nottingham.

(4) Dr James Gilligan. Former Director: Center for the Study of Violence, Harvard Medical School.

(5) Dr Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Neurological Science, Stanford University.

(6) Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction, Wilkinson and Pickett.
Chapter 8. Still the Good Enemy.

Two Norwegian anthropologists published their book in 1985; "Den Gode Fiende" translates to "The Good Enemy" (but is not available on the market in translation). The title significant, that drugs – the Good Enemy – affect them who not use drugs to the point that they completely lose concentration on what they're doing when somebody mention the subject "DRUGS". That is "the good enemy". It gets people to forget what they really should discuss – how we are going to organize our society, share the richness from our work, about the future and more close decisions. Say the word "Narcotics" and you forget all about any kind of discussion, instead you become insecure and essentially terrified of the unknown which can transform our loved ones into monsters. In that way "the good enemy" helps society to keep the existing order of power intact. The Power has an instrument that they under any circumstances don't want to loose. An instrument that existed in Europe since the 60's with the above function. In the U.S., it has been used since the early 20th century. The instrument was used at the first occasion to gain control of immigrants from Mexico. Laws against drugs were used to arrest people and get them under control. That was "the Good Enemy" first role when it enacted a law in 1914 in El Paso against marijuana. The Good Enemy has many faces.

Remember from Chapter 6, the "good old" Bernays, he who had his fingers in almost everything as his results became known in the industry and in the politics. One of his most successful "missions" was for the tobacco industry. When he got the women to start smoking.

His first job was in the governments "Public Information" five years earlier when he became responsible to show the government's intension, when they have entered the First World War, to the American people. Andrew Wilson the President, had made it clear that the goal was to introduce democracy in Europe and not to support the old aristocratic systems. Bernays was so successful with his task that he accompanied the president's administration to Paris during the peace conference 1917. Bernays is in the corridors of the great Powers already in 1915.

In the southern states the white populations had started to import working labor from Mexico and since they were not used to their culture there was a certain fear among the whites. It becomes so when the distance between people is large and you do not know anyone from the other group. The whites were no manual workers; their lifestyles had more trace of played aristocracy, so they were probably quite shocked of the new that their culture had come in contact with.

They saw the Mexicans dancing and feasting in the evenings even if they had labored hard in the fields during daytime, and they smoked something in the evenings that was not tobacco. They wondered of course and the imagination gave the rest, was it the stuff they smoked which made them so strong? One thing led to another and with a huge amount of racism involved, the rumors was built up and after some time they talked about "bloodthirsty killers" and what they smoked was called "Killer Weed". Was it perhaps to keep their daughters away from the handsome Mexican men? That has happened all times, when a part of the population considered the other part less worthy, because it is themselves that are the weak ones.

That there is passed a law against marijuana by some reason and that the law is used in different context to frame people that the law have problem to nail in other areas is not unlikely, I suppose? And after a while they'd learned that it was rather convenient to handle annoying people with. For that you don't need any Bernays – but what happens later on is in detail the technique of Bernays. I have not found any direct sources that are saying that Bernays is personally involved. In that case it has been born a second Bernays by the name of Harry J Anslinger? No – that is even more farfetched. There exist only one person at this time that has this knowledge, who knew his Freud, otherwise the presidents and the great industrial leaders wouldn't queue up outside his office?

Should Bernays on the government-level with a power tool in the class that the laws against drugs are, not have any interest or knowledge about this field – no, no, No. A normal intelligent person can with the help of simple logic understand that he took care of "The Good Enemy" like a golden egg. An equivalent to when Bernays suggested that they should not diminish the peoples fear for communism but increasing it until the people were terrified, in that way they would become easier to control. There is no difference in the strategy how "Communist Terror" and "Drug Terror" is created. Bernays, Bernays, Bernays.

So, a certain Harry J Anslinger is appointed to be responsible for the new "Federal Bureau of Narcotics" that will be under the Ministry of Finance, and that shows the attitude of the US government to drugs. It is not considered as a health problem but as a tax problem? It would have been natural to see the drug problem as a serious health problem since the heavy drugs like heroine, cocaine, and amphetamine was ordinary in the bigger cities.

Anslinger life's work came basically entirely to focus on the fight on marijuana and it is fair to ask the question, why? With all the deadly drugs all around in the society? Partly the answer is maybe that it was "The Good Enemy" concept behind. Noam Chomsky shows that it is deeply rooted in our society's system. Transfers of sums that are used to keep outright wars going can be made under the pretense that it is for "the combat of drugs". The Drugs takes the role of Communism, entirely, when the SovjetUnion falls together.

(1) Chomsky says that _"_ _The criminalization of marijuana has purposes and motives beyond concern over drugs. On the other hand, hard drugs, to which people have been driven to a certain extent by the prohibitions against soft drugs; those are very harmful, although deaths are nowhere near the level of tobacco and alcohol."_

" _Marijuana simply doesn't have the lethal effects of cocaine. You can debate about whether it's good or bad, but out of about sixty million users, I don't think there's a known case of overdose. The criminalization of marijuana has purposes and motives beyond concern over drugs. On the other hand, hard drugs, to which people have been driven to a certain extent by the prohibitions against soft drugs; those are very harmful, although deaths are nowhere near the level of tobacco and alcohol. And here it's kind of complex. There are sectors of American society that profit from the hard drug trade, like the big international banks that do the money laundering or the chemical corporations that provide the chemicals for the industrial production of hard drugs."_ (2) _"_ _I mean, everybody talks about Colombia as the center of drug-money laundering, but they're a small player: they have about $10 billion going through, U.S. banks have about_ _$260_ _billion. Okay, that's serious crime - it's not like robbing a grocery store. So American bankers are laundering huge amounts of drug money, everybody knows it: how many bankers are in jail? None. But if a black kid gets caught with a joint, he goes to jail". "Or why not ask another question – how many U.S. chemical corporation executives are in jail? Well, in the 1980s, the C.I.A. was asked to do a study on chemical exports to Latin America, and what they estimated was that more than 90 percent of them are not being used for industrial production at all – and if you look at the kinds of chemicals they are, it's obvious that what they're really being used for is drug production. Okay, how many chemical corporation executives are in jail in the United States? Again, none – because social policy is not directed against the rich, it's directed against the poor". "In fact, if you look closely, even Prohibition had an element of this – it was part of an effort to control groups like Irish immigrants and so on. I mean, the Prohibition laws (which were part of the U.S. Constitution from 1919 to 1933) were intended to close down the saloons in New York City, not to stop the drinking in upper New York State. In Westchester County and places like that, everybody just continued on drinking exactly as before – but you didn't want these immigrants to have saloons where they could get together and become dangerous in the urban centers, and so on."_

Chomsky explains in "Understanding Power" that USA was severely affected by the Great Depression 1929 and still suffers from complications after it today because great parts of the types of work that existed before just disappeared and have not come back. Work in the industry, handicraft jobs and similar which was built on small enterprises. The economy only started after the Second World War which meant jobs in state funded and high-tech companies that demands educated people, which immigrants normally not are. A huge amount of jobs was moved to other countries after the WTO Free Trade Agreements in the 90-ties.

Before, you could work your way up gradually and put aside to study latter on or that the children got that chance. That possibility does not exist anymore, socially you are stocked were your parents are. Immigrants can at most get a service job and that is really badly paid. That means that there are no possibility to move up, not the least social mobility exist anymore. There is an amount of "superfluous" people that mostly comes from the black and Latino populations. They are unprofitable to the system and it's been solved by condemning them for crimes – so they disappear from the normal society. Since it is mainly private Wall Street based corporations that is dealing with the prisoners, they will ultimately become profitable when the shares rise on the stock market exchange. The more prisoners the system produce the higher valuation of the shares. The taxpayers will of course pay. Lets here what Chomsky says:

(2) _"In the mid-1980s, the United States passed its main competitors in per capita prison population: South Africa and Russia (though now that Russia's learned our values, they've caught up with us again). So by this point, well over a million and a half people are in prison in the United States-it's by far the highest per capita prison population of the Western countries-and it's going to go way up now, because the 1994 Crime Bill was extremely harsh"._

" _Also, if you just look at the_ _composition_ _of the prison population, you'll find that the crime-control policy that's been developed is very finely honed to target select populations. So for example, what's called the "War on Drugs," which has very little to do with stopping the flow of drugs, has a lot to do with controlling the inner-city populations, and poor people in general. In fact, by now over half the prisoners in federal prisons are there on drug charges – and it's largely for possession offenses, meaning victimless crimes, about a third just for marijuana. Moreover, the "Drug War" specifically has been targeted on the black and Hispanic populations – that's one of its most striking features. So for instance, the drug of choice in the ghetto happens to be crack cocaine, and you get huge mandatory sentences for it; the drug of choice in the white suburbs, like where I live, happens to be powder cocaine, and you don't get anywhere near the same penalties for it. In fact, the sentence ratio for those drugs in the federal courts is 100 to 1"._

" _Actually, recently there've been some very interesting studies of urban police behavior done at George Washington University, by a rather well known criminologist named William Chambliss. For the last couple years he's been running projects in cooperation with the Washington D.C. police, in which he has law students and sociology students ride with the police in their patrol cars to take transcripts of what happens. I mean, you've got to read this stuff: it is all targeted against the black and Hispanic populations, almost entirely. And they are not treated like a_ _criminal_ _population, because criminals have Constitutional rights – they're treated like a population under military occupation. So the_ _effective_ _laws are, the police go to somebody's house, they smash in the door, they beat the people up, they grab some kid they want, and they throw him in jail. And the police aren't doing it because they're all bad people, you know – that's what they're being told to do."_

Let us return to Anslinger who worked as the Commissioner in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and US Representative to United Nations Narcotics Commission until 1963 when he was thanked by President John F. Kennedy for his meritorious work. He had two years earlier got an agreement with most countries in the UN to adopt a ban on marijuana. In USA he had a long time before that with the help of Bernays terror-propaganda formed the American people's opinions, all over the country, to sign a federal law against marijuana. In 1937 "The Marijuana Tax Act" was passed by President Roosevelt. The 50 states of USA has their own laws and penalty rates but now the drug crimes was now under direct supervision of the Federal Government and the Finance Department.

Not even the President can do anything if a crime is under the state laws. Therefore, the presidents had to focus on drug-wars when they in election campaigns promised law enforcement. Ordinary people sometimes don't understand that also the President has limitations and a Constitutional law to follow.

Occasionally Anslinger were met with protests and one good example is when the Mayor of New York, La Guardia, 1937 formed a scientific research group to study the effects of marijuana. "La Guardias Committee on Marijuana" concluded that none of the information published by Anslinger had any relevance or scientific basis. Anslinger responded by using his press contacts to discredit the report. He tried to get hold on all the reports to destroy them. After that it was impossible for anybody to get hold of marijuana legally for research work since it was Anslinger's department that controlled the permits.

A repeat of the above came 35 years latter when Nixon came to power after promising the people to reinstate "law and order" in the country. A National Commission was appointed and sorted directly under the president to investigate marijuana and other drugs. The Commission concluded that marijuana did not create any crime and it was recommended that punishment for marijuana used in the homes should be taken away. They also expressed suspicions that the police used the law against marijuana to arrest people they did not get to otherwise. – Those with awkward or odd political views and the colored people. The largest study ever of marijuana was made of" The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse" (presented 1972).

Nixon responded by founding the organisation DEA – Drug Enforcement Administration, and refused to follow any of the recommendations that his own investigation had come up with. Mostly of what Nixon did as law enforcer was rather meaningless if you look on the result but with the help of the Vietnam War and Bernays Propaganda he won the reelection and continued in the same tracks until Watergate put a stop to him and he had to resign. During Nixon's time in office the penalty rates became insane – a soldier who just returned from Vietnam got 50 years prison for selling less than 30 gram of marijuana. Bob Sinclair – a political activist – got 10 years prison for possession of two marijuana cigarettes.

Nixon was, after all, not geared to sort the arrested after the race and suddenly there were more whites than colored people in jail? Most were young and from the middle-class, which awoke in their dormant "safe" life and demanded changes in the law. Suddenly, people sat on TV and discussed the "taboos" and "if it was not the task of politicians to conduct the people's demands" – and not vice versa? In 1970 the federal law was rewritten and 1973 Oregon was the first state to decriminalize marijuana. After 4 years Oregon saw that nothing serious had happened since they changed the laws against marijuana, it was contrary, they had saved a lot of money on police enforcements, prisons and court costs. Ten other states adopted shortly after the same laws as Oregon. By this time the Federal costs was 10 billion dollars per year – only to fight the marijuana. According to my information in 2012 it is allowed to grow up to 36 plants of marijuana for the own use.

Noam Chomsky takes up an interesting aspect to the question why marijuana and not tobacco is forbidden. (2) _"_ _It can't be because of the health impact, because that's exactly the other way around – there has never been a fatality from marijuana use among 60 million reported users in the United States, whereas tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. My strong suspicion, though I don't know how to prove it, is that the reason is that marijuana's a weed; you can grow it in your backyard, so there's nobody who would make any money off it if it were legal. Tobacco requires extensive capital inputs and technology, and it can be monopolized, so there are people who can make a ton of money off it. I don't really see any other difference between the two of them, frankly – except that tobacco's far more lethal and far more addictive." (3) "_ _Just as the drug war was launched with great fanfare in September 1989, the US Trade Representative (USTR) panel held a hearing in Washington to consider a tobacco industry request that the US impose sanctions on Thailand in retaliation for its efforts to restrict US tobacco imports and advertising. Such US government actions had already rammed this lethal addictive narcotic down the throats of consumers in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, with human costs of the kind already indicated_ _"_

Noam Chomsky continues: _"_ _Another aspect of the drug problem, which also received little attention, is the leading role of the US government in stimulating drug trafficking since World War II. This happened in part when the US began its postwar task of undermining the anti-fascist resistance and the labor movement became an important target._

In France, the threat of the political power and influence of the labor movement was enhanced by its steps to impede the flow of arms to French forces seeking to reconquer their former colony of Vietnam with US aid. So the CIA undertook to weaken and split the French labor movement – with the aid of top American labor leaders, who were quite proud of their role.

The task required strikebreakers and goons. There was an obvious supplier: the Mafia. Of course, they didn't take on this work just for the fun of it. They wanted a return for their efforts. And it was given to them: they were authorized to reestablish the heroin racket that had been suppressed by the fascist governments -- the famous "French connection" that dominated the drug trade until the 1960s.

_By then, the center of the drug trade had shifted to Indochina, particularly Laos and Thailand. The shift was again a by-product of a CIA operation -- the "secret war" fought in those countries during the Vietnam War by a CIA mercenary army. They also wanted a payoff for their contributions. Later, as the CIA shifted its activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drug racket boomed there."_ (4) As the year ended, desperate peasants, mostly women, were returning to the miserable labor of growing opium poppies so that their families can survive, reversing the Taliban ban. The

UN had reported in October (2001) that poppy production had already "increased threefold in areas controlled by the Northern Alliance", whose warlords "have long been reputed to control much of the processing and smuggling of opium" to Russia and the West, an estimated 75% of the world's heroin. The result of some poor woman's backbreaking labor is that "countless others thousands of miles away from her home in eastern Afghanistan will suffer and die." (Note: a few years later 90 % of the worlds heroin came from the warlord controlled areas, allies to the West.)

This chapter is largely based on what Chomsky says in this matter and not so much on my own opinion or experience. This is because that this issue has been and still is the "Good Enemy". It means that those who have a different view than the authority, will be ridicule and suspected by any means. (So if anybody would like to attack this chapter they have to attack Chomsky to a greater extent.) To attack me is very easy. I have no references and can easily be demonized. I have been convicted to 2 years in prison for violation of the drug laws, because of marijuana. But, Chomsky? Sure but then the risk is greater you "end up in the wrong barrel".)

The good old Horror-propaganda where people jumped out from the windows since most (maybe all) of us understand that it is not really true (but don't be to sure?). Instead it is given an information built on that the persons own fantasy should make him afraid (information built on "that nobody really knows what can happen to you) and therefore keep them on distance. – To pledge to the irrational feelings of people and in that way control them. But fear and ignorance often create an interest among people and especially among young people.

What is done today is not better than when all the information films and brochures showed how people jumped out of the windows and that marijuana was the gateway to heroin. The result is a society that is built on fear instead of security which leads to worried and scared citizens who will in higher numbers give birth to children that are genetically influenced to be more able to meet a violent world out there, as we have seen in Chapter 7.

Today's information shows that they don't understand the issue or that the Power refuses to give up one of their "best" instrument in controlling people – and I am not only talking about USA.

This chapter has largely been about what has happened in the U.S. because there are the most reliable sources of information. There are government studies on marijuana and one can clearly follow the trend until today. Sweden is pretty ridiculous in its conservative treatment of the issue – nationally and internationally. They could have chosen a different line in the mid 70's, but it is not easy for a country with one of the oldest Constitutions to take progressive steps. Sweden, for example, was one of the last countries in the world, which amended its constitution to brain death, instead of cardiac death so heart transplants became legal to carry out.

If I were to draw up one of the things that made me most disappointed about the Swedish policy on the matter, then it is a study in the mid 70's. The investigations clearly showed how one must respond to those who have developed an addiction to a drug.

The study I refer to was meant to show how effective treatment centers were for drug addicts – seen from how many of those who conquered their addiction for all future and how long treatment they needed on average. They had a reference group who never had been on any form of treatment but survived with their addiction in the hard life on the street.

The result was disappointing because Sweden wanted to show the world that you could help drug addicts by giving them treatment.

The result was also very interesting. It turned out that the groups of drug addicts who had been on treatment were dependent on drugs for as long time as the reference group from the street? It seems that many stopped their addiction after around three years and that virtually all had stopped after seven years. It was interesting that those who had been on treatment delayed their addiction by the time they had been without the drug. Statistics showed that people who had been under treatment for example one year stopped using the drug after 4 years. But the time of addiction was the same – 4 years minus one treatment year, gives 3 years of addiction. Many social workers had confirmed what they had seen for years – that their clients "needed time" with the drug before they could help them.

If somebody starts with another type of drug then there was three more years to go through. If an amphetamine addict was free after 3 years and then started on heroin then he had to go through 3 years with heroin also. (It turns out that you rarely have a psychological dependence on both "exhilarating" (amphetamines) and "calming" (opiate) drugs.)

It appears that we should provide clean drugs to the patients and when they feel that they don't want any more (they are content), then we should give them the help they need during the detoxifying phase. Then the treatment centers have a real role to play. It does not mean you will be completely eliminated in three years – not even in three months – most drugs will subside after a relatively short time and will give the drug a state close to what people are as normal. So it is possible to work, and over centuries doctors have been drug addicts, yet have had a steady hand. You learn to live with the drug. If society does not trust these people, they can perform other less complex tasks satisfactorily.

After this Swedish investigation, it became politically impossible to have a softer position on the drug issue, regardless of arguments. Finally, the entire investigation disappeared and is no longer registered with the authority who conducted it? To even mention this authority here is not worth while, as it will be about their credibility and we all know what will be said. But there is a possibility to make the inquiry once more. Data should not be hard to get hold of, or?

There are perhaps some who now are thinking that since there are a lot of drugs who are very dangerous for our health, then it would have been smarter by the state to control people by attacking the dangerous drugs instead?

The problem is that we are intelligent enough to understand what is dangerous for us and therefore there are not many users of dangerous drugs. There will not be a lot of control by focusing on those groups. Marijuana has 60 million users in USA. The increase in hard drugs is constant, especially the artificial drugs. How heroin affects us is not known by all, let me therefore try to give an explanation.

Our body is constructed of a lot of different systems such as kidney, liver and heart. All of these cooperates and makes us live. None of the tasks performed within the body can occur without friction and friction creates pain. For one example, a needle that is entering into the body creates friction pain. The normal friction pain in the blood system, stomach, intestines, etc, the body takes away by pumping endorphin every millisecond into the body's nervous system to diminish the pain.

Heroin effectively replaces the endorphine, which means that the system (the brain) need not produce any more. Before you learn (experimented his way to) the size of the doses, various systems disconnect because it have been added too much heroin. They call it "an overdose" when you have had so much heroin that you are dying. The most common reason is that the lungs have stopped functioning and therefore you will suffocate.

A system that often fails is the intestinal movement; it leads to that the addict often has constipation. He seeks no medical care in fear of being exposed and he has no knowledge at the beginning of his addiction, how he will resolve his problem. In the case of constipation has probably several persons in desperation tried to dig with a teaspoon in the anus. A rare and bloody surgery I can promise, entering the bathroom after.

Another daily experience of the heroin world you notice is when it starts to smell burning human flesh in the whole house? That's because the addict does not feel when the cigarette burns its way through the fingers holding the cigarette. He feels nothing in his dormancy? Yet this is nothing compared to when the addict will be without heroin and the endorphin system all of a sudden have to be started again.

Endorphin was not necessary as long as heroin took care of the task but to initiate the production of the body's own painkillers now takes about a week. A week when the body will suffer indescribable pain. Every movement in every little vein is like cutting with small blunt knives and there is absolutely nothing that can mitigate the pain – for a whole week. The body reacts by locking itself in a cramp. Sometimes only half the body is in cramp. For the heroin addict there is no difference in pain. It's there anyway, with or without cramps. This must be the maximum human experience of pain, the worst thing that can happen to you? The heroin addict does not function at all this week of course; he swims in his own feces and moves in a laying position by a shaking body around the room at night, unaware of everything. Not sleeping and not awake – in a trance of pain. Any normally intelligent person understands that this weak breaks down the body tremendously.

The ignorant thinks that it is while you have access to the drug that you get most damaged, but that is wrong. When you have access to the drug then you are in a kind of relaxed dream world and if you just take care of the nutritious part and eat, take the enemas when needed and certainly not overdose then it works most of the time pretty well. It's the first week when you do not have access to the drug that breaks down. Anyone who is forced to take many of such breaks is rapidly broken down both physically and mentally.

Let's look at what Chomsky says about the last 20 years of drug policy in the United States... "One substitute for the disappearing Evil Empire has been the threat of drug traffickers from Latin America. In early September 1989, a major government-media blitz was launched by the President. That month the AP wires carried more stories about drugs than about Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa combined. If you looked at television, every news program had a big section on how drugs were destroying our society, becoming the greatest threat to our existence, etc.

The effect on public opinion was immediate. When Bush won the 1988 election, people said the budget deficit was the biggest problem facing the country. Only about 3% named drugs. After the media blitz, concern over the budget was way down and drugs had soared to about 40% or 45%, which is highly unusual for an open question (where no specific answers are suggested).

Now, when some client state complains that the US government isn't sending it enough money, they no longer say, "we need it to stop the Russians" – rather, "we need it to stop drug trafficking." Like the Soviet threat, this enemy provides a good excuse for a US military presence where there's rebel activity or other unrest.

So internationally, "the war on drugs" provides a cover for intervention. Domestically, it has little to do with drugs but a lot to do with distracting the population, increasing repression in the inner cities, and building support for the attack on civil liberties.

That's not to say that "substance abuse" isn't a serious problem. At the time the drug war was launched, deaths from tobacco were estimated at about 300,000 a year, with perhaps another 100,000 from alcohol. But these aren't the drugs the Bush administration targeted. It went after illegal drugs, which had caused many fewer deaths – over 3500 a year – according to official figures. One reason for going after these drugs was that their use had been declining for some years, so the Bush administration could safely predict that its drug war would "succeed" in lowering drug use.

The Administration also targeted marijuana, which hadn't caused any known deaths among some 60 million users. In fact, that crackdown has exacerbated the drug problem – many marijuana users have turned from this relatively harmless drug to more dangerous drugs like cocaine, which are easier to conceal."

From : Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants.

(2) _"_ _Also, all of this "crime control" spending is another huge taxpayer stimulus to the economy – mainly to parts of the construction industry, and to lawyers, and other professionals. Well, that's another very useful way to force the public to keep paying off the rich – and by now "crime control" pending is approaching the Pentagon budget in scale; it's still not quite as favored as the Pentagon, because the spending not as sharply skewed towards the wealthy, but nevertheless it's useful_."

If there is anyone who imagines that the pressure decreased gradually over the years then he is wrong, with a few years except in the early 70's. Reagan opened up for body search at the schools and Bush talked about the death penalty on some occasions. The Democrats showed by Clinton that they were powerful law enforcement and between 1993 -1999 was 3 million arrested for possession of marijuana.

(5) Many politicians have declared that they want to legalize drugs, but when they latter have reach the political power, they have not completed it. In New York, a document was signed in 2011 that said "the global war on drugs has failed" and" the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of drug users should be abandoned. The former presidents of Brazil, Switzerland and Colombia, a former Secretary General of the United Nations and former US "Secretary of State "was among those who signed the document.

But the one who takes the prize in lies is well Anslinger when he in 1951 in a Senate" hearing "reveals that behind all drug sales and each distributor was a Communist-plot with far-reaching plans to take over the country. This time it worked historically better with China because that it was China who infiltrated the country.  
Bernays, Bernays ... Bernays, at least a bad copy.

Finally I can recommend a couple of information films about marijuana that makes you wheeze with laughter (no need for a joint). Remember that they were terrified ones when they saw them.

High on the Ranch. Film from 1929.

Reefer Madness. Film from 1936.

Drug Addiction. Film from 1951.

Sources of information:

(1) Noam Chomsky. Keeping the Rabble in Line: Crime & Gun Control.

(2) Noam Chomsky. Understanding Power. Crime Control and "Superfluous People". Published 2002.

(3) Noam Chomsky. What Uncle Sam Really Wants, the war on (certain) drugs. Published 1993.

(4) The War in Afghanistan. Excerpted from Lakdawala lecture, New Dehli version with notes, prepared Dec. 30.

(5) Article from The Guardian News & Media 2011.
Chapter 9. Manufacturing of Consent.

John Stuart Mill wrote the following:

" _Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides._ "

We have to a great extent been in touched with the subject before. It's coming back all the time; it was called "Propaganda" in those days when they used direct, straightforward and honest words. The word "Propaganda" was transformed into "Public Relations" and to "Manufacturing of Consent". The first time, the latter designation came in use was in a book by Walter Lippman, "Public Opinion" published in 1921. He was fascinated by this tool that offered an entirely new way to create democracy. "Manufacturing of Consent" – "Preparation of the Right Opinion". The "Manufacturing of Consent" was going to be used to put through the policy proposals they so well knew was best for the ordinary man.

At last they had found an instrument which allowed people to feel that they were part of the decisions anyway. Get them to vote for the right decisions. They had found the true spirit of democracy. The development would take some time while the good old Bernays sold goods and worked for presidents with what he called "Engineering of Consent" which was the same thing.

Until 1929 in October when the "Great Crash" came, Bernays had been working to keep the department stores selling on top, in 1924 he got President Coolidge reelected and in 1928 he helped Herbert Hoover to become president. He had also got people to invest their money in shares on the Stock Market, which now had lost all its value. Suddenly all wheels stopped, it was not possible to sell anymore, and that meant that Bernays was not as sought after anymore. The Great Depression hit the world and in Europe, it came to expression in unrest when lots of political parties fought for their supremacy in the streets. 1932 Roosevelt won the election and he did not believe in anything of what Bernays stood for. He did not trust the corporations and he began educating people about how they had been manipulated by the business. He was totally against that kind of "free market forces" that drove society into ruin and the people to poverty. Large-scale state project was started up early and was aimed to benefit the people. He was convinced that people could participate in the building of the society and he asked therefore them, how they wanted their community. Gallup was one of those who strongly believed in people's capacity to express what they wanted and their thoughts were taken care of by going out and asking them. Without manipulate them in any way. People began to regain confidence in politics as their reason was recognized and respected at the same time they began to understand how they previously had been misled and duped by corporate advertising. At the reelection in 1936 Roosevelt promised additional control over the private corporations, continued expansion of trade unions and further social rights established in the Constitution. He won a landslide victory which led to the private sector declared "war" on him. Responsible for the fight was Edward Bernays. Bernays shows again what a virtuous he is and he manages to collect all the forces required. "National Association of Manufacturers" is the organization that all great entrepreneurs gathers in and secretly learns how Bernays wants to tackle the problem. The basics are based of course on to influence and to build emotional connections between people and the enterprises. Roosevelt did what he could to make people aware of how they were manipulated and gave them various methods to reveal how different newspapers work. He made several information films, but to Bernays it was an easy challenge. When the president's men completed a film then all big companies had made one film each, and their films were much more profound because they challenged the emotions and the irrational mind. Bernays succeeded to get the people to understand that democracy must be built together with the free enterprise so society would develop optimally. He strongly emphasized that it was the business that built the new modern United States. Great assistance was when the "World's Fair" came to U.S. in 1939. Bernays built the theme around democracy and enterprises. He knew that the media, especially newspapers, were extremely important and tried therefore to appear among the news material – not only on the advertising pages.

