Category Archives: Wealth Redistribution

Patrick Wood: The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet – “To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. ”

by Patrick Wood

By its very nature, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit organization exclusively run by Technocrats. As such, it is an apolitical body that is happy to serve whatever form of governance exists as long as funding is received and salaries are paid. To a Technocrat, a world run by science and technology is better than any other form of governance.
That Technocrats have played a supporting role in world history is unquestioned. Scientists, engineers and technicians played a huge role in the Communist dictatorship in the former Soviet Union (For instance, see Science and the Soviet Social Order). Technocrats likewise played a central role in support of Adolph Hitler and National Socialism (See Scientists, Engineers and National Socialism). In both cases, the Technocrat goal was not necessarily Communism or Nazism, but rather the methodical exercise of science according to its Scientific Method. In other words, the process was more important than the outcome – and in both cases, the outcome was not questioned or resisted, but simply accepted.
The reason that ICANN formerly served the interests of the United States was simply that it answered to our government’s judicial, legislative and executive branches. In other words, the U.S. held the umbrella over ICANN and that was enough to keep it working for our national interests and not for someone else’s interests.
Obama changed that when he cut ICANN loose on September 30, 2016 by letting the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract expire without being renewed. After expiration, we forever lost the right to renew the contract again. So, ICANN is now a “free-agent” looking for shelter in the same way that a boll weevil looks for a cotton plant: it needs a host organization in order to practice its craft, and, I dare say, it doesn’t care one whit who that host is.
It is no secret that the United Nations is making a play to become host to ICANN. In particular, the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU), run by the Peoples Republic of China, is expected to play the central role in this effort. However, whether it is the ITU or some other UN agency is immaterial because it will still be the UN in the end.
But, why the UN? Because it is the fountainhead of the plans and operations to establish Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. Technocracy is the issue here. Others know it as Sustainable Development or Green Economy, but the correct historical term is Technocracy.
In February 2015, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figures, stated, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”[emphasis added]
What is unclear about this? Sustainable Development, or Technocracy, is a resource-driven economic model regulated by energy rather than by supply and demand plus monetary currencies. In 1938, the original Technocrats defined Technocracy as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”
To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. But while everyone is stressing over Internet censorship of web sites and the suppression of free speech, the real prize is completely overlooked: The Internet of Things (IoT). In terms of “follow the money”, IoT is expected to generate upwards of $3 trillion by 2025 and is growing at a rate of at least 30 percent per year. In other words, it is a huge market and money is flying everywhere. If the UN can figure out a way to tax this market, and they will, it will provide a windfall of income and perhaps enough to make it self-perpetuating. Currently, the UN is financed by contributions from member states. Read More
 DR: http://deweesereport.com/2016/10/31/the-real-reason-why-the-un-wants-control-over-the-internet/
Patrick M. Wood, Editor-in-Chief of Technocracy.News
Patrick is also the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. He is a frequent guest on radio programs around the world, and is the leading spokesman for resistance against the implementation of Technocracy.

The Wild Wild West of News 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Wild Wild West of News –“Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people…”

by Bill Lockwood

True to his Marxist roots President Obama, in the waning days of his tenure in office, decries what he calls the “wild wild west” of news while suggesting that some agency should have a “curating function” to filter what is “approved” for public consumption. Speaking at a Pittsburgh conference last week, comrade Obama even proposed that “we are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to.” REBUILD? “We”—collectively?

A “curator” calls for someone or agency who is “in charge.” Sometimes it is used for “a guardian” to oversee a minor. This is exactly how Obama sees Americans. The free-flow of information is harmful to minors who need be spoon-fed government-approved information.

Continued the lying dictator-in-chief: “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.” Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people —“If you like your doctor, etc.”

Another government bureaucracy added “to sort” through internet, television, radio, and printed material to apply basic “truthiness” tests. This does not simply sound like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s of the world, it is precisely what their programs of totalitarianism enacted.

As unbelievably astounding as Obama’s proposal is, he continued unfazed: “The way I would like to see us operate is, yes, significant debate and contentious debate, but where we are operating on the same basic platform, same basic rules, on how do we determine what’s true and what’s not. Everything on the internet looks like it might be true. And so in this political season, we’ve seen — you just say stuff. And so everything suddenly becomes contested. That I do not think is good for democracy, and it’s certainly not good for science, for progress, for government, for fixing systems.”

A government-sponsored media-organ would not be “censorship” Obama schmoozed. “But it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” Only within certain parameters will “vigorous debate” be allowed.

Thomas Jefferson

Respect for the law of the land as well as basic components of liberty is something completely alien to Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton. There is an amendment of the Constitution that expressly, in so many words, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The core concept of the Bill of Rights is that people enjoy liberties because they are bestowed upon us by God Himself and that the government created for Americans is forbidden by the people to even touch the hem of the garment of these liberties.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, the fact that several liberties were enumerated in the First Amendment means that “whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others” and that “The liberty of speaking and writing … guards our other liberties.”

This election is about liberty. Will we enjoy what remains of that which God has given us in America? Much of it has already been eroded by the government. Or, will we succumb to the comrades of the Democratic Party who would love nothing more than to control you from cradle to grave?

