Why do I do these things? I’m sure some of you wonder.

I do them because for all I know, this is the only life I will ever live, so why not do what I enjoy doing? ( Do what you enjoy in life! Unless you are Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and the like). Ok, well that reason falls apart pretty quick in the light of what may be considered virtuous and moral.

In this vid., Bob takes a few books to the face while I brush up on some open movements:

Advertisements

I am not one to generate content for the sake of….well…generating content.

I lead an existence separate from this digital world, so if you find my posts to be inconsistent or not forthcoming, I suggest you mull over some of the material in other subject categories displayed on the right.

I appreciate any input my readers might have, and wish to encourage debate and presentation of diverse opinions. So please, feel free to share your thoughts.

You are welcome.

It seems that Richard Cloward and Francis Piven aren’t historical figures who are very well-known to the common citizenry. Sure, from time to time you may find some politically involved fellow speaking about these two people and the ramifications their academic work connotes for the U.S., but you probably won’t encounter such discussions without actively seeking them out. This unawareness poses a problem for our nation because principles of what has been dubbed the Cloward-Piven Strategy are now, according to Judicial Watch, being surreptitiously used to steer our nation towards a most deplorable demise. Read on to learn what the nature and origins of this political stratagem entails.

It was in 1966 that The Nation published an article titled ‘The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty’. Written by two astute political scientists, Richard A. Cloward and Francis F. Piven, the article communicated a proposal to, “advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor.” However the noble intentions of these authors are debatable as the method of attaining this so called ‘convergence’ of militant associates of the Black Freedom Movement with civil rights activists calls for economically crippling our nation by overloading the welfare system. According to Cloward and Piven, “[i]f this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”

A guaranteed annual income you say? That’s just wonderful! For all or just the poor? Well this superficial language hardly expresses the means by which such an objective would be attained nor the feasibility of its proposed mechanics. The money to support these welfare programs must come from somewhere, and it is highly unlikely that the mega-rich are willing to be recipients of government mediated pocket gouging for forced philanthropy. In other words, those to be heavily taxed would most necessarily consist of middle-class workers, the economic drivers of the nation.

The authors do concede that “some” will contest this proposal with claims that offering job training to the poor to better their standing in terms of economic competition is the better choice than a redistribution of wealth to the masses, but they counter this point with an appeal to sex, stating that a substantial segment of the impoverished are mothers who would be strained to undergo extensive job training. Piven-Cloward also assert that the millions of aged individuals who are poor cannot be helped by such means. I lay these assertions out to make the argument that Cloward-Piven had good points, but sophists intend to persuade by any means.

For some, the Cloward-Piven Strategy can very well be deemed what Richard Poe of www.discoverthenetworks.org termed a ‘Trojan Horse Movement’, “whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet.” And indeed, in cogitation of the fact that the Piven-Cloward Strategy was influenced by the work Saul Alinsky, a man forever affiliated with revolutionary socialist movements, one can maintain the claim that that is exactly what the strategy is about – not helping the poor. Poe enhances the idea of such an end-game further, writing that, “[t]he flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.”

Though The Nation’s article of Cloward-Piven was written back in 1966, we find its implements in effect today. According to Judicial Watch, President Obama signed an order that ultimately coordinated the hiring of some 20 experts of the behavioral and social sciences to comprise a panel of researchers whose objective was to “expand the use of government programs at dozens of agencies”.

 

Reasonable men and women who have become disillusioned with the rhetorical shows of politicians and prominent individuals of social power might accede to the notion that a universal regulator of human morality and equality in terms of economic opportunity and sociopolitical status does not exist. This being so, many are faced with the question of who will speak for them, their communities, and their families.

With an ever declining congressional approval rating and participation in the ostensibly democratic process, one may find no use today in communicating the pains of his/her desperate dispositions. It seems the people are no longer heard among the vociferous voice of money that sways U.S. policy. Indeed, there is now a Princeton promulgated study that has shown how the majority of major policy decisions, regardless of the general public’s support, will only pass into law if sufficient persons of opulence support the policy. This is of course NOT democratic. In light of this and other things, I feel that it is perhaps now the time for Americans to reconsider just what freedom is and what the functions of government and law should be.