This led to that big corporations started to buy companies that owned newspapers and they also started new newspapers and news magazines. Within a decade it would be the major private companies that owned and controlled most of the news. The people were back on the road to passive consumption controlled by those who owned the community.

The elite of society were now in the position to take over more of the wealth compared to what had been possible when the state and workers' unions called for their part in form of higher wages or social security. Again the talk came up that the capital should be able to work without restrictions, known as "laissez faire"-economy.

(1) Goebbels expressed his admiration for Roosevelt's social structure and also did big business with the U.S. industry, IBM, Standard Oil and GM. Rockefeller was deeply involved with trading in Germany. The U.S. companies were terrified of what was happening back home, they felt probably more comfortable with the German business community at this time. Roosevelt who believed that people were able to rationally participate in the construction of the society and that was contrary to the National Socialism in Germany. They had the same basic idea as Freud (or Bernays), that it was impossible to trust people and they therefore had to control them. One of those who influenced the Nazism's basic ideas and passed them directly to the German people by "Propaganda" was Goebbels – a great admirer of Bernays.

And there came a new war in-between – The Second World War. The corporations rubbed their hands in glee when they were providing their services to both sides. IBM took care of the systems that recorded people's affiliation, GM delivered vehicles and Rockefeller provided the Standard Oil and financed Germany. Some companies had to take down their most visible signs such as Coca Cola, but they invented Fanta and put up those signs instead.

During the Second World War, many of the soldiers were useless in battle because they could not handle the mental strain the war meant. The army had to send them home again. Of those who were sent home during the Second World War half was because of mental trauma. When they were examined by psychologists they saw clearly that it was the horrors of the war that had triggered the nervous breakdowns but the cause of the problems came from their childhood? Once the war was over, the government was afraid of the risk that people would lose control and react aggressively towards society, as had happened in Germany before the war. Psychologists proposed to prevent this by psychotherapy and at the same time give people a better life.  
Anna Freud was the leading person in the world's Psychoanalytic Movement. She had treated the children to her friend and millionaire's wife Dorothy Burlingham with a concept that was built on that a person should conform to the social norms. When the daily life became more smooth, when you were well-adjusted, self-esteem would be enhanced and provide him with the strength to control the underlying irrational feelings within himself. If a person is not adapted to society's rules that would of course mean that they will be victims and controlled by the irrational feelings.

1946 President Truman approves "The National Mental Health Act". Carl and Phil Merringer had been behind the design of how to get the American people mentally healthy. They were convinced that Anna Freud's ideas tested out on Dorothy's children could be applied over the whole society of American families and soon there were psychoanalytic centers in several U.S. cities that tackled a variety of patients. They trained counselors to help married couples and social workers made home-visits to demonstrate what "right family life" was. The surrounding environment, i.e. the community values was never disputed. For that there was no forum?

One who became very good to find into the human mind was Ernest Dichter. He developed Bernays concept considerably and was the first to use the "focus group" as an instrument. Groups of people got together and while discreetly filming them they tried out different products and looking on commercials. When they relaxed they revealed their innermost cravings for the analyzers.

Bernays received another of the key jobs in the US. He should show how the "Cold War" could be gained. First of all by teaching the politicians how to manipulate their own people so they had them on their side in the fight against SovjetUnion. We remember his good advice that you should not try to reduce people's fear of communism, but instead make them terrified. He called it "Engineering of Consent" and Chomsky offers the following explanation of how this democracy works using Bernays' own words:

(2) _"_ _In accordance with the prevailing conceptions in the U.S., there is no infringement on democracy if a few corporations control the information system: in fact, that is the essence of democracy. In the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the leading figure of the public relations industry, "Edward Bernays explains that "the very essence of the democratic process" is "the freedom to persuade and suggest," what he calls "the engineering of consent." "A leader," he continues, "frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even general understanding ... Democratic leaders must play their part in ... engineering ... consent to socially constructive goals and values," applying "scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs"; and although it remains unsaid, it is evident enough that those who control resources will be in a position to judge what is "socially constructive," to engineer consent through the media, and to implement policy through the mechanisms of the state."_

The CIA took Bernays vision of how the Cold War could be won and then enhanced these ideas "in absurdum". The experiments that was conducted was of the same caliber as the worst Nazi experiments. Worst offender was Ewen Cameron, president of the American Psychiatric Association. The experiments they didn't dare to make in the United States so Cameron put up his clinic in Canada, the CIA paid the entire bill. The Clinic became known as "The Torture Laboratory" by Naomi Klein in her book" The Shock Doctrine ". The CIA and its lackeys around the world got new techniques to torture their victims with, as a by-product from the torture laboratory's operation. The Nazi doctor Josef Mengele would have been the perfect partner. Both equally heartless and probably with Cameron as the most mad one.

When Marlin Monroe committed suicide in 1962 the American people started to question psychoanalysis since they knew that Marlin Monroe used psychoanalysis and now they could see what it had led to. Leading persons in the community change attitude and disputed if the elites in the society used psychoanalysis to control and manipulate people with. Monroe's ex-husband Arthur Miller questioned whether the suffering was a mistake of nature, as psychoanalysis has considered, or if it maybe was a natural way for man to learn from?

(3) He expressed: _"Possibly the greatest truths we know have come out of peoples suffering. That the problem is not to undo suffering or wipe it of the face of the Earth but to make it inform our lives, instead of trying to "cure" ourselves constantly and avoid it. Avoid anything but that lobotomized sense of what they call happiness."_

The next revelation came from Herbert Marcuse. He explained that the manipulation of irrational emotions can create lonely schizophrenic persons with high aggressiveness. The idea that people needed to be controlled was wrong. There is no violence in people, but our type of society made people frustrated because people were not allowed to have their normal emotional life and that made them dangerous. Anna Freud's ideas had increased these dangerous feelings by using direct coercion to get people to adapt to society. Her previously mentioned patients died of alcoholism and suicide. Anna herself died as the virgin she's always been. She had never had a man and never done anything wrong in her entire life.

Edward Bernays also contributed to establish a new police – the FBI – a de facto National Political Police. In the '60s, they were heavily involved in efforts to undermine the strong democratic movements that have arisen. Twenty years later they were engaged in surveillance and disruption of the popular resistance movements who protested against US intervention in the Central American countries.

Bretton Woods system introduced after World War II, perhaps more popularly known as "the Keynesian" system after John Maynard Keynes who was one of those who developed the system. Bretton Woods was in many ways very successful and functioned without interruption or major crisis until the early 70's. This time has been called "the golden age of capitalism" and it created a high material standard for much of the population, especially in the West. Democracy had also golden years in many parts of the world, which led to that people began to demand more and more of their governments." The Trilateral Commission "came out with the following report:

"The 60s were an excess of democracy, related to relative affluence and economic expansion. This led to a breakdown of traditional means of social control a delegitimation of political and other forms of authority, and an overload of demands on governments."

(1) _"Business leaders and elite intellectuals recognized that the public had won enough rights so that they can not be controlled by force. So it would be necessary to control of attitudes and opinions. These were the days when a huge public relation industry emerged in the freest countries in the world, Britain and the United States, were the problem was most sever."_

There are two completely different groups in society that are to be controlled. The most important group are relatively well educated, and often seen in the cultural and social contexts. Those who "ordinary" people listen to; teachers, writers, directors and cultural figures, they are about 20 percent of the population. Their approval of the system is absolutely critical. They are therefore given economic benefits, indoctrinating titles and other "honors" which get them to advocate the system to the other eighty percent of the population. The eighty percent will pay for the expenses and for them it has be enough to be supplied with goods for happiness. Fear keeps them in line. Media is used to distract them with, for example, quizzes, entertainment, celebrity journalism, conspiracy theories, and astrology. It makes them dream, instead of occupying themselves with things that are important to them and their children's future.

The ability to think critically or to see logic connections disappear when people believe that it is important to know a bunch of facts, dates, places, etc, etc, etc. The school is a place where people come out dumber than when they went in 10 years earlier.

They told people that when they" worked hard all day, they had the right to relax a bit, huh...? Turn on the TV, check out the sport and the news ... That's how indoctrination works ... All this is called "Manufacturing of Consent" but now we try to call it – Propaganda – it's more honest.

Chomsky points out in his book, "Class Warfare" to the two economists, Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis and their work concerning the American educational system:

" _They pointed out that the educational system is divided into fragments. The part that's directed towards working people and the general population is indeed designed to impose obedience. But the education for elites can't quite do that. It has to allow creativity and independence. Otherwise they won't be able to do their job of making money. You find the same thing in the press. That's why I read the_ _Wall Street Journal_ _and the_ _Financial Times_ _and_ _Business Week._ _They just have to tell the truth. That's a contradiction in the mainstream press, too. Take, say, the_ _New York Times_ _or the_ _Washington Post._ _They have dual functions, and they're contradictory. One function is to subdue the great beast. But another function is to let their audience, which is an elite audience, gain a tolerably realistic picture of what's going on in the world. Otherwise they won't be able to satisfy their own needs. That's a contradiction that runs right through the educational system as well."_

To the regular press – the general rule – is: "What is Useful is True".

After that it's up to Propaganda to push, so people believe in it. The methods are many, and several are based on turning lies into truths. They use their own news agencies which cables out the news worldwide. Is it discovered that they have been cheating then they just continue unabated or increase the speed. It is also about flooding the market with news so the amount makes people read any of what you sent out and starts to believe in it – or to remain silent and kill the news if it does not suit the politics.

Debate should of course be allowed for several reasons – the most important thing is to set the boundaries. Boundaries can only be put in if you allow debate in the system and from that follows that "You" put the limits to what can be expressed in an appropriate discussion. The key is to set these limits, resolute, which Propaganda can help with.

The privileged must control and, at best, the population is reduced to passive listeners. In short, they seek to get people to understand that if the wealthy are doing well, then all feel good, otherwise...

In Sweden there are still political parties based on the workers and poor people's interests, but they are becoming increasingly smaller by different reasons. One reason is that the system manages to isolate people and make them believe that they as individuals now belong to another class, for example, because they now owns their house or apartment.

The workers in the West was let down by the politicians who ruled the powerful labor parties until the end of the 70s. Politicians became an elite that ultimately did not understand the voters' needs and therefore, people began to look outside their traditional organizations. In the West it appears to progress towards to only be two parties left in the politics and those two will jointly take care of the political system, without people's participation, so that "democracy" will be preserved.

Chomsky says, that "he hopes to help people develop their intellectual defence. It means developing a continuous independent thinking. In school, we do not learn that and it is extremely difficult to do by yourself."  
Think worthy is his words: "Our current system's "supreme beauty" is the success of isolating everybody from each other.

If you want to place an ad in a newspaper, it is probably more expensive in one with 10,000 readers than a small newspaper with only 500 readers. The bigger newspaper can probably charge a higher price because they have more readers. Consequently, it is the number of readers which mainly determines the price, and it then follows that the newspaper is selling newspaper readers to the advertiser. So buyers are the advertisers, sellers are the newspaper and the product sold are the newspaper readers. (The product which itself pays to be sold?) The more affluent readers, the higher the ad price.

It's not too surprising if I say that they have a pretty similar view of the world – the seller, buyer and ... the product. Those in the leading positions at the newspaper assume to reflect the newspaper owners' interests of course. Usually they hire them from the privileged class so their attitudes are coherent. A journalist will not reach very far if he fails to adapt to ideology "in the House" as to believe one thing and do the opposite does not hold for long. If you can not, the system will ensure that you leave.

We have known for hundred years that people are attracted more by the newspapers that advertisers prefer to be seen in. Gradually both advertisers and readers focused on the elite-oriented press.

From the early 60-ties the workers newspapers had serious problem all over Europe. They lost advertisers and despite still having a large part of the readers they had to give up when the new technology and high wages put up the costs. Concentration of ownership grew further and the world had yet another Monster who would rule the world. In some countries such as Sweden held the workers' press up by government subsidies, which declined after some time and after a decade or so they died out one after the other. There was no longer any media for the workers' actions – for the right to a share of the profits their labor created. The working class had to give all the right to express their thoughts and ideas let the richer class through and they spread effectively their ideas since they were well educated and articulated. At the same time they did everything to undermine the workers' ideological struggle and culture. Chomsky refers in his book" Necessary Illusions "to Benjamin Ginsberg when he says "While westerners usually equate the marketplace with freedom of opinion, the hidden hand of the market can be almost as potent an instrument of control as the iron fist of the state."

I feel proud to belong to the poor and the working class who at all times because of their honesty always has been deceived by those intellectuals who used their talent and training to lie and deceive, without a thought about moral. Moral is something that is expected from the lower classes. The truth is weak person's weapon and it is also the strongest of weapon. Children use the truth as their weapon, until they are taught to lie by the adults. Against those who lack moral, truth has not much to put up. They laugh and sneer against a truth teller, it is their defense. The fact that they transfer their immorality and lack of contact with a real life you can clearly see on their children. You can not be immoral and dishonest in one context and in the next you will have a sound view of life (that you want to pass on to the children). You are honest or you are not honest.

Intellectuals are experts at lying and have learned to use technology that you can not defend yourself against such as accusing their opponents of being anti-Semitic, racist, etc. I am grateful that my fate has not led me into situations where I am in an Orwellian-styled world to find suitable names for oppressive media such as "Freedom House" or "Operation Truth". I do not look down on those who were Nazis during the war because I do not know where I would end up if I was a weak, ignorant and easily led person. Today - Never.

A natural question is why I (again) write about American society and its history? We all know that we are influenced to some degree of American culture and there are probably a lot that still sees US as "the Good Victors' who saved our country from a future in the shadow of fascism. Let's look at what Noam Chomsky responds to the following question:

(4) _"MAN: Noam, since you mentioned the U.S. opposing popular democracy and supporting fascist-type structures in Spain and Haiti-I just want to point out that that also happened in Italy, France, Greece, and other allied Western countries after World War_ II. _I mean, there's a big history of the U.S. undermining democracy and supporting fascist elements in the past half century or so, even in the rich European societies._

CHOMSKY: That's right-in fact, that was the first major post-war operation by the

United States: to destroy the anti-fascist resistance all over the world and restore more or less fascist structures to power, and also many Fascist collaborators. That happened everywhere, actually: from European countries like Italy and France and Greece, to places like Korea and Thailand. It's the first chapter of post-war history, really-how we broke up the Italian unions, and the French unions, and the Japanese unions, and avoided the very real threat of popular democracy that had arisen around the world by the end of World War II."

"State Department and the Council on Foreign Relations" were those who drew up the plan was based on securing key areas of the U.S. economy after the war ended what became known as "The Grand Area".

(6) _"_ _The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed._

Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The industrial countries were to be guided by the "great workshops," Germany and Japan, who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (and now would be working under US supervision).

The Third World was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo put it. It was to be "exploited" (in Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan."

(Chomsky continues further down the same page)

" _The US government had two major roles to play. The first was to secure the far-flung domains of the Grand Area. That required a very intimidating posture, to ensure that no one interferes with this task -- which is one reason why there's been such a drive for nuclear weapons. The government's second role was to organize a public subsidy for high-technology industry. For various reasons, the method adopted has been military spending, in large part._

Free trade is fine for economics departments and newspaper editorials, but nobody in the corporate world or the government takes the doctrines seriously. The parts of the US economy that are able to compete internationally are primarily the state-subsidized ones: capital-intensive agriculture (agribusiness, as it's called), high-tech industry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, etc.

The same is true of other industrial societies. The US government has the public pay for research and development and provides, largely through the military, a state-guaranteed market for waste production. If something is marketable, the private sector takes it over. That system of public subsidy and private profit is what is called free enterprise."

We should point out that the "Grand Area" encouraged capitalist governments to establish itself as long as they did not interfere with US interests.

In 2008 the German Government decided after careful consideration that the old version that Americans were "Good Victors" would remain in the German history books to come – for fifty years more?

It looks that we all, even "neutral" Sweden, have reason to try to understand how vulnerable we are to Propaganda. Although Sweden has two non-commercial TV stations, they will still be affected by what is going on.

AP or Associated Press sends every afternoon out tomorrow's front page of The New York Times over the world so that everyone knows what the News is and finally they ends up out there among the little red cottages as the world's truths.

They "cut and paste" and omits even parts of articles that another newspaper wrote. For example, New York Times and London Times. What they do is to "wash" the text so it can be released in the US and then it referred to them who wrote the text from the beginning, for example, the London Times.

Swedish TV can still handle a lot, but in today's newspaper world, it is parody throughout. Is it not advertisements, then it is distraction media with "Lady Gaga's dog shampoo" or whatever. They have almost no correspondents at any place in the world and are not capable and swallow "what is useful is true".

It is pleasing to see that young people have totally lost interest in newspapers and in TV. They use the Internet which provides them with more facts than the Propaganda channels which the older generations are brainwashed with. To "look" on sports is the young generation often completely indifferent to.  
The defence from the media industry is just as ridiculous as revealing. They say that their "business is sensitive and unexpected; that they always work against the time and that most of the things happens randomly. But randomness does not produce exactly the same results all the time - without exception.

Noam Chomsky says about the newspapers different ways of manipulating the reader "that to prove it requires of course that you are going through a host of material, but the evidence is there, clearly, probably the clearest evidence in social science."

How the successful cooperation between state and corporate propaganda system in the US work shows the May Day destiny. A non-working day throughout the world that is derived from a miscarriage of justice on a number of anarchists after the so-called "Haymarket Affair" in May 1886, in a campaign about international solidarity with American workers struggling for eight-hour day. In the US they have forgotten all about this. They have their Labor day in September and that day is holy.

(2) First of May was turned into "Law Day" which celebrates a 200-year relationship between "law and order" and "freedom." Ronald Reagan declared in 1984, the First of May to the "Law Day" with the words "without law and order will be chaos".

1984! It so deliberately they tread on the workers. Such a relationship can they hardly be unaware of?"

Contemporary research shows that one can not destroy people's inner soul, which is good, that is clearly shown when almost half the US population believed that the phrase "from each one's ability, to each one's needs" is inscribed in the American Constitution. Instead the phrase comes from Karl Marx.

Never forget Winston Churchill's words, "that democracy is fulfilled when the government rests in safe hands in the domain of the prosperous. "Talk about brainwashing.

Before the 2010 election in Sweden, the Alliance (a mixture of social-liberal and conservative parties) had a downward trend and was therefore obliged to get people to once again believe in their crusade against them who exploited the goodness of the society. Before the election four years earlier they had attacked the parasites in the form of sick and unemployed people who was living on wages honest people pulled together. Before the reelection, they had to give the voters the impression that they have had success in their policies.

A new point that matched well with the "crusade policy" was those who now lived abroad and not paying the debts on their former student loans. This subject was easy with the help of Propaganda to get people to react on. The Propaganda had for decades been made to demonize the self-employed persons who were living in "the hustle and bustle" of money they "illegally" brought out from the country. Propaganda from the time the Social Democrats were in power.

The choice to attack the borrowers was optimal, since the student loan fund, CSN, once had been created by the Social Democrats. Now the Alliance showed not only that people were dishonest, but it was the previous irresponsible policies from the Social Democrats that had led to that some parasites had got a chance to grab for themselves. The press participated wholeheartedly in the Propaganda and the message to the voters was that it was a lot of millions that was not paid in to the old system. Now they were going to do something about it.

The Alliance won the election with a few more votes so all contributions had certainly been welcome regardless of the morality behind. CSN now had the task of recovering what was possible, but above all, to show numbers that the government had been right in its pretense that there was an enormous amount of money out there to retrieved.

However, CSN must like everyone else follow the Constitution that says that you have to go to court to get an approval, which in turn requests the bailiff to confiscate. But, wait a minute; this only applies to a person who lives in Sweden! Abroad the Bailiff is represented in the form of consulates or embassies that takes care of these matters and it is not easy, you basically have to beg the debtor to pay. Such "nonsense" they don't have time for. So how do they then do?

Well, the way they do today. What they want to achieve is only that they can show figures indicating that there is a specified requirement that the debt is required for payment. Then they have acted and the debt is registered as a requirement, which is a plus in the account of the CSN. Those abroad but with address in Sweden was the most accessible. They kept their old-fashioned system of paper forms that had to be sent to each person home address. Wasn't the original form returned then the case was not taken up. Everyone was now forced to annually submit a form regardless of income. To make it even more difficult the form of CSN was not available until the end of the year, in November. This form should therefore now be sent by someone in Sweden to somebody abroad, signed and sent back the same way so it finally reached the CSN.

The agreement with CSN for most borrowers is that if you do not reach a certain index-linked income you do not have to pay the loans. The reason was of course that one would dare take a loan regardless whether they succeeded in their studies. So you would dare to invest for the future. If they succeeded with their studies, they would get a good income and could pay the loans without difficulty. So them we talk about are those who did not succeeded with their studies, the exceptions.

The people who were traveling was demanded to prove that they have had no income in the countries they visited. It was not enough to send photocopies of their passport showing that they only have had a tourist visa (which means that you do not have the right to work) in the countries they had visited. Instead you should go back to the capitals of the countries, you've been the year before, or in some way contact the Tax Departments to obtain proof that you haven't had any income in the country last year?

This of course is impossible! Who prints a proof that you have not worked in a country that you had no legal right to work in? And the proof for that is the kind of visa you have in your passport, which is the document that shows you relation to the country you have been in. One can imagine the correspondence that will arise.

But they have achieved their targets – to record the study debt requirements – instead of deleting them as they – legally and morally should have done. The primary objective of using Propaganda to show that they are a vigorous government that does not accept that people parasite on the taxpayers' money will then be achieved.

What in fact is clearly revealed is that the Alliance is the parasite on the taxpayer's money because the enormous costs have only been a paper tiger. There is no money coming in only registration of debts is made. The subject will never be taken up by the media because they have no interest in such news. TV will not on their 20 seconds program parts have a chance to explain what lays behind, but only to report the figures the Government released. Then it is left before the next election only a party leader debate and it is an impossible question for "both" parties.

The first court has agreed to CSN's arguments and if the second also do that – then the next step for CSN would be that them who did not come up to the income which makes them liable to pay the loan then they should be forced to prove that they have not worked illegal (not paying tax) the previous year? If not, they have to pay!

That what fascinated Walter Lippman when he wrote "Public Opinion" in 1921 lives to the highest degree in the Swedish democracy. A new way to create real democracy with the help of – Propaganda – so people can't understand what lies behind.

Chomsky concludes with the following memorable words from 2002:

(4) _"_ _It's amazing in Europe: Europe has become extraordinarily colonized culturally by the United States, to an extent that is almost unbelievable – Europeans aren't aware of it apparently, but if you go there it's kind of like a pale United States at this point, yet they still have this feeling of great independence, so it's even more dramatic. I mean, Western European intellectuals like to think of themselves as very sophisticated and sort of laughing about these dumb Americans-but they are so brainwashed by the United States that it's a joke. Their perceptions of the world and their misunderstandings and so on are all filtered through American television and movies and newspapers, but somehow by this point they just don't recognize it. And one of the issues where this is most clearly demonstrated is with respect to the Middle East."_

Sources:

(1) From the documentary: Golden Rule – The Investment Theory of Politics, with Noam Chomsky and Thomas Ferguson. Download from YouTube.

(2) Necessary Illusions, Noam Chomsky.

(3) The Century of the Self, part 2 Engineering of Consent, Adam Curtis. Download from YouTube.

(4) Understanding Power, Noam Chomsky.

(5) For studies of the post-World War II U.S. campaign to destroy anti-fascist elements internationally and to return traditional ruling groups to power, see Gabriel Kolko, _The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-1945_ ,

New York: Pantheon, 1968 (updated edition 1990); Gabriel Kolko and Joyce Kolko, _The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1954_ , New York: Harper & Row, 1972. These books were the first major scholarly efforts to document this history, and remain extremely valuable and unique in their scope and depth despite the flood of new scholarship since -- although, because they do not adhere to approved orthodoxies, it is considered a violation of scholarly ethics in the American academic community to refer to them.

See also, David F. Schmitz, _Thank God They're On Our_ _Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965_ , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999, especially ch. 4.

On operations in Japan, see for example, Joe Moore, _Japanese Workers and the Struggle for Power, 1945-1947_ , Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983, especially ch. 7. An excerpt (pp. 188-189, 191): S.C.A.P. [the Supreme Command for the Allied Powers, i.e. the post-war U.S. administration in Japan,] had become convinced of the necessity of putting limitations on the workers' freedom of action after coming face to face with the power and radicalism of the working-class movement in spring 1946 and having to make the decision that even the maintenance of an unpopular conservative government was greatly preferable to allowing the left-wing opposition to come to power. . . . SCAP henceforth put its emphasis upon the building of a healthy labor movement that would avoid politics and radical actions such as production control, while encouraging business and government leaders to resist such worker excesses. . . . The Yoshida cabinet was only too happy to return to the anti-labor policies of the past, and encourage union-busting tactics including use of the police to suppress disputes to a degree that would have been unimaginable even a few months before. As if to underscore SCAP's approval, on several notable occasions even U.S. military police participated. The new policy was called, in a cynical phrase current among SCAP officials, "housebreaking" the labor movement. . . .

[The Civil Information and Education Sector of SCAP] suppressed whole issues of left-wing publications, and the censors riddled many others with their blue pencils. Henceforth, left-wing writers could no longer count upon freedom of the press to ensure that unpopular opinions got into print. On 18 May, [U.S. General Kermit] Dyke had already seen General MacArthur [the U.S commander] and secured his consent to clamp down on the press unions. Two days after that, [the chief of the C.I.E., Major Daniel] Imboden issued a strong warning to the press, threatening to close down "irresponsible" papers as General Hodge had done in Korea. He stated that "labor unions had no right and could not dictate the editorial policy of a newspaper" for "that was the right of the owners and men who are nominated by the owners."

Michael Schaller, _The American Occupation of Japan: The Origins of the Cold War in Asia_ , New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, especially pp. 44-51; Howard B.

Schonberger, _Aftermath of War: Americans and the Remaking of Japan, 1945-1952_ ,

Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1989, especially ch. 4 and pp. 62-64; Gabriel

Kolko, _The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-1945_ ,

New York: Pantheon, 1968 (updated edition 1990), ch. 21. See also, Bruce Cumings,

_The Origins of the Korean War_ , Vol. II ("The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947-1950"),

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. An excerpt (pp. 56-57):

Only Japan held [U.S. State Department planner George] Kennan's attentions in East

Asia, and his new notoriety and strategic placement in 1947 made it possible for him to author the "reverse course," or what we may call the Kennan Restoration. . . . The operative document for the reverse course, developed in draft form under Kennan's aegis in September 1947 . . . envisioned a Japan that would be "friendly to the United

States," amenable to American leadership in foreign affairs, "industrially revived as a producer primarily of consumer's goods and secondarily of capital goods," and active in foreign trade; militarily it would be "reliant upon the U.S. for its security from external attack." The paper reserved to the United States "a moral right to intervene" in Japan should "stooge groups" like the Japanese Communist Party threaten stability. Leaving little to the imagination, it went on: "Recognizing that the former industrial and commercial leaders of Japan are the ablest leaders in the country, that they are the most stable element, that they have the strongest natural ties with the U.S., it should be U.S. policy to remove obstacles to their finding their natural level in Japanese leadership." Thus Kennan called for an end to the purge of war criminals and business groups who supported them.

On operations in Thailand, see for example, Frank C. Darling [former C.I.A. analyst and Thailand specialist], _Thailand and the United States_ , Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1965, chs. II and III, especially pp. 65, 69 (the dictator of Thailand under the

Japanese, Phibun Songkhram, who had in fact declared war against the United States, was reinstalled in an American-supported military coup in 1948 and thereby became "the first pro-Axis dictator to regain power after the war").

On operations in Indochina, see for example, Archimedes L.A. Patti, _Why Vietnam?: Prelude to America's Albatross_ , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.

On operations in French North Africa, the first area liberated by U.S. forces in World

War II, see for example, Stephen E. Ambrose, _Rise to Globalism: American Foreign_

_Policy Since 1938_ , Baltimore: Penguin, 1971, ch. 2, especially pp. 54-66. An excerpt

(pp. 55-59):

The United States took the view that one could do business with Vichy [the pro- Nazi government in southern France during World War II]. Much in Pétain's [the Vichy chief of state] program appeared to Roosevelt and Hull [the British Prime Minister] to represent the best hope for France, especially those parts that stood for work, patriotism, and stability. . . . The President did everything in his power to stop de Gaulle's rise, primarily because of his fear that the French people upon liberation would, as they had in the past, run to an extreme. . . . What made [de Gaulle] even more dangerous was the way that he flirted with the forces of the left, especially the communists in the Resistance. "France faces a revolution when the Germans have been driven out," the President once said, and he feared that the man most likely to profit from it would be de Gaulle. Roosevelt spent much time searching for an alternative to de Gaulle. He might have wanted to turn to Vichy, but Pétain was too thoroughly brushed with the tar of the collaborationist. Roosevelt's best hope was the French Army, which represented the forces of stability and conservatism without appearing to be pro-Nazi. . . . By accident, Admiral Jean Darlan was in Algiers when the [Allied] invasion hit. Darlan was bitterly anti-British, author of Vichy's anti-Semitic laws, and a willing collaborationist, but he was also the Commander-in-Chief of Vichy's armed forces and he was ready to double-cross Pétain. He agreed to a deal proposed by Clark and Murphy, which required him to order the French to lay down their arms, in return for which the Allies made him the Governor General of all French North Africa. Within a few days the French officers obeyed Darlan's order to cease fire, and a week after the invasion Eisenhower flew to Algiers and approved the deal. . . . The result was that in its first major foreign-policy venture in World War II, the United States gave its support to a man who stood for everything Roosevelt and Churchill had spoken out against in the Atlantic Charter. As much as Goering or Goebbels, Darlan was the antithesis of the principles the Allies said they were struggling to establish.

(6) What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Noam Chomsky.
Chapter 10. War.

This chapter is about the wars that have hit the world since 1945 which means that it will largely be about the war that American politicians and institutions, like the CIA, have been behind. The idea is not to describe the underlying causes of the wars in detail. If you want to understand the details, I recommend Noam Chomsky's books; they always have detailed source data, which often are the US government's institutions declassified documents. But of course it is limping precariously with the mathematics of these institutions especially when you count the enemy's losses. The losses are always greater during the activities and considerably lower afterwards. Take the following example from Noam Chomsky's book" Year 501, The Conquest Continues:

"The CIA estimates 250,000 killed. The head of the Indonesia state security system later estimated the toll at over half a million; Amnesty International gave the figure of "many more than one million"."

Just counting all the wars that the United States actively participated in openly or hidden, requires a lot just to get the right dates, number of countries and killed, etc. Therefore, I can just say that the reader takes out the map of Latin America to begin with and then search the internet with the help of the keywords, dictatorship, war, murder etc. You will find positive answers to all countries and in all cases; the US is behind with a few exceptions such as the "football war" between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. In many countries they have come back again and again, secretly or openly, depending on the success with the Manufacturing of Consent at home. USAID and the CIA have been working hand in hand while people have died in droves in their footsteps.

When you are finished with American continent you can take out the Southeast Asian map and do the same search. As before, it is mainly the US that is behind, secretly or openly. Africa is the same thing, that's where they would get the raw materials to Europe and Japan. Obtain a map and search on Google. Exceptions are some of the liberation wars from the British Empire and from France. We will look into some of those exceptions.

Europe was hit shortly after 1945 when US beat out the popular movements and labor movements that had succeeded in gaining control over the fascism in their countries, e.g. in Greece and Italy. Then US put in fascists and fascist collaborators to control the countries. The Soviet Union they dared not to attack, even if there were hawks among the US leaders who argued that it was just to drop what they had in nuclear weapons on them, and see what would happen. Communists were made into the "brain ghost" that should make the American people so terrified that they approve everything that was put up by the governments.

Then there is really only China left except some countries in Europe that was left alone, probably because they had been able to defend themselves quite well. They would not be as easy to quell such as Chile, Guatemala or Panama. The stronger defense a country has, the less is the likelihood that the US dares to go after them. The country they have attacked the most times is Bolivia, where USAID is still today? It gives contributions to them, who want self-government, meaning the richer part of Bolivia. The poor peasants in the highlands the USAID do not care about – those who really needs support.

Who have then been the worst murderers in our history? There was one who falls into that category during World War II - Hitler and the Nazism. Six million is the number everyone seems to agree on? Of the six million Jews were the majority. A relatively small part although all together hundreds of thousands was the Romanies, the Slavic people, and mental disabled. Stalin was worse than Hitler; it seems that the rate is somewhere between 10 and 30 million murdered? Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in China shows figures around 60 million murdered humans. The discussions are mostly about Hitler, which is understandable, and he is an illustrative example of what can happen. So where should US be on the list?

If we start with Vietnam then there are figures that suggest 3 million were murdered. USA talking about less than half a million now after the war and of course they do not want to have an image of being mass murderer? Officially, US says that they were attacked by Vietnam, and then we can understand that they might be cheating with both truths and figures. None of the other mass murderers – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, plus an additional number where PolPot is the frontrunner with more than 3 million on his conscience. Most of them, probably all, would deny murdering anyone?

In Laos and Cambodia it is hard to figure out the right numbers because there was a legionnaire's war that the CIA paid for. Just in this area, it was bombed more than during the Second World War, there is talk of a million dead people. In East Timor 25% of the population was eradicated and that is barely 200,000 people. It was Indonesia that carried out the job but it was US that told them to do it. Two days after Ford and Kissinger left Indonesia after an official visit began the extermination began. Ten years earlier, when Suharto took power from Sukarno, with US assistance, between a half and one million people were killed the first few months. Then the intensity of the killings decreased. Three million communists were registered in the country. Travelers reported when they got home that the rivers were full of corpses, no matter where they went.

In South and Central America the US have not been at the same intensive eradication mood and it has probably to do with that the killing had been easier to present to the American people. They would probably be more able to identify themselves with the South Americans than the Asians and perhaps dared to question the country's politics? There are figures, fairly certain figures from Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. and if you put them together, we will certainly end up with some hundred thousands.

Then finally we have Iraq. The counting should begin with the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq where Sadam Hussein was supported by the US in every way. That Sadam was eager to fight against Iran we need not to doubt. The question is then how eager USA was – how innocent were they? There were finally no adults left, especially in Iran, so the children were sent out to fight. Those who could afford sent the children to out of Iran to such country as Sweden.

1991 was "only" soldiers who fought and died – except when the precision bombings failed. It was again time to begin a new wholesale slaughter of people in 2003. It might not be on par with Vietnam, but according to Iraqi figures, it is about more than one million civilian deaths while the U.S. is talking about the 150.000?

The last thing we do before the summation is to make it absolutely clear that what PolPot conducted in Cambodia was completely outside the U.S. involvement, because of that there was a lot of info in the American press and television followed it closely, what they rightly called barbarism. Where PolPot got his ideas from will be explained below. He was not crazier than he had a philosophy behind, as the Americans always have had.

So let's put in the US on the list somewhere between Hitler and Stalin. United States has certainly not been the most effective, but probably the most persevering. On the other hand, they had eyes on them – at least until 1991 after that they "embedded" the journalists with the military. They have always had good help from the media to conceal, alter and completely ignore what was going on in the world.

When this now is determined let's try to come up with what's been behind all these wars. We must not forget that it was a century of peace before the First World War. An important ingredient is that you have people with the right attitude for war, on so many levels as possible in society. The school system we have lived with since long before Montessori days – in time to World War I – produced people who followed the leaders into the death without questioning. We saw her criticism of the prevailing system in Chapter 7, but let's read it again:

" _The child who has never learned to act alone, to direct his own actions, to govern his own will, grows into an adult who is easily led and must always lean upon others. The schoolchild, being continually discourage and scolded, ends by acquiring that mixture of distrust of his own powers and of fear, which is called shyness and which later, in the grown man, takes the form of discouragement and submissiveness, of incapacity to put up the slightest moral resistance. The obedience which is expected of a child both in the home and in the school – an obedience admitting neither of reason nor of justice – prepares the man to be docile to blind forces. The punishment, so common in schools, which consists in subjecting the culprit to public reprimand and is almost tantamount to the torture of the pillory, fills the soul with a crazy, unreasoning fear of public opinion, even an opinion manifestly unjust and false. In the midst of these adaptations and many others which set up a permanent inferiority complex, is born the spirit of devotion – not to say of idolatry – to the condottieri, the leaders."_

(Comment: Dr Montessori might have added that the inferiority complex often finds expression in compensatory brutality and cruelty. Aldus Huxley)

Maria Montessori.

Of course it is not only Maria Montessori, who foresaw what the above would lead to. Erich Fromm published 1942 book "The Fear of Freedom". Aldous Huxley's "Ends and Means" published in 1937 in which he condemns virtually all education in the West, from the children are 7-8 years of age, to be customized to produce "cannon fodder" for the military and in the fascist countries to begin this education already in Kindergarten. He tells us that Maria Montessori schools were closed in 1935 in Germany and a year later in Italy. By this I do not say that they planned this education in the West, given to wage war in the future. It was probably as with much else, they wanted to do something good and it ended up bad and they pleased themselves with what was achieved. What I want to look into is the general ideas behind the above wars. Before that, we must be clear over that the West's attitude during all these years was:

(1) **"There is no Western concern for issues of aggression, atrocities, human rights abuses and so on if there is a profit to be made for them."**

Isaiah Berlin was a liberal thinker and political philosopher at Oxford, beginning in the 50s. His interest was man's individual freedom and how to protect it. He defined the concept "positive liberty" and "negative liberty".

1958 Isaiah Berlin gave a lecture about two different kinds of freedom; both types have the same origin. That you are seeking for liberty.

Positive liberty, meant that the new leading people thought they knew what people needed and that their idea was the true one and therefore best for everyone. Therefore it was worth defending in every way and by every means to convince the doubters what was best for them. When the skeptical should be convinced it was made by oppressing and it always led to new freedom struggles and more violence. The basic fault was that they thought there was a truly definitive, single answer to everyone's goal.

Negative liberty, meaning that there is an individual freedom adapted to each person and that society's role is to accept all these freedoms. Laws and regulations must ensure that they do not trample on other people's right to freedom. There were no other ideas in the community than what can be done and developed as you wish for. Negative liberty reminds to some extent of Bernays system. Individuals were free to choose between different options, what to do with their lives. The difference was that Bernays used different methods such as "manufacturing of consent" so the individuals would support the system they were part of. But that is to defend and convince people that the current system was the best for them and then ... it will transform into positive liberty. The moment you think that your system is the right one and worth defending, you are about to embark on positive liberty with all its consequences, i.e. the freedom struggle. It would take some time before that happened, and Berlin saw negative liberty as the alternative to overcome the "cold war". Soviet he saw as the opposite of individual freedom, and it scared him. Berlin's concept fell on fertile ground in America's political leadership. They were after all trying to scare their people for Communism. There was a different logic in the concept that said that those in power would have to be checked. Those who promised to do good things for people would build power through popular support. There was a risk that they would defend the system which would lead to positive liberty and tyranny. Those who offered kindness to the people were thus most dangerous to the liberty concept.

A country the United States was building up relations with was Egypt. In order to have good relations with those who would lead the country an exchange program, where Egyptians was offered to travel to US to experience the model of how their country in the future would look like. Not all, however, was dazzled by it – such was Sayed Qutb. He was superintendent of schools and sent out to look on the American educational system in a small town in Colorado. He saw clearly later when he traveled around the United States that it was a selfish and materialistic culture that rhymed badly with his way of seeing how a society should function. The trip was an "eye opener" so when he came home a year later he saw with clarity how much of the Egyptian society that had been influenced by American culture.

He got engaged in politics and went into the organization" the Muslim Brotherhood "which supported Nasser's military coup1952. Disappointment for them, however, was complete when Nasser made it clear that he intended to adapt the policies of the West and that Egypt would become a secular country.

A few years later, Qutb was arrested by security police and subjected to cruel torture that almost become his death because a heart attack he got during the "treatment". He wrote books in secret in detention, and those called to rebel against what was happening. The state he was in surely leveled his inspiration further so he was able to describe how the infiltration had affected the Muslim inner being of the religion. It led to an extreme "Call" to kill all those who were involved in blasphemies against the Koran. Those who were Muslims could be killed if they were so corrupt that they sold their soul to materialism and the system Nasser supported.

Nasser finally removed Qutb, by condemning him to death 1966. The day after Qutb was executed a young boy formed a secret group that he hoped would evolve into what Qutb most of all wanted – to be at the forefront in the fight against "Evil". The boy's name was Ayman Zawahiri.

At the end of the 50-ties several wars begins in the former colonies for independence. One of the first is Algeria, where Frantz Fanon is a leading ideologue. He had studied for Jean-Paul Sartre in Paris. Now he had found his own way to break out and rebel against the society in which, according to Sartre, made people into passive zombies. Fanons idea would be embraced by all the liberation movements who came in the 60 - and 70-ties. Among others, Che Guevara. Sartre gave a clear expression to that he had learned from Fanon how to break down the bourgeois society, also in Western countries – by violence. (2) Sartre says in an interview that "You have to understand that all revolutionaries understand today that there is no way of overthrowing modern societies except by violence. For the very good reason that our society depends itself by repression and violence. I defend the revolutionary cause because my personal goal is to overthrow bourgeois society." The most famous of the groups, although there were several, who attacked the Western society from within was the Bader-Mein Hoff Group in West Germany.

Pol Pot had also got their ideas from Paris where he studied revolutionary theory, which he interpreted as if you were to physically exterminate the entire bourgeois society. Three million people from the middle class were executed because within short time (less than three years) in Cambodia, so the rest of the people could build a society from scratch? The most effective killer we've ever had.

U.S." Grand Area "plan was of course influenced of that several of the independence wars seemed to be made in a "Communist spirit" and they refused to follow the US directive. They were therefore not able to be included in the plan. It looked more like the Soviet Union was about to expand their domains. This troubled of course, the balance that the United States wanted and they responded backing up fascistic dictators that were able to suppress the "communist's" advance. They took no account if the governments were elected or had seized power through revolutionary coups. They just followed the plan that obviously was their basis – the Grand Area Plan. Henry Kissinger was the one who was behind the policies. In general based on the balance of power between the superpowers USA and USSR. This meant in practice that the US carried out and supported the murder, war and torture throughout the world.

A young Iranian teacher, Ali Shariati, interconnected Fanons theories with Shia Islamic ideology, and thereby established a completely new revolutionary ideology. That was behind Khomeini's idea of a radical political Islam. Islam had not been politically involved for over a thousand years. Khomeini now took Shariati's ideology and used it when the people took to the streets of Tehran in 1979 to get rid of the Shah. They thus continued with "positive liberty" because they did not allow any others to express their thoughts and they felt that their idea was the right idea – worth fighting for. At the same time in U.S they started to doubt Kissinger's policies, if they were stable in the long run? Could you force out governments by the people's protests in one country it would be possible to do it in other countries. There was however an idea in the US that had matured since the end of 60-ties and who was to replace Kissinger's doctrine.

It is not cheap for a country to wage war. In the debate it is often said that the US wages war in order to earn money from it. This is not true - companies are making money of it. Money that the warring country's citizens have to pay in their taxes.

(3) Chomsky writes:

" _Its unanticipated costs (anm for the Vietnam War) weakened the US economy while strengthening its industrial rivals, who enriched themselves through their participation in the destruction of Indochina. South Korea owes its economic takeoff to these opportunities, which also provided an important stimulus to the Japanese economy, just as the Korean War launched Japan's economic recovery and made a major contribution to Europe's. Another example is Canada, which became the world's largest per capita exporter of war materiel during the Vietnam years, while deploring the immorality of the US war to which it was enthusiastically contributing."_

When talking about the US, it is important to be aware that there are a United States consisting of the American people and a United States consisting of multinational corporations. The corporations have struck roots in the government of the country and in the selection of presidential candidates. The idea came from one of the founders of the United States, John Jay:

(3) "It was expressed by John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in what his biographer calls one of his favorite maxims: _"The people who own the country ought to govern it."_ "

Leo Strauss, an agoraphobic philosopher at the "University of Chicago" showed in his theories why the liberated society that broke through after the Second World War has failed. It was the freedom in the middle of the 60s that had to challenge everything that had made the society lose control. (4) Strauss explained that it was the very idea of the liberal idea – the belief in personal freedom – that caused chaos because it undermined the shared values that held together the society. Individuals sought their own personal interests, and it inevitably led to conflict.

Strauss had nothing against the liberal society's good points. His idea was that you could control the constant questioning of what freedom meant, if you had a moral framework for society that got people to involve themselves. It was best that if it was created a framework around the fundamental moral questions such as the struggle between good and evil. That it only was myths was not so important if it just inspired people to get involved wholeheartedly. Through the school systems function it would be easy to create the "necessary illusions" around "Religion" and "Nation".  
An "enemy" was important, so people could complete the destiny of the Nation, to combat the world's Evils. An "Enemy _"_ was important, so people could complete the destiny of the Nation, to fight World Evil. "The Enemy" had long since been appointed – and then Kissinger destroyed everything when he began negotiations with the Soviets on the dismantling of the nuclear weapons.

To put an end to all freedom struggles across the world Kissinger had worked out a plan to shape a peaceful network of countries together with the Soviet Union. At first, Nixon signed the reduction of nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union 1972. A little later he announced to the American people that they soon would have a far-reaching peace agreement with the Soviets and the rest of the world. Then was the defeat in Vietnam and the Watergate scandal, which put an end to it all. Something else would take over the world stage.

Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama, William Kristol and some other idealists wanted to uphold the conservative moral values that the liberals tried to tear to pieces. They formed a group which will be known as – the Neoconservatives.

Conservative values had not been particularly sought after in politics for several years, but they got good contact with Donald Rumsfeld, "Secretary of Defense" and Dick Cheney "Chief of Staff" in Gerald Ford's government that took over after Nixon. There was a common point in their lives – "University of Chicago" – were Rumsfeld devotedly studied economics under Milton Friedman.

If you take Naomi Klein's book" The Shock Therapy "and do a search on "University of Chicago" and read a few lines before and after the matches you will find names such as Friedrich Hayek, George Shultz, and the names of most of the economists who led World Bank, IMF and USAID for decades. People who worked together to clear a number of countries of their assets. You can also see that "The University of Chicago" trained the economists, at all levels, who took over in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and most other countries. Most of these countries had in one way or another lost their legal government and was now governed by dictators. Those who took over the economy were trained to work in the US interest consciously, or if possible, unknowingly. Thousands of economists.

When Wolfowitz and the guys got in touch with Rumsfeld, he was probably not very surprised? It did not take long before Rumsfeld with lies and fantasies tried to disrupt the good relationship that had emerged between the US and the USSR. He accused the Soviet Union in all ways to build secret weapon. CIA who constantly watched the Soviet Union announced that there was no reality in what Donald Rumsfeld presented. Despite this, Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to launch an independent investigation, which was to be led by several neoconservatives, among them Paul Wolfowitz.

The project was named "Team B" but in spite of assets to the CIA's archives they could not find anything that pointed to the Soviet Union had developed additional weapons, which Rumsfeld constantly had gone out with to the public. Wolfowitz and Richard Pipes, leader of Team B came up with the brilliant conclusion that since they had to do with such an advanced and intelligent enemy, the results did not meant that the enemy had not developed new weapons. Instead it was so bad that the US did not have modern technology enough to detect the most advanced weapons the enemy now had. The evidence was that "because the enemy did not talk about these weapons they tried to hide the fact that they had them?" These smart guys are the most powerful in the world, and Rumsfeld was close to become president a decade later.

(4) Dr. Anne Cahn, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80 say, " _I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean that they looked at the radars out in_ _Krasnoyarsk_ _and they said it was lazar beam weapons, when it in fact was nothing of the sort ... If you go through most of Team B specific allegations about weapon systems and just examine them one by one, they were all wrong. All of them. Nothing true? I don't believe anything in Team B was really true."_

But they were working assiduously towards their goal of creating an enemy to fight. The Crusade against Evil was imperative to create Leo Strauss myths. They formed a lobby group "The Committee of the Present Danger", which lobbied on Team B's fantasies. They created information in the form of films, stickers, and articles at the news pages in the newspapers. Everything built on Team B's fantasies, which are pure lies. Ronald Reagan, who would run for president joined together with several other politicians who saw a chance to get noticed.

Many neo-conservatives were advisors to Reagan during the campaign and they managed to create an alliance with several of the religious groups, which for the first time in history went into politics. The neoconservatives got several places in the Reagan administration when he won the election, and in leading positions.

Richard Pipes who has been the leader of Team B became one of Reagan's chief advisors, while Richard Perle got the role as "Assistant Secretary of Defense". Michael Ledeen became special advisor to the" Secretary of State. They saw now the chance to make it happen. America's revolutionary struggle against the World's Evils.

Of course you can wonder how a person like Richard Pipes can go so far up. He is assuredly not without intelligence but moral, the answer would probably be that the type of person he represents is needed to keep those who own the country in power. One who belongs to today's politicians with a similar role is Timothy Geitner who is Secretary of the Treasury. He was CEO of Goldman & Sachs when they sat as advisor to the Greek economists, those who helped creating the crisis. Geitner do anything with an innocent smile, if he is praised and paid for, by anyone.

(5) Most difficult I have to look on Michael Ledeen, Special Advisor to the US Secretary of State 1981-1982 and one of the creators of the neoconservative group, as he sits there with his Cocker Spaniel eyes and asking the interviewer so sweet to understand that "they were aiming of the expansion of the zone of freedom in the world. And in part it had to do with fighting communism and in part it had to do with fighting other part kinds of tyrannies. That's what we were about and that is what we still are about."

There's obviously a reason why they do not dare to open up and tell the truth. There is great danger that in future they can be tried, and have they told the truth they can not go back to "we just wanted to do good". They are afraid, and they will do everything possible so that they will never be asked to account for what they have done.

From the first day Reagan declared that his government will replace Carter's fight for "human rights" with the fight against "International terrorism". He took on his task the responsibility to defend the civilized world against international terrorism. There had recently been a number of terrorist acts around the world and the neoconservatives now saw an opportunity to get President Reagan to give up the Kissinger policy of peace. Reagan nevertheless expressed that if he could just get to sit down with the leaders of the Soviet Union in the peace and quiet he might be able to explain to them and they could probably come up with a good solution together? The neocons understood that the president needed to change his attitude.

At the same time it pops up a book that suits their purpose, Claire Sterling's book – "The Terror Network." Noam Chomsky mentions it with a strong sarcastic tone in his book "Necessary Illusions". The book is to show that there are links to the Soviet Union more or less to all terrorist crimes committed since the early 60's. Conclusive evidence was that the attacks were primarily directed against democracies and relatively democratic countries in the West. Noam Chomsky writes:

(3) _"To conduct this campaign of ideological warfare successfully, it was necessary to obscure the central role of the United States in organizing and directing state terror, and to conceal its extensive involvement in international terrorism in earlier years, as in the attack against Cuba, the prime example of "the evil scourge of terrorism" from the early 1960s."_

The book came as a godsend to the neocons and so did the change of the CIA director. The new chief William Casey had also read the book so he immediately aligned himself with the neoconservatives. Casey told his subordinates in the CIA that they should produce documents who supported the "evidence" that appeared in the book. Then they had to tell him how things were about the data in the book.

Melvin Goodman, Head of the Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA, 1976-1987 says that, "When we looked through the book we found very clear _episodes was CIA "Black Propaganda", clandestine information that was designed under a covert action plan to be planted in European was picked up and put in this book. A lot of it was made up. We told him that and we even had the operational people. I thought that this maybe will have an impact but all of it was dismissed. Casey had made up his mind. He knew that the Soviets were involved in terrorism, so there was nothing we could tell him to disabuse him."_

The CIA's operations in the 70s were focused to blame the Russians for what the CIA and US had been behind when they attacked and wiped out social functions such as the free press in several countries. Or the bombings which killed several of the elected presidents that they wanted to get rid of. To blame the Russians had been primarily to remove the American peoples focus and possible suspicion that there might be Americans behind the terror. But of course it was also rewarding to direct further hatred against the communism.

Casey understood finally that the book's data could not be used, but despite new requirement that the CIA would produce a document that identified the USSR as a spider in the terrorist network, CIA never produced such a document. Finally, he found, however, a university professor who claimed to be terrorist expert. He wrote the document that finally convinced Reagan, after two years of pressure from the neocons. Convinced him to begin the crusade against "The Evil Power from East".

1983 Reagan signed a secret document which means that the U.S. is now fighting a secret war to repel the Soviet threat. The neocons call themselves from now, "The Democratic Revolutionaries".

Reagan and Margaret Thatcher both had embraced Milton Friedman's theories of "the free market _"_ despite the fact that Friedman has been seen as a prophet of very few in the early 70s. In Chile, September 11, 1973, orchestrated with US back up, General Pinochet takes power in a bloody coup. They kill the elected President Allende and cut off the hands of the guitarist and national poet Victor Jara before he is murdered in one of the football stadiums where they have gathered those who have been arrested. Two years later, Milton Friedman gets the chance to prove his theories into practice in Chile by Pinochet. A shocked public was going to suffer under a new therapy – an economic shock therapy. In Naomi Klein's book "the Shock Doctrine" we read:

" _Roughly 74 percent of its income went simply to buying bread, forcing the family to cut out such "luxury items" as milk and bus fare to get to work. By comparison, under Allende, bread, milk and bus fare took up 17 percent of a public employee's salary._

Many children weren't getting milk at school either, since one of the junta's first moves had been to eliminate the school milk program."

Naomi Klein continuous:

" _Officially launched in 1956, the project saw one hundred Chilean students pursue advanced degrees at the University of Chicago between 1957 and 1970, their tuition and expenses paid for by U.S. taxpayers and U.S. foundations. In 1965, the program was expanded to include students from across Latin America, with particularly heavy participation from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico."_

The University of Chicago, which I think everyone understood, is one of the most conservative universities in the world. Some students received services as professors at universities in their home countries, where they in turn trained thousands of economists. Others, was assigned high up in the governments. The Ford Foundation supported many students from abroad who was studying at the University of Chicago, including those who came to be called "The Berkeley Mafia". Suharto's economical henchmen in Indonesia.

Noam Chomsky points out all the time in his books that a major reason why the United States is attacking innocent, peaceful and democratic societies where people live close to each other and to nature is that US don't want to have any good examples how people can live. Their neighbors can get the same ideas. The good examples such as East Timor and several of the South American local communities represents.  
When they also have great untapped resources in the form of a huge supply of oil in the East Timor case, the will become a _hunting_ prey. Australia and downsized its moral totally to stole what they could.

When the free market was introduced, it became even less possible for countries to stand outside or if they had an alternative to the free market. They were not left in peace. They were dangerous example, and today there are few countries which remain outside.

Milton Friedman admired Friedrich Hayek and the ultra conservative laissez-faire policies he stood for. That people suffered immensely cared not one of them, at all. Chile was hit _by_ the worst version of the "Shock Therapies" Friedman developed. One who in his turn admired, if not adored, Milton Friedman was Donald Rumsfeld who had been his student at the Department of Economics, in University of Chicago.

Friedman has hold in several threads and a thread that suited his economic policies in the 80's was the introduction of democracy in Chile and the Philippines. The concept of negative liberty was ideal for the free market for two reasons - people would buy stuff to keep doing their things and the risk that someone would try to overthrow the government by positive liberty would be reduced.

If nothing else, it would give people a new illusion that would get rid of any thoughts of going to the streets as was done in Iran. This meant of course, that it was just introduced a kind of democracy where people got to vote but no more. Land reform or redistributing wealth in society was of course not in the plan. The old class was as safe as before, and the American corporation' investments were now hopefully better protected.

Nicaragua, however, was an example of what was considered as an evil dictatorship, even if they have had elections and the Sandinistas won big. The Democratic Revolutionaries sold arms to Iran and venture into cocaine business to finance their ally Contras in the fight against the Sandinistas.

An example of a different kind of politics that had worked for some time and had built an entire region's economy was what the Tiger economies in Southeast Asia accounted for. Their economy was called by several for the third way economics. The free market policy did not accept this competition and after have tried many years to get to them they managed finally in 1997-98 when they killed the Tiger economies effectively by speculating against the Thai currency, which eventually had been set free.

When Thailand fell followed Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia soon after. Wall Street bought up these countries' total wealth for a pittance by the help of IMF and the World Bank. The only country that got out of the crisis without devastation was Malaysia who refused to bargain with both the IMF and World Bank. A" Third Way politics'- country was Sweden, which had to throw in the towel after the crisis -92. The crisis is to a great extent classified, but I can recommend John Ehrenberg on the subject, he is well up to date.

Naomi Klein writes in her book" The Shock Therapy ":

" _The bottom line is that while Friedman's economic model is capable of being partially imposed under democracy, authoritarian conditions are required for the implementation of its true vision. For economic shock therapy to be applied without restraint—as it was in Chile in the seventies, China in the late eighties, Russia in the nineties and the U.S. after September 11, 2001—some sort of additional major collective trauma has always been required, one that either temporarily suspended democratic practices or blocked them entirely."_

During Reagan's second term, he was more or less oblivious to what was going on as Noam Chomsky points out in several of his books. He says that U.S. was in fact without president, especially during the second term, but also to some extent the first term. In his book "Understanding Power", he says the following:

" _In all of the books that have come out by people in the Reagan administration, it's been extremely difficult to hide the fact that Reagan didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on. Whenever he wasn't properly programmed, the things that would come out of his mouth were kind of like - they weren't_ _lies_ _really, they were kind of like the babbling of a child. If a child babbles, it's not lies; it's just sort of on some other plane. To be able to_ _lie,_ _you have to have a certain degree of competence; you have to know what truth is."_

It's interesting to read Milton Friedman's mutual admiration of Rumsfeld in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein:

"I believe that Reagan made a mistake when he chose Bush as his vice presidential candidate," Friedman wrote in his memoirs; "indeed, I regard it as the worst decision not only of his campaign but of his presidency. My favorite candidate was Donald Rumsfeld. Had he been chosen, I believe he would have succeeded Reagan as president, and the sorry Bush-Clinton period would never have occurred."

Nixon said this about Rumsfeld 1971:

" **He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."**

—Richard Nixon, U.S. president, referring to Donald Rumsfeld, 1971."

Naomi Klein, the Shock Doctrine.

I hope the reader will excuse all the references made and that will be made but it is important that the confidence is underpinned by persons like Chomsky and Klein who are experts on the subject. What I want to show is that the driving idea behind all wars during Reagan's term as president was orchestrated by those in the administration and that it followed Milton Friedman's wishes. It seemed also to go well with the "Grand Area" theory - with the hawk's theory. Naomi Klein gives an expression that Milton Friedman was the driving force and consequently Rumsfeld was the one who ran his errands.

When the Soviet Union disappeared the happiness had no end to the neoconservatives – for a short while. Until they realized that they lost the "Big Myth"? When Sadam Hussein went into Kuwait, they had a new Evil to fight, and 1991, Bush Sr. attacked and drove out the Iraqi army in degrading manner. He never went after Sadam Hussein, which led to the neoconservative privately accused the president to compromise with the forces of Evil in the world. But there was a reason not to remove Hussein - there was no option and he was no longer dangerous to his neighbors because they destroyed most of his weapons. Paul Wolfowitz, "the Secretary of Defense", however, could never forget that Bush did not obey and made what the neocons wanted.

Senior Bush did not believe in a world that consisted of a struggle between Evil and Good, but more on Kissinger's world where one with the help of checks and balances created stability.

(6) John Perkins, former chief economist at Chas. T. Main, Inc., and author of the book "Confession of an Economic Hit man." He says: "Perhaps the most common was that we _were to identify a country that had resources like oil and then arrange a huge loan through the World Bank or one of the sister organizations. But the money actually never goes to the country; instead it goes to our big corporations to build infrastructure_ _, power plants, industrial parks, ports. Things that benefit a few rich in that country, in addition to our corporations, but really don't help the majority of the people at all. However those people, the whole country, are holding a huge debt. It is such a big debt that it can't pay it and that is a part of the plan – that they can't repay. So at some point the economic hit man goes back to them and say, "listen, you own us a lot of money and can't pay your debt so sell your oil real cheap to our oil-companies. Allow us to build a military base in your country. Send military troupes to support us some place in the world like Iraq or vote with us on the next UN vote. To have their electric utility company privatized, water and_ sewage _system privatized and sold to US corporations or to other multi national corporations. So there is a whole mushrooming thing and it is so typical how the IMF and the World Bank work. They put countries in debt. It is such a big debt that they can't repay and then they offer to refinance that debt, and then pay even more interest. And you demand this "quick pro quo" which is called "conditionality" or "good governance" which means basically that they have to sell out there resources, including many of their social services, utility companies, their school systems sometimes, their penal systems, their insurance systems to foreign corporations."_

Sam Perkins continues:

" _Iraq is the perfect example of how the whole system works. We, economic hit men, are the first line of defense. We go in, we try to corrupt the governments and try to get them to accept these huge loans which we then use as leverage and basically own them. If we fail, as I failed in Omar Torrijos_ in _Panama and in with Ecuador Jaime Roldós, men who refused to be corrupted. Then the second line of defenses, we send in the "Jackals", and the jackals either overthrow the government or they assassinate. When once that have happened the new government comes in they are going to tow the line because the new president will know what will happen if he doesn't._

In the case of Iraq, both of those things failed. Economic hit men were not able to get through to Sadam Hussein. We tried it very hard; we tried to get him to accept a deal very similar to what the House of Saud had accepted in Saudi Arabia, but he wouldn't accept it. So the jackals went in to take him out but they couldn't do it. His securities was very good, after all he had one time worked for the CIA. He had been hired to assassinate the former president of Iraq, and failed. But he knew the system. So in 1991 we send in the troupes and we take out the Iraqi military. We assumed at that point that Sadam Hussein was going to come around. We could have taken him out of course at that time, but we didn't want it. He is a kind of strong man we like, he control his people and we thought that he could control the Kurds and keep the Iranians at their borders and keep on pumping up oil for us. And now when we had taken out his military – now he's going to come around. So the economic hit men go in, in the 90-ties, without success. If they have had success he will still be running the country."

We have come a bit too far into the future so let's back up to the last years of the 70s. When the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan where the resistance is organized by a group calling themselves the Mujahedin, the Freedom Fighters.

William Casey, CIA Director felt that Afghanistan had a key-role to play in US world mission, the fight against Evil. The U.S. had from the beginning when the Soviets went into Afghanistan supported resistance groups financially, but now they should provide unlimited financial support, access to the most advanced weaponry and training by the CIA to these weapons and guerrilla techniques. Milton Bearden, the CIA field officer, Afghanistan 1985-89, says that he got "Sting" robot missiles for a billion dollars to be used in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

A movement that in many ways is like the neo-conservatives with religious overtones was established in Egypt 1980, Islamic Jihad. They also have "The struggle between the Evil and Good" as its trademark. They are "radical Muslims" and the group's first goal is to kill Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt. Leaders for the Islamic became Jihad Ayman Zawahiri, the school boy who formed a secret group 14 years ago the day after Qutbs execution. Zawahiri is from a reputable family where among others one of his uncles is an ambassador. His father is a professor at the university and himself a medical doctor.

They manage to kill Sadat in a spectacular attack in which a group of officers at a public military parade simply walk up to Sadat's tribune and shoots him down with several others. The perpetrators are captured and immediately executed. 300 of the Islamic Jihad members imprisoned including Zawahiri, who for three years are subjected to daily torture.

Zawahiri had anticipated that the Egyptian people would go into the streets and start a revolution after they killed Sadat, but this does not happen and it hurts him throughout the time in jail. He concludes that people has become as corrupted, by the West's brainwashing, as the Egyptian leaders and therefore could no longer be considered to be Muslims. That means they also can be killed.

To support the Afghan freedom fighters, Mujahedin, in most Muslim countries they called on people that they should go and fight for their Muslim brothers cause. One that attracted attention was Abdullah Azzam, who became leader of the Arab Mujahedin. He managed to organize several newly arrived volunteers from his office in Peshawar, Pakistan. Several times he went to USA where he was allowed to recruit people to fight in Afghanistan. Other countries he visited gave large contributions to the fight against the Soviets and he began after a while to see the fight against the Soviets as the start of something big in the Muslim world.

The idea was that when they had won the fight against the Soviets, they would return home and with their experienced brothers start up freedom struggles in their homeland and liberate the people. One would then introduce Islamic rule by political means. Abdullah Azzam had every freedom fighter to swear "to never use violence against the civil public". When Osama Bin Laden came to Afghanistan in 1985, he became Azzam's biggest supporter. Bin Laden task was mainly to support the fight with his money but he also became an example to others of his way to behave.

The leaders of several Muslim countries now saw a chance to get rid of the political prisoners they had. Revolutionaries that they rather saw getting killed, they were freed, therefore after they had promised that they went to Afghanistan to join the fight. The Egyptians who had a large part of the extremists who had participated in the assassination of Sadat imprisoned now freed them to head to Afghanistan and they were gathered under the name Islamic Jihad with Ayman Zawahiri as its born leader. In the same moment they arrived in Peshawar they understood the leading role Abdullah Azzam had and they challenged him. He was accused of working together with the devil USA, the country that was behind all the corruption and decadence which had hit the Muslim countries. They refused to pray behind Abdullah Azzam, and made themselves impossible in every way.

Mikhail Gorbachev decided to try to withdraw its troops in 1987 and asked the US for help with the negotiations so that the war could be completed in a reasonably dignified manner, and so Afghanistan would have a functioning government.

The United States that now was ruled by the neo-conservatives said flatly, "No".

(5) "Gorbachev was shocked but sent a message through the KGB, who warned the US that if they let the Freedom Fighters decide their own future; it would not be through democracy but through extreme Islamism."

Both the neocons and the radical Muslim groups saw themselves as victors in Afghanistan. The Afghan Mujahedin, however, were the real winners, those who had fought the war with, not to forget, US arms and training. The Arab Jihad and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad were trained but had not participated in the same way in the fighting.

A political game went on behind the scenes staged by Zawahiri for several reasons, where Osama Bin Laden was a major reason because he was sitting on a huge capital that he wanted to use in the Islamic struggle. Bin Laden had first encountered Abdullah Azzam, but when he was promised by Zawahiri to become Emir of the Islamic Jihad, he took the step over to them.

Zawahiri spread his message that you could not stand as candidate in elections, work to implement democracy, vote or be a member of a political party. All this was totally against the Quran - which means that you are no longer a Muslim and therefore not only could, but must be killed. Abdullah Azzam was eventually killed by a car bomb in late 1989. No one has taken the deed.

When the entire Soviet State soon after the withdrawal from Afghanistan is falling apart the neoconservatives goes into a total spin and lose the reality they might have had. They begin to believe their own myths, that it was their aggressive Soviet policy that got "The Bear" to fall.

(5) Mikhail Gorbachev says that "the State of Soviet Union and its society could be described very simple with the phrase used by people across the country "We can't go on living like this any longer". That applied to everything, the economy was stagnated, there were shortages, and the quality of goods was poor."

Then all of a sudden in the early 90-ties, the people required in huge street demonstrations that an Islamic state should be formed first of all in Algeria and Egypt. Everything pointed to that when the upcoming elections was close. The Muslim leaders expressed strongly that they do not want violence or a military coup. A peaceful democratic takeover is what they look forward to. The Muslim obligation means that the Koran should be used in the future to create a new society and that means also the end of democracy? Democracy and religion could not match and therefore it was now a last choice, then religion would take over forever?

Those who were in power did put an end to all such plans by cancellation of the election and arrest of a number of Muslim leaders. After a military coup in Algeria many of the Muslim leaders are arrested. In Egypt, the Government use tuff rules and arrest hundreds of Muslim leaders. Ironically, the Muslim leaders accuse the government for not allowing them to have free elections.

Zawahiri now receives another "field day" – he is organize an underground resistance and launches a new Jihad. He is convinced that the victory over the Russians is to be continued in Algeria and Egypt. They ally themselves with local groups and Osama Bin Laden pays. Hope is once again that the masses should revolt when the reality is affecting the civilian population by all acts of terror. Algeria is badly affected by the senseless terrorist attacks on the population. Thousands of innocent children, women and men are killed, whole villages are exterminated.

The rulers saw an opportunity to exploit the situation. They infiltrated the terrorist groups and led them to expand further violence. The people then became easier to control because they were terrified. At the same time people's hatred against terror would make the revolutionary groups to lose all support. Society was paralyzed, of course, but the people accepted the situation and the power could be held by those who always had it. In the late 90-ties finally the people went out in big demonstrations and showed that they did not want anything to do with the fundamentalists.

What they had dreamed of had failed. Many of the fundamentalists chose to turn their aggression against other Jihad groups which they considered unfaithful to the correct doctrine. The leading group in Algeria had the incredible ideology that the entire Algerian population should be killed. Zawahiri and Bin Laden went back to Afghanistan the only country that was left for them to go to. A new Jihad was declared in 1998 and was now aimed on United States. The explanation was that their own people had become so influenced by the West's ideas, which they first realized when they failed to get their people to revolt. Therefore they were now going to attack the source of all Evil in the World - United States.

We should not be lulled into the belief that they were ineffective in the US. They were busy with wars even if the neocons more or less had disappeared in the daily politics since Reagan was replaced by Republican Bush Sr. in 1989. Bush in his turn was replaced by the Democrat Clinton four years later. You might think that the war activities would decline gradually, but they continued in equal degree. (7) Thomas Ferguson author of" The Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition" says: "the tendency of intervention under Clinton didn't change at all from the rate under Reagan and Bush. What you basically saw was a big, steep increase of interventions after World War II, a leveling of in the early 70-ties as a sort of reaction of the Vietnam War and under the Reagan Doctrine it just take of like a rocket. Clinton did not change the slope of that; I mean he was basically intervening about as often.

Zawahiri and bin Laden began with two bomb attacks in August 1998 against the two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, more than 200 people dies. Suicide bombers were recruited from Afghan training camps. It is important to understand that virtually everyone, with very few exceptions, from the camps had nothing to do with terrorism to any western country. They were trained by the CIA in particular, but totally committed to start revolution in their homelands. Bin Laden sponsored some of these groups, but he did not have any group of his own.

A few years later in January 2001 a trial began in the United States against those who carried out attacks in Africa. Bin Laden's name had popped up. It was known that he funded various groups and because of that they wanted to charge him also, in his absence. The problem was that the indictment against bin Laden would not hold if one could not prove he was a member of a criminal organization - a kind of Mafia. Mafia laws were created so they could prosecute the leaders of organized crime even if they did not participate in the crimes. They got the information needed by an old colleague of Bin Laden, a colleague who had been stealing money from him and needed the help of the US government with a new identity and money. FBI made sure that the information was sufficient for a sustainable prosecution.

Al Qaeda was born in this way and was a fictional organization with a name that was first said to have arisen as the name of a database within the CIA over the Muslim freedom fighters. The truth was that bin Laden and Zawahiri was a bit of funding for various independent groups, but stood outside decisions and was certainly no commanders. Osama Bin Laden never used the name Al Qaeda for any group before the 11th of September 2001. It was then natural to do it because it was the name the Americans had given him in the discussions.

(8) Sam Schmidt, Defense Lawyer Embassy Bombings Trial, believe "that there were selective portions of al-Fadl's testimony that I believe was false ... I think he lied in a number of specific _testimonies about a unified image of what the organization was. It made Al Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with Al Qaeda or for any acts or statements made by bi Laden – who talked a lot."_ The truth was that there was no group you could join and all fantasies of sleeper cells across the world simply did not exist.

Bush Jr had in the election campaign and the beginning of his first term expressed what his father stood for – that each country took care of itself and the United States had no right to tell others what they would do in their country. The struggle between Evil and Good were not the son's agenda. He had several neoconservatives in the administration, but their political idea did not come up on the agenda until after 11 September 2001 – as they now had shown that their predictions was correct.

The attack on the World Trade Center was the brainchild of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, an Islamic militarist who dubbed his plan to "Planes Operation" Zawahiri was the one who put the plan into action with Bin Laden's support. The U.S. politicians wanted to appear to the public as if they had knowledge of what has passed, therefore they chose the myth that the FBI created during the trial of the embassy bombings that year. They accused Al Qaeda for the attack.

The neocons dusted the old Team B idea where the Soviets were behind all the terrorism in the world, replacing the Soviet Union with Al Qaeda. Bush presents the "knowledge" to a shocked Congress and to the American people.

Al Qaeda was a network of evil forces around the world that controlled all terrorist activity as a mafia-like organization. They were represented in a 50-60 countries and they recruited people worldwide, which then are trained in Afghanistan.

Suddenly, Bush used the word evil, the Good America, Satan's forces, etc., in every second sentence. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz got the responsibility for the "hunt" with Vice President Cheney and Richard Perle, who was now "Senior Adviser" to President Bush. Now at last they had succeeded in creating the myth that would keep society together. The neocons were in power again.

History repeated itself; a twenty year old Rumsfeld was on TV and told lies like he did when he destroyed the credibility of Nixon's peace treaty with the Soviet Union. Soon, he would draw and create descriptions on whole, not cities, but high buildings hidden and dug into caves in one of the most inaccessible mountain regions in the world. The Americans swallowed the whole saga and Bush as well.

It has been a tremendous speculation if the attack on the WTC was a conspiracy carried out by the American leadership with Vice President Cheney in control over the events while President Bush is reading stories in a nursery school anywhere in America with an upside down book. Some interpreters the details more crazy than others. When you look at President Bush's reactions at the press-hearings then you realize that something is wrong.  
After some time a commission is appointed, the "9/11 Commission" and then we can see that something is wrong, again? Philip Zelikow chosen to chair the Commission has such close ties to the Bush Administration that he can not be seen as a neutral observer. He would never hold this assignment if credibility considered important.

When Bush and Cheney is being interviewed by the "9/11 Commission" they answer the questions together, and they are not under oath. Press or relatives of the victims are not allowed to attend and recordings of what is said or dictations must not under any circumstances be made. The "9/11 Commission" is a so-called "Consensus Commission" which means that only the questions where everyone has agreed upon all points is registered in the final report. If any person in the Commission disagrees with the others then that question will be dismissed.

If you look closely at the circumstances of the attack site too many questions are piling up. One of these, the Commission responds to. It is about building 7, which collapsed as "a house of cards" without being hit by any airplane? The Commission gives the answer that they do not have any explanation how it happened.

The above is what we know for sure. We also know that it has been created a mafia-like organization during the trial earlier that year with the name of Al Qaeda. The Bush administration now take this name, and has directly deep-going explanations on how a worldwide organization, Al Qaeda, with thousands of members in more than 60 countries have attacked the WTC. (8) Bush announces the first time the following: "Al Qaeda is the Terror, but the Mafia is the Crime."

Could it be more obvious?

Chomsky has looked into various conspiracy theories and reached the conclusion that they never lead anywhere. You can add a lot of times on it but you know no more than you knew when you started, when you finally give up. It leads to uncertainty in the search and, at worst, an ending of interest in what the politicians are doing. That's exactly what they want, so people go to their work and pay taxes and no more.

You can get a clear picture of what is going on in the world by looking at the facts available and the consequences. However, you can see what the politicians are using the events for, which look like a conspiracy.

Look at what we do know. That Al Qaeda is an organization created by the testimony of the FBI paid former associate of Bin Laden. He promised to help by the U.S. government with a new identity, etc. This has been revealed by lawyers from the trial and later we will ensure that no person has ever been identified as Al Qaeda member. Neither by the Mujahedin, the United States or the British military. What has been said in this paragraph is no conspiracy, there are facts confirmed by documents and credible people.

Now the most important! What do the responsible politicians do with what they know? In the 9/11-case they create a body of laws that deprive people of their fundamental rights. They give the laws patriotic names like, "Homeland Security or the Patriot Act ". The laws give the police right to go into people's homes without a court's involvement and without anyone being present. People can be arrest without telling them why, keep them locked up and use legal torture on them. They have a new powerful tool to control their own people with. They know that those who managed to attack the "WTC" were extremely fortunate. They know that there is no organization. Why do they then create these laws?

The Attorney General in the United States explained that they has to be prepared before a crime is carried out and prevent this by locking people up before they can commit the offense. It is believed that they can not protect the American people by collecting evidence, or wait until a crime is committed.

(8) Dr David Cole, Professor of Law, Georgetown University says: _"Under the preventive paradigm; instead of holding people accountable for what you can prove that they have done in the passed, you lock them up based on what you think or speculate they might do in the future. How can a person who is locked based on what you think he might do in the future disprove your speculation? It's impossible. So what ends up happening is that the government short-circuits all processes that are designed to distinguish the innocent from the guilty because they simply don't fit this mode of locking people up on what they might do in the future."_

Let us remember the previous chapters what essentially has demonstrated various methods of Bernays techniques, Anslinger's methods and with the help of Propaganda they have manage to control the people. The methods have often turned up unexpectedly, but when they have understood that they have found a new control method it has directly been taken care of and used while refining the technique. If it starts to sound like a conspiracy to somebody then they have reread the issues above – Bernays techniques, Anslinger's methods and especially about Propaganda...

(6) To get an idea how much money was spent on terrorism in the United States "the Department of Defense" received in 2007 around162 billion dollars for the global war on terrorism. According to" the National Counterterrorism Center, there died 1.907 people due to terrorist acts in the world 2004. 68 of them were US citizens.  
Twice as many, 4,000 people die from peanut allergy in the world every year.  
The U.S. leading cause of death is heart attack and around 450.000 people die each year. The U.S. government contributed in 2007 to research into heart disease with three (3) billion dollars...

In 2008 there were over one million people registered with "The U.S. Terrorist Watch List" and it's not that hard to figure out that most are Americans.

Those who say that this is true for only US, England and some peripheral countries, I recommend them to read their own country's terrorist laws – also Swedes.

Let us return to what would follow from the 9/11.  
The crusade was launched in November 2001 against Afghanistan. To complete the mission they allied with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance consisted of a number of warlords who had tried to remove the Talibans, Islamists who had seized control of Afghanistan. They had succeeded in turning back the time a thousand years, for particularly women and girls who was severely oppressed. They had no right to go to school or to organize such activities themselves \- so it was done in secret. The Taliban exploited the troops in the camps where Muslims from all over the world still were gathered; maybe they paid their rent in this way? Americans they, paid the Northern Alliance for every prisoner they could deliver which look like an Arab.

Abdullah Azzam's idea still lived in the camps. The idea, that they would go back to their homelands and liberate their people. Once they had removed the bad rulers, they would create good Muslim societies. But they would never see their country again. Within a few months, US troops bombed out everyone. The only survivor was a very few numbers, those who were transported to Guantanamo Bay. None of those killed were members of Al Qaeda and them in Guantanamo Bay did not know what the interrogators were talking about? Al Qaeda had gone up in smoke? Not a single member had been found? The English experts were sent there by Blair, who needed a bit of popularity at home, they were terrorist experts from combating the Irish freedom struggle. But they didn't find a single Al Qaeda member despite several months of intense searching.

The dollar spending continued, and for each prisoner and information was paid a great deal of money. There were indications that high buildings were hidden in the Tora Bora Mountains, in caves – but it was a lie. The data gave good payment to the Northern Alliance and the United States could test their Mega Bombs, bombs that is comparable to small nuclear bombs. But there were nothing, mountain goats and the wild was certainly badly battered but as said, not Al Qaeda, because they were just a fantasy product.

The FBI was working on to reveal the" sleeping "Al Qaeda cells within the country. How the FBI worked is shown by Adam Curtis documentary, "Power of Nightmares part 3, The Shadow in the Cave". Thousands of people were arrested and the neocons were on television, every day. With TV technology and a large portion of the well-known fantasy of the neocons the country was stricken in fear, but when it approached the trial it was a pure farce and all cases virtually was dropped.

Defense Lawyer William Swor says: "The government had a legitimate concern at the beginning. But they let that concern, and they took it and made it a panic. They had reasonable questions and took them and made a complete fantasy out of them. They started out with a conclusion and then filled in all the blanks to the questions. So this was totally driven by the need or the desire to have terrorists. You build this conclusion based on this assumption and this assumption and this assumption. And sure if you build assumptions on assumptions you can go anywhere... It's fantasy."

There was no lack of imagination of the neocons or the FBI; however there was a fundamental lack of perceiving reality. All the downright "stupid" cases that was said to have been discovered and that they later on had to give up had all direct links with an Al Qaeda network.

Of the nearly 700 arrested under Terrorist Laws since 2001 in England, only three convictions has been made. They were sentenced of possessing banned Islamic literature and raising money to banned organizations. No one has been linked to Al Qaeda. Others who had been sentenced by the new terror laws had belonged to the IRA?

The truth is that there are terrorists in the world and has always been but they work independently and several of them may have been triggered by all the advertising that Bush and Blair have created. It's a great way to attract attention ... and that is nothing new in any way. What is new is that the US and England created a lie that affects everyone. No one wants to question the truth because most benefits from the lie, television, press, film, police, terrorism experts, military, security, etc. The politicians could give the impression that they protected their population.

So all of a sudden they discover that there were secret connections between Al Qaeda (which did not exist) and Sadam Hussein? Bombing of Iraq takes its beginning in 2003. American and a few British corporations take over the scene. The first thing they do is to disperse much of the money brought to Iraq's for its reconstruction given by the US government.

The plan is to make Iraq into a country where US companies will take care of everything while Iraqis remain merely consumers. Friedman's shock therapy is applied to the full and, if possible, worse than in Chile. A single law had survived the shock therapy that also existed under Sadam Hussein, prohibition of trade unions.

They start by destroying all the institutions of society, state and municipal, for all future. After that the US corporations enters in order to take the billions that the US government contributed with. Finally, they have almost one contract workers for every soldier. The Iraqis do not get any jobs at all.

This started something that the American planners not anticipated. Iraq resisted and the violence ended with more than one million Iraqis killed, half of which is said to be children. Children were killed not only in actual violence; they died of diseases and they died of starvation. What we anticipated would be a source of income for all time was largely a disaster. Iraqi oil concessions were, however, taken by US companies, plus one English, BP.

Barack Obama took Henry Kissinger as one of his closest advisors, but a few years before that, during Bush's last year, writes Bob Woodward in his book" State of Denial "following:

(9) "Dick Cheney holds monthly meetings with Kissinger, while Bush meets with Kissinger about half as frequently, "making him the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs." Cheney told Woodward, _"I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else."_

We should not forget that in all cases until 2001 (I have no information beyond) the US was the only country in the world who have been convicted of international terrorism by the International Court of Justice – The World Court – and that they ignoring the UN Security Council's resolution "that all countries to respect international laws".

The politicians took, in desperation after power, the explanation that the neocons first used against the Soviets when they could not find any new weapons. "That it was not possible to prove that there were weapons and that the Soviets were not talking about any new weapons was proof enough that something was going on."

They appointed as their new political role to be able to see things that nobody else saw. That they saw the disaster before it struck. It was the politicians' new role –clairvoyant in combating terrorism?

As it has been said before, the politicians have no role to play anymore in the world. What they are doing now is to deal with small issues like if this or that should be allowed but it is artificial therapy, much like what is done to the unemployed. They are powerless and totally unnecessary. But with the terrorist threats which risk the country and the people's security, their importance and power once again become important - but it's only a fantasy.

(8) Bill Durodie,"Director International Centre for Security Analysis, Kings College":

" _The society that believes in nothing_ _, fear becomes the only agenda. The 20_ th _century was dominated between a conflict between a free market right and a socialist left. Even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems at least they believed in something. What we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particular frightened by people that believe in anything and therefore we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics. The have much greater purchase in the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that is a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomized rather then their inherent strength._

Finally, Adam Curtis's own words _– "But the fear will not last and just as the dreams that the politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so too will the nightmares. And then our politicians have to face the facts that they have no visions, either good or bad to offer us any longer."_

Sources:

(1) From the documentary "Manufacturing of Consent", Noam Chomsky and the Media, produced by Necessary Illusions and National Film Board of Canada.

(2) The Trap, part 3; We will force you to be free, by Adam Curtis. Download from YouTube.