Freedom-loving Americans resent the notion which lies behind all of these Big Brother proposals. It is the assumption that we need government to decide for us what political and religious information we will consume and what we will not. No thanks, Barack, we would rather live in the wild-wild-west of conflicting information and sort it out ourselves than be locked into government-sponsored “safe zones” being fed crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table.

Back to Homepage

A Little Redistribution? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

A Little Redistribution?

by Bill Lockwood

John M. Crisp of Del Mar College of Corpus Christi treats us to a spate of specious arguments that supposedly spell out the benefit, yea, necessity, of a wee bit of socialism and redistribution of wealth. In a 2012 article, What’s Wrong with a Little Redistribution?, he states that we need a little more government, not less. The English professor makes his case for even a Bigger Brother and less freedom—and implies a complete scrapping of the Constitution which was specifically written to prevent overreaching government.

Crisp begins defending socialism: “The term [redistribution, bl] may have acquired a bad reputation, but ‘redistribution’ can be used just as easily to describe what happens when people pool their resources to create the infrastructure of a civilized, secure society. Almost no Americans, including the Democrats, want to bring everyone’s income down or up to the same level. But nearly all of us believe in pooling our money –‘redistributing’ it — for common purposes. Furthermore, most of us believe in some level of progressive taxation to make the process work. This is how we create fire departments, interstate highways and a huge army and navy. It’s how we build dams and safe public water supplies. It’s how we manage to go to the moon.”

First, the very definition of socialism is “an economic principle of the ownership by a community of all the means of production in order to secure to the people collectively an equitable distribution of the produce of their associated labor.” (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 13th edition). Socialism demands big government. Note the reason: “redistribution” of wealth. Less Freedom is the inevitable result and is reason enough to oppose it.

Second, the professor then offers the subterfuge that “redistribution” occurs when people “pool their resources to create” infrastructures in society such as roads, bridges and fire departments. The argument is that since public works already redistributes wealth, opposition to Obama’s “share the wealth” mantra is ill-founded. There is a world of error bound up in those remarks.

By “general welfare” the founders limited the power of taxation to matters which provide for the welfare of the entire Union—such as national defense and the postal system. As Alexander Hamilton put it, “The welfare of the community [of states] is the only legitimate end for which money can be raised from the community.” In other words, does the expenditure benefit all or is it a disbursement that takes from some and rewards others?

Come back to Crisp’s fire and police department example. They are indeed supported by tax dollars, but these are public services that do not benefit one person or group at the expense of another. In other words, all of these services benefit all of us and do not qualify for the socialistic definition of forcible redistribution. Besides, these types of public works are voluntary.

What’s more, forcible redistribution is not only unconstitutional, but immoral–whether ObamaCare or Medicaid. The difference between public services that are available to ALL and private redistribution after the order of The Welfare System is stark. One is an orderly society, the other is THEFT.

Crisp’s second effort is that most Americans benefit from redistributed money, supposedly making hypocrites of all of us.

“And, as it turns out, most of us — about 96 percent — also believe in deriving personal, direct benefits from the redistributed money. This is borne out by the findings of a 2008 national survey by the Cornell Survey Research Institute, as reported in The New York Times on Sept. 24 by Professor Suzanne Mettler of Cornell and Associate Professor John Sides of George Washington University. Ignoring the many government initiatives, like highways and safe food, that benefit everyone, Mettler and Sides explored the extent to which individual Americans use any of 21 social policies — student loans, Medicare, housing — that the federal government provides, including social policies embedded in the tax code.”

What is his conclusion to this?

“First, nearly all of us, even the wealthy, benefit significantly from the redistribution of wealth that creates and supports our society and improves our private lives. Second, there’s nothing disgraceful about this. And third — I hate to say this — we are going to need more government, not less.”
Our government is so proportionately larger than just a generation ago and so far removed from the legal boundaries set upon it by the Constitution, yet the professor calls for even “more government.” This is where the term “totalitarian” comes to mind.

But what of Americans using “public” policy programs such as student loans or Medicare or federal housing? That may be true. But Crisp and his collegiate socialist friends refuse to see the reason for it. Government planners have made it nearly impossible to operate in America without being involved in public policy programs—for as in all totalitarian systems the “public policy programs” become the only game in town.

Witness how government has taken over the student loan program or subsidized health care costs. Recall how the government initially promised that Social Security would never take more than 3 cents on every dollar you earn, only up to $3,000 per year of income. A big lie. So also, intermeddling in the marketplace for a generation by government do-gooders has shrunk the free market until it is practically non-existent today.

Add to that the fact that the government has been forcibly redistributing my earnings for a lifetime and individuals simply see it as a method to “get back” what the government unjustly took to begin with. “I am paying for this service, I might as well use it” does not equal agreement with the basis of the program.

This is precisely the practice of which economist Frederic Bastiat warned long ago. Once socialism becomes interwoven in society, it forces moral people to choose between two distasteful alternatives: either refuse paying taxes, or, silence your own conscientious objections to socialism and participate in order retrieve some of your own stolen goods. Mr. Crisp, because people utilize the welfare system does not mean they believe it is right or even beneficial to the society as a whole.

Back to Homepage