Honest and Forthright vs Dishonest and Corrupt

All Americans should question the legitimacy of the political concepts of the "left" and "right". The types of opinions expressed about the core philosophies of one side or the other in the mainstream media is just about all of the evidence anyone should need that the "left vs right" mode of American political thought is nothing but a social construction. "honest and forthright vs dishonest and corrupt" is a more meaningful distinction, and it has a great deal more relevance in the real world than "left vs right."

Few intelligent people actually agree with either of the prototypical "left" or "right" stances on a given issue (especially regarding the Iraq war). Real people have more nuanced political views... But in the socially constructed world view, the American political consciousness can be defined by the subjective and stereotypical definitions of what is said to be "left" or "right," "liberal" or "conservative." It's all a farce. Both sides of the argument present essentially the same proposed course of action: support the status quo, there is no option but Democrat or Republican, you may question one side or the other but to question the legitimacy of both sides makes you anti-American... This is a very elaborate ruse that most of the American people cannot see through, even thought it's really not all that difficult to do so...

Forget left vs right... Let's consider honest and forthright vs dishonest and corrupt. Most Americans themselves are honest and forthright. But our government and the corporate system that controls it are observably dishonest and corrupt. How many corporate/government scandals have been exposed showing that both the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with large corporations? Corporate moneys flows freely to BOTH parties. The practice of political and financial corruption is commonplace in the government that rules us and is currently eviscerating our bill of rights in the interests of "national security." Yet the vast majority of honest and forthright people are too afraid of "bucking the system" to break free from the social conditioning that has formed their way of thinking.

The US government has a history of telling bold-faced lies to the public. The Fed prints up all the money the government asks for out of thin air. Corporate corruption uses government to funnel billions of dollars into the hands of the already wealthy. Wars are fought for the financial gain of the military industrial complex and the central banking system.

Would anyone argue any part of the preceding list? You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe any of that. It's a bit cynical perhaps but unfortunately it's all verifiably true. We still have the power to vote these people out of office. But what I fear we lack is the will to express our outrage against political and corporate corruption forcefully and consistently enough to make a real and substantive change possible.

Really, every American citizen would be justified to barge into their congressperson's office and scream "THIS IS BULLSHIT! THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA IS CORRUPT!! WE DEMAND HONESTY AND FORTHRIGHTNESS!! WE DEMAND OUR FULL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!" Perhaps if every American citizen did just that, and then voted to support their views in the "honest and forthright vs dishonest and corrupt" world view, things might actually get better... Perhaps...

Redefining the word "conventional"

It has occurred to me recently that the definition of the word "conventional" has been usurped by the modern social conditioning mechanism that shapes our world views. The word itself, in certain contexts, is Doublespeak... The new meaning of "conventional" is "profitable."

Consider a few terms:
- Conventional Money
- Conventional Medicine
- Conventional Agriculture
- Conventional Energy

Conventional Money
The modern money system can be traced back to London in 1694 with the formation of The Bank of England. This was the world's first central bank--one where the State and the bank exist symbiotically. The State can order the bank to create money at will and the bankers can create money for export at interest to other States, companies, etc. that would be backed by the State. It is important to note that this money is now "fiat money," it has no backing in silver or gold (which, as we shall see, is truly "conventional" money) and is only considered "money" due to Legal Tender Laws which impose criminal penalties on those not accepting the State's currency. Also key to modern money is Fractional Reserve Banking. This practice lets banks hold only a fraction of the money that they are holding for people in reserve. Currently in America, a bank must only physically posses 10% of the currency that it holds for its depositors. This allows them to loan the other 90% out at interest. As you will surely find by reading some of the older posts on my blog, the policies of central banking and fiat currencies lead to massive inflation, the destruction of price stability, and the control of the State by those who control the currency.

Truly conventional money is commodity money--precious metals--gold and silver. Truly conventional money is what people will accept as a medium of exchange when not forced by legal tender laws to accept paper currency. It is more or less immune to artificial inflation--as the exertion of labor is necessary to create the money in the first place. The natural laws of supply and demand act upon both the money supply and the value of money. Under the gold standard, short-term fluctuations in the availability of gold will cause temporary fluctuations in the market, but overall price stability is a given. Of course corruption destroys this system, and other than the Byzantine Empire's several hundred years of price stability under an honest gold standard, there has always been greed and corruption in the money supply. This is unfortunate, but true. Perhaps it's human nature, and perhaps it's because people who seek political power generally have mental imbalances, but I digress...

New money, or fiat money, is debt. It is willed into existence by the central bank and "loaned" to the State in exchange for bonds--which are essentially IOUs. The most common thing that money is willed into existence for is so that the State can fund war without having to levy taxes on the people to cover the full cost. If the people had to pay for the TOTAL costs of war with taxation, they would surely not allow the State to put itself into a perpetual state of war, as most modern nations now are. Still more money is willed into existence by fractional reserve banks issuing credit cards, loans for mortgages, and the like with money that does not exist (remember, they only hold 10% of the money that they hold in reserves). Without the initial debt of the government to will the money into existence in the first place, and without the debt of individuals, fiat money would not exist. If all of the debt in the world was repaid, all of the paper currency in the world would be returned to the central bank. People have been using money for thousands of years. People have been using money in the way that we use it today for maybe a couple hundred years.

I urge you to scan the rest of my blog and to ask Uncle Google to educate yourself on "conventional" money. You will see that it is probably the most dishonest yet pubicly accepted "conventional" practice in the world. I believe this is due to the fact that most people don't understand how the modern money system really works...

"Conventional" Medicine
The foundations of the modern medical system have their roots in the rise of political power of "medical doctors" in the late 17th century in Europe. Prior to the medical profession claiming control and authority over the healing arts, astrologers had been looked at by communities as healers for thousands of years. They often prescribed small amounts of minerals or metals to treat sickness, and their treatments had the same success rates as those of the "medical doctors" who used their political influence to delegitimze the entire profession and practice of astrology. At the time that "medicine" superseded homoeopathy it was not any more effective at actually healing people. The change in the way that people have thought about health and healing was enacted via political and financial power--not due to the effectiveness of the new treatments.

Truly conventional medicine--as it has been practiced for thousands of years--includes herbal and mineral remedies, acupuncture, etc. Today's so-called "conventional" medicine is actually only about 60 or 70 years old. The FDA was formed in 1938 and the widespread use of anti-biotics began in 1944. This is not "conventional" medicine, but "new" medicine. The goal of new medicine is not the eradication of sickness, but rather the ability for corporations to profit from the treatment of sickness. Sickness is required to exist and grow in order for the medical industry to grow. Many truly conventional and actually effective remedies have been delegitimized and suppressed by the FDA because the medical industry cannot profit from them.

"Conventional" Agriculture
The foundation of the modern agriculture system has its roots in the "Green Revolution" of the 1940s and 50s where petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides were put into use worldwide. It is interesting to note that the Rockefeller Foundation was largely responsible for the initial funding to promote and actualize this change. Short-term crop outputs shot way up and farms worldwide began to corporatize and use these new methods of super-crop-production. Human-labor inputs went WAY down per amount of crop produced. However, famine continued, agriculture became heavily energy intensive and dependent upon the fossil fuels which Rockefeller controlled. The end result of new agriculture is that food production is heavily regulated, seeds are patented and withheld from local growers in the 3rd world, soils are leached of nutrients and become barren after several seasons, and large corporations' profits have increased greatly.

Truly conventional agriculture was re-labeled "organic" agriculture, and the USDA set up a new set of loose standards that a growers must meet to stamp "organic" on their food. They also must pay a heavy premium to the USDA for this privilege. Truly conventional agriculture has been practiced sustainably for thousands of years. The downside is a high human-labor input to crop output ratio, and a relatively low (as compared to new methods) ratio of crop yield per acre. The benefits include healthy food that is free from poisonous pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and the power for communities to provide for their own sustenance.

Conventional Energy
"Conventional" energy is basically refined petroleum based energy, and is also a relatively new practice. It is different from the other examples I have presented because it has enabled a whole slew of new inventions and really--a new way of life that all people now accept as "conventional" that is totally dependent upon this new energy. A lot of these inventions are really pretty cool... I love technology as much as the next geek. Without new energy, I wouldn't be able to share these words with you. Without new energy, our lives would be totally different... slower, simpler, maybe a bit more physically demanding... We'd all be working for the sustenance of our own communities and families rather than for the "global marketplace." We wouldn't have iPods and Land Rovers and Laptops and Cellular Phones and Tupperware... But we would be self-sufficient.