(3) Necessary Illusions, Noam Chomsky.

(4) The Power of Nightmares, part 1; Baby its cold outside, by Adam Curtis. Download from YouTube.

(5) The Power of Nightmares, part 2; The phantom Victory, by Adam Curtis. Download from YouTube.

(6) Zeitgeist Addendum, Zeitgeist movement. Download from YouTube.

(7) Golden Rule, The Investment Theory of Politics, Director & Editor Jonathan Shockley. Download from YouTube.

(8) The Power of Nightmares, part 3; The shadows in the cave, by Adam Curtis. Download from YouTube.

(9) The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein.
Chapter 11. The Crise 2008.

A lot of people seem to feel that there is a collapse of world economies and that it will come soon. They seems still not be fully aware of how close it was the latest time, in 2008, that the world economy had collapsed completely. It would have meant that we would have ended up where we were in October 29, 1929 – when all shares and other securities became totally worthless. Tens of thousands of banks went bankrupt and was purchased by the banks on Wall Street. Unemployment rose to 30% and the factories were empty. A planned deflation by the bankers robbed people of their life savings and they had to leave their businesses and homes. Suicide beat all records.

Earlier in the 1920s, some banks and companies in the US, after carefully orchestrated crises at various times had taken over thousands of banks and people's savings. We have suffered of it in the past several times, but no one remembers it anymore. Most would prefer not talking about it because they can't handle the worry about what may come. You close your eyes and hope instead, hope that they're right, that they will not be affected.  
But there is really nothing to worry about when you know it is going to happen? Is it that you do not want to know because it will influence me to change my life and maybe my core values? Is it that I have to admit that I have become a racist, callous, and only have superficial interests in people? I am perhaps happier to go shopping especially if it can be combined with a trip to an exotic location for a few days and tell me I'm happy - Dreaming.

The reality burst for several seniors September 15, 2008 when the "Housing Bubble" on Wall Street began to be rolled up. Suddenly, their pensions should disappear when Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy and AIG was taken over by the state. Shareholders at the New York Stock Exchange saw the largest drop in history in one day. Again, it was time for the world to lose jobs and lots of money. Millions would become homeless in the US and the risk was high that 15 million people in the world would be below the limit considered as the poverty line - one dollar a day.

What makes me most angry is that it was not a natural disaster or something that happened without being able to prevent it. It was planned often to the smallest detail of the greedy that belong to the one (1) percent wealthiest in US. And it was like when doing a burglary, destroying for tens of thousands while you can get away with the coffee fund.

Those who carried out the whole scenario are generally psychopaths, because that's what Wall Street primarily produces. It was them who had knocked out everyone else on the way to the top – they who at last takes the step over and become responsible for the US Treasury, regardless of which party or president that rules. They have all come from Goldman & Sachs, the last twenty years with one exception – the exception that proves the rule.

That there was an enormous destruction of capital is understood if not before, but when you realize that the US national debt was doubled at a stroke. Over the world would a recession cause 30 million people to become unemployed, 10 million in China. And it was not that small the coffee fund they got away with...

In the 80's Milton Friedman controlled, among others, Donald Reagan the "finance minister" who told Ronald Reagan, US president that he had to deregulate the U.S. economy. Since then the world scene has changed completely. Changed to how it looked during the 20th century and today it looks like the last years before October 29, 1929.

What a deregulation in general means is that you can use the deposited funds to speculate in hazardous projects with. If it works out fine then the bank take the gain and if it fails the savers will loose their money. Deregulations mean usually that banks no longer have any security for those who deposited money in the bank. You can deregulate so the bank can borrow to that high level that a small change in the market can get the bank into bankruptcy. In the latest of the many crises since the 80's, one will deal with something called" derivatives. "A new instruments which in principle is a way to bet on just about anything.

First we'll just make it clear that regulations that now are removed had been put in after the crise in October 29, 1929. They had learned that since the market has been without regulation, they with the greatest capital, the banks, had been able to plan different scenarios that hit smaller banks badly and also robbed people of their life savings. Eventually this greed caused the whole system to collapse.

Although it was not long after they started regulating as the Conservatives began to talk about that the market should regulate itself - which means deregulate?

President Roosevelt did not listen to that instead he created "The New Deal" which was based on regulating capital, building trade unions and give workers security. When the Bretton Wood system took over after World War II it regulated the capital just as hard. This system took us forth until the middle of the 70s without any crises.

The very first deregulation made in the USA by Donald Reagan in 1982 led to a disaster when the savings and loan companies were given the opportunity to take more risks – with the savers' money. After about five (5) years, hundreds of savings and loan companies went bankrupt and the government had to go in with 124 billion dollars, and even so there were many people who lost their life savings. One of those who were sentenced to prison was Charles Keating who collaborated with a certain Alan Greenspan. Greenspan got 45,000 US dollar in payment in order to express an opinion on Keating's business. He described it as a solid company with a sound business plan.

Soon thereafter, Greenspan was appointed Chairman of the US central bank, The Federal Reserve Bank. Greenspan continued during Clinton and Bush Jr presidential terms, he became the biggest deregulator of all time.

A certain Robert Rubin CEO of Goldman & Sachs becomes the Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration, and another important person is Larry Summers, a professor from Harvard. Clinton probably became desperate when he realized that he could not get his promised policy through. The United State deficit was too high and if he took more loans, the investors would pull out of the country.

He took the chance of using deregulation to "fix it all" and get America back on its feet. He helped to create powerful companies in the financial sector when Citigroup formed by merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group. Citigroup become the world's largest financial services company – but the merger was a violation of the Constitution, the so-called "Glass–Steagall Act" introduced in 1933-34 to control the risks to investors. The Federal Reserve gave an exception, then, Congress voted through the decision a year later.

(1) Willem Buiter, Chief Economist, Citigroup, says: " _Why do we have big banks? Well, because banks want to have monopoly power. Because banks likes lobbying power. Because banks know that when they are too big, the will be bailed."_

The big internet crash, the "dot com" crash is created by the big investment banks. The idea is to sell over-valued shares. Shares valued by reputed rating agencies. Investors lost 5000 billion dollars while the SEC, an economic control-organ created after the 1929 crash, didn't do anything at all to stop or investigate it?

Eliot Spitzer took as New York's Public Prosecutor up several cases and found that the rating agencies was paid profit related to their valuation which of course was larger if they could sell worthless shares at inflated prices. Investment Banks made an agreement with their clients and paid back about 1.5 billion dollars to cover some of their losses. It may sound as a lot but if we look on what the crisis had cost the investors, 5.000 billion dollars, it was just "peanuts". But the investment banks also promised to better themselves in the future?

But they have continued in the same style (same style since 1907 and before that) and the big ones such as JP Morgan and Citibank had their fingers in the major scandals. Not least in the Enron scandal in which many seniors had their money invested, the safest investment after American Express someone said.

In the early 90-ties, a new product was launched, a product named by Warren Buffet to "Weapon of Mass Destruction" – Derivatives. These weapons are developed using advanced mathematics and resembles a great deal to what John Nash was doing when he came up with formulas for dealing with the Cold War. The game theory that earned him the Nobel Prize. These formulas plus the most important thing – the deregulation of virtually the entire financial market will together become "Weapon of Mass Destruction". What it's about is basically to gamble for money, betting in the financial market and it is called "Derivatives". You can bet on just about anything. If a share to goes up or down, in a week, two months or five years. Or if it will rain tomorrow, if the snow comes before or after Christmas Eve, or if the mortgage loans will end up below a certain level the first Monday in January? Just about anything.

In the late 90-ties, derivatives have approximately 50,000 billion dollars of the market. A serious governmental investigation concluded that the derivatives needed to be regulated. But the resistance that occurred by the bankers – which Rubin and Summers supported all the way –just ran over the investigators – Derivatives remained unregulated. The one who pushed the hardest was Greenspan who thought it was unnecessary to regulate since "it was a professional trade between professional partners". All of those who pressed on and got rid of the proposal to regulate derivatives were later employed in banks or other assignments that enriched them personally with from ten to hundreds millions of dollars. In December 2000 becomes the law adopted approving that the derivatives must remain without regulation.

(1) Dominants in 2001 when Bush Jr took office in the White House, was the investment banks Goldman & Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns. Two financial conglomerate Citigroup and JP Morgan, three insurance companies, AIG, MBIA and AMBAC – and three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch. All of these were linked together by a new system "Securitization Food Chain". A system that linked together millions of mortgage loans and other types of loans, with investors worldwide.

Mortgages have always been sensitive because the loan is over such a long time. You do not really know what inflation will be, or if you possibly will lose your job and have difficulty paying. Therefore, the lender and the borrower had a relationship in which both checked so no unnecessary risks were taken.

In the new "Securitization Food Chain" system the lender sold the mortgage which he had signed to the borrower to an investment bank. He got the money back immediately plus a certain profit of course. The investment bank that was specialized in buying loans "lumped" together thousands of loans such as mortgages, business loans, car loans and credit card debt, etc. They gave it a name whose acronym is CDO.

CDO = a lump of loans. These CDO's the bank sold in their turn to investors on the market, for example to various funds such as pension funds, investment funds etc. Those who now paid their mortgages paid to the investors all over the world.

In order to know how safe these lumps of loans were they let rating agencies, which are private companies, evaluate the loans. Moody's, Standard & Poors and Fitch are best known. The highest rating is AAA, and continues down with AA +, etc. in more than twenty steps. Pension funds have a general rule that they must invest only in the highest valued items, AAA, not to take any unnecessary risks.

There were some parts of this system that would prove to be very risky. The first thing was that lenders no longer had to take responsibility for the customer they sold a house to – if they were able to repay their loans. They got paid anyway. The other thing that seemed odd was that those who valuated the lumps of loan were paid by those who would resold them, the investment banks. It would of course been more rational and safer if those who bought the CDO's had that contact. All economic control was taken away so they could sell without restrictions and you could basically borrow to the entire house. It meant that you could leave the house without having invested anything in it yourself.

2000-2003 quadrupled lending in the housing market. There was a large increase in so-called "subprime loans", loans with higher risks. Loans where there is considerable uncertainty whether the borrower is able to pay. These loans have always a higher interest rate (which makes them even more uncertain). Investment Banks preferred on the other hand, these loans as the profits are higher. It led to an attempt to make ordinary safe payers to take high-risk loans and endorsing many of the dubious payers, if only the bonuses could be lifted.

Rating agencies put AAA on almost everything. In ten years, high-risk loans raised from nearly 30 billion/year to over 600 billion/year and that over time corresponded to about 20% of the market's total loans - house prices rose to the double, and we're of course talking U.S. dollars.

In 2004, the FBI begins warns that the mortgage was given far too lightly and that it written false loan documents. At the same time they warn that the ratings of many CDO's were excessive.

The IMF warns in 2005 to what was going on could have far reaching consequences. They showed that what was happening risked the world's development and possibly could get the whole economic system to break down. It was pointed out among other things, that short-term profits for the corporations paid out huge bonuses to the employees that could not be claimed back if losses appeared in the future. All the world's leading economists and bankers were present, including Greenspan, Summers, Geithner and Bernanke at these talks.

SEC did as during the Internet Bubble – nothing.

(1) Lynn E Turner, SEC Chief Accountant, testifies that the SEC been cut down so dramatically during the period that they did not have enough staff left to make some inquiries. Greenspan could easily stop the loan trade by lawful means, but he refused. Wall Street handed out bonuses of 35,000 million a year from 2005. CEO in Lehman Brothers took home bonuses of 485 million dollars.

There was another control they wanted to get rid of, the regulation of how much capital a bank could borrow. It is defined as a relationship between the borrowed and the banks own capital. 4:1 means the bank has borrowed 4 times its own capital. Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman & Sachs, made sure that the SEC dropped the regulation in 2004, it meant that investment banks were allowed to risk a lot more and do not forget that it is the investment banks which trade most of all with derivatives. Derivatives, the most risky financial trading of all. Rapidly grows the numbers in all the major investment banks to between 25 and 35:1, which means that if the asset value drops by 1/25, i.e. 4% or 1/35, 3%, they are bankrupt?

Greenspan goes out to the public and talk with them who have a pre-paid house that they could refinance the house and basically use their house as a small private bank. A bank they could drain off some extra money if needed. He did mostly direct himself to pensioners and there were many people who refinanced their house – and lost them. Due to the deregulation the loans could be so expensive in the long run that they had to leave their home.

(2) Randy and Donna from Peoria Illinois say that they first paid $ 1,700 / month, which rose to 2,000, 2,300, and finally 2700 when they had to give up. They had had the farm for 40 years but now Citibank had taken it. Randy says that "they absolutely just _plain fucking_ stole everything. My whole life savings and everything, with the stroke of a pen and a lawyer – and a judge".

AIG, the world's largest insurance company, had found another type of derivative to work with. They sold insurance for those who bought CDO's, the loan lumps.  
Those loans lumps had a bit of "who is left holding the bag" about it. That the investors understood so when AIG, the world's largest insurer, is offering to step in as guarantor (against a fee) if a CDO could crash many of the investors (pension funds, investment funds, etc.) got on the train. This means that a fee is paid to AIG and whether any loan lump breaks down the cost is up to AIG to pay to the investor.

This type of derivative trading is known as "Credit Default Swaps". The somewhat amazing thing is that you can buy "Credit Default Swaps" from AIG on any loan lump even if you don't own it. So this means that one could speculate on any loan lump that someone else owned and if it collapsed then AIG would pay out money to those who had bought (insurance) "Credit Default Swap" for that loan lump.

But since "Credit Default Swap" does not have any regulations it meant that AIG did not need any security for any losses, so they paid directly out the money that rolled into the company in bonuses to the employees.

Now they had two bags in the game "who is left holding the bag". Investors had one and the new speculators one if AIG would not be able to pay them, which is only a matter of time in such a system. The employee's huge bonuses meant that they kept quiet about what was about to happen - chief Joseph Cassano took home over 300 million US dollar.

You can buy a "Credit Default Swap" on someone else's house or life insurance, and if your investment hit AIG will pay out the money. Company currently has such "credit default swaps" on their employees and in many cases the employee are worth more dead than alive for the companies.

Henry Paulson who was CEO of Goldman & Sachs until May 30, 2006 sold for over 3 billion dollars in mortgages during the first half of 2006. Two-thirds of the loans had the highest ratings AAA, although many were high-risk loans? A year later, it turns out that the CDO's Paulson delivered his last months as CEO was the worst quality. Within about a year, more than 30% of the loans were in default - despite the AAA rating.

May 30, 2006 Paulson was appointed the Secretary of the Treasury of Bush Jr. Paulson was then the best paid on Wall Street and now he did escape tax on his shares because he was forced to sell them before he went into office as Secretary of the Treasury. A rule that Bush Sr had put in place some years before.

(2) Professor William Black, University of Missouri, Former Bank Regulator, involved in exposing the savings and loan fraud in the late 80-ties, where Keating and others were sentenced to prison, says that "the FBI began publicly warning in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud perpetrated by the banks. When 9/11 hit _the Bush administration transferred at least 500 "white collar" FBI specialists out of dealing with "white collar crimes", even though we were entering during the entire Bush administration the greatest wave of "white collar crime" in the nations history, in fact in the worlds history. The FBI says that 80 % of the mortgage fraud losses are induced by lender personal. Meaning what? Meaning not the borrower coming out of the street trying to defraud the savings and loans. These are frauds led by whoever controls the organisation, typically the CEO in other words."_

In the end of 2006, Goldman & Sachs started to regularly sell loan clumps, CDO's, to investors while they at the same time betted that what's been sold should fail (by purchasing the" Credit Default Swap "). They tell the investors how safe their investment is but they know it will soon collapse. It was bought for over 20 billion dollars in "Credit Default Swap's" from AIG. They were so afraid of the risk that AIG would go bankrupt so the put out 150 million to other insurance companies to be insured from that scenario. During 2007 the selling began of specially designed CDO's on the derivatives market so the more the customers who bought CDO's lost –the more Goldman & Sachs earned. The Gambling Market. Where you insure someone else and then hope that an accident will occur? The market that not even them who works there as the CEO's or university professors can explain in a simple way, or in a complex, how it function. They can not explain but as we saw earlier, it is a way to bet on something that someone else owns. The bet is not made against the owner, but against anyone in the financial markets that will pay off if this happens, what you hoped for – that a house burns down, that someone died or that a share has become more worth than it was before, or lower or... In short, a new kind of Casino, with a lot of formulas that no one understands. They are there instead of red and black and all the flashing lights. A kind of decoration that makes it flashier.

2007 was the home foreclosures per year in the U.S. of 200,000 per quarter; they rose in a gentle curve to the second quarter of 2008 when about 750,000 people were evicted by quarter. Soon afterwards the curve smoothed out to be stable with one million evicted – per quarter. Securitization Food Chain collapsed and lenders could no longer sell to the investment banks and many lenders could not handle the situation. On March 16, 2008 has Bear Stearns' equity disappeared. JP Morgan buys the shares for 2 dollars a piece. Federal Reserve immediately bucks up the deal with a guarantee of 30 billion dollars.

On the12 September 2008, Lehman Brothers was without capital. All investment companies lost their capital quickly, the whole world's financial markets were shaky in the ground – properly shaky. They tried to rescue Lehman but found that Merrill Lynch was just as bad. Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch next day. Lehman was given no guarantees from the Federal Reserve even though Barclays Bank of England showed interest? Instead they put the bank into bankruptcy as quickly as they could. Lehman was valued at AA + by the collapse. Three of the seven seats in the Federal Reserve Board were suddenly vacant because people quit in haste. European finance ministers were told what was happening – on TV?

(1) Nouriel Roubini says that _"When the crises started both the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve were totally behind the curve. They did not understand the extent of it"._

Paulson and Bernanke had no knowledge of other countries' bankruptcy laws which meant that offices was closed while the business was going on, everything was left hanging in the air – literally. This in turn affected the system that now had an additional scenario to fight with? Suddenly, there were no available guarantees to be able to conduct business and everything faded. It was not possible to order goods, you could not pay salaries - would all fall apart? The end is near when the credibility of the system is lost. If AIG collapses, no airplane can lift all over the world because they must have insurance. AIG could not pay its debt of 30 billion dollars to their clients and is taken over September 17 by the U.S. government – a day later, Paulson and Bernanke ask Congress for 700 billion dollars to pay out the investment banks?

Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner force AIG to pay 61 billion to Goldman & Sachs, without negotiating the price. Goldman & Sachs got paid the next day. AIG's "bailout" cost the taxpayers 160 billion dollars. Paulson and Geithner forces AIG to sign a document that takes from them the right to forever sue Goldman & Sachs and other banks for fraud. In December 2008 GM and Chrysler goes into bankruptcy, many lose much of their pensions, the government is doing nothing.

In the US the figures increases to 6 million annual foreclosures by 2010. An enormous waste of resources, houses have to be maintained. Tent cities springing up in every city in the U.S. where the evicted will stay and many houses stand empty. It is ordinary workers, with or without work. Rents had risen enormously, and wages have fallen so low that you could not pay a normal rent any longer.

Brokers who trade with retrieved houses had never had so many sale items. Those who have been evicted from the house, where they had put their life savings, saw it sold for less than 40 percent of the value. Buyers were them with money; they already had two or three apartments or house before - unless it wasn't twenty or thirty. They saw the others' misfortune as an opportunity for a sound investment and their joy was not hidden very well. Suddenly they had one or two new places they could spend a week or two when they had holiday while waiting for that house prices to go up. Then they could sell dear to those who needed somewhere to stay. There was a benefit to have millions of people homeless, it would increase the value of a home even further. That's how capitalism works, real capitalism.

Barack Obama is elected on the promise to do something about Wall Street's greed. Once he is in power, he does nothing. Just hours before he should present his administration he appoints several places with people from Goldman & Sachs. Timothy Geithner who has been chairman of the Federal Reserve during the crisis of 2008, where he among other things, made sure that Goldman & Sachs was paid in full – gets the post as Secretary of the Treasury. New chief of Federal Reserve is to be William C. Dudley, former chief economist at Goldman & Sachs. Mark Patterson, Gary Gensler, other Goldman & Sachs employees. Larry Summers will be Obama's "Chief Economic Advisor." Several of them were involved in build the structure that made the 2008 crisis possible. They are all there, in the embrace of Obama.

(2) William Black says _"Geithner has been a failure at pretty much everything he has done in life. Most of the institutions that destroyed the economy were under his direct regulatory authority. How did he get the job Treasury Secretary? By completely screwing up his job as president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That makes no sense? Of course it makes perfect sense. This is not new to Washington. People who will give you the wrong answer, the answer you want, are invaluable and they often get promoted. Precisely they are willing to say and do absurd things. These are the people that promised us that financial deregulation would make all of us rich and these are the people who were personally made rich."_

Obama starts with banning regulation of the banking compensations paid out by the state. Several countries in the G20 want to ban the bonus system in banking, but Obama does not answer the question. 2009 Bernanke is re-appointed as Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Obama. Kissinger becomes principal advisor within foreign policy.

2010 the responsible are questioned by Congress about their past dealings. They avoid answering direct questions, wondering if its hypothetical questions and has forgotten all the details and manages to wriggle out of it all. Deutche Bank and Morgan Stanley were doing the same thing; they sold CDO's to their customers and bought "credit default swaps" at the next moment to "bet" that what they have sold will collapse. The Pension Funds – The Monsters – in the world got a good beating.

The directors who were behind the destruction of the companies were not compelled by any court to pay back any of their bonuses. In a few years the top team in e.g. Lehman Brothers had made more than a billion dollars. When the company went bankrupt, they could keep their money.

It's interesting – and frightening – that the new boards of the investment banks, banks which was rescued with taxpayers' money, pays millions of dollars per month in consulting fees to the directors who previously drove the companies to the bottom. The new Boards say that they do not want to lose these directors' knowledge? In US, banks are now bigger, more concentrated and powerful than ever. They are more than ever against reforms and financial market regulations. The financial sector has more than 3,000 lobbyists in US.

In mid 2010, none of those who were participating in the execution of the above story has been prosecuted or even arrested. No prosecutor has been appointed, no company has been charged with fraud in any form. Obama administration has not even made any attempt. In the world were these frauds are done, it would not be difficult to get people to testify since they have been moving around in several criminal worlds such as drugs and prostitution.

One feature of this type of man – that is gamblers – is to easily become dependent, for example, of drugs or sexually addicted to prostitutes. Power dependency is high – to show that they are the greatest. A gambler has a slight brain damage, known as psychopathic. They lack empathy and they are perfect for that type of job Wall Street offers – they have no feeling for others and can do anything without heart.

The one who worked hardest to uncover the Wall Street Mafia, Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney General, was forced to resign in 2008.

So what happened to the 700 billion dollar that Paulson and Bernanke asked from the Congress? Many were against the proposal and one of the toughest opponents was Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio, she accused indirect the administration to be ruled by Wall Street and Wall Street to be US governments direct enemy. – And Congress voted against the proposal – but a number of Democrats made a deal with the Republicans and the president so the proposal was approved! Investment banks got their money in two days.

(2) Marcy Kaptur says that: _"It was very carefully planned, to happen when it did. To involve the player that it did. The message was carefully handled. They had Congress right were they wanted them. You do not think it was happen stance? No, this was almost like an intelligence operation. That had to be coordinated at the highest levels."_

She answers the question " _Do you think it is to harsh to call what have happened here a coup d'état, a financial coup d'état?_ "A financial coup d'état – I could agree to that. Because the people in here (pointing to the Congress building) really are not in charge. Wall Street is in charge."

Elizabeth Warren, head of the control of the 700 billion bailout, paid out to the banks, answer the direct question, to what the money is used for " _I don't know. The Treasury follow a – don't ask don't tell policy. They didn't ask the banks what they were going to do with the money, and not having asked them, the banks are not required to tell."_

Marcy Kaptur goes out with the following words in Congress to the people: _"Don't leave your home. Because, you know what! When those companies say they have your mortgage unless you have a lawyer that can put his finger or her finger on that mortgage. You don't have that mortgage. And you are going to find that they can't find that paper up there on Wall Street. So I say to the American people, you'll be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave! In Ohio, in Michigan, in Indiana, in Illinois and all these other places were people have been treated like cattle. And this Congress is stained."_

A hero is Detroit's Sheriff Warren C. Evans, who refuses to evict more families. He announces that he simply will not do what he is hired to do?  
What did the banks and the rich think? A family in Miami occupies their own house with the help of friends and the bank gives up. There exist local laws that make it possible.

Spontaneously arises solidarity between people, people come with food to those who occupies their workplaces and to the strikers. Priests make aggressive statements against capitalism and the sheriff says that we must do something now before the riots starts. Banks rush of to pay so that people may not believe that they should take over and run the old company as cooperative enterprises. Franklin Roosevelt once sent in the National Guard during the first strike at GM in the beginning of 1937. The National Guard was deployed to protect the workers against police and hired strikebreakers.

Protest Movements is formed worldwide, but especially the US population begins to slowly emerge from the dream that had slowly turned into a nightmare the last thirty years. "World Protest Movement" announces October 15 to manifestation day. The 99% movement is formed in the US, M15 in Spain, where 6-8 million people join. People take to the streets in many countries to protest against the economic system that destroys the entire planet and our present. Occupation of Wall Street goes on for several months in 2011. In Sweden a few years earlier, an innovative man formed a new political party, which in particular is spreading rapidly among younger people. In Germany it grows quickly – The Pirate Party. In five years it has enough voters to enter the Parliament when the time comes. The party wants a preservation of current civil rights in telephony and for the Internet. They want fundamental reforms in copyright, education, genetic patents and another drug policy. They want enhanced transparency and open source of governmental decisions for the citizens.

The Power is shocked, especially in the US. They can not define a leading group or team or leader – everyone seems to act after their own head? Against this, there are no weapons. It prohibits the use of speakers at the meetings on Wall Street; it leads to that the people repeat what the speaker says back in line and continuously checking that the right message gets through. A new solidarity instruments has been created! Finally somebody understands that the park where the occupiers have put up their tents is private owned by someone in the top 1% wealthiest in the US and the police can drive them out with a smart interpretation of the law.

(2) Someone at Citibank had some confidential letter to the bank's wealthiest clients leaked out to the public, according to Michael Moore. _"Back in 2005-06 Citigroup wrote three confidential letters to their wealthiest investors about how things were going. They reached the conclusion that the United States was no longer really a democracy but it becomes a Plutonomy. A society controlled exclusively by and for the benefit of the top one percent (1 %) of the population that now had more financial wealth than the bottom 95 % combined. The memo glowed about the growing gap between rich and poor and how they were now the new aristocracies and that there was no end in sight on the gravy train they were on. There was though one problem. According to Citigroup, the most potent and short term threat would be society's demanding on more equable share of the wealth. In other words, the peasants might revolt. Citigroup lamented that the non-rich might not have any economic power, but they do have equal voting power with the rich. One person, one vote. And that is what really scares them that we can still vote. In fact we have 99 % of the votes and they only have one percent (1 %)."_

Today is the most intelligent students in the US educated in the financial sector instead of being productive to society. The financial sector is a sector that is not productive to society but it's actually destroying society. Top Students, which is a large amount of people is working with – the derivatives market.

Economy on the American universities have lost its sense of reality, they have been influenced to teach a system that is unstable, learned to run a gambling casino were they are looking to access people's money in one way or another. The most serious problem is attracting several of those with study talents that could make an important contribution in the scientific subjects such as physics, mathematics, and as a medical. It is thus a double loss for society because every day they come to work the will destroy the world piece by piece.

The private universities have great support and funds, but are extremely expensive. General, state universities have low economy and a declining trend. Education costs have risen to unprecedented levels, from approximately $ 500 / semester to $ 10,000 / term in 30 years. The decision today is if you can afford to study or be extremely low-paid, your entire life.

When Bush reduced tax revenues by more than 1000 billion dollars over 95% was going to those who belong to the one (1) % richest in the country. Prisons were taken over by private interests, and today it has been repeated examples of how people – young people – have been locked up far over the time passed. Judges has been paid by the prison industry, and they have ruled out stronger penalties for the citizens who ended up in private prisons. It is no exception but it is a system, with 2.5 million adults and an unknown number of young people locked up. United States has ten to fifteen times more prisoners in average compared to Europe.

