Friday, October 26, 2012

The United States Isn't a Country
— It's a Corporation!
by Lisa Guliani

This article by Lisa Guliani was published on this Serendipity website sometime prior to February 2004. This is proven by the page as archived on the Wayback Machine (see also the page at March 8, 2005). This article has also been published on many other websites.

Someone using the name "Reality Bytes" published (no earlier than 2010) a ripoff of this article on The Hub under the title The Corporation Of The United States Of America Is It True? We Are Not Under Common Law?. This person is now claiming copyright infringement. This is laughable. "Reality Bytes" is a blatant plagiarizer, as shown by the textual comparisons below.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
— Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
— Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776

This page censored at Wikipedia Fourth of July 2002 has come and gone, and Americans honored the holiday with a renewed patriotic fervor that reminded me of the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976. As is customary, traditional fireworks displays took center stage and scores of people turned out to witness the dazzling show in the summer sky. With mixed feelings, I sat with friends on a crowded Pennsylvania sidewalk beneath a glittering, mesmerizing explosion of color, pondering the keen sense of sadness and betrayal that overwhelmed my spirit. Looking around at the huge crowds gathered for the annual events, I thought silently, "We are not free." In truth, we have not been a free people for a very long time.

We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song — but how many Americans realize they are not free? This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained — or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. It is sad, but it is also very true.

Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.

To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is "America" — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a "free" people or not.

So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you'll stay awake for this lesson.

The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.

Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.

So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.

According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.

In other words, our government was created by and for "sovereigns" — the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign — remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: "government is subject to the consent of the governed" — that's supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don't.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia — encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.

You see, you are presumed to know the law. This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school. We are made to memorize obscure factoids and paragraphs here and there, such as the Preamble, and they gloss over the Bill of Rights. But we are not told about the law. Nor do our corporate government schools delve into the Constitution in any great depth. After all, they were put into place to indoctrinate and dumb down the masses — not to teach us anything. We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers. For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur. There are many, many things the People have not been told. How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else's massive debt without your knowledge or consent? Are we gonna keep going along with this??

When you hear some individuals say that the Constitution is null and void, think about how our government has transformed over time from a municipal or service-oriented entity to a corporate or profit-oriented entity. We are living under the myth that this is lawful, but it is not. We are being ruled by a "de facto," or unlawful, form of government — the corporate body of the death-mongers — The Controllers.

With the passage of the Act of 1871, a series of subtle and overt deceptions were set in motion — all in conjunction and collusion with the Congress, who knowingly and deliberately sold the People down the river. Did they tell you this in government school? I doubt it. They were too busy drumming the fictional version of history into your brain — and mine. By failing to disclose what THEY did to the American People, the people became ignorant of what was happening. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin to the point of a knockdown. With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law. I don't suppose you were taught THAT in school either. That's because our REAL history is hidden from us. This is the way Roman Civil Law works — and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law — better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", respectively. This explains a lot. Roman Civil Law was fully established in the original colonies even before our nation began and is also known as private international law.

The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic. This is very important to note since it impacts all Americans in concrete ways. You must recognize that private international law is only applicable within the District of Columbia and NOT in the other states of the Union. The various arms of the corporation are known as "departments" such as the Judiciary, Justice and Treasury. You recognize those names? Yes, you do! But they are not what you assume them to be. These "departments" all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its various amendments that operate outside of the Constitutional Republic.

I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation [see note]. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government. This is extremely important. I refer to this as the "corporate empire of the UNITED STATES," which operates under Roman Civil Law outside of the Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a cheesy, sleazy corporation? You'll ask your Congressperson about this, you say? HA!!

Congress is fully aware of this deception. You must be made aware that the members of Congress do NOT work for you and me. Rather, they work for the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Is this really any surprise to you? This is why we can't get them to do anything on our behalf or to answer to us — as in the case with the illegal income tax — among many other things. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT our civil servants. They do NOT work for us. They are the servants of the corporate government and carry out its bidding. Period.

The great number of committees and sub-committees that the Congress has created all work together like a multi-headed monster to oversee the various corporate "departments." And, you should know that every single one of these that operates outside the District of Columbia is in violation of the law. The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Let this sink into your brain for a minute. Ask yourself, "Could this deception REALLY have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the Congress?" Do you think it happened by accident? You are deceiving yourself if you do. There are no accidents or coincidences. It is time to confront the truth and awaken from ignorance.

Your legislators will not apprise you of this information. You are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law, or your history for that matter, because this information has not been taught to you. No concerted effort has been made to inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of the facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to "give" you — at a price. Be wary of accepting so-called "benefits" of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Aren't you enslaved enough already?

I said (above) that you are presumed to know the law. Still, it matters not if you don't in the eyes of the corporation. Ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. It is your responsibility and your obligation as an American to learn about the law and how it applies to you. THEY count on the fact that most people are too uninterested or distracted or lazy to do so. The People have been mentally conditioned to allow the alleged government to do their thinking for them. We need to turn that around if we are to save our Republic before it is too late.

The UNITED STATES government is basically a corporate instrument of the international bankers. This means YOU are owned by the corporation from birth to death. The corporate UNITED STATES also holds ownership of all your assets, your property, and even your children. Does this sound untrue? Think long and hard about all those bills you pay, all those various taxes and fines and licenses you must pay for. Yes, they've got you by the pockets. Actually, they've had you by the ass for as long as you've been alive. In your heart, you know it's true. Don't believe any of this? Read up on the 14th Amendment. Check out how "free" you really are.

With the Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, our once-great nation of Sovereigns has been subverted from a Republic to a democracy. As is the case under Roman Civil Law, our ignorance of the facts has led to our silence. Our silence has been construed as our consent to become beneficiaries of a debt we did not incur. The Sovereign People have been deceived for hundreds of years into thinking they remain free and independent, when in actuality we continue to be slaves and servants of the corporation.

Treason was committed against the People in 1871 by the Congress. This could have been corrected through the decades by some honest men (assuming there were some), but it was not, mainly due to lust for money and power. Nothing new there. Are we to forgive and justify this crime against the People? You have lost more freedom than you may realize due to corporate infiltration of the so-called government. We will lose more unless we turn away from a democracy that is the direct road to disaster — and restore our Constitutional Republic.