Conclusion:
Since the rise to prominence of new money, we have seen a vast concentration of wealth, political power, and never-ending war. Since the rise to prominence of new medicine, we have seen the rapid spread of disease and viruses that quickly become resistant to anti-biotics. Since the rise to prominence of new agriculture, we have seen the greatest famine in the history of the world, the corporatization and de-localization of food production. Since the rise to prominence of new energy, we have seen massive amounts of greenhouse gases emitted into our atmosphere, local populations in places like Nigeria have been disenfranchised by big oil companies, people spend more time going back and forth from work to home and less time actually working or being with their families, etc.

Of course without these "new" practices, the tremendous boom in the human population and much of the progress made in the 20th and 21st centuries would not be possible. But I ask--the widening gap between rich and poor, famine, constant warfare, new and more deadly diseases developing their own immunity to the drugs that we invent to fight them--is this really progress? Is this really the world that we want? One based on inequality, worship of material possessions, needless squander of natural and human resources in the name of corporate profits? And perhaps most importantly--do we want a world where the meaning of our words can be stolen from us, turned upside down, and then forced back on us to justify the artificially manufactured problems of society? To make us believe that self-sufficiency is outdated and reliance upon corporations and the State is "conventional"?!?!

Let's not forget some "conventional" wisdom: "Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on this blog.

here is an e-mail i received in response to my previous posting:

regarding your latest "silver" claims on your website, you can look at this http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html

I don't know if you are worried about your blog's credibility, but starting to post things about "snake oil" cures, will probably not help. I liked the macroeconomic stuff you were posting, but not this stuff. Giving health advice could be dangerous to the poor souls who actually may try it.

here is my reply:
Sorry you didn't dig it. Understand though that I am not giving medical advice but rather examining the deligitimization of a particular medical treatment and the politics that surround it. "Credibility" itself and the legitimization of knowledge in general are things that are controlled very heavily by the establishment via the process of social conditioning.

As for the quackwatch stuff... Yes, I read it before I posted this. The disinformation surrounding silver colloids runs pretty deep. On the one hand you have Rosemary Jacobs and the FDA saying that you will get Argyria and that silver colloids are junk medicine. Then on the other hand you have multi-level-marketing scams selling bullshit products that invariably do not contain what their labels say they do. Before there was an FDA or any "snake-oil" salesmen of bullshit silver products, isolted silver was used safely to treat disease and illness for thousands of years. I suspect that both sides of the disinformation (that it's not safe, and that it is the miracle cure-all) come from the same place--big pharma--becuase BOTH claims are unbelievable to anyone who takes the time to find accurate information.

As for Argyria--it is caused ONLY by taking A LOT more than the reccomended dosage. And most reported cases that have resulted from silver ingestion were caused by Mild Silver Proteins or silver nitrates, not pure isolated silver. Silver Proteins are known to be less safe and less effective than ionic silver or true colloidal silver. So when a reputable and safe product is taken as indicated--there is almost no danger of argyria. Also, supplementing one's diet with Vitamin E and/or Selenium will help to reduce the risk. These are facts that I would hope anyone seriously considering putting silver colloids into their bodies would research first...

Yes, there are bullshit products out there, but if you do any research (maybe follow some of those links I provided) it is pretty easy to tell the crap apart from the reputable and safe products. www.silvermedicine.org is a great resource--and they are not selling anything. Same with the Immunogenic Research Foundation--good information--no sales pitch...

Every unregulated industry will have its fair share of bullshit artists who are just out to make a buck. Silver colloids are no different. The "snake-oil" salesmen were used by the FDA on behalf of big pharma to deligitimize silver colloids--and I'd say by your reaction the FDA did a pretty good job. But this is no reflection on the actual safety or effectiveness of the product--only a reflection of the politics that surround the issue.

I think this should make it pretty clear:
http://www.silverpuppy.com/fda.html

It's a long page. Scroll to the bottom and read what Bruce Marx has to say about the FDAs 1999 ruling relegating colloidal silver products to dietary supplements. Yes, this web site does belong to a retailer, but despite their awful site design--they do sell a safe product that is what it says it is.