(1) 1972, Morgan Stanley had110 employees, one office and capital of 12 million dollars. Today they have 50,000 employees, capital of several billions, with offices worldwide. In 2009 Morgan Stanley paid out 14 billion dollars, and Goldman & Sachs 16 billion in bonuses. 2010 bonus is even higher. An economist is paid 5-100 times more than an engineer.

(3) Noam Chomsky writes: "Well, there was recently an O.E.C.D. [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] study of the international drug racket, and they estimated that about a half-trillion dollar of drug money gets laundered internationally every year-more than half of it through American banks. I mean, everybody talks about Colombia as the center of drug-money laundering, but they're a small player: they have about $10 billion going through, U.S. banks have about $260 billion. Okay, that's serious crime - it's not like robbing a grocery store. So American bankers are laundering huge amounts of drug money, everybody knows it: how many bankers are in jail? None".

United States as a superpower is over and it follows the same pattern as England went through, and all other empires had been going through. The country has become bankrupt. A small clique at the top has been perverted in their conception of life. They have no idea anymore about the realities and what a natural experience of life is. They use their intelligence to intrigue in State institutions, if they can not take over and steer with decree – and one is blind to what is happening.

The people are kept busy with constant spectacle and are directed by horror-filled belief that they will be rescued by strong leaders. Inequality causes birth of genetically altered children whose development leads to the brake down of the community from within. The repressed have an inner glow that can not be controlled in the long run. The objects that were created when people experienced freedom, equality and fraternity has now become the monument to oppression. Before the collapse comes, slavery and violence against people as strongest and the downward trend is impossible to reverse – it feeds upon itself.

They managed the transition in England fairly well but after Blair's (and Thatcher's) time, I think they today have ended up in what their predecessors managed to avoid. Man is in trouble because it has been created a society where 1% of the richest owns more than 95% of the rest of the people owns together, and the 1 % does not want to share because they strongly believe that the roles will then be reverse?

The financial sector looks on paper like hugely important for the US economy, but looking to the final result, it has instead been hugely expensive and clearly contributed to ending of America's superpower dreams. No single war may cost more than the 2008 crisis cost the American people - 7500 billion dollars. Iraq in 2003 was not a cheap story. Largest cost was the American contract companies who rendered their services in Iraq. American taxpayers had to pay corporate contracts on 400 billion per year – little less than the equivalent of Sweden's GDP 2010. So it was an expensive war, but hardly so expensive than 7500 billion dollars. The US can not start any more wars. Congress authorized so the government got a trillion dollar in 2012 so the system wouldn't break down. The National Debt is increasing annually and within a few years it is completely out of control.

The Wall Street crisis of 2008 was in reality the crisis of the American people. They emptied almost the whole population's assets. But this is nothing unusual, that's what they are doing in Goldman & Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. It is the same investment banks, the same rating agencies and several of the "players" who participated in the 2008 crisis and they are doing it all over the world. If a disaster has hit the country.

Ideally is war or a devastating nature disaster as the Tsunami in 2004 and Katrina in 2005. Then it is easiest to implement the plans that has been forged and attempted – often for years. In Sri Lanka they had long wanted to take over the beaches to build Exclusive Resorts but the fishermen couldn't be defeat – until the tsunami did it. Most of the money that came in to help the fishermen was redirected and instead paid the salaries to them who built Resorts on the fishermen's beaches for multinational corporations. Of billions of dollars that people donated to organizations fishermen families received a total of one million dollars to build a shanty town far from the sea. Naomi Klein describes the whole process in her book – "The Shock Doctrine".

Iceland was a utopian country in many ways with jobs and housing for all. With a comprehensive welfare system, clean environment and free energy. Multinational corporations went in and influenced the government to liberalize the economy and privatize banks. Having done that, it was time to rape the nature and human economy – all protection was removed. The tactic was based as usual on the rating agencies to give regular evaluation of how well everything was during the rape. House prices doubled, shares rose – tenfold. People sailed on clouds; the government rubbed themselves with bankers around the world. 2008 – Crash – high unemployment, people's life-savings in the banks just disappear. Those who tried to put a stop to it all or tried to get them who had been behind the rapes were recruited either by the banks at high salaries and bonuses – or ran over with a whole band of the "brightest" lawyers in the country. What they used to create the scenario? – Derivatives of course.

The Greek crisis was – Derivatives – with Goldman & Sachs as financial adviser to the government. They tried to access to the Greek beaches so that they could buy their own beach – meaning the top 1 % wealthiest want their own beach in Greece, as in Sri Lanka or in all the other places they have their empty houses, all over the world. They want the companies that are valuable and they want to deprive people of their life savings.

We can go back in time to the 70-ties and we find the same players with Milton Friedman at the wires. We can go back to the early 20-ties and it's the same banks that caused the large-scale frauds. The world was equally open to economic rape as it is today. Countries and workers without the right to defend what they have been striving together for many years to take care of their closest – to give them a dignified life, not only to get them to survive. But it will end and it will end soon. Even if ten years is a long time for a single mother in Italy, or for the homeless in all the European countries, for the innocent locked up in the US and for the prostitutes who sell themselves to quiet their drug dependence, it will come to an end, before ten years have passed.

(4) According to Thomas Kostigen, Market Watch, there was in early 2009 (March 6) a debt of 700 000 billion (700 trillion) US dollars in liabilities to the derivatives market created on Wall Street and around the world. 700 trillion means a decade of world trade? U.S. government bailed out Wall Street with 700 billion - this is about 1000 times more. Greece has big problems and you talk about a trillion, maybe 2-3 trillion. Or we have 250 Greece Crises to clear up in ten years - or twenty five Greece crises every year for ten years? It must be sorted out otherwise the system falls together? CBN News announced on 14 May the same numbers – 700 trillion U.S. dollars. The US debt is 15 trillion US dollars, Japans is at 5 trillion US dollars and England has a national debt of 2 trillion U.S. dollars.

They speculate in food today. Less food, higher prices. It is the same psychopaths who "tailor" the world market's food systems as them who tailored the mortgage loan system. Those countries that do not have money will have to starve. All famine since the 17th century until today has been due to money and exceptionally on transport capacity. What causes the food shortage in the first stage has been a change in climate, type drought, water shortages, a nature disaster and the like. What we as citizens need to ask is if the country's food supply at a global crise is sufficient. We must realize that there is war. The free markets war against those who are not needed any longer. Today, one child dies every five seconds from malnutrition or sheer hunger - and not because that there is not food. The United States produces soy and corn enough for 2 billion people each year. Most of this is used for meat production. The price of Soya and corn is thus set for the price of meat.

Fertilizers and pesticides are petroleum products. The biological systems at the micro level have developed a strong dependence on these resources to produce and the land must rest for 3-4 years to work in a natural way again. Our machinery for agriculture runs on oil - in exception on vegetable oil. Plastic are made from oil, tires are manufactured with the help of oil.

(5)" Today 1.5 billion people live in the same way as they did 6,000 years ago. They are more numerous than the developed countries in the world... The farm work is still Earth's greatest creation. Half of the world's population tiller and 75% of them by hand. Agriculture is inherited from the older to the younger generation. These cultures will have a chance to continue as they always have. Some of them have become dependent on oil, but not many.

(4) Michael C. Ruppert, investigative journalist, says "the world is now using six barrels of oil for every barrel it finds; five years ago it was using four barrels _of oil_ for every barrel it finds. A year from now it will be using 8 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds"... So you have the economic _growth going up price spike and everything shuts down, that where we are now and then it starts to come up again. What we have now is this scenario where there is no more ability to produce cheap energy. We are at the peak; we are on the down slope of oil production. No way that we are going to get more out of the ground any faster which means that things shut down and the price of oil goes down which it did in the early 2009 but then the price will start coming up"._

(4) Jeremy J. Gilbert, Oil Engineering, says that " _The oil production right now is about 86 million barrels a day. Over ten years, you are looking at roughly 40 million barrels a day having to be replaced. There is – nothing – around that can come even within one percent of meeting that demand. If we don't do something pretty quickly there is going to be a huge energy deficiency. I think the big mistake is in not recognizing a decade or so ago that a concerted effort to develop these sustainable forms of energy"._

All pension funds disappear. Those who have not paid their houses, cars, apartments, etc. will be required to pay regardless, whatsoever. What do we do then? None of us will have the time to pay until everything has broken down. All savings – Just gone! Everything you thought was you security! Gone!

How many people today believe that our system will survive, and how many people understand that a new October 29, 1929 is very close?

The question is: What do we do next? Should we sit back and wait for the Great leaders to save us? Or can we do something ourselves?

Sources:

(1) Inside job. Documentary by Charles Ferguson about the Crise 2008. Download from YouTube.

(2) Capitalism. A love story. Film by Michael More.

(3) Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, Crime Control and Superfluous People. Published 2002.

(4) Zeitgeist Movement, Moving Forward_Official release 2011. Download from YouTube.

(5) HOME, documentary by Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Download from YouTube.
Chapter 12. Positive and Negative Freedom.

The years before and in the first years of World War II, Nazism had many proponents in Sweden and elsewhere. Almost half the Swedish population sympathized with the Nazism when it was popular. In some areas of the country it was up to 80%.

People began to realize that there was something not quite right with Nazism and fascism as the Allies managed to turn the war. More and more people went from the idea that fascism had something to offer them and leaned now rather to England and the United States as the "Good Victors". They did not just lean, they looked up to them as her Savior forever in many countries. They persisted in the illusion for many years that Hitler and Nazism had come to power in Germany by something that could be compared to a coup d'etat and that the people had been controlled as unconscious victims. Gradually, however, the history came up and Europe began to understand that the German people to a large extent been aware of what had happened. They had perhaps not had detailed knowledge but had known what labor camps meant and they had seen the Jewish people disappear. The next German generation started asking questions in the 60-ties and they found it hard to get some answers.

(1) It was probably believed in many countries that the Fascism had been eradicated in Europe for all future after World War II – while the United States broke to pieces the popular democratic government and movements that had become strong in the end of the war in Italy, France, Greece and many other countries around the world – to again reinstate more or less fascist organizations in power. So to eradicate Fascism can only be done if ordinary people is trained in how fascism works, so that we can recognize the characters as they appear again.

One of the worst examples in the fight against fascism are the anti-fascist movements who believe they are the solution to the problem – but they offer the same thing. Our freedom is equally threatened by those as of the fascists. This doesn't account for manifestations against fascism of course. The only thing that solves the problem is knowledge – training for all of us. It can not be done of course because it will reveal the system we live in. It does not mean that we generally have a fascist system, but Propaganda and other unpleasant truths will be revealed leading to questioning our society?

The fascism knot lies much deeper than we can imagine and we are almost all in varying degrees involved. In spite of our recent history it seems that we are beginning to lose ground again. The ones that governs falsifies and distort knowledge continuously, while people are getting weaker and look for salvation by those who promise better control in all possible areas.

Generally, I find the German generation that grew up after 1945 to be one of the most open people I have met since the late 60-ties until today. A few years ago I got a reasonable explanation. The explanation is that when the German students study the World Wars in the German schools they do it for a whole year, a couple of times a week. They enter issues dealing with how National Socialism could occur in Germany and issues about how ordinary people could be so fascinated by its ideology. It leads to questions about how racism arises, what feminism is and what human freedom means – and why persons are willing to let others decide over their lives.

Four girls who grew up in Rostock (former East Germany) after the reunification and now, 2012, on the way into work as teachers and medical doctors told me that in eighth grade (13 years old) they studied World War II every week throughout the year. Classes in the same subject but from different views returned in the ninth and tenth grade, as well as on high school. When it comes to these powerful questions each persons will of course show their attitude during the discussions and being criticized. This means that you have to question yourself and your behavior, which in turn leads to acceptance of the equality of man and everyone's right to personal liberty.

That Germany as late as in 2008 took the decision that the image that had been up to today of the Allies as the "Good" Victors shall continue in the schools history teaching, which to me is surprising? They dare not yet tell the whole truth.

In order to understand the forces that fascism has on the citizens in a country it requires that you take a look at the psychological causes – the unconscious psychological forces that causes people to "fall" for the system. You have to look at the reasons why people are so fascinated by power – and to submit to power. Fascism has not a lot to do with our conscious selves, but with the underlying emotions that comes from fear of freedom to life.

As stated in Chapter 7, it is essentially the social environment that founds our mental development. Even if the humans have in principle no limitations the environment will prevent her derailing by, as we saw earlier, superimpose genetic information for the best survival chances. Man, in turn, will affect the community and a dynamic adaptation is ongoing as described in social psychology. A person constantly reshapes by the experience she does and the psychological patterns is formed specifically for each person.

There are no molded natural instincts – exactly the same in every person. There are certain human needs which physically are hunger, thirst, sleep and to be physically touched. Psychologically, it is to have contact with other people and to be loved and seen for who we are. How these psychological needs are experienced is different for each individual human being and has been created in the social process that is ongoing in the exchange with every human being and that starts long before birth.

The contact with other people can build on a healthy relationship but also at a fairly sadistic or masochistic relationship, depending on how the social process has shaped the individual. Society is formed in turn by the same dynamics by all its individuals. History is created by man, and man is formed continuously by the History.

We have seen that children have a great ability to change psychologically during adolescence and that the change is tied to the environment. We also saw that when one grows up this ability diminish and personality traits are harder to change, but not entirely impossible. However, it is impossible for man to be without contact with other people, hereby not meaning only physical contact, but the exchange that gives the person at the very least a sense that he belongs to a group, mentally.

It's not enough to live with people if they totally ignore one's existence since it is the feeling of "belonging to" something that is the important thing to not being broken down mentally. Man can not in the long run be exposed to both physical and emotional isolation – that inevitably leads to mental illness, usually schizophrenia. The physical isolation is more bearable than not to belong to something in the world. It is enough to belong to a social class with its values, to believe in God or Satan; if there only are other people who have the same values. Nationalism is such a solution – everything else than total isolation.

In the society you are born into the compulsion to provide the living by work will arise, and this means that you will meet a key factor in mental health, co-operation with other people.

(2) Erich Fromm writes:

" _By being aware of himself as distinct from nature and other people, by being aware_ _–_ _even very dimly_ _–_ _of death, sickness, ageing, he necessarily feels his insignificance and smallness in comparison with the universe and all others who are not "he". Unless he belonged somewhere, unless his life had some meaning and direction, he would feel like a particle of dust and be overcome by his individual insignificance. He would not be able to relate himself to any system which would give meaning and direction to his life, he would be filled with doubt, and this doubt eventually would paralyze his ability to act_ _–_ _that is, to live."_

After a child is born it starts to slowly understand that there is something outside that is responsive to its activities. It will however take a long time before the child knows that it is a separate independent person. Approximately at the age of ten, this happens – when the child suddenly comes to insight that it is she who "rules and control" about her and her body. Until then, it is a process in which the child especially in the early years has the feeling that other people are part of her. She is in need of the authority that will give her security and show her the way into life. The early need for authority is natural because it is part of the child's own world where she has not yet perceived herself as a separate unit. Once she takes the step over and realizes that she is a separate governing "I", then she has lost the opportunity to submit to the authority without having negative effects of it – forever.

There are two aspects of the child's development that will appear during her way towards an "independent I". One is that she will develop according to her biology preconditions, which also will limit her – but above all, the social norms will set up limitations. The other side of the child's development means that the outside world will become bigger and more frightening while she more and more comes to realize her own Self's separation from what she had once been a part of. It will reinforce the feeling of loneliness and worry her when she feels her smallness in the often hostile world, and she want to return to the security she has left. She would once again disappear into the world where she does not have to be an Independent I anymore. The problem in order to return is now – no longer the "child" – but the person must give up her privacy and it creates hatred against the one she submits to? Who she saw as her salvation, through submission, she is now rebelling against? This doesn't work of course. But there is actually a solution – after all – that works.

(The above "person" can be as young as 10 years and still be what we call a "child".)

The solution is based on a spontaneous feedback between Man and Nature. Being active in the perpetual present where love and work are the important parts. To do this, we must have developed an understanding of love. You have to understand that love can not alone be directed to a person or object, but to everyone and everything that exists. Love has no limits. If you don't understand that then you can not love. If you just love one then you can't love anyone.

"Positive Freedom" is defined as "freedom to" something, while," Negative Freedom "means "freedom from" something. First time this definition is used to the human being is in the moment he is defined as "Man". The instinctive bonds he previously had been completely tied to has been dissolved to the degree that he now have enough "freedom from" nature's grip so that he predominantly control his own actions – at that moment, he has become Man.

Freedom from' the instinctive ties to Nature has been achieved, i.e. "negative freedom". In other words, he separates from the animals which are still ruled by their instincts, while he has begun to think before he acts. To survive, he must cooperate with other individuals and that fact is the germ of what later will become human cultures.

If you study the culture of primitive societies all over the planet we will find many similarities. They see everything as life, and there is a soul behind every plant, animal, trees and even in odd things like rocks and mountains. The link between them all is that they on different continents without contact with each other have the same insight.

They develop tools and express creativity through painting and drawing in various contexts. Still, man is part of the group and not individualized. Curiosity to learn to understand nature for their survival means that the development as an individual becomes the only way.

The road is long and the suffering immensely. Getting where individualization could be completed would, among other things require a revolution in the Christian religion with all the suffering that would follow in its trace. Temporally, the final step would take several hundred years, from the end of the Medieval Ages up to modern age. Today, our isolation is deeper than ever since we now are reaching full independence as individuals. Today we are part of a market system that gives people different values and it makes us callous. We can not show our sincere sadness when we put out someone to win a favor from it, because then we would immediately give it back.

(3) RD Laing, a researcher in psychiatry came out with the revolutionary theories in the 60 - and 70-ties when he showed that the relationship between members of a family was not based on love and respect for each other, but to win their own advantages. His research was built on John Nash's game theory as a basis and we know from previous chapters that it gives a false picture of man. This theory came to affect our Western society through the books Laing published.

As if this were not enough to get the "autonomous individual" to feel her isolation when she lost her fellowship with family and friends so she also lost the community support in the form of the bureaucracy that tried to facilitate their daily difficulties. This was first done in England and it is Laing who is behind with his "research". A sort of counter-revolutionary idea how to make a better society by tearing down the entire bureaucracy. James Buchanan, a laissez-faire economist liked the idea directly, as well as Thatcher.

The "Independent Individuals" we're talking about are in the US and Europe. The rest of the world had not come so far in its individualization even if the economic system that currently exist throughout the world has affected a large part of the people to accept the market as their valuator.

We must now take the final step to free us from our isolation. We still have to take the step "Freedom to" something and that requires knowledge and a change in society. As we saw in Chapter 11, there is substantial evidence that we now face a collapse of the Western model. A whole new value system will be born when we see what the old one led to – our lost dignity. Next Society will put that in the center.

Our isolation will be a task for every individual to get out of. The first step is to understand what the separation has done to us, how we have been held captive and paralyzed by our own fear. When we begin to understand that, then we can begin the shift towards to re-become a part of Nature by spontaneously take part in the present and find our inner self. That Self which we can recognize in the actions of the artist or when the little child spontaneously interacts with its environment.

The Middle Ages were a kind of "sheltered workshop" where people did not see themselves as individuals but as part of a group, just as in primitive tribes. Gradually, however, weakened the confidence in the philosophy that said "that the public good was the only important". At some point some groups began to violate the moral precepts that "money could not be an end in itself" and that "greed is a deadly sin". The guild that has been very strong with high "walls" to protect their business became weaker with time. Some guild made their members rich which always creates worries because the control of the wealth is difficult. They also received more freedom through their wealth so they stood out from the general population which gave an individual feeling and feeling of loneliness.  
They tried to find an explanation for this by primarily financing the development of philosophy and religion, which also led to the discovery of the individual.

Development is constant and invisible one is led over to new values after decades or centuries. We do not jump in stages and it is impossible to identify all the specific parts such as in the case when we were defined as "Man". "When we say that people have started to change in a society it may be a process that some have already gone through and others barely begun. When a society turns into something "new" then it has developed conditions for this for a long time and some elements of the old keep up almost forever in the new.

The Renaissance in Italy and the Reformation in central and northern Europe would be what took people on in their individualization. The Renaissance was based on an upper class that seized power by means of commercial and industrial operations and now used those people who did not come so well out of the old the system. Some century later came the Reformation, which had their supporters in the urban middle class, lower middle class and the peasantry. The modern capitalist system was to be born out of its religious doctrines. Luther and Calvin are the prominent figures and as usual it is those with high levels of disturbance in their childhood that takes these kinds of tasks.

The guild Guard was designed to provide protection for all, but was latter misused by them with capital. The apprenticeship system became also a way to make money – not to secure the apprentice and the guild's future. They tried to exploit its monopoly position to enrich them and in the 14th century it collapsed, the stable society system that had existed throughout the Medieval Ages. Everyone tried to manage as best they could with various side jobs, such as sales and small business. Luther's views and reactions against the changes in society which enabled certain groups to immoral enrichment had strong foothold among ordinary people.

The Catholic Church in the late Medieval Ages was largely oriented towards satisfying the groups that held sway and were financially strong. It was also possible to buy the Pope's letter that freed them from their sins. Luther turned against it. His system meant that the church was no longer an intermediary between man and God. Man could now himself take responsibility over his faith and contact with God. This affected the development of modern society in many ways.

Luther's darker side of man said that man was carrying an intrinsic evil that left her to the Mercy of God, which could only be obtained in total submission. Eventually a more complete explanation (1518) to Luther as saying that "only Man's Faith in God is what could save her". Faith is given to her by God and once you have received the Faith, you're forever rescued by the union in Christ. Man's inherent evil can not disappear during his life on Earth.

The final declaration of Luther comes the year 1518. Erich Fromm demonstrates in his book "The Fear of Freedom" that it is an individual solution, which is rooted in Luther's inner irrational doubt and is not an expression of genuine faith in God. Fromm continues:

"Luther's solution is one which we find present in many individuals today, who do not think in theological terms: namely to find certainty by elimination of the isolated individual self; by becoming an instrument in the hands of an overwhelmingly strong power outside the individual.

Luther grew up under an authoritarian father and did not get much love from home, which was why he leaned toward authority figures during his whole adult life. His admiration, hatred and rebellion against the authorities went hand in hand. The feelings of loneliness were extreme as well as his evil and need to dominate. He hated everything and he hated himself, but from that also came a desire to be loved. He went through all the torments the inner isolation creates, he was in constant fear and doubt followed him always. This experience also gave him insight into how other people felt.

The result was that Luther's belief in essence is nothing more than submission to God and Fromm gives a thorough analysis of this.

Those who embraced Luther's doctrine must obviously have recognized themselves and their needs in it. The doctrine was met with approval in virtually all classes except the rich and wealthy. Peasants and lower middle class had lost many rights when the new time broke in and they recognized themselves in Luther's interpretation of God. The middle class life was slightly more bearable, but felt simultaneously threat from all sides. Monopolies and the rich threatened their business but also the lower middle class tried to claim parts from their businesses.

Luther could allow a certain rebellion and protest against those who were in power, especially against the Catholic Church. He had deep respect for secular authorities, and if it was about to topple them, Luther opposed it completely. He wrote: "Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel.

It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him he will strike you and a whole land with you."

The middle class and lower middle class were opposed to a revolution as they felt it would affect negatively by lost privileges since the poor would require a more fair society. The Catholic Church which had been their intermediary with God no longer existed and they felt so incredibly small in their new role. This had meant that they felt powerless and at the same time they had lost their self esteem. The dignity of being Humans had been lost. This made them lose rapidly what the medieval culture was built upon – spiritual salvation and spiritual development.

Now, in desperation, they were willing to become "means to ends" that were beyond themselves and completely broke against the rules that applied earlier, for example, to gather capital, only for the capital's sake. They obeyed secular authorities and subordinate to the economy.  
Calvin pressed even harder on the degradation of human dignity. It was important to hate the world you lived in – but endure. You should live as miserable as possible and in no way feel that you could do something for or to yourself because you were just a tool for God – and nothing else. Calvin's system was basically built on the same basis as Luther, but tougher. It was mainly the middle class in the Netherlands, France and England who sought their solution in Calvin.

Calvin came up with something diabolical, that nobody thought of before. That some people were doomed to eternal damnation – and they could not do anything about it? It was determined before birth, who would be saved and who was going to an eternal hell. There were no way to penance, and there were no way to find out who was condemned. The explanation why God did like this was simple – Good wanted to show His power.

Compared to medieval society a new attitude toward work was born. Individuals now drove themselves to working hard; his conscience became the effective slave driver. He accepted his role as a small cog in the great machine. That was now his God he became a part of through his total submission. Since he also was a sinful creature, he got to show his good will by slaving to pay his debt to his Lord. This became one of the most important phenomena for the development of the capitalist system and the type of society that would be created in the future. A phenomenon that was founded in self-hatred. The same phenomenon that would cause one to be prepared to follow a "Führer" – to become part of His Greatness by total submission.

The middle class has always been a tragic phenomenon which in egotism has suppressed their own nature in the belief that they could save what they had and at the same time – quietly – jealously looking upon those who had more than one self. The personality in the end permeates by the oppressed hate that the children will sense and be shaped by when they grow up.

Role models in the form of Luther and Calvin are those throughout history who shows the most hatred in their teachings and we follow them we can identify with, those we feel safe with. Those who were raised into this world with this picture were deformed by it and by the absurdities they accepted.

The Reformation has brought mankind to a point we would never have achieved otherwise. Science and modern philosophy is based on the doubts expressed in Luther's inner world. The capitalist system had never been able to exist without the man-made inner compulsion, and Man could not have reached to where she is without capitalism. Important for us today is to take the step over into "positive freedom", freedom to something. Only then will we feel complete. It can be done through creative work and love to your neighbor.

Capitalism forced man to take the final step to achieve total isolation and affected all cultures in their foundation. All people are today more independent and critical, and is heading to Positive Freedom, but still remains isolated.

Capitalism reinforced what the Reformation started but also provided tools in the form of scientific progress and philosophical insights to uncover the links in our isolation. A world of paradoxes opened at the same time against us and we were forced to listen in a different and more humble way to life. It was not enough with intelligence any longer. The "Intuition" had a comeback.

The freedoms we believed we could reach, just disappeared at the same moment, and we got new problems instead. For example, the "Freedom of Speech" made everyone to think and say the same thing, partly because the Propaganda used the won rights to manipulate people with. It is interesting that the community can not come further related to our freedoms without helping its citizens to understand the function of their Self and to do that a lot of hidden problems will come up to the surface.

In all societies the lower classes have always looked up and tried to imitate the class in power. In the way they dress, build their houses, decorate them and much more. They takes the ruling-class values which in capitalism means a generally ascetic attitude were hoarding of capital is more important than the use of the profits. Some may protest against this explanation and instead wants to hear that it is the greed of Man who makes him accumulate wealth. Erich Fromm expresses it like this:

(2) _"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. Close observation shows that while the selfish person is always anxiously concerned with himself, he is never satisfied, is always restless, always driven by the fear of not getting enough, of missing something, of being deprived of something. He is filled with burning envy of anyone who might have more. If we observe still closer, especially the unconscious dynamics, we find that this type of person is basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes himself."... "He loves neither others nor himself."_

" _Modern selfishness is the greed that is rooted in the frustration of the real self and whose object is the social self. While modern man seems to be characterized by utmost assertion of the self, actually his self has been weakened and reduced to a segment of the total self – intellect and will power – to the exclusion of all other parts of the total personality."_

But even if it now looks like that man is driven by self interest, we must not forget that we have been turned into a cog in the machine we have built. We are insignificant parts, but through our total submission and manipulation of reality, we can still keep up the appearances as we are in the center. We are technical savvy but without having any supervision. So to whom shall our actions be summarized?

It has previously been described how the market values influence our choice of friends, but what hurts even deeper is that we value ourselves by the same standard, the market. We sell our labor to the market and learn how to write CV where it is impossible to describe ourselves as something else than "what we are" – teachers, car mechanics, waiters, etc". You are encouraged to see yourself as "the one you are" – and certainly not as something else. What the employer wants, applies; he wants a machine to do certain things – nothing else. You sell your personality as if you were selling chocolate, you're good at this or that – it comes to finding the right touch so the employer will find one in the crowd. What the market does not want is worthless – and you have to keep your self esteem at its peak? – And we submit ourselves...

A key driving force and a great support in our isolated world is to own things. Them we can identify with and what we lacks inside the things can now be a substitute for. Those who do not have things become less worth and for an ignorant person the self esteem decreases accordingly. While the truth is "that the smaller you are as a person, the more things you must have to show what your inner Self wishes to be".

We have in previous chapters seen how forsaken man is in today's society. He hardly knows from day to day and almost from hour to hour what will happen to his "security". His life savings are in the hands of psychopaths who gamble on the financial market with the calculation to take everything away from him – and he can not do anything about it. The market supports those investors who make countries and its people poorer while politicians stand and watch without power. The job offered is so niched and simplified that everyone feels like idiots. The market has taken away most of the opportunity to develop your own activities. So, we all become smaller and more insignificant cogs in the Great machine for each day that passes by. Even the one (1) percentage who soon will own the world feels bored and lonely.

How "sick", then, are those who are involved in submission or authoritarian behavior? Let's assume two people where one of them shows a clearly neurotic character and the other do not seem to have any problems. The latter takes care of a job and a family with children and it works basically. Both have the character as described above.

The person who has adapted to the norm of the society has given up the fight and agreed to be controlled. To achieve this, she must give up her internal I and thereby transforms into a deformed social self.

The first (neurotic) person however refuses to give up her inner Self, which means she does not accept society's demand for submission.

From the human point of view, the neurotic person is healthier because she still struggles to become a complete self. From the society's point of view she is the one who is sick. So the question is whether we should assume we are humans, or that we are individuals who are cogs in a society?

All societies, or groups for that matter, is built on individuals, which means that by looking at the individual, one can see what kind of society we have and how it works. The communities that ignore the above problem as long as you are customized, and fight those who have not adapted themselves, will have a population that is willing to submit to the "Leader" when the time comes, that means when a sufficient proportion of the population has abandoned their internal self.

Submission can be expressed in a variety of ways, and as stated previously is a form of escape from the sense of isolation where the ego gives up his freedom to become part of something outside himself. They feel that they can not handle life's great mystery. It gives them feelings of inferiority which often are exaggerated in order to prove how weak they are. They may be obsessed by fate or unknown forces that control them. Out of this will come obsessions in various forms. Falling in love and completely "disappear into" another person is a common solution. But all of those who have the tendency to submit have also the authoritarian tendencies within themselves. They want to experience both sides of the problem.  
Sadism is more limited in their expressiveness. Two of them are based on, to be the "Ruler" over the partner where, in the extreme case, he also exploits his "victim". The third case involves that they want their partner to suffer. In the most cases mentally, but also physically. Since people more easily reacts to sadistic tendencies, the two partners help each other to disguise what is going on in public. It can manifest itself in the way that the sadist shows an exaggerated "caring" of the masochistic. He can give all sorts of bribes, but he must decide their freedom. Not least, this is expressed in the relationship within the family, between parents and children.

Let us not forget that the reason the masochistic exist is because she does not have the capacity to choose a rational solution which makes her participate spontaneously in the work and her love to everything. She chooses instead to strengthen her insignificance and to disappear so she can forget herself. This is no real solution but just a way to hide the reality, the suffering is the price. The behavior is panic like in several ways, making it impossible for the person to achieve the goals she dreams of. She will not even be able to keep the friends she has a healthier relationship to because her subconscious will get her to reject them in one way or another.

To the masochist one part of the solution is the eradicating of the "I" and the other to be part of something outside, as God, one's spouse, work, or perhaps in the adulation of the leader along with millions of others. Decisions and fates decided by others – you may let the Conscience (in the form of "Always Being There") determines that you will work infinitely. The problem is that you do not feel well and sometimes a flame comes up that makes you want to say – NO!

The most common we hear when talking about the sado-masochism is that it is about sexual relationships. It's also then about to forget your own self, by using the body linked to the sexual feelings to express suffering and submission. This way to act is less problematic for the person as a whole than when she feels her total isolation in the "ordinary" world around her.

The sadist and the masochistic have the same fundamental problem – their isolated Self. Their individual solution of the problem is each others complete opposites and fits "like a glove". The sadists' solution is that he can eradicate his own self when he lives through the person he controls and determines over.

The masochist backside is that she sometimes feels a rebellious hatred against the "boss". The sadists' backside is that he feels a deep hatred to the weakness the masochistic shows. We must not forget that in both "individuals" is the opposite behavior more or less suppressed. To different persons they "choose" different roles.

The worst that can happen – for both of them – is to lose each other. It is pretty clear even if you have another image viewer from the outside. They're each other's solutions to their isolation. A bad solution but if they can learn to balance each other's hatred, a whole lifetime can pass by. They are both weak individuals, even if the authoritarian individual is trying to give the impression of being powerful by controlling his partner.

Eckhardt Tolle writes in "The Power of Now":

"Power over others is weakness disguised as strength".

The restrictions introduced particularly in the US and England and in general over the world since the beginning of the 2000 falls into "good soil" with the authoritarian character. He is for everything that restricts people's freedom. Crises are to him evidence of human weakness and that a higher power or fate has command that all must submit to. The highest is to suffer without complaining. The sadist does believe at the very least in equality – and deny the foundation of life.

In general we can say that most people have preferences for the sado-masochistic way, especially in the Protestant communities, without therefore having to be particularly religious. Only a few have an orientation that can be considered morbid, but one should look up if you feel that you have come to rely heavily on a person or higher power (like God or the Psychologist) who you always let solve your problems.

There is of course several other ways to solve the problem that you feel small and insignificant compared to the world around you. One of the most common ways is to "robotize" your relationship to society. Becoming somebody that looks and behaves like it is expected that a person should behave in the culture he is born into. Then there is nothing left that distinguishes you from the surrounding any longer. You become an "Automaton" at the expense of losing your own Self. The outlook is not like an automaton, but as an independent person with your own thoughts and feelings. And it can be difficult to understand because you do not understand that the feelings or thoughts expressed are not from your Self – since that is disconnected.

Children have an innate critical thinking, but it is taken away from them at an early age because it is hard to hear the truth about ourselves. The children get used to lie by the adults in several different ways, e.g. by loyalty. It is easy to forget or simply not realize that children have something that we lost – intuition. Children know most things because they can feel our emotions in a way – which we have lost insight about.

We do not respect the children and it causes us to treat them as less intelligent beings much like when we "whisper" half aloud if a person is considered mental disturbed, but he hears and understands, but we don't understand or even care – so who is "disturbed"? There is a lot that kids have not yet learned, but they know how we feel and how our relationships are doing. Therefore, when we say something completely different than we show, they are forced afterwards to disconnect their critical thinking, not to make us sad or angry. The school continues of the same reason, to remove any remains of critical thinking.  
The last hundred years we have been victims of "Engineering of Consent" at the highest professional level. They play with our subconscious mind to change our thinking, basically, so they can force their views on us. Therefore, it's not surprising that we today are full of emotions and thoughts that are not our own. In our world of information, it seems that most of it is to manipulate our thoughts and feelings – and we were told that it is the individual's personal and critical thinking that is the foundation of our society? How often can we follow a thought to its origin knowing that it was our own? We truly live in "The Era of Illusions" where we care about – what others think of us – and exactly that shows that we have become a "Robot".

It is fundamental to our mental well-being that it is our own thoughts we give expression for but we have not even begun to approach it, or rather, we have never been further away from it. We have become an unconscious package that sells us on the market and then use our sexual feelings as a drug, mixed with a stimulant, to forget about ourselves.

It has become shameful to show our feelings and a compulsion to show off a moderately large smile – always and everywhere. The suffering, which has given to man the deepest knowledge about the depth of man we now "cure" with psychiatry so we become moderately happy, angry or sad with the aim to always be infinitely happy?

Death we don't talk about and loses thereby the depth of solidarity and intimacy between people. Instead we get pale when we hear that another one of those we knew has – disappeared?

We have become pale copies of what we could have been – and is meant to be. In a sort of deformity of love for our children, we let the school ruin their curiosity about life. We've all seen it but we can not be bothered or it have been instilled in us that it is too complicated for us to understand? Still, we believe in and admire authority figures, as we have done for 400 years.

The students are packed full of facts that he never learn to connect or have the time to think about. When he's full enough to never be able to assemble the information into a true world image he is kicked out into some work where he will be lost in the role he is expected to play in his lonely life.

He has lost his main weapon on the road – the Truth. The Force, which the powerless may find a way to understand the outside world with; but he has given it up because he believes he can achieve power by lying, deceiving, and smiling.

By submission and authoritarian behavior he expects to get rich and then you can ignore the truth. He is deceived to believe that truth is somewhat subjective – that truth is different for each person? But truth and honesty is closely related and is fundamental needs of the human nature. Harry Martinsson says in "Aniara" as follows:

"How difficult for humans to know the true  
as a natural inclination to implement."

The human need of all the experiences he seeks wherever he is in the world and in all the different fields is not only because he is constantly trying to forget his isolation, but because he lost his opportunity to experience life. As "Robot", he is completely disconnected and takes all the opportunities offered to get something out of life – but they are only surrogate. It's empty at the same moment the carousel stop so he goes out looking for the next and the next and... He believes that the more he experienced in the form of countries, buildings, cars, women, whiskey, wine, etc the more he understands of life. The more he can see the more he will understand.

Living in an Indian village a year with the "same" daily routine, he can not understand. That is for the fanatics, he is a normal human being – someone like everyone else – a Robot.

The question is therefore whether such a person would understand or care about the seriousness in how our society today creates individuals who fit the fascist system. Those Robot-humans and sado-masochists that is required – is created in sufficient quantities.

But there is a solution for everybody in the form of Positive Freedom, freedom to creative work and love. How to get there becomes a personal mission. There are no general solutions, but there are some key elements you should try to think about. Such part is to not worry so much about whether the goal i achieved but the road to the goal is important. The key is to try to implement the idea – not to succeed. In the implementation you will experience the creativity and spontaneity.

The idea has to come from oneself, something you know you can lead backwards in time and where you see how the idea was born. It does not matter if others have done something similar before, or that you discover that what you thought was a new invention have existed for hundred years. What is important is that it is something you came up with and believe in. Before this idea or ideas start flowing a need for a deprogramming from the "robotic world" (which constantly tries to confuse you) is probably needed.

So, do anything to violate the brainwashing which makes you become robotized. Throw out the TV, okay start by looking a lot less. Keep the TV until the abstinence declines – then throw it out. Stop reading magazine in particular those which are without cost. Stop reading newspapers! Search for new sources of information – and not anything that even resembles what you've read and looked at before. Use the Internet with common sense – do not read the newspaper on Internet either. Stop putting time on Facebook or similar. Facebook makes you dream about something that you think you are. Your description of yourself on Facebook is anything but who you are. Go out in life and find out who you really are. Stop shopping stuff. Get away from everything at least a couple of years – if it is possible?

Quit working full time – if possible. Is it not, begin thinking about how to reduce your dependence on money. Change the way you live – to become less dependent. Don't buy any life insurance, skip the other insurances you have, for example, home insurance. Stop thinking that you can safeguard your future; you can only do something about the moment that is now. Start living as much as you can in the present.

Secure yourself in what the present moment has to offer. What is passed – make the most of what you learned but do not dwell. Plan ahead but do not worry about if you get there. Put all your concentration on the present. Talk and listen – honestly and intensely. Ask until you understand, it's never too late to ask. "Hey, I did not understand what you said before, you may take it again?" The only way to learn is to ask.

Let your self become surprised and spontaneously love those moments when you feel closeness to nature. Cry, laugh, vibrate and don't care about what others might think. Those who are cold in front of the Nature's greatness have given up their inner Self. If one begins to experience yourself as neurotic, then you are on the way out of the isolated self and your efforts are starting to pay off?

Look at the children how they do, they know. Look at the few artists who are Artists. When your real Self shows itself and is usually followed by a natural pride – we love honesty. Learn to appreciate each person as a unique being and feel solidarity and equality to all. Understand that your Self is the highest in Universe and has no limitations. Do not ever stop talking about your opposition to poverty and your admiration for the people's courage to fight injustice and isolation. Do not let anyone silence you in these matters!

Try to change your language to "Good", "Yes" and other positive words. Stop complaining but work to change the present. Help others so they can do the same thing in their own way. Join or create a small organization and a larger if they are spontaneous. Stop entirely to think about what others think of you. Think about what you think about yourself. Put up the mirrors!

I highly recommend the book" The Power of Now "by Eckhart Tolle.

Sources of information:

(1) Understanding Power, Noam Chomsky.

(2) The Fear of Freedom, Erich Fromm, published 1942.

(3)The Trap, part 1, Fuck You Buddy. Adam Curtis.
Chapter 13. Love.

This chapter is meant to describe what love is because it is man's solution to his isolation after he separated himself from nature during his development. The solution that in spontaneity through love and work in the perpetual present, reconnect with nature and in this way find himself – not as a single isolated individual but active in the "totality" in which he "finds" himself by "experience" in the activity. In the state the sportsman describes as "being in a bubble", where he do not hear the audience's howl, but know they are with him. Where the balls are rolling his way. In the "Now" as his "alter ego" within art, the Artist, gives his natural expression for - "in front of everybody's admiration. As with the young children in "their" world of worlds.

We should have gone into what spontaneity is all about, but it will not be as easy as you might think. So much can certainly be said that it does not mean to uncontrolled tackle things, or to follow others' influence. Spontaneity is tied to one's feeling, even the intellect and even to one's will – as you manage to connect in the moment and it happens just as the sportsman describes it, "that you are in a bubble where time has stopped - where it all happens - without having to think. This requires that you have achieved a relaxed way to yourself as a person, because as soon as you try to suppress or differ, the bubble bursts. Spontaneity is of course nothing you can learn only by reading but of course it is a guide to read a book about "spontaneity".

Another part of the solution is work and then it is of course not what we commonly call work. It is anything but what they offer people as work in the free market". In the Western world there are no works worthy the name, except with very few exceptions, and then it is called arts and crafts. I have over the last four or five years, met one (1) furnishing carpenter who seemed to perform real work – in which creativity was the key. The jobs we have today, you could say they are made for robots. Many of the workers today also function as robots and protest seldom against the inhuman in their working situation. They have adapted – as the person who sells junk products. He had to sacrifice the morals and is the same robot. There is no spontaneity left. If he shows a smile, it's been trained to increase sales.

Creative work is a spontaneous activity in which the person creates the conditions in the present moment in an honest and thorough way. It does not matter if it's a piece of wood to be converted or a project to be presented. It is a realization of the moment directly in life which gives the same result as spontaneity. They go hand in hand with love.

My thought when I started on this chapter was that I would try to describe what love is and then building on into the next chapter that was supposed to be about what we commonly call God – whatever that may stand for. During the work however, it has been shown that it is easier to describe these two substances together because they seem to engage with, and complement each other in a natural way. So, instead of in this chapter show what love is by using parts of the "God concept" and in the next chapter to show what God is using the "Love concept", I'll combine them, saving text and hopefully get a better description of the two terms.

God stands for the highest value of the people as they worship "Him / Her" and God of course, means "good". The highest good is related to how far people have reached in their development – their ideals on their level. By analyzing man we can understand what kind of a God (or concept of God) we are dealing with. So let us first of all start with what we know about human beings in general.

We can confirm that we are rooted in nature and that we have the closest relationship with our mother, our clan and our planet. What we know for certain is that we will die, but we do not know when. All we have until then is time – and exchange of ideas with other people. We are lives that are aware of that we live.

No one experience the world in the same way as anyone else. You could ask yourself if you and your friend feel the sunlight on your faces exactly in the same way. No one can experience another human being just like anyone else and we are very limited in the way to perceive the world, such as by sight and hearing – and no one has exactly the same vision or hearing as somebody else. Dogs experience the world in black and white but have a well developed sense of smell. So every single creature on Earth has his unique way to experience the world.

We have trough science come up with different theories which has been proved by mathematics. Although the mathematics is correct, then the result is after all, only models for us to describe the world with. Take such a common thing as light, that we have no simple model to describe. We must use two different descriptions as a wave and as a particle, and even if one day we can describe it in one way (e.g. by string theory), it is still just is a model so people can imagine what the world is. She can never experience the world in the real Reality. We live thus all in an illusion. We can not go beyond our limits, ourselves – or can we – and what does that mean?

I would, despite the above give the universe a common denominator and that is that it makes sense. There is logic in the laws that were created during the Big Bang, where the conditions was given, which we call natural laws. We have never seen gravity dissolves anywhere else in the Universe or that the other basic laws would not apply there as here. That we do not know what the Universe dark matter or energy is (which is 95% of what the Universe is composed of) is a different matter, which has nothing to do with logic. To rely on logic to get the answer to what the real "Reality" is, is impossible. Once we have gathered enough knowledge with the help of logic and realized that "we are knowledgeable enough to understand that we can not reach the ultimate knowledge that way" then we have taken the first step towards what can give us the answer.

So let's start by looking at what love is – has it also to do with Big Bang's creative power or did it perhaps exist before? Could there have been something before the Big Bang? Yes, everything physical has always existed and will always exists, it is established as energy or matter can not be destroyed – only transformed. Otherwise the Universe would be created out of "Absolutely Nothing"?

Let's get down on Earth and look on what parental love is and how the newborn child perceives reality. The child seems to stay in their inner world as long as it can. It is not conscious of the environment more than what might be self-benefit. One must help the child to "wake up", sometimes abruptly, to get her out of her inner world, which primarily consists of Mum's milk and warmth. Ultimately, it will more and more respond to external things. Any consideration that the external world also has needs is of course no baby or young child aware of. They experience the world as a whole as an extension of their own needs were the mother is the one who is the most satisfying of all.

At the age of six the child are turning its interest to the father to learn what the father's love is and to embrace the help and instruction from him. So the child will one day understand what the rules of life are. At the age of nine or ten a big change happens for the child. The child suddenly realizes that she is something and knows that she can rule over this one. She discovers that one can think of someone else for his own sake and not for getting some wish of her own fulfilled. She feels the joy of giving.

She's also discovery that her way of showing her love for people is reflected to her self through their joy and love that brings additional life in her. This makes her more and more moving the attention to the father. Father's love must be won by making something and that you follow the rules he set. This love is not at all like mothers. Mother loves me no matter what I do – it is enough I am her child. But the undemanding maternal love that all people yearn for at heart can also get you to feel small and helpless.

Fatherly Love, that you can influence and where you know you succeeded when daddy's smile cracks up, but sometimes a feeling creep up that you are not loved for one's own sake but only for what you do, maybe you are just being used? If you break the rules, you can be punished by father who will redraw his love from you. It is however possible to put things right again and then his love will return.

There is of course balance in the adult person's love for the child. An adult person has in himself both the conscience created by the mother, who says that you shall love life and the people around you, while father's part is based on reason and consideration. If there be only one of the parts as an adult, the person would either become hard and callous because only the father part is represented or lose control having to strong emotional part, in the mother's case.

Although the mother's part, and the father's part in total appears to be opposed to each other, it is this that makes the child complete as an adult when both parts cooperate. If the upbringing makes one of the parts much weaker than the other, or excessive, then the adult will have neurotic problems ahead in life. He will seek compensation for this, which means that he will not be able to face life in a totally sound way.

Motherly love is probably the kind of love that has the greatest demands, since the mother will one day be forced to part with what had once been part of her. In addition, she must with all her heart wish that this "divorce" will be held to give the child his total freedom, and then we shall remember that when it started it was just a little bundle that she so easily could love – and who had been a natural part of her. For this process to be optimal it requires that the mother knows what it means to love – she must love all the other children in her child, like all human beings and – the stranger. It's not enough to love your closest – that is not any achievement. It is when we have nothing to gain from the one that we show our love to that "Love" reveals itself for us. It is when we give our love to the poor, the stranger and to those who we know do not like us, as we will see more and more of the Love. This must a mother understand if she should be able to give her children an optimal start in life, plus one other thing that we have not mentioned, that she along the way with her child gets him to love life for its own part, that the child feels a joy to participate in the everyday. Of course it is not a lot of moms who meet the above fully, but regardless, we have to admire her difficult role in life.

From the above, we begin to understand that "Love" is not connected to a person but is a fundamental approach in our innermost being, a kind of spiritual strength, which is realized in the present. As with the "spontaneity" and the "creative work" it is a phenomenon that allows people to reconnect with their inner self, to nature, by going beyond, or transcending, themselves.  
Erich Fromm offers the following explanation in his book "The Fear of Freedom":

"Spontaneous activity is the one way in which man can overcome the terror of aloneness without sacrificing the integrity of his self; or in the spontaneous realization of the self man unites himself anew with the world – with man, nature, and himself. Love is the foremost component of such spontaneity; not love as the dissolution of the self in another person, not love as the possession of another person, but love as spontaneous affirmation of others, as the union of the individual with others on the basis of the preservation of the individual self. The dynamic quality of love lies in this very polarity: that it springs from the need of overcoming separateness that it leads to oneness – and yet that individuality is not eliminated."

There is a fundamental human need that comes from the awareness of herself, which make her not to accept a role without codetermination in her own fate. Humans want to be the creator and the man solves this by manufacturing different things, from tools to abstract things, in the form of art or thoughts. This is a prerequisite for enabling him to "go beyond" himself. The woman solves this by the child she has created carries and feels united with. Where is it then we end up or is situated when we succeed and "transcends" or "goes beyond" ourselves; when you are in the "Bubble"? Yes, that is an issue that can not be answered and I'll try to explain why.

It's quite logical that the development of the concept of God has followed the man's way of experiencing the world during his development. The Bible makes it clear that we are dealing with a God who acts tyrannically and requires total submission with bizarre elements like when Abraham have to sacrifice his own son to show his love for God. God in the Bible's opening is the patriarchal God – the Father.

Today we know that in early human development, there was a matriarchal concept of God in most if not all cultures. This concept was consequently an unconditional love for all and that "Her" love could not be controlled or monitored. Her love is built on that we all are equal, and therefore, it include the Brotherly love to all born.

Such strong love can of course not be completely eradicated from the minds of men and therefore have followed into the patriarchal stage; even in such an authoritarian approach as the Lutheran it has been resolved in the way that God's love for man is undemanding. All you have to do is to believe. A common feature of other religions in the patriarchal stage is that one can clearly discern that it is now all about a God who either controls the other gods, or is all alone on stage.

The next step in the evolution corresponds to the stage where the child has received both mother and father's conscience and in an adult way achieves balance in the actions and decisions. This means that God has transformed from father figure to a "Symbol". He is no longer a wise old man in heaven, but an abstract principle for a concept of God. You can no longer relate God to any thing or personality since God is unlimited – God is everywhere – at the same time. It is impossible to give a limited indication of what God is, for example, good, large, etc.

However, you can say – what God is not. If we say that God is not evil that does not mean that God is its opposite – good. In this way, we can come close to some kind of understanding. In the Bible, this "principle of transformation" clarifies the first time when Moses says to God that no one will believe him if he can not give them the name of his God. God answers him that his name is "I-am-becoming" which is significant to a continuous change, so the name God gives him is "Nameless". The prohibition against making an image of God, or give a name, is just given so we will realize that God is a principle, and certainly nothing which has to do with a person or a thing. God – an unnamed unit – a principle, which is behind all phenomena that are required for our experience.

If a person has developed to this stage and is confident in his faith, he must realize that he never will he know anything about God and it is therefore meaningless to talk about God or to ask for anything. However, it is quite possible to live for and learn from the principles that God stands for – justice, truth and love. It is not only possible but the only way to "experience" God. The person who has not reached this stage may have a mental equivalent of a child's dependence on a father. Then he understands a God who is like a father to him and not what we have described as a principle.

There is one more way to reach the above conclusion – through what is called paradoxical logic whose origins are from India and China. In Lao-tzu's "Tao Te Ching" he says, "Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical". In the paradoxical logic A and non-A is possible at the same time. Aristotle's logic (Western) A and non-A excludes each other at the same time.

Human beings can only perceive reality through experiencing its opposite. The Indian Brahma used a slightly different paradoxical logic than the Chinese by which they concluded that it was not in the character of the things the contrast is hidden – but in the humans receiving mind. Therefore, the mind (man) must "transcend himself" to reach the true Reality. That means, the mind must come out of the illusions created by the self (the opposites required for the mind to perceive). It can only be done by excluding all thoughts, then the illusions disappear and Reality comes through. This is what is meant to "go beyond oneself", or to "exceed oneself" or "transcending".

Erich Fromm writes in his book "The Art of Loving":

" _Inasmuch as God represents the ultimate reality and inasmuch as the human mind perceives reality in contradictions, no positive statement can be made of God. In the Vedantas the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God is considered the ultimate form of ignorance. We see here the connection with the namelessness of the Tao, the nameless name of the God who reveals himself to Moses, of the "absolute Nothing" of Meister Eckhart. Man can only know the negation, never the position of the ultimate reality. "Meanwhile man can not know what God is, even though he be ever so well aware of what God is not ... Thus contented with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of all." For Meister Eckhart, "The Divine One is a negation of negations, and a denial of denials ... Every creature contains a negation: one denies that it is the other". It is only a further consequence that God becomes for Meister Eckhart "The absolute Nothing", just as the ultimate reality is the "En Sof", the Endless One, for the Kabalah."_

From the above, the thinkers in the paradoxical logic come to the conclusion that it is not possible with the help of the thought to reach the ultimate Reality, the Infinite One, or the Absolute Nothingness. One can not with the thought express the love for God or get knowledge of God. It is possible to experience the "Unit" in the actions but not in the thoughts. This means that when you live a loving life in this world in the daily actions, where love to God corresponds by a feeling of complete "togetherness" with everything, then you can overcome the world of illusions and step into the "Unit", where everything has its origin in an eternal now. "Where time stops and all the balls rolls our way."

The question was where we end up when we manage to "transcends" this world or oneself; when we are in the" Bubble "? Nearer than this we can probably not get by talking about it.

Interesting is that when we focus the experience of God to act and live after the principles of God, there is no differences of opinion any longer. A religion with focus on that the true faith is most important has been fighting other religions for centuries.  
The Eastern religions are all more or less related to India but it developed a little different over the millennia. The common denominator is that after the achievement of knowledge about what "Life" is you don't need to be reborn any longer and becomes one with the "Unit", by achieving "Nirvana" or "Enlightenment".

According to Hinduism, when you understand the proper way of life you will gradually get "glimpses" of "the Absolute", on the levels you have reached in your development. Eventually, with the help of meditation you will reach higher and higher level and achieve "total" insight after many lives, so-called "Nirvana".

In Taoism the "Tao" is the life force in universe, and because everything is "One Unit" no part can be excluded, everything is equally important. Taoism says that when we get knowledge about something it will become a part of us. Tao is holographic which means that all information is contained in all parts simultaneously. Taoism also says that because "the Absolute" is one single "Unit" the total information must be achieved when contact with the "Absolute" is reached. Intuitive insight is used to achieve "Total Enlightenment within Taoism."

Zen Buddhism has been developed from Taoism and Indian Buddhism. Rinzai Zen, one of the two branches of Zen, use high sounds like shots and questions without answers for the individual to get out of balance in his mind world. If you can get him to stop thinking, it means that he can leave the thought-chains and thus getting into "the Absolute". A book that gives a good overview of what primarily Zen Buddhism has developed from is the "the Zen Experience" by Thomas Hoover. Furthermore, Zen is based on practice, and there is not much to read, which is one of the pillars to keep knowledge free from change.

An interesting part of the eastern religions is that they have come to the conclusion that the acts we perform in our life will hit us back, until we knows what the right way is to perform the action on. It's called "karma" or "creation of destiny". One can thus in the present life to some extent prevent what will happen in the next life. If you can break with bad behavior, or do good deeds, it can be a benefit in the next life. How it function is probably better to avoid thinking about, but it is a system that meets the part of God's law, which stands for "Justice". A completely fair and logical system.

If you look at the different religions, they can look illogical and weird. Without criticizing any particular religion it must be assumed that a principle at this level must be built on logic. Without logic, there are no principles. There is no need to develop in millions of years and then be reborn as a worm or to something long ago passed in our development, in my opinion.

Let us return to Love and find that love is primarily characterized by giving – not receiving. Perhaps there is someone who protest and say that there must be a mutual give and take? Under these premises, it is not about love but a business arrangement where you do not want to feel cheated. Unfortunately the most gifts have hidden contracts. Contract saying if I give you this, I want something else in return.