Freedom has been defined within various contexts. We may think of the noun and its ramifications in relation to the numerous words one may put in front of it (economic freedom, technological freedom, etc.). Herein I speak of human freedom as simply actions in accord with ones will. This type of freedom is, of course, affected by enacted laws, but more importantly human will of the enforcing body and receiving body. It is true that a law exists merely as an abstraction and its function in the regulation of human conduct is carried out only by consent of the respective population to whom it applies. There is literally nothing that bars an individual from acting in defiance of a law except his/her willingness to obey it (and the enforcer’s willingness to uphold it). So what is the essence of this implied consent that individuals give to governmental regulation? What is valued enough to allow for restrictions to one’s conduct? A broad answer is only occasionally tenable, yet I wish to make the assertion that an individual’s concept of freedom lay at the root of consent. We generally accept that we live in a world with people of different interests and tastes. We understand that to restrict their predilections is to impose restrictions on ours as well. Therefore, it may be thought that our concept of freedom is not marked with an absolute value but rather that it flows from establishment of a social contract with society; its services and people that comprise it.

With a social contract, the individual gains benefits that he/she would not have outside of the society. By simply consenting to its laws, the individual (now citizen) may participate in sociopolitical and economic activities. The individual may find work and exchange currencies for goods he/she did not have to produce.  But, as with any contract, something is not given for nothing. Because laws are, in their most elementary definition, regulators of human conduct and thus restrictions of human freedom, the individual who participates in any society is less free than he/she would be living on the outskirts of a civilization or in the wilderness. So as a rule, it may be said that the more dependent one becomes on a society for the means to subsistence, the more individual freedom is vitiated. Also, as alluded to above, the individual who participates in and abides by the laws of a society gains advantages and access to goods and services that increase his/her comfort and lessen the degree of self-responsibility.

To illustrate the above take the following example of the United States. The U.S. has a massive welfare system that affords for many individuals the benefits of not having to seek work, buy (grow) food with an earned income, build a home, or engage in the accruement of funds to pay off medical expenses. The welfare individual receives satiety of all basic biologically essential needs. This individual has very little responsibility for his/herself respecting these activities. Yet what has that individual lost? With the welfare system comes a great deal of regulations that determine the degree to which the individual may freely act. Over time, the individual may become dependent on the welfare system and with such dependency comes the slow abrogation of choice. This is demonstrably true with disabled individuals in community homes (equal opportunity is quixotic). These individuals have very little freedom though they receive relatively good medical care and all other biological imperatives (food, water, shelter, etc.).

By comparison though, the individual who owns land, builds his/her own living quarters, grows food, produces textiles, tools, and a myriad other goods of economic self-sufficiency enjoys a much greater degree of human freedom than the socially dependent individual. Such a person of self-sufficiency/self-reliance indeed has a great deal of responsibility for his/her subsistence, but by living in such a manner the individual may avoid many restrictions of civilization. At least this is the ideal of self-sufficient living – while in practice things are not so simple, especially in the 21st Century. In contemporary homestead practice, one may scarcely avoid the confines of a nation or state whose laws are applicable regardless of the homestead location.

Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the path to self-sufficiency is an important component to actualizing a form of human freedom.

In support of theoretical expostulations concerning the relationships between money, power, and corruption, there is now genuine research which ascertains the reality that money has so corrupted the political system of our nation that domestic and foreign policies, as well as the details of criminal law, are no longer reflective of common citizen values.

I will herein present details of this aforementioned research, but only after touching upon the nature of criminal law. (My choice in doing so stems from the idea that any system with the capability of enslaving the masses must be derived via our legislative bodies which are the cornerstones of government).

In the most basic analysis of a law, it may be determined that its enactment is restrictive of human freedom and a regulator of conduct. Therefore, to enslave the masses requires a mediator in the regulation of the desired mass conduct. This regulator dictates the definition of crime. And so let us ask, what is crime?