So let this serve as a disclaimer: I have not taken any colloidal metals. I am not reccomending that anyone try them before first doing your own research. I am simply trying to examine the process by which the ancient use of colloidal metals have been deligitimized in modern society.

"You Can't Eat Gold!" ... Or can you?

So a few weeks ago a very random stream of thought popped into my mind... Why are precious metals so valuable? Sure, there is a very high demand for them in the jewelry industry, and also in the electronics industry (gold and silver are excellent conductors of electricity). But why are they revered by human beings in such a way? Do we really love the concept of money that much? Or do these substances have some intrinsic value?

This line of thought brought me to google, and various and sundry web searches about human ingestion of gold. I found a lot of junk, but there were a few things that I found that were quite interesting...

First, I found this interesting piece by Gary North entitled "You Can't Eat Gold!" It is an economic analysis, and it discusses the way in which slogans and propaganda are used in economic policy. Seems that around the time of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, the slogan "You can't eat gold" was popularized in the efforts to convince people that the gold standard was obsolete.

1944 was also the time when Penicillin came into vogue as the new "miracle drug" that would wipe out viruses and make the population healthier and live longer. Well, as we now know (and likely many scientists did back then as well), over time viruses become resistant to antibiotics. Basically what antibiotics have done is to create stronger viruses that are harder to cure and kill people with greater frequency. Also of note is the term "The Golden Age of Antibiotics."

So how does this relate back to precious metals? Well... as is the case with most good propaganda, "You Can't Eat Gold!" is entirely false. No, I'm not going to give you a recipe for gold and silver chowder with fresh chives... But people have been ingesting colloidal metals for thousands of years. From the late 1800's to the 1930's, colloidal silver was used in America and Europe to treat cold and flu-like maladies. And colloidal gold is purported to have positive effects on the mind, the psyche, and the body.

I'm not a big believer in the Old Testament, but in Exodus 32:20 Moses, upon finding his people worshipping the Golden Calf, "took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, ground it to powder, and scattered it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it."

Modern science has shown that indeed colloidal silver does kill most viruses and bacterium. Yes, this research was done by people who are selling the products, but if you examine their studies I think you'll find them to be sound. This fact must have created quite a problem for the powers that be in trying to implement the modern healthcare system dominated by big pharmaceutical companies and the all-powerful FDA. If people had easy access to colloidal metals (you can make them at home) the medical establishment would have no way to control the world health care system--and I think it is obvious that social control is their most important priority.

So "You Can't Eat Gold!" was a very effective slogan, and it served two purposes: it enabled the establishment to take control over our commodity money and institute a fiat currency system, and it enabled the establishment to take control over our healthcare and institute a system of medical social control.

I have done a good deal of research on colloidal metals, and I suspect they may hold the key to unlocking more of our potential to grow, learn, think, and communicate. I found this web site which claims to sell the purest of pure colloidal metal suspensions (not to be confused with ionic solutions and silver proteins). Their web site contains a lot of technical information, but no medical information. It is also a very overtly phony marketing mechanism, but I let that slide, knowing that the FDA has been persecuting the producers of colloidal metals for decades and they have been delegitimized not by the lack of merit of their product but by the healthcare industry itself... I was curious though as to why in all of the scientific studies, no in vivo studies had been published. I e-mailed them, and as they did not include a name in their response or ask me to keep it private, I have no qualms in sharing this very interesting correspondence with you.

My first e-mail to them:

Comments: Hi,

Have there been any peer-reviewed in vivo tests on the effectiveness of Colloidal Silver in humans? I can't seem to find any. I'm interested in trying out true colloidal silver but I'm hesitant to do > so without first seeing the results of an in vivo test.

Thanks,
Andy

Their reply:

We do not (sic) such studies. The cost to commission such studies would run to several million dollars.

We doubt that any company that produces dietary supplements will have what you seek. Such testing is typically done on drugs but not supplements due to the cost.

See the user reports on the colloidforum.com here:
http://colloidforum.com/phpBB/index.php

My reply:

Thank you for taking the time to write back to me.

Your web site makes specific claims that your products have X, Y, and Z desired effects on people. Is word-of-mouth the only way to demonstrate these effects? I've been to your discussion forum. Very few of the topics contain any discussion at all. Most of the posts in the hundred or so topics you've created and most were made by "guests" who posted only that one message... Almost everyone on the board signing their name, city, and state on every post... It seems to me like one person did most of it themselves.

I understand that the FDA currently makes it very expensive to play by their rules, but silver colloids have been sold for many many years. They were only forced by the FDA to start branding themselves as supplements rather than OTC drugs in 1999. Surely at some point in history there has been at least some sort of study of the effects of colloidal metals on actual human beings... No? I should think that in today's business climate, a product that is as amazing as you say it is would have no problem securing a few million in venture capital to obtain FDA approval...

I can only deduce that either metal colloids do not work as well as you say they do, or they are being suppressed by the drug industry for some reason [for the record, I believed it was the latter]...

--Andy

Their reply to me:

The issue is not having money to do the studies. We have turned away dozens of offers for capital from investors.

Any supplement maker that performs those studies and publishes them would have their product declared by the FDA to be a drug. Then the FDA would take action against the company for selling unapproved drugs thus forcing the company out of business and putting the owners in prison.

The FDA has declared that any substance the cures a medical condition is a drug and can only be produced by a drug company. Our products are all elemental nanoparticles. The U.S. patent office will not permit a patent on an element, only a compound. For this reason, drug companies will only produce drugs that are compounds, never elemental nanoparticles. If a drug company will not make it, then it is not a drug and no claims can be made for it in the U.S.

The FDA and the U.S. government are the epitome of corruption beholden to the large pharmaceutical companies who pay huge bribes (contributions) to politicians to write laws that keep the drug companies protected in the market place. The purpose of doctors and drug companies to produce products to "treat" medical conditions, not cure the problem. A cured patient is not a returning customer. They want to treat you forever until you die or your medical insurance runs out, which ever comes first. Most drugs don't work. Most drugs treat symptoms, not the underlying cause. Health care in this country is second largest scam on earth and the politicians, doctors and big pharma want to keep it that way. Any product that cures a medical condition is a threat to their cash flow.

Any questions?

Nope... no questions here. It's all pretty clear to me...

Get unbiased information at www.silvermedicine.org. They are not selling a product, just providing information.

The Federal Reserve Act: Read it for yourself...

Don't take my word for it. Don't take G Edward Griffin's word for it... Read the Federal Reserve Act yourself, directly on the Fed's web site.

Here's a brief breakdown of the first few sections:

SECTION 1. Short Title and Definitions

In this section, we see that "Wherever the word '“bankÂ' is used in this Act, the word shall be held to include State bank, banking association, and trust company, except where national banks or Federal reserve banks are specifically referred to." This means that the State is a banking institution, and it means that the State, in conjunction with private banks, run the Fed. This section--in defining "bank" as it does, sets up the Fed as a central banking monopoly and puts the State in the mix as a part of that monopoly.

SECTION 2. —Federal Reserve Districts

This section serves to eliminate any power of the Branch banks and centralize it all in the Federal bank (which, of course, includes the State).

SECTION 2A. —Monetary Policy Objectives

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."

The Fed has most definitely failed miserably in their stated objectives. For instance--stable prices... A 1900-dollar is worth less than 3 cents today due to the Fed's inflationary policies. In the last 10 years, our dollar has lost 20% of its purchasing power.


SECTION 3. —Branch Offices

This further centralizes power over the board of governors in the National and State bank and takes it away from branch banks. The Board of Governors of the Federal Bank, which is appointed by the State (a member of the monopoly) is given supreme power over all of the operations of the branch banks. Even the directors of the branch banks can be fired at will. "Directors of branch banks shall hold office during the pleasure of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."

So let's see... so far we have a central banking cartel that includes the State... We have centralized and supreme power over the entire system in the hands of a few people who more or less appoint themselves, and they have failed in their stated objectives. Keep reading the rest of the act yourself.

If you can get through the lawyer-speak, you will also see that they can create and/or destroy money at will. They must issue a report to Congress but they are not bound to take any direction from Congress whatsoever. They may create 9 times the amount of money that is authorized by the Treasury for the the purchase of government bonds to sell at interest to private sector banks. In "unusual and exigent circumstances," the Federal Reserve bank may create money for any purpose whatsoever.

According to their own definition (this is not word-for-word from their site, but it's implicit in their language): the Federal Reserve System is a central banking cartel that includes several private banks and our own Federal Government.