If you believe that it is in the feeling that I am prepared to "sacrifice" something the love lays, you are wrong. It is in the joy that I feel more alive, productive and powerful, which makes the giving so great. The greatest joy for man is to give as you can clearly see among the poor who gives with joy even though they have almost nothing. The difference between a miserable life and a life of poverty lies in that the poor still have the opportunity to experience the joy in giving. It is also obvious that the poor are more likely to give than the rich.

Even if you can "feel" the recipient's joy in the giving of material things, this joy will be more apparent when we gives of ourselves in the encounter with other human beings. By expressing our inner joy and share our feelings and all our knowledge in good faith (for the sake of giving) to another person, in him awakes, or rather he is lifted up to a level where he feels more alive and where he, returns the same phenomenon to the first person – unconsciously. So my giving creates the same action in the other person too. My love creates love in the other person too.

The foundation is to see each other in an honest and creative way – not as objects – and it is of course related to how developed you are as a person. That you left the stages behind that make you use others for your own purposes, believing material things is the answer or that someone else will take care of you if you just do what he wants. That you have reached a stage where you believe in yourself and are prepared to release the bonds completely to experience life – and thus love.

The care, responsibility, respect and knowledge are other parts that must be part of my arsenal if I should be able to handle love. Care is evident in the mother's care of her child, and equally clear is that something you love you take care of, so it may feel physical and psychological warmth and appreciation.

Closely linked to this is responsibility. Responsibility for doing the right thing at the moment there is a need. Being prepared, in every situation, to stand up for anyone – no matter whom – who becomes the victim of irregularities such as racism, bullying or if he does not get to express who he is. That is what responsibility is all about, to look after your neighbor – and that it is you who takes the responsibility – not someone else telling you what your obligations are.

Respect means that we can not use anyone for our own purposes because respect is based on ensuring the person's needs based on his own will to develop. It's his life and his decision we must respect, as long as it does not harm somebody else.

At last it requires knowledge to understand what the other person's needs are. No matter how much we study a person and how skilled we are in the sciences dealing with man we will never reach full knowledge of him? It is because of the same reason that we could not reach full knowledge about God. The mind knowledge is not enough, we can reach far but not all the way, and because we are humans it also means that we can not mentally get to know ourselves to the core – but there is a way.

In Love – in the moment we let ourselves go to unite. When we penetrate into the depths of another person, wherein we discover also ourselves. We both exceed the illusion which the mind can never do. A fundamental prerequisite for this to take room is that I know the other person objectively, that we have shared with us as much as possible in our exchange of ideas and that I have knowledge about man and his limitations.

Carl Gustav Jung says the following in "The Red Book":

" _He, whose desire turns away from outer things, reaches the place of the soul. If he does not find the soul, the horror of emptiness will overcome him, and fear will drive him with a whip lashing time and again in a desperate endeavor and a blind desire for the hollow things of the world. He becomes a fool through his endless desire, and forgets the way of his soul, never to find her again._ _He will run after all things, and will seize hold of them, but he will not find his soul, since he would find her only in himself. Truly his soul lies in things and men, but the blind one seizes things and men, yet not his soul in things and men. He has no knowledge of his soul. How could he tell her apart from things and men? He could find his soul in desire itself but not in the objects of desire. If he possessed his desire, and his desire did not possess him, he would lay a hand on his soul, since his desire is the image and expression of his soul._ _"_

CG Jung noted that academic education is not enough if you wanted to know the human soul, he continues:

" _To do this, one had to "hang up exact science and put away the scholar's gown, to say farewell to his study and wander with human heart through the world, through the horror of prisons, mad houses and hospitals, through drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling dens, through the salons of elegant society, the stock exchanges, the socialist meetings, the churches, the revivals and ecstasies of the sects, to experience love, hate and passion in every form in one's body"._

CG Jung continues concludes with the following advice:

" _If you live the common life at your lowest reaches, then you become aware of your self. If you are on your heights, then you are your best, and you become aware only of your best, but not that which you are in the general life as a being. What one is as one who becomes, no one knows. But on the heights, imagination is at its strongest. For we imagine that we know what we are as developing beings, and even more so, the less we want to know what we are as beings. Because of that we do not love the condition of our being brought low; although or rather precisely because only there do we attain clear knowledge of ourselves."_

Following CG Jung's thoughtful words about our soul, it may be time to look at the most basic love of all – Brotherly Love – which is the basic principle of the New Testament which Rule says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". This includes all such it also includes ourselves, and it assumes that we are all "One".

There is another definition which is expressed something like _"you should do to_ _your neighbor_ _what you want_ _him_ _to do for you_ _"_. This is a rewrite and blurring of The Rule and means something totally different. It stands for that you should be fair to your neighbor if you want him to be fair to you. It has nothing to do with love for your neighbor. Don't get surprise if I say that this rewritten rule has been named the "Golden Rule". It fits the market and today's society, while the original text is a direct threat to that.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" tell us directly that we are all basically the same. The fact that there are superficial differences in appearance, talents, etc. and that all these differences result in a tremendous diversity is insignificant and nothing compared to when we reach the depth of the human and experience her true identity. Simone Weil puts it this way (1):

"The same words [e.g., a man says to his wife, "I love you"] can be commonplace or extraordinary according to the manner in which they are spoken. And this manner depends on the depth of the region in a man's being from which they proceed without the will being able to do anything. And by a marvelous agreement they reach the same region in him who hears them. Thus the hearer can discern, if he has any power of discernment, what the value of the words is."

It has been said before but can never be said too often, I think, "to love your own and your nearest is nothing to feel special about" – even reptiles do look after their own. It is when it comes to one's care of the unknown stranger, the disadvantaged and those who are in need of assistance that you can talk about loving and it is not until then that love shows itself to us, and we can use it to understand who we are basically. Is not life amazingly well composed?

Brother Love is directed to all people and is a love based on equality.

Erotic love is based on the desire for union between two people and is also based on equality. If the two cuts themselves off from other people and just love each other, they have resolved their isolation by becoming two instead of one, but live in an illusion if they think it is love. It is not love because they excluded themselves from the "Unit" where everybody is "One". It is because we can relate to this "Unit" we are "allowed" to exceed the illusion and experience ourselves as who we are. But then you have to love all people otherwise you are not reaching out.

The solution of the two is that they through the other person sees and can love all as brothers and sisters. This does not exclude that they have their erotic experience with one person; on the contrary, erotic love is exclusive. Provided, however, that when the two become one, they must simultaneously maintain themselves as independent individuals. While becoming one, they paradoxically, are also two.

Sexual desire does not in any way have to be associated with love and is probably rarely, perhaps especially in the Western society. Sexual desire connects easily to other emotions than love, and is therefore difficult to find out about.  
The Western brainwashing in political form, or for example in advertising leads us also to believe that it is love we feel, though it usually is really not so.

In the 20-ties, came forward a new marriage concept which was based on that marriage would work better with the help of "team spirit" between the two parts – if they were a "team" who helped and supported each other to feel better in daily life. They should have some personal freedom within the marriage and stand strong against the others out there that they were competing with.

The most important thing in marriage was that you learned to satisfy your partner sexually. If you were satisfied sexually, then you had achieved happiness and the love was preserved to the other person who had knowledge about how I was satisfied.  
An incredible amounts of literature and experts was in vogue at least 50-60 years after the team idea had been introduced but the two never got to know each other deeply and after a whole life they were still foreign to each other, instead of a lonely soul, it was two lonely souls.

Freud saw love as an outcome from the sexual instincts. By satisfaction of instinctual desires man reached happiness and thus mental health – which is completely wrong. Freud was obviously influenced by the times and a great man at this time Darwin. It's quite likely that he influenced the thinking that preceded Freud's work when he came to the conclusion that man had an unlimited appetite for women and that the strongest win the most women. Freud's conclusion is therefore that society must do everything possible to limit man's rampage.

Bernays is coming out with a lot of books in the 20-ties after Walter Lippmann called for a new democracy based on "Propaganda" and "Consumption". That would stun people enough from rebelling against those who were in power. It is rather obvious that a family concept included the plans and that the new " way of thinking" fits well with Freud's theories. Unfortunately I have not managed to get hold of the books but it is enough to look at the advertisement from the 20-ties to understand. The advertisement demonstrates in fact a family concept based on team spirit. It would of course be interesting to know if Bernays was behind. The team-concept and belief in mutual sexual gratification is the common misconceptions in the Western about what love between two persons means.  
There are many relationships in which "love" between the individuals are found to be more or less neurotic. This is because one or both of the individuals has been caught up in the relations with one or both of their parents during childhood. Something that should have happened did not happen which created a behavior related to that age they had as child. What was never lived out as a child will come back in their adult love relation, which can cause problem. One's ability to show genuine love is more or less damaged.

We have previously found that we deep down in our foundation, are all equal – and that we are "One". We would therefore be able to love anyone – and this is what appears in the arranged marriages. Two persons who have never even seen each other, learns to love each other. This requires the willingness to learn to love the other person and they succeed in most cases, it seems.

The western culture is based on that sudden love between two people occurs. That they have found the person who has the unique and individual signs that the erotic part specifically is looking for – that they thus have found their half out of every other halves? This attitude express that there already exist a complete love since they basically are made for each other. The problem was to find the partner, when this is done; the rest is "a piece of cake".

In the second marriage they seem to understand that commitment and will are important parts to make a marriage work. These marriages usually last for life.

Erich Fromm says about love marriages and arranged marriages:

" _Both views then, that of erotic love as completely individual attraction, unique between two specific persons, as well as the other view that erotic love is nothing but an act of will, are true – or, as it may be put more aptly, the truth is neither this nor that. Hence the idea of a relationship which can be easily dissolved if one is not successful with it as erroneous as the idea that under no circumstances must the relationship be dissolved."_

We have one more love to look into and we've mentioned it before – the love of ourselves. We said that because it is right to love all men without exception, it means that we must love ourselves – we are also one part in the "Unit". If we can not love ourselves, we can not love anyone. If you study the persons who have a genuine love to others, you will find that they love themselves also.

Self-Love has often been accused of being selfishness. But selfishness is something entirely different. Selfishness is actually the opposite of self-love and such a person loves neither themselves nor someone else. He hates himself.

His real self is frustrated by not being able to love. The care normally found in love, (that the person can not handle because he can not love), is now focused in a desperate attempt to compensate, towards the social self. The social self, which is a smaller part of the real self, is being crammed with everything that the person can access, but he is never satisfied, because the problem is basically that the person has no capacity to love.

As regards what looks like the opposite of selfishness – unselfishness – you could say that it does even more damage because people do not want to criticize somebody who "sacrifices" themselves for others. Here it is more important than ever to dare to question the behavior but the risk is of course that you yourself will get bad reputation criticizing such a person. However, this has less importance than that your child will have to suffer under a person who "always sacrifices" herself for them.

(1) Meister Eckhart says of self-love:

" _If you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself. As long as you love another person less than you love yourself, you will not really succeed in loving yourself, but if you love all alike, including yourself, you will love them as one person and that person is both God and man. Thus he is a great and righteous person who, loving himself, loves all others equally."_

In a culture that has a marketplace which put different price tags on people and compare them with dead objects, and makes them believe that it is natural to calculate everything to their own personal advantage. In such a culture, it is obviously hard to find someone who is capable of loving. They cling to the flock, trying to deviate as little as possible. They get numb by consumption and manipulated continuously until they are convinced that they are a loving, confident, independent and responsible member of the society. Their income, they use to buy a range of tools to kill the spare time they've been hunted together. They persuade themselves that this is happiness, though they have become a parrot which unconsciously repeats what he was told from childhood.

In this culture there is no brotherly love, because then we would not have any homeless people. There is basically no motherly love as there would have been no babies in the nurseries. And there is no erotic love as we have not been taught the basic requirements in our formative years to understand this "Art." You find another robot that you can seem to get the best exchange with – and then it starts allover again in the next generation.

Western society is leaning towards science, to show people that they do it right. Who can stand up against nature? Let's take an example of what the scientific view has led to – let's look at how our animals are treated.  
Today the animals are treated as mechanical things, like machines. The question then is whether a cow and a car is the same thing? Have a cow and a car the same feelings? Have any of them any values as one might associate with emotion? Well, I think most people believe that the cow has something that can be linked to emotions while the car has not. In today's scientific world, all animals are treated as if they only existed to give people what the machines gives. Minimum input and maximum output. The people who react against it is ridiculed and not taken seriously.

Throughout history it has been considered as an outrage and a direct challenge to higher power to treat their animals badly. They were depending on the animals' survival, and they lived closer to them, they were in the room under. Today, there are not many farmers left in the scientific community, but there are major companies behind the production. We have all seen how their scientific (read economic) solutions look like.  
The question is whether this is the way for humans to treat the animals? How do you feel as a person when you see it?

For science, man is a collection of atoms once randomly assembled which led to a monkey and now a man – who can think. That's it! Animals are nothing more than another collection of atoms without thinking. Basically there is no difference in the one pile and the other. Could it be that in these contexts we must realize that science has nothing to give?

Basically there are two different types of problems we encounter. The mathematical or scientific problem that can be calculated and written down to the next generation, type the amount of paint needed for a given material and a given area. This type of problems is called convergent.

The second type of problem is those we call life problems, divergent problems. Those problems that deals with decisions concerning our relation to people, economy, politics etc. Problems that forces us to try to rise above our normal level in order to provide the best answers. These issues where the solution involves love, truth and justice things you learned from life and feel inside you, the issues that make us to humans.

This text of Chuang Tzu (400 BC) is revealing:

(2) _"I look at the matter in this way; when I am making a wheel, if my stroke is too slow, then it bites deep but is not steady; if my stroke is too fast, then it is steady, but does not go deep. The right pace, neither slow nor fast, cannot get into the hand unless it comes from the heart. It is a thing that cannot be put into words; there is an art in it that I cannot explain to my son. That is why it is impossible for me to let him take over my work, and here I am at the age of seventy, still making wheels. In my opinion, it must have been the same with the men of old. All that was worth handing on died with them; the rest, they put into their books."_

They have tried to make the divergent life problems to convergent mathematical problems, and one such example was when, with the help of John Nash's reduced model of man came to the conclusion that the family consisted of selfish scheming individuals and that the love between them was only an illusion. We know today that John Nash's model was an illusion, a ridiculous model that had tremendous impact on the world. Even today we hear the explanation that man is a calculating egotistical creature of nature - from highly educated persons?

Today's society is to an high extent trying to solve divergent problems with reduced models and convergent methods. It usually gives bad solutions that lack the quality and insight that people have and after a while new decisions must be made. These methods take not very much concern of life quality or other human non-material values. To have life quality as an input to this system you have to make a reduction of the concept because otherwise it is too complicated for the method. If we use reduction on the concept "Life Quality" what do we then get? Life Quality?

The above solutions by reduction of our communities have made the Western daily life become so predictable and boring that we all has turned into zombies.

(3) Gandhi used to talk disparagingly of 'dreaming of systems so perfect that no-one will need to be good'.

Somehow, Westerners must come back to a world where science has its place and the knowledge of Life is put first. It does not matter if God is "involved because we now have a code of conduct – the highest in man – that we can live by. That is – the Truth, the Justice and the Love. Man is given the responsibility to care for the animals.

Then the rule "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" fully comply and we can all one day transcend the illusion. Until then we can try to learn to take care of each other in the best way. The knowledge exists but we need a new social system.

Sources of information:

(1) The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm.

(2) The Zen Experience, by Thomas Hoover.

(3) Small is beautiful, by EF Schumacher.
Chapter 14. Anarchism

Images from concentration camps, the bombing of Hanoi or the capture of Berlin 1945 gives a similar feeling as in Calcutta. In Calcutta, everything is as black, the sky is as dark, and everything is covered in soot. What can not be seen perceives our next sense, the hearing, like a roaring, an infernal roar – from the traffic? A background roar at least 90 decibels and randomly in close proximity to well above that, makes you lose control when it is needed the most. Like when the tanks drove into the center of Berlin 1945.

The next sense which is being tortured is the sense of smell. It does not smell waste, old garbage or rotten as you might expect. It is instead a dry, pungent diesel fumes which sometimes interrupts by gasoline "scent" – which gives some relief. The richer streets smell more of gasoline? Dust penetrates everywhere, everywhere there is dust, diesel, petrol and oil. Everywhere, without exception, where I've put my traces. One hour from the center. The gray-black trees is heard an incredibly crazy chirping of small birds. Not even the singing of birds is normal in Hitlers, Stalin's and Nixon's city. The City were Bush is heading to ... Kolkata.

Calcutta, Park Street and around Park Circus, is the worst I have experienced in my life. This is without exception the greatest humiliation I have ever seen of mankind. It is so poor that one can not even afford a piece of cloth to cover themselves. Several weeks I was shocked after I left and I said to myself I would never go back again. I can not do anything so what am I doing there?

I got hold of a book from 1986 by an Englishman; the cover said it was the book that best described Calcutta's history. Facts like, there lives over 100,000 people on one square mile in the ghetto. New York has a housing density of 37.000 persons / square mile. In Calcutta, you live on one floor with the animals underneath, while in New York living quite differently. The "Dumdum-bullet" was born in Calcutta.

The email I wrote to my friends on the first night in Calcutta began like this:  
"I have been in the city where Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Lyndon B Johnson, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and their equals are reborn and where Bush, Kissinger and Cheney are going to meet again... in Calcutta. A city that does not exist. A city that you can only try to describe and words are not enough – in any language – in this world. A city that is worse than the worst nightmare you ever had that you can not escape. 'The worst city I've ever been around ..."

A few years later when I started to understand how Milton Friedman's ideal free market looked like, I did directly made the connection to Calcutta. Friedman ideal free market means that you take out a maximum 15% tax. Calcutta has never taken more than 15% tax while several companies are exempt. Private companies will manage all activities in society, from garbage collection to health care. In Calcutta all the activities have always been run by private enterprise from water to electricity distribution and virtually all companies are foreign owned. No business paid by the taxpayer practice social activities. The city has never had any insight into how companies manage their business so a total "laissez-faire"- economy has always been.

Kolkata has some of the world's most luxurious areas within their city limits. Castles which are just as improbable as Park Street, everything built in blood and sweat, here do the one percent (1 %) live.

That we are on the way there by leaps and bounds, I hope this book has shown. In the United States and England they have almost reached all the way. One (1) percent of the population now owns more than 95 percent at the bottom own together. Adam Smith, that Milton Friedman distorted with the expressed intention that the richness of the world would be spread downwards in the system for all people, has not worked and will never work. The wealth are now in the hands of a few tens of millions of people worldwide who have lost contact with reality and refuses to share with anybody.

I believed in my innocence that all that is being built in this world became working people's benefits in the end, but it is not the case. The workers will be first taken away the area they lived in for many years, often for hundreds of years. In the best case and with exception they get some living in a low-cost project where they are crowded together in 60 m² apartments. They had a garden, a place for kids to be; now they have 21 floors of bars, concrete and a parking lot. The other skyscrapers, down by the beach (the areas that was taken away from the local population), is an investment for the well-known 1 %, from abroad or within the country. Optionally, one and another belonging to the 20% one may also stay there, it's in those apartments there are lights in the windows. The other, 80 % of the apartments are empty 50 weeks a year. That's how it is generally in the world today.

There are of course many to blame why it is like this. We are all guilty if we should be consistent, but those who made it possible are the 20% which we all have looked up to and trusted. The educated and eloquent. Those that we have been taught, to follow. Those who established themselves in the ranks by helping the Power to declare the limitations. Extremely important limits in the debate so we can not talk about subjects that can disrupt the powers. The 20% sold us out for the sake of their vanity because in it lays their security. Take away from them vanity, and they are empty shells. Look at the objects they use to express their personalities with. These shows what they are not, through every gadget they flaunt.

These educated and eloquent, we gave our trust and they responded by making us powerless. When imbalance occurred they lost the feedback that the majority of the population accounted for. Those with power spoke through the 20 % who told us what we would adhere to and believe in. They knew what was best for us and that made them conceal or not let criticism come through from those who still dared to question. They lost knowledge and did not speak up on social issues that seemed hard to win politically. They blamed the genes or the weather but let silence or denial prevailed if someone were to ask for political changes. Some scored votes from the ignorant, by accusing the poor for laziness and that they were using the society's good will. Most gave up and became robotized, or disappeared into one or another dream world.

Today, the system has got everyone to isolate themselves from the others; we are not talking to the stranger. Solidarity is not on the repertoire, it's something the Communists were talking about? The Power has no problem to get away with just about anything as they now control all information and no one dares complain. Nobody cares – as they did when they had natural contact with ordinary people who were seen daily in their purchases, when they lived in the same city, in the same area.

Let us repeat the words of Adam Curtis:

" _But the fear will not last and just as the dreams that the politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so too will the nightmares. And then our politicians has to face the facts that they have no visions, either good or bad to offer us any longer."_

This means that there is no functioning system any longer following the model where others decide what I should do. It turns out that these are special people who want the role to control others; they have a need for power or vanity. While the other may continue to submit to.

Now we must find a system that function where everybody makes decisions about what they are involved in. There is such a system and it is called anarchy. When it is mentioned it is often responded with an ironic smile, like when children trying to say something wise. Followed by sharp warnings about "losing social control". It is Freud's horror scenario No. 1 (and the twenty plus one (20+1) percent).

But we understand that even if Freud was right in part, he had a total failure in many respects. If you do not believe in the anarchist idea or know about anarchism then you can begin by looking at a practical example which lasted three years.

In George Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia" you can get a good sense of what was happening in parts of Spain during the Civil War 1936-39. Northeastern Spain in the part where Barcelona is the center, Catalonia was liberated and ruled by the workers.  
It began at the barber saloons where it has long been known about the barber's sympathy with the anarchist idea. Now they declared themselves free, and the workers took over the business by forming collectives. This quickly spread to Catalonia, especially in urban areas.

For the first time the workers had taken the lead over their own business and they did it by forming collective in their workplaces. All businesses from small cafés and shops to factories signposted clearly that they were now collectively owned, managed by those who worked there. Everyone treated each other as equals and that was the end to appeal to people other than companion or you. The beggars got a job and it was made attempts to convince the prostitutes to break with what they were doing. There was a belief in the future and a sense of equality. There were no speeches made about it anymore because it was so natural so a pompous speech seemed ridiculous.

The honest and truth-loving workers had for the first time reached what they really are. The only thing that could destroy it was that somebody began to tell people what their task and duty was. It was finally over. As I think everyone understands they were of course accused of communism, both in time and by later historians.

When I in my own thoughts, not too long ago, devised a system that seemed to be the best of all to me, I concluded that it would be a type of communist-socialist system where you did not have leaders. Where everyone did what he could contribute with, according to his ability. One day there was someone who told me that "what you are talking about is anarchism" and there it was. So it is called anarchy. Then it's the best system I can come up with.

Chomsky puts it this way (1):

" _If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for "Creative Work", creative inquiry for free creation without the arbitrary limiting affects coercive institutions. Then of course it will follow that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to be realized. Now a federated decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be to what I refer to as Anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into positions of tools, of cogs, in a machine."_

Ninety percent (90%) of our daily needs for goods can be produced automatically without needing to attend physically. We could easily live a good life with a couple of hours of work per day if we had a different monetary system and being without the "free market". That capitalism has lived passed its limits was obvious many years ago, say in the 70-ties. That's when we should have choose to create a society that was based on less work as cogs in the machine. But we were not brave and maybe not enough informed to take the plunge and now we all suffer from it in a variety of ways. That we are close to a total collapse must be clear to everyone. It is equally clear that the day there is not enough capital from the working, tax-paying population to pay for the crises created consciously or unconsciously, by those who control the system, the system will break down.

When banks created deflation during the Great Depression it made the companies standing still for years. Nothing was produced. There is however a solution that could have started the production – that the workers had entered the factories and collectivised them, as was done in Catalonia. There was no shortage of material for the near future production and there was a stock of goods which may for the moment not been marketable because of the lack of money, but, it would probably be possible to exchange it for something else and with human ingenuity they would had reached a solution.

In Argentina after the 2001 crisis, when the owners emptied the companies of their assets and fled the country the workers took over several working sites. Workers went to their work and decided to give it a try, using the left overs and with imagination provide solutions for almost impossible problems and after a while it worked. When the owners came back much later and wanted what was theirs, they lost all the lawsuits that followed. The workers were entitled to keep what they had taken up after the others fled the country!

Latin America today is a prominent example of what comes out of the lessons learned of past sufferings. The people involve in politics and if the president tries to do some tricks, he will be out. Today, the IMF is listening and Latin America that set the agenda. The societies have been reorganized to not be depending on a few leaders if a coup will occur again. Loans are between countries and not through the IMF, where Latin America basically does not have any loans anymore. Latin America now lends money to the EU, where the IMF is an intermediary who does what Latin America decides.  
Venezuela provides free oil to poor countries and Cuba does the same with doctors and medical care. Several countries have suspended its cooperation with American education, for example in the military and police. The continent that was first raped has learned and is fully able to defend them by giving assistance to the other.

In Europe we have learned how and when Madrid was hit by the train bombings March 11, 2004 the sitting president Aznar tried to take advantage of the situation by blaming the Basque Separatists while wanted to get people's approval for participation in the war against Iraq. The population recognized the time when fascism took away everything from them, and they choose to remove President Aznar at the forthcoming elections. The use of shock therapy that had earlier given success in many places did not help any longer when people remembered what they had gone through. We learn and we recognize when it reappears.

2005 it was voted down, on two occasions, a proposal (which would have given companies free hands without responsibility) to the EU Constitution – in referendums. For the first time, the people in Europe had a chance to say what they wanted and when they realized what they were going to lose, they said No!

An interesting post from Naomi Klein in her book "Shock Doctrine" is that most of the key figures that leaned against the Chicago Schools agenda are either in prison or awaiting trial. Argentina's Supreme Court has dissolved the former dictators' immunity and sentenced ex-president Videla together with Admiral Massera to life imprisonment. Paul Wolfowitz had to resign from World Bank 2007, due to the bank need to improve its reputation.

The World Protest Movement occupies Wall Street and Federal Reserve Bank throughout the United States and the movement spreads across the world. It is probably in the United States it must begin, if a change should come before the system breaks down by itself. And it is important that the rest of the world ends up supporting banks when financial crises arise in their countries.

From Allende to Gorbachev have been looking on the Scandinavian model of socialism with the hope of being able to get there one day but they were subjected to shock therapy before they got the chance. Sweden has taken a step backward since 2007 when a party alliance between liberal and conservative policies introduced themselves as the "New Labour Party". They began to dismantle large parts of the policy that made Sweden to be the country, according to Wilson & Pickett research, that can be considered as the next Japan most equal country in the world. After six years, the gap increased significantly to the 5% poorest in the country. The Swedish workers currently have the lowest number of people with unemployment insurance since the introduction of this fundamental insurance. According to OECD Sweden was among the top countries generally in 2006 and in 2012 they were under average.

The question is whether the Swedish people have any memories from the days when we were getting our rights, almost 100 years ago? How long will the Swedish people have their own egoistic desires triumph the knowledge that together we can achieve the highest goals, that we have done so many years and been a shining example in the world?

But other policies are generally required, the old parties with a policy that strengthens the system the power want is not an option. We all feel that.  
It has popped up a new political party that a lot of young people have heard of – the Pirate Party. An idea hatched by a Swede and as usual, been successfully exploited by others. In Germany they soon threaten ordinary powers. Friends of the old order will of course defend the old order with the familiar words that "law and order" is needed in a society.

But the law has never made us better people, it has only frightened us into line so that power could remain in office. It is our own sense of what is right that matters, which seemed to work so well in Catalonia 1936-39 before fascism again took power with the law and order.

The fact that globalization is a scam appears in that it has never been more difficult for long-term travel than it is today. After a month or two you will be referred to leave the country. This is not ordinary tourism or for the 21 % that can take their "Judas money" with them and settle in any country they choose. But for the 79 % the world is closed.

The 20 % will be taken away all their assets by the top 1 %. "The Spectacle" or "The System" works that way and that's it.. It is a system that will turn 99 % of us into "Miserables".

Those who finally wonder who the heroes and heroines in our world today are? All I can say that they are the same heroes and heroines such as Victor Hugo so well describes in his wonderful book.

Sources of information:

(1) The documentary "Manufacturing of Consent", Noam Chomsky and the Media, produced by Necessary Illusions and National Film Board of Canada. Download from YouTube.