In an upcoming article, we'll take a closer look at the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment and how we became "property" of the corporation and enslaved by our silence.

I am saddened to think about the brave men and women who were killed in all the wars and conflicts instigated by the Controllers. These courageous souls fought for the preservation of ideals they believed to be true — not for the likes of a corporation. Do you believe that any one of the individuals who have been killed as a result of war would have willingly fought if they knew the full truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his life for a corporation? I think not. If the People had known long ago to what extent their trust had been betrayed, I wonder how long it would have taken for another Revolution. What we need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We change our thinking and we change our world.

Will we ever restore the Republic? That is a question I cannot answer yet. I hope, and most of all — pray — that WE, the Sovereign People, will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make it happen in this lifetime. I know I will give it my best shot — come what may. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to give to us. Will we remain silent telling ourselves we are free, and perpetuate the MYTH? Or, do we stand as One Sovereign People, and take back what has been stolen from the house of our Republic?

Something to think about — it's called freedom.

My heartfelt thanks goes out to the following people for their gracious and generous assistance in researching this subject: Ken S. of American Revolution II Online News, Paul Walker of RMN News, Bob Taft, Stanooch, and Willy Whitten — true Patriots, one and all.

Editor's note: Actually in the U.S. Code the term "United States" is said to have any of three meanings:

US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions (archived here)

(15) "United States" means —
   (A) a Federal corporation;
   (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
   (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Further reading:

If we are stupid enough to surrender our freedom to a bunch of lousy international bankers, then we deserve to live in bondage.  — Lisa Guliani

A comparison of this article with the ripoff by "Reality Bytes":

Lisa Guliani "Reality Bytes"
We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song — but how many Americans realize they are not free? The day is recognized as a day to celebrate our "Independence". A celebration of free people living in the land of Liberty. We sing songs of the greatness of our country, we wave our flags in joyous, patriotic, euphoria. In reality there are not many Americans that have the realization that they are not Free.
This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. This is an illusion that the countries controllers immortalize to avoid the People realizing the truth. It allows them to keep the population under the militaristic control of a Big Brother Conglomerate of corporate control.
The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained — or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. The Freedoms which have not been stolen from us, we have given up willingly through ignorance and apathy. Allowing ourselves to be distracted by baubles and shiny objects like children. We the people had no idea how to maintain our Freedoms or for that matter, how they could be taken from us.
Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. Those in denial will immediately shout about the parchment known as the Constitution. That is the Symbol of Freedom for the people. It symbolizes the Representative form of government that no longer exists in the United States of America.
The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. The Constitution is dead and the Republic has been replaced with a corrupt form of Democracy. The saddest part of this fiasco is that most Americans will never know or realize exactly what it was that they lost. They will never see the Truth behind the lies.
To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. To start to see the Truth and to understand what happened to this great Republic, we need to start at the period after the Civil War. It was in the year 1871 that the decline and elimination of the Republic began.
So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. Let us delve into the History of the country, the History that is not taught in school!
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. The Congress knew that our country was bankrupt, so they made an arrangement with the International Bankers to run up a Debt to these Foreign Banks ( the Rothschilds of London were investing in many enterprises Globally).
If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. One thing that everyone knows about banks is that they do not lend money simply to be kind. The only way that a Bank would enter into a contract is if it would benefit the Bank. Some kind of Collateral, or some kind of scheme that would put the population into servitude to the Banks would be necessary.
The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed. The sneaky and manipulating International Bankers would not lend money to our financially troubled nation without some stipulations. They came up with a devious scheme to gain control over the country that they had desired for a long time. The Founding Fathers detested these Foreign Entities and kept them at bay until the Act of 1871 was passed.

And so on. It is obvious that "Reality Bytes" has taken Lisa Guliani's article, reworded it, and published it on The Hub as his own work (and he then accused websites which had published her article of copyright violation — pretty stupid of him). "Reality Bytes" is clearly guilty of blatant plagiarism. The Hub should thus remove his article to protect their reputation. — But a year has gone by, and the article has not been removed, so we can conclude that The Hub is a site whose articles, if well-written, are likely to be ripoffs of articles from other sites (by people seeking to make money by exploiting the work of others, more talented than they are).

A copy of the Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

Liberty and Democracy Serendipity Home Page

The united states Of America  is a corporation owned by foreign interests

Below are two articles covering the fact that, since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.  

In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD -- and that was very significant as you will read.  

Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any "legal" document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this. 

I'm told this corporation, established in 1871, will be cancelled by NESARA and NESARA will also restore the ORIGINAL Constitution which assists in restoring our Constitutional Rights and the Bill of Rights and our rights as described in the Declaration of Independence. 

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871*

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62). 

The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. 

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.

* Info from yet unpublished book, "Pentimento: Freedom Revisited." As you will see when reading, just as much of my knowledge of the Trading with the Enemy Act came from Gene Schroder, et al. this, too, came from elsewhere -- from Lisa Guilian of Babel Magazine, whom I first "met" by way of an article by Patrick Bellringer. So, we cooperate as we study and learn the truth.  C. E.


It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not! 

Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. 

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed. 

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. 

[Information courtesy of Lisa Guliani, The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.] 

The UNITED STATES Isn't a Country - It's a Corporation!

In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain's banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the common herd all rights of sui juris. [sovereignty] 

Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did they do so? First, Lisa Guliani of Babel Magazine, reminds us that the Civil War was, in fact, "little more than a calculated front
with fancy footwork by backroom players."
Then she adds:

"It was also a strategic maneuver by British and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie).  . . . . There you have the WHY, why members of Congress permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America. . . . . .

"Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word 'for' to 'of' in the title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: 'The Constitution for the united states of America.' [note that neither the words 'united' nor 'states' began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [sui juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands  on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign:

"Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction." 

In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns -- free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land -- was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only We the People are sovereign. Government is not
sovereign. The Declaration of Independence says, "government is subject to the consent of the governed." That's us -- the sovereigns. When did you last feet like a sovereign? As Lisa Guliani explained: 

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that the U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does.

"You see, you are 'presumed' to know the law, which is very weird since We the People are taught NOTHING about the law in school. We memorize obscure facts and phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, 'We the People. establish this Constitution for the United States of America.' But our teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the corporate government) don't delve into the Constitution at depth. After all, the corporation was established to indoctrinate and 'dumb-down' the masses, not to teach anything of value or importance. 

"Certainly, no one mentioned that America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet, for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There's an endless stream of things the People aren't told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? 

"After passage of the Act of 1871, Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down the river. 

"Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the people's gold in 1933, the 'common herd' was handed over to illegitimate law. (I'll bet you weren't taught THAT in school.)

"Our corporate form of governance is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty, or Maritime, Law, which is also known as the 'Divine Right of Kings' and the 'Law of the Seas' -- another fact of American history not taught in our schools. Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation began, and then became managed by private international law. In other words, the government -- the government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 -- operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.

"This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called 'departments' --i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the corporation -- to the UNITED STATES.

"Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government -- your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the  'corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,' which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a
corporation?  You say you'll ask your Congressperson about this? HA!!

"Congress is fully aware of this deception. So it's time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we can't get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our questions.

"Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia. Let that tidbit sink in, then ask yourself, could this deception have occurred without full knowledge and complicity of the Congress? Do you think it happened by accident? If you do, you're deceiving yourself. 

"There are no accidents, no coincidences. Face the facts and confront the truth. Remember, you are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law or, for that matter, your history. Why? Because no concerted effort was ever made to teach or otherwise inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to 'give' you.

"Remember also that 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.' It's your responsibility and obligation to learn the law and know how it applies to you. No wonder the corporation counted on the fact that most people are too indifferent, unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn what they need to know to survive within the system. We have been conditioned to let the government do our thinking for us. Now's the time to turn that around if we intend to help save our Republic and ourselves -- before it's too late.

"As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property, even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills taxes, fines, and licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If you don't believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how 'free' you really are. Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent; consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth we are servants of the corporation.

"Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren't enough honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called 'government.' 

"Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from the us? 

"If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed, how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, then we can change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy -- the liberty our ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People." [Posted 8/27/02,]

From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION [emphasis added] all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. ."





Thursday, October 25, 2012

Charles Dickens as a Critic of the United States

by Louie Crew First appeared in Midwest Quarterly 16.1 (1974): 42-50.
© 1974 by Midwest Quarterly; © 2004 by Louie Crew
    Many contemporary critiques of American civilization are anticipated by that of Charles Dickens, who as England's celebrated novelist and democratic reformer first visited the United States in 1842, early in his career.  Dickens' account of the visit, American Notes, was one of the first British viewpoints to demonstrate that an Englishman did not have to be an aristocrat to distrust the American rhetoric.  Dickens charged Americans with incivility, arrogance, anti-intellectualism, a predilection for violence, and hypocrisy, particularly about anti-democratic policies such as slavery.  The book initially stirred a controversy among American readers, who resented Dickens as an outsider and peremptorily dismissed his views.  Except for the academic effort to place the book within the Dickens canon, American Notes has since been largely ignored.  Dickens' literary advisor and biographer John Forster (I, 185f) left the impression that the book would have been better not written.   Dickensian Ada Nisbet (p. 205) suggests that Forster tried to suppress American Notes because it was "a serious blow to Dickens' prestige and popularity."  The late Edmund Wilson once said that Dickens' "picture of the United States in 1842, at a period of brave boastings and often squalid or meager realities, has a unique and permanent value" (The Wound and the Bow, p. 28).  Literary scholars have not expressed much interest, however.  Students of history and American civilization would be well advised to.
    What upset the Americans with their hero, whom they greeted as the most welcomed visitor since Lafayette (Forster, I, 186), was his stand in favor of International Copyright.  Without it American publishers were paying no royalties on imported manuscripts.   Few people of good will thought the policy equitable, but their objection was to Dickens' use of his platform as a guest artist to speak out on business and politics.  When he did so, some accused him of petty self-serving, in spite of the fact that International Copyright would also serve the interests of American authors, then ignored or short-changed by publishers who could easily pirate foreign materials.  In any event, Dickesn was equally disturbed by his sponsors' undemocratic desire to muzzle him, to make him take the stance of an uncritical hero, as if democracy were a fait accompli on this side of the Atlantic.  As the copyright issue inflated, it became for Dickens a symptom of a much more pervasive disease, name the American preoccupation with image-making.
    A little reflection would have warned the Americans that the man who had uncompromisingly leveled at evils in England (to the pleasure of the Americans) would be sensitive to similar evils wherever he found them.  Yet even native critics had so insecure a footing in the new republic  (or so little grasp of the national temper) that they did not come to the alien's defense.  Dickens became a lone crusader, embarrassing the literary and the political establishment which had hoped to honor him.
    It is still easy for American scholarship to react emotionally and politically to American Notes.  Dickensian Harry Stone (pp. 477-478) takes a patriotic view:
He was unable to see America with the eyes of the immigrant, the settler, the visionary, or even the sympathetic traveler. . . .   Dickens had no realistic conception of America as a growing, expanding nation. . . .  He despised the rickety settlements along the Ohio because they were rickety settlements and aspired to be more.  There was no belief in what they might become;  there was no understanding of what the people who lived in those settlements were doing.
Of course, once argue the other side, that "the people who lived in those settlements" were preparing for one of the bloodiest fratricidal wars in history.  Or even for Korea and Vietnam?  It is easy for purely literary judgments not to remain "pure," to be contaminated with a naive politics of G. P. western films.  The normal course for literary scholars is to wish that their artist had stayed out of the political arena.  Professor Nisbet complains:
But the sorriest spectacle of Dickens trying to prove all the world wrong about American Notes and its author was when he rushed into print at the time of the Civil war with his "I-told-you-so-in-1842" boast (p. 215)
Yet on may question what is sorry about truth  Page after page of American Notes was devoted to showing the dangers of civil disorder in high places, the dangers of easy acceptance of public brutality, the dangers of lectures about culture without substantial efforts to support a culture.  Certainly these factors must be weighed in any assessment of the Civil War, as Dickens himself maintained:
My readers have opportunities of judging for themselves whether the influences and tendencies which I  distrusted in America, had, at that time, any existence but in my imagination.  They can examine for themselves whether there has been anything in the public career of that country since, at home or abroad, which suggests that those influences and tendencies really did exist.  (American Notes, p. xi)
    A fresh reading of American Notes is sure to persuade many readers that Americans past and present have over-reacted to the book and have distorted the purposes of the writer.  In f act, Dickens was not altogether hostile to his hosts, and his account never stoops to yellow journalism.  It is better viewed as an honest record of his culture shock.  Edmund Wilson compared Dickens' edxperience to that of "'fellow travelers' of yesterday [who] went to seek in the Soviet Union" (p. 23), a crisis in which Dickens was forced to confront his own Englishness and his own middle-class lifestyle.  It is important to note, however, that Dickens did not let his stance as gentleman keep him from visiting ungentlemanly haunts.  He made a concerted effort ot meet the "other America," often visiting third-world institutions such as jails, work houses, factory workrooms, and asylums.  He even expressed concern about the wages of housemaids in the White House (VIII, 125).  It is true that Dickens did not share the current widespread American distrust of gentlemanliness in a democrat.  Nor did he share the Americans' uncritical acceptance of the rhetoric of democracy.  When speaking of the ridiculousness of behavior at Congress, Dickens reminded his Yankee readers:
In the first place--it may be from some imperfect development of my organ of veneration--I do not ever remember having fainted away, or having even been moved to tears of joyful pride, at the sight of any legislative body.  I have borne the House of Commons like a man, and have yielded to no weakness, but slumber, in the House of Lords (VIII, 118)
    Overly senstive American readers seem not to have noticed that Dickens did not spare English residents or tourists any of his criticism.  He described one English thief, met in jail, as "a villainous, low-browed, thin-lipped fellow, with a white face; who had as yet no relish for visitors, and who but for the additional penalty, would have gladly stabbed me with his shoemaker's knife (VII, 103).  About English settlers he said:
Of all grades and kinds of men that jostle one in the public conveyances of the States, these are often the most intolerable and the most insufferable companions. . . .  These countrymen of ours display and amount of insolent conceit and cool assumption of superiority, quite monstrous to behold. (VIII, 112)
Dickens was quick to observe that a "celebrated" Scotsman, Dr. Crocus, was given to democratic cant without substance even more so than many of the locals (XIII, 180-182).  In his account of the Lowell experiment, Dickens used an American manufacturing system to take a swipe at England's class system:  "And there is no manufacturing population in Lowell, so to speak:  for these girls (often the daughters of small farmers) come from other States, remain a few years in the mills, and then go home for good" (IV, 69-70).  If Dickens attacked Americans for their propensity for violence, it was not without allusion to "those good old customs of the good old times which made England, even so recently as in the reign of the Third King George, in respect of her criminal code and her prison regulations, one of the most bloody-minded and barbarous countries on the earth"  (III, 51).  Even Dickens' middle-class concern about the lack of creature comforts in a few places is balanced by much praise for American accommodations.     What is particular effective about Dickens' stance as an Englishman and as a gentlman is that he never allowed those roles to squelch his role of objective observer.  He claimed:
    This book is simply what it claims to be--a record of the impressions I received from day to day, during my hasty travels in America, and sometimes (but not always) of the conclusions to which they, and after-reflections on them, have led me; a description of the country I passed through; of the institutions I visited; of the kind of people among whom I journeyed; an of the manners and customs that came within my observation.  (Forster, I, 264)
The anger which is important to American Notes is the anger explicit in his criticism of specific evils, never anger levelled at the critics of his views.  Usually he mutes his emotions and allows the issues to speak for themselves, as in the long chapter on slavery (XVII), in which he cited article after article from the Americans' own papers to reveal that slaveowners were not honest in their claims that most of their number avoided brutality.  Also he cited American sources to demonstrate that gentlemen who tolerate slavery are also violent with other gentlemen.     It is imperative to note how many specific individuals Dickens manage to observe and describe in American Notes, particularly when one considers the limitations imposed upon one on a tour given much publicity.  His involvement with the populace manifests itself noticeably in his concern for the immigrants and settlers.  He described two New York Irish laborers with much immediacy:
You might know them, if they were masked, by their long-tailed blue coats and bright buttons. . . .   It would be hard to keep your model republics going without the countrymen and countrywomen of those two laborers.  For who else would dig, and delve, and drudge, and do domestic work, an make canals and roads, and execute great lines of Internal Improvement? (VI, 81)
In the midst of a Cincinnati Temperance Convention Dickens singled out, with particular pleasure, "the Irishmen, who formed a distinct society among themselves, and mustered very strong with their green scarves, carrying their national Harp . . ."  (XI, 162).  Furthermore, Dickens repeatedly described specific settlers met in the West, observing generally that "it is a singular though very natural feature in the society of these distant settlements, that it is mainly composed of adventurous persons in the prime of life"  (XIII, 177).  He was repeatedly sensitive to the danger of romanticizing the adventure, however, as in his telling reference to the "simple Welsh schoolmaster with his wife and child; who came here, on a speculation of greater promise than performance" (XIV, 191) and in his brief vignette on a restless Western landlord,
one of the very many descendents of Cain proper to this continent, who seem destined from their birth to serve as pioneers in the great human army:  who gladly go on from year to year extending its outposts, and leaving home after home behind them; and die at last, utterly regardless of their graves being left thousands of miles behind, by the wandering generation who succeed. (XIV, 186)
Once Dickens describes with great empathy the "Little Wife" going out to meet her husband with their child whom the husband has never seen (XII, 172f.).  He also described a pathetic scene of immigrants newly arrived from  England and Iceland to the hardships of Canadian settlement:  "Cant as we may, and as we shall to the end of all things, it is very much harder for the poor to be virtuous than it is for the rich; and the good that is in them shines the brighter for it"  (XV, 211).  Dickens always selected as objects of his empathy individuals in some way victims of the American Dream, be they Irish, as above, or Indians (See IX, 142; XII, 165ff. XIV, 195f.), Negroes (as in IC, 131ff.), or just dirty old innkeepers by the score.  Dickens literally climbed over the country trying  to get closer to these people.  He was reticent only when alienated by the braggadocio and blind patriotism of certain individuals, such as the gentlema "with two sentiments, one of which was, Somebody for ever; and the other, Blast everybody else!" (XIII, 179) or the man who said of his "valiant and ferocious" uncle that "he shouldn't wonder if he were to follow the said captain to England, 'and shoot him down in the street, wherever he found him'" (XIV, 192).     Dickens allowed American Notes some deeply personal moments.  He described his disappointment with the prairie beyond St. Louis, which he had anticipated with great relish (XIII, 182ff.).  In contrast, he shared his awe of Niagara (XIII, 199-201).  H admitted his homesickness, poignantly when he described a New England grave yard that "would have been better for an old church:  better still for some old graves" (V, 72) and again when he is nervously urgent at the inconveniences which threaten to delay their journey "toward Niagara and home"  (XIV, 194).
    Still another dimension of Dickens' account often overlooked by supersensitive patriots is the rich humor which pervades American Notes.  Perhaps now that English Oxbridgeans can admit the B. T. A. Degree ("Been to America Degree") is a recurrent private status among them, Americans are free to realize that Dickens earned his B. T. A. by making way for Babbitt and even for the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  The frauds the duke and king therein are foreshadowed in Dickens' outsider observations.  Dickens is willing to be comic even at his own expense, as in his early account of his seasickness (I, 3f.) and in a later steamer trip where he is awakened in the middle of the night by a man opposite a thin partitions saying:  "Boz is on board, my dear. . . .   Boz keeps himself very close. . . .   I suppose that Boz will be writing a book by-and-by, and putting all our names in it!" (XIV, 199).
    If Dickens' jokes about our nationalism still sting, perhaps it is just as well.  He worked to remind us that a country is not great merely by saying so.  He put fort ideals of honesty, and suggested that we might achieve more of such ideals if we could laugh at the pigs in our streets, the tobacco juice on our carpets, our provincial bragging, our humorless religious sects which encourage alienation more than warmth, our "darning" of our mothers more than of ignorance, our praising giants of physical stature more than those of character, etc.  The humor of American Notes is more than a traveler's awkwardness at not being able to acquire refreshment at a temperance hotel, though that is part of it (XIV, 191).  Sometimes it is almost a morbid humor, as in the incident of "two little boys" fighting it out with real pistols (XVII, 241).  American Notes will contineu to mock those who cannot laugh with it.  Such is the healthy function of successful satire.


Works Cited

  • Charles Dickens, American Notes (London, The New Oxford Illustrated Dickens, 1957).  Roman capitals refer to chapters, arabic numerals to pages.
  • John Forster, The Life of Charles Dickens, ed. A. J. Hoppe (London, 1966).
  • Ada B. Nisbet, "The Mystery of Martin Chuzzlewit,"  Essays Critical and Historical Dedicated to Lily B. Campbell (Berkeley, 1950).
  • Harry Stone, "Dickens' Use of His American Experiences in Martin Chuzzlewit,"PMLA LXXII (1957), 464-478
  • Edmund Wilson, The Wound and the Bow (New York, 1947)

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996. Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Philosopher King Speaks

Tuesday June 19th, 2007
Life under the World State (InformationLiberation)
"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment."

"Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953, pg 49-50

"In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."

"Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative...."

"On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931

Edward Bernays

Tuesday March 21st, 2006
The Century of the Self (InformationLiberation)
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."
- Edward Bernays


Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty.

To many in both politics and business, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power has finally moved to the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?

The Freud dynasty is at the heart of this compelling social history. Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis; Edward Bernays, who invented public relations; Anna Freud, Sigmund's devoted daughter; and present-day PR guru and Sigmund's great grandson, Matthew Freud.

Sigmund Freud's work into the bubbling and murky world of the subconscious changed the world. By introducing a technique to probe the unconscious mind, Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society's belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man's ultimate goal.

Please Note: Viewers should be sure to read Ludwig Von Mises' 'The Anti-Capitalist Mentality' to balance the socialistic elements of this film.

This film was produced by BBC which is Britain's government run news channel, therefor it downplays the evils of government and plays up the vices of business. The enemy is not capitalism or 'consumption' but government and its insidious propaganda. Mass produced goods enrich society because they reduce the amount of time a person has to work to satisfy one's essential needs. Government propaganda debases society because it is used as an excuse for everything from murderous wars of aggression to oppressive economy killing taxation and regulation. When a business sells you something voluntarily you will only buy it if you think the product is worth more than the price you have to pay for it. When the government propagandizes you they are merely giving you excuses to submit to their use of force which will be bearing down on you whether you like it or not. The two are very different and this film does a disservice by confusing them. That said, it's important to understand the propagandists who serve to justify the crimes of the state. Selling someone a product they don't truly need hurts no one, selling people on a war they don't need gets millions of people murdered and destroys entire societies. - Chris, InformationLiberation

Happiness Machines
Part One

One: Happiness Machines

The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires.

Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer persuasion, using every trick in the book, from celebrity endorsement and outrageous PR stunts, to eroticising the motorcar.

His most notorious coup was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes were a symbol of independence and freedom. But Bernays was convinced that this was more than just a way of selling consumer goods. It was a new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that his uncle had identified, people could be made happy and thus docile.

It was the start of the all-consuming self which has come to dominate today's world.

See Ludwig von Mises "The Noneconomic Objections to Capitalism" and "The Argument of Happiness" to balance the propaganda in this section.

The Engineering of Consent
Part Two

Two: The Engineering of Consent

The programme explores how those in power in post-war America used Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind to try and control the masses.

Politicians and planners came to believe Freud's underlying premise - that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had led to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again they set out to find ways to control this hidden enemy within the human mind.

Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, and his nephew, Edward Bernays, provided the centrepiece philosophy. The US government, big business, and the CIA used their ideas to develop techniques to manage and control the minds of the American people. But this was not a cynical exercise in manipulation. Those in power believed that the only way to make democracy work and create a stable society was to repress the savage barbarism that lurked just under the surface of normal American life.

There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads:
He Must Be Destroyed

Part Three

Three: There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed

In the 1960s, a radical group of psychotherapists challenged the influence of Freudian ideas in America. They were inspired by the ideas of Wilhelm Reich, a pupil of Freud's, who had turned against him and was hated by the Freud family. He believed that the inner self did not need to be repressed and controlled. It should be encouraged to express itself.

Out of this came a political movement that sought to create new beings free of the psychological conformity that had been implanted in people's minds by business and politics.

This programme shows how this rapidly developed in America through self-help movements like Werber Erhard's Erhard Seminar Training - into the irresistible rise of the expressive self: the Me Generation.

But the American corporations soon realised that this new self was not a threat but their greatest opportunity. It was in their interest to encourage people to feel they were unique individuals and then sell them ways to express that individuality. To do this they turned to techniques developed by Freudian psychoanalysts to read the inner desires of the new self.

[InfoLib Note: The portrayal of Wilhelm Reich in this film is completely wrong, Wilhelm Reich was one of the greatest men to ever live, check out his book "Listen, Little Man!"]

Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering
Part Four

Four: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

This episode explains how politicians on the left, in both Britain and America, turned to the techniques developed by business to read and fulfil the inner desires of the self.

Both New Labour, under Tony Blair, and the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, used the focus group, which had been invented by psychoanalysts, in order to regain power. They set out to mould their policies to people's inner desires and feelings, just as capitalism had learnt to do with products.

Out of this grew a new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism. One of its stars in Britain was Matthew Freud who followed in the footsteps of his relation, Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations in the 1920s.

The politicians believed they were creating a new and better form of democracy, one that truly responded to the inner feelings of individual. But what they didn't realise was that the aim of those who had originally created these techniques had not been to liberate the people but to develop a new way of controlling them.

Other options to view the film:

1. Click here to watch it instantly in Real Media Format

2. Click here to get to and download it for free

3. Download it directly from the following links, right click and choose "save as".

The Century of the Self -- Part 1--Part 2--Part 3--Part 4
(right click, save as)

There are four parts. Each part is around 160 MB. The video is in MP4 format which requires VLC Media Player (

Media Lens critiques aspects of the film

The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting: The BBC's The Century of the Self - Part 2 - Part 3

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

a fascist town: the sick joke of "media" in Oklahoma City.

City Hall, Dirty Laundry Why should a street musician be required to have a PERMIT for anything?Is it not public property on the sidewalk,in the park...... I'd love to see street musician's in bricktown,why pay a $100 bucks for a new bra for the mayor's wife? Isn't bricktown part of MAPS which we as taxpayers paid for to start with? How about a PERMIT for BREATHING AIR! Godwin aside, the commenter is right. But here's why I think things won't change, and for the most part, the people here don't want a change. The local government is dirty, mobbed up with the energy tycoons and real estate developers and so is the sick joke of "media" in Oklahoma City. If some intrepid journalist in Oklahoma tried to investigate the local big-money goings on, they'd be shut down and burned in a heartbeat, UNLESS the powers that be could somehow use it for personal gain. We live in a fascist town and sadly, most of the people here either embrace it (out of greed or pride), or are too ignorant to know any better. As soulless and awful as that may be, at least the economic horror show (now showing on the coasts) is still slow to reach us, just like fashion and music trends. Sorry bro, but you can't fight city hall, it's too strong, too dirty and too well insulated. But don't ever stop and don't take any guff from these bastards! Hitler's okc city council (okc)

Chas. Manson: Eco Warrior" Bard of Lillie, Hub Press


Was Charles Manson one of the first eco-warriors?


By Bard of Ely

The truth about Charles Manson

Charles Manson is portrayed by the mainstream media as a serial killer and dangerous madman. Marilyn Manson picked up on this idea and used the surname to create and boost his own image as a shock-rocker. But not everyone believes that Charles Manson is as he has been depicted.

Manson has many supporters and friends who do not believe the media's version. For me, Charles Manson is a philosopher, visionary and environmentalist, and was possibly the first eco-warrrior. I know I can identify with very much he says and find a great deal of wisdom in his words.

Now I realise that many people out there feel he is a ¨monster", a "psychopath" and a "Satanist" (there are many types!), and I have heard all these labels applied but over the course of many years I have spent countless hours watching videos with him in, reading his words and about him, and I do not accept that this widely held public opinion is the right one. I used to have cassettes of his songs too. Perhaps I am biased because I am a singer-songwriter too and was impressed with his songs? Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys thought very highly of his abiity as a singer-songwriter and musician.

Perhaps I am biased because I care about nature and the environment passionately and know that Manson does too but I don't think it is as simple as that. The fact that he is an outspoken environmentalist is always left out of the majority of discussions about him in the media. Now why would that be?

Am I going to get into the argument about the murders and Manson's guilt or innocence? Not really, because I wish to focus on him as an environmentalist. That is what this article is about - Charles Manson the eco-warrior!

Charles Manson

Air Trees Water Animals - ATWA

Charles Manson's views on what life is all about are encompassed in his idea of ATWA, which stands for Air, Trees, Water and Animals or "All The Way Alive". He argues that without air we all die, as do all animals.

Trees are the lungs of the planet and keep the air as it should be but people are destructively destroying the forests at an alarming scale. Water, which makes up a large part of out bodies and is essential for life, is running out in many places and is often polluted with toxins in others.

Animals are the amazing living beings we share this planet with as a home but many species are becoming extinct and countless animals are murdered and cruelly abused by humans on a daily basis. Billions of people have lost their respect for trees and animals, or else they would not be behaving as they are doing.

In a conversation dated 6 July 2002, Manson said: "The only food the trees need is water and we are killing that too. Do you understand that by killing the water the air goes with it by way of the tree and so do we one way or another brother, we will stop."

It is obvious to me that what he says is true. It is common sense but strangely so many people seem unaware of what is so obvious, or worse, they do know but do not care!

The Kogi mamos on their sacred mountain home of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta have said much the same. They are extremely worried that there is no snow high on the mountain peaks where it should be. The snow and ice and clouds around the mountains create water for lower down and if there is no snow, no ice and no clouds there can be no water. Without water all will die. It is that simple.

Manson has said that the "Air is God" and "Ecology is God." Without air we all die, without a balanced ecosystem animals and plants are dying out and many people are worried about the future of the human race. We cannot keep on destroying nature and waging war against the planet!

You can read many quotes from Charles Manson about ecology and life here:

The media has lied to you about Charles Manson

Arrested for arson

In the Wikipedia entry for ATWA it is explained that Charles Manson was arrested in December 1969, not for murder, but for arson because he had set fire to a Michigan Loader earth-moving vehicle. This was an attempt to stop road construction in the Death Valley area where he and his group were at the time.

The term eco-warrior was to be coined many years after this, and has been used to describe environmentalist protesters who take direct action to help ensure the safety of the land and natural habitats. Some eco-warriors have engaged in damaging property that belongs to firms that are destroying forests or building roads.

Eco-warriors often end up in court cases. Charles Manson was arrested for arson originally, but he was held and charged with conspiracy to commit murders and it was this that he was convicted of and made the headlines with not his environmental activism.

Whilst many people in today's 'Green Movement' might not like the idea of having Manson held up as a representative of their beliefs because of the reputation he has had as a killer, what he has said about the Air, Trees, water and Animals is clearly the truth!

Steve Andrews. All Charles Manson Slinks

* Charles Manson Breaks 20-Year Silence, Warns Of Global Warming

Charles Manson, the notorious nigger hate cult leader, has broken his 20-year silence, and is speaking out about global warming. Manson, now 76 years old, was accused of brainwashing members of his commune known The Manson Family."

System of a Down or SOAD,  as they are also known, are a hard-rock band from Southern California with all of the members being Armenian-Islamic Eco-Terrorist Illegal Aliens in the Americans. The group are known for being very outspoken and for dealing with controversial subjects in their work and lyrics.

System of a Down paid tribute to Charles Manson and his ideas with their song Atwa from their album Toxicity.

Answers from Fellow 'Christerns' about Making Charles Manson into a Green Hero

'Concern for the environment' was only one ruse that Chuck used to lure followers to carry out his violent fantasies. The swastika on his forehead says it all. (I know... that was just theater too.)

The Rising Glory pussygalore

Deception is rampant in the USA. While everyone can have their personal beliefs about anything, believing a lie is still a lie.

Charles Manson lives about 30 miles from my home. I personally know guards who have had his security detail. The man is a nutcase through and through.

Karen Nigger lover race traitor

To me everything else is over-shadowed by what he did.

While he may not have committed the murders himself, he was the one in charge and his followers were carrying out his orders.

In my opinion the man is insane and is incapable of loving anything except maybe himself. A psychopath is very skilled at manipulating people and telling them just what they want to hear in order to exert his control over them.

As I said I was expecting comments like yours! You are a typical dumb bitch. You should just SHUT UP AND DIE! The swastika is an ancient symbol of the sun and used by many other cultures and religions before it got its comparatively recent current sinister image. See here:

Alternative Prime profile image

Charles Manson is not the mysterious, mystical, borderline genius/madman who could control the universe with a simple wave of his hand the media always seems to portray him as, quite the contrary. With only snippets of vintage pre-prison film footage and or brief sanitized interviews conducted while incarcerated after conviction to reference, it's fairly easy even for the non professional psycho analyzer to evaluate and render an accurate diagnosis of his stable yet diabolical mental condition.

Charles Manson was essentially a disenfranchised musician who wanted nothing more than to be placed upon an artistic pedestal along side his idols and true artistic legends such as the Beatles, who, after being denied this accolade, ultimately took his frustration out on society while trying to excuse or mitigate the significance of his atrocities by placing blame on his apparent dysfunctional upbringing.

The distance between his distorted mind and genius is the equivalent of the number of light years between Planet Earth and our possible origins over in Zeta Reticuli, which is quite far the last time I personally measured. However, he was endowed with age and charisma as advantages over his younger immature congregation which can, and did unfortunately, turn out to be a powerful set of tools as he pursued his manipulative purpose.

Eco Warrior? Everyone who is convicted of a crime repents and is miraculously transformed into a man or woman of divine purpose, the "Mantra" he decided to conveniently adopt was "Environmental Advocate". His brief liaisons with activism prior to conviction were in my opinion, something to bring along with him to jail after sentencing.

Intriguing Piece - Thanks For Publishing -

- Alternative Prime -

AmyGoodman profile; Founder & CEO; DemocracyNOW!

AmyGoodman Level 4 Commenter 7 months ago

The Swastika is an ancient sun symbol, this is true. Manson also believed that groups like the Black Panthers were the start of huge race war that black people were going to initiate against white people. Whether Manson carved a swastiki into his forehead to show sympathy with Hinduism or nazi mysticism, or for some other reason can only be guessed at.

His eco ideas are just part of a bigger, grand theory that he had, according to his followers and himself. Whether you can accept parts of his grand theory and reject other parts, such as his profound racism, his belief in the inferiority of women, and apocalyptic paranoia is questionable. The green ideas are certainly more palatable than some of his other ideas.

Manson is clever in terms of manipulation and people skills and has charisma, but he is hardly an intellectual heavyweight. I genuinely find it hard to understand what was or is uniquely "visionary" about him.

I think Manson did a profound discredit to the eco movement. He was the hippy from hell, a gift to rightwing politicians and people who oppose Green ideals.

I have known modern eco-warriors, such as Earth First. They are generally responsible people with a sense of moral obligation. I am uncomfortable with the idea of you linking Manson with them.

Bard of Ely professional Green Eco-Nazi Terrorist

Bard of Ely; Manson Green Hero defender Author

In my opinion the best way of knowing what Manson's ideas are is not from the media and not from books but from what he says and from what his supporters have said about him. I admit I have heard him speak of women in an inferior way and I cannot agree with him on that at all! With regard to what he says about ecology and the planet I have no disagreement with any of it. He is right: we depend on the air, on trees and water. If we destroy them we die as do the animals.

I agree with your right to believe and feel what ever you like, and I support that. The only real research I personally have done on Manson was to read Helter Skelter, and I read it when I was too young to understand "spin". There was a scene described therein about an acid party and how it turned into an orgy, then suicide. Although I know that the swastika was used as a cardinal symbol, I cannot educate the public to believe it was anything but a symbol relating to the Nazis. Just as the Confederate flag is not offensive to me, it is to the black community. Manson is the epitome of what put an end to the hippy culture, good or bad.

I think you did a good thing by stirring up peoples feelings about this subject; that's what we are called to do sometimes as writers. But I also feel like you walked into a room of holocaust survivors wearing the uniform, waving the flag, and singing the praises of Hitler. Might as well be a black rapper with his pants down so he can't run with his arm around a white blond girl at a KKK rally. I feel a lynching coming on, and I'll do what I can to stand by your right to have an opinion, but I'm sorry, I think that's where I draw the line. I would have chosen a better role model to support the fight for ecology.

You are right about the sort of reaction this is getting as can be seen from the comments here and also at Facebook where I have shared the link. Just because a load of people believe something that has been pushed as the correct version of anything doesn't mean it is true but merely that it has been pushed that well that it has become accepted. You could say the same about any religion - billions believe all the major religions as fact but I believe they are all based around books of stories that have become accepted as the truth by a very large number of people. It doesn't mean that they are true!


charles manson is an eco-warior,...

i at least take comfort that you knew and were, i assume, prepared for the responses you would get for this piece..... you got stones my friend,... thats a fact.

i myself am perfectly willing to listen to a reasoned point of view, and applaud you in being reasoned in your responses as well,...

but wow,... gota say it,...

if you can separate the crimes from the Bugliosi Book's spin so as to talk up the eco-warior status of charles manson,.... you should be in sales,...

ocean front property on the moon,... used cars in amish country,... etc.

so charles got the mother earth thing right,.... yea,... hitler was a master orator and his nazi government were organizational and logistics wizards,... realy if you can compartmentalize that well,... you can make that leap with me,... yes?

even a broken clock is right twice a day,....

if jeffery dahmer wrote and talked about the value of a well ballanced diet after going to prison,.... that doesnt make him a nutritional expert.

best of luck my ballsy friend,.... i loved this by the way,... well done,...fantasy,.... but well done fantasy.

(please try and picture the wry smile on my face with the twinkling fire of respect for a fellow shock jock in my eye)

Bard of Ely Hub Author 7 months ago

Thank you for your feedback! I actually got inspired to put this hub together because I am writing a book entitled The Dropouts and the starting point is my recollection of hearing Manson saying that what Timothy Leary had advised people, namely, turning on, tuning in and dropping out was a bad idea, and he (Manson) was speaking from experience of having lived in the world of the drop outs. As one who took Leary's advice I can see in retrospect that I would have been better off listening to Manson's advice of not doing this had that advice been available to me. A point I am making in my book is that most people I knew that dropped out at the end of the sixties are all dead now. So it's not just his ecology ideas but other stuff he has said too.

trecords0 profile image

trecords0 Level 3 Commenter 7 months ago

I totally agree with your comment on religion and that is a better senario than the 2 ways I put it. I figure I would have rather used Frank Zappa as the framework for an ecological article, or even as one who was against the drop out culture of the hippies. I think he was more of a radical by becoming accepted by the freaks through his music and speaking his conservative mind; like a Trojan horse. The Hunter Thompson story of becoming a Hells Angels also comes to mind. The modern word for this is embedded. Interesting thoughts BoE. Thanks for getting the gears going. Tim.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely Hub Author 7 months ago

Thank you, Tim! I wanted to write about Manson as he is made reference to in the book I'm writing and in my hub about it. I am actually still looking for the exact quote he made about Leary but there are an awful lot of videos to trawl through and it's probably not that important that I find it. I write hubs about what I am thinking about. I thought I'd explain the positive side of Manson. I believe in credit where credit is due. If something is right it is right. It is not a popularity contest over who said it or believed it, or it shouldn't be! btw I have mentioned Hunter S Thompson in my book Herbs of the Northern Shaman in re him talking about datura in Fear and Loathing and how this led a lot of hippie types to want to try this very dangerous herb. I speak from experience as one who did so and survived. Others I know that used the plant are mostly dead, not killed directly by it but from self-destructive drug usage and lifestyles! Impressionable and searching minds take info from all sorts of sources. Some of the info can result in danger to self or others.

Angie Jardine

Hi Bard ... interesting concept for a hub and it would appear that you have opened up a whole can of organic worms here.

I can't say I find Manson particularly charismatic (either then or now) as anyone who disrespects women is, in my book, a totally arrogant idiot. I can't say that I was too impressed by the somewhat needy women who stood up for him either ... he's just some sort of Svengali cult leader and there will always be damaged and gullible women who fall for the spiel of such men.

Leaving aside what he did or did not do all that time ago ... it is possible to find, and admire, much more persuasive eco-warriors ... yourself included.

Anyone can rant on about the destruction of the planet and its animals, anyone can spout about the environment ... I'm a rabid environmentalist myself. Most of us who haven't been living in a hole in the ground know we are destroying our planet and we know how it is being destroyed.

We also know corporate greed is the driving force behind much of the destruction of our world and many of us are worried about that and are trying to do something about it.

But as for Manson ... forget it. Media feeding frenzy of long ago or not ... he is just not a credible witness for environmentalism ... and it's unlikely anyone will consider his testimony relevant.

Woman deserve nor respect, their is not to proclain, only to submit, they have no insight nor powers of discernment.
Woman are created with a Vagina, a Black Hole of Ignorance, they only Vampire the Power of the Man.
Remember, the Man was created in the Image of the Creator,
The Creator, then, made a "HELPER meet for him" from the RIB/ DNA of The Image of Creation.
The SERVANT is never permitted to Ascend over the MASTER.
When woman talks, they alway preface all their speech with "I Think," or "I 'Feel' like"
What these lower order beasts of burden FEEL or THINK is inconsequential to Reality.
Woman never shall grasp Reality, they are "Painted Clowns"
The Woman's "Painted Lips" are obvious TOTEM of their BLOODY VAGINA.
They should be never trained to Read nor Write, and they should be kept in Severe Subjugation in Public.
Otherwise the WORLD as we know it Shall be moot.