“Up until this time, the prevailing definition of crime was that a criminal was someone who committed criminal acts, and these occurred when someone broke the law. The difficulty for this faultlessly logical definition occurs when the law itself is questioned. Who decides what is a law, and when it has been broken?”1

Without the analysis of premises which support the enactment of our laws, it cannot be said that our justice system is indeed just. Jones goes on to explain that one criminology perspective asserts the notion that legal definitions are constructed with the intent of protecting those with wealth and sociopolitical power. This perspective finds,

“the major structures of the criminal justice system – the prisons, the courts and the police services –are really about controlling the behavior of the masses and maintaining the status quo (with all its inequalities of wealth)”2

And what is more, a Princeton promulgated study has confirmed the reality of socioeconomic status as the most significant factor in determination of U.S. policy decisions as well as the enactment of criminal law.

Published in the Journal of Perspectives on Politics (2014) titled ‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens’, this study was conducted with the objective of understanding the distribution of power in politics between average citizens (commoners), interest groups, economic elites, and mass citizen groups while simultaneously testing which political theory held true in American politics out of the following:

  1. Majoritarian Electoral Democracy
  2. Economic-elite Domination
  3. Majoritarian Pluralism
  4. Biased Pluralism

The study team’s methods for achieving the stated aims consisted of a statistical analysis of 1,779 surveys of the years 1981-2002 which solicited a for/against response of the citizen to a proposed U.S. policy. The data obtained were then broken down into an income distribution model that reflected the relative wealth of the respondents in all 1,779 surveys, ranging from the very poor to the highly affluent. So what were the results?

Though the affluent top 10% of the income distribution model made only $146,000 a year, it was uncovered that a significant correlation exists between U.S. policy decisions and the top 10% income earners. Therefore the authors of the study suggest that the imprecision of their affluent category representing true economic elites likely underestimates the impact of elite preferences on U.S. policy. 3

In conclusion of the study, the authors state that the statistically average citizen has negligible to no impact on U.S. policy decisions in comparison to the preferences of economic elites and/or corporate interest groups who enjoy a major influence on U.S. policy:

“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination…”4

And so the idea that money speaks in American politics more than democratic principles is not without basis, but rather confirmed by researchers of the prestigious Princeton University.

What we may also derive from this study is the inference that men and women worth millions to billions of dollars can and do control, to a substantial degree, the politics of our nation.

Pertinent here is the mention of a prestigious professor who told of the recurrent plans of inducing economic chaos for the gain of control over nations.

In 1966, a man known as Professor Carroll Quigley, a historian and former consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, published a massive 1300 page tome that authenticated the existence of a shadowy group which aspires to attain global control via manipulation of systems of national finance.

Under a heading in his book “The Money Power Seeks to Create World System of Financial Control in Private Hands Able to Dominate Every Nation on Earth”, Quigley enunciates of the conspiratorial group’s motivations directly. He comments that:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”5

In substantiating Quigley’s assertion that this system of world government through financial control is to be arrived at through secret meetings which implies the necessity of blanking out proceedings from the media, the NWO affiliate of the Bilderberg Group, David Rockefeller, reportedly stated in 1991:

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.”6

What is even more interesting and substantive of what David Rockefeller has stated, is the content of 990 tax forms which represent financial contributions to American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.These forms list The Washington Post as a financial donor to the group, whose contribution in 2009 totaled $25,000.7 https://info.publicintelligence.net/AmericanBilderberg-2009.pdf

This blatantly suggests, of course, that the Washington Post has cooperated with the Bilderberg Group’s conference preferences of media inattention. So tell me, do you really think there is nothing to notions of aristocratic/elitist hegemony of the world’s populations?

Notes

  1. Jones, D. (2008). Understanding Criminal Behavior. p.xvi
  2. Ibid.
  3. Gilens, M.; Page, B. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Journal of Perspectives on Politics. p.569
  4. Ibid. p.564
  5. Quigley, C. (1966). Tragedy and Hope. p.277-278
  6. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller
  7. https://info.publicintelligence.net/AmericanBilderberg-2009.pdf