Sunday, October 31, 2010

The Scientific Method Versus the Religion of Science

Knowledge is power. That is something that men have known for a long time. If I know something you don't know, there's a chance I'll be able to take advantage of that fact. I can do so honestly by providing a service, for instance if I know something about electronics and you need something fixed, or I can do so dishonestly, for instance by engaging in some questionable activity like a shell game. I can chose to impart my knowledge upon others and help benefit mankind, or I can keep my knowledge secret and try to use it to my advantage, or I can deliberately misinform, obfuscate and lie in an effort to try to control the behavior of others and elevate myself in their eyes. It is this third option that is the most insidious when exercised.

People should not take anyone at their word, especially not opinionated bloggers like myself. You should always do your due diligence and check out any claims you may read for yourself before forming your own opinion. Seek out facts and figures, use your own feelings and observations, and even check out opposing viewpoints. Always question. This is the very essence of the scientific method, to never take anything for granted and to always seek out ways to prove or disprove established tenets. This is something that can be done by everyone, not just scientists.

The scientific method is one of testing and observation. The tests verify or disprove theories which are formed by observation. But tests aren't always conclusive. Things don't always happen the same way or follow the same rules. This is especially true with large, complex systems. In many cases, there are simply too many variables to draw definitive conclusions 100% of the time. Even gravity, something we all know exists and we're very aware of, is something that scientists constantly test, looking for tiny variations and a better understanding of its nature. True scientists are always open minded and though they may reach conclusions from their research, they should always remain open to changing those opinions when new research becomes available.

The religion of science, however, is quite a bit different. It works like any other religion would. It is based on beliefs that usually can't be proved or disproved. It is preached by the clerics of the scientific communities and remains unquestioned by the general populace. Most of all, the members of its church are often evangelized and radicalized to forward political agendas that have nothing to do with solving the problems these peddlers of scientific propaganda claim afflict the human race. They claim consensus and seek to force their worldview upon all, increasing their personal stature and power in the process, and they seem to have no conscience as they tend to stop at nothing to achieve their agenda.

The religion of science works because of trust. An individual or a group of individuals will somehow become pre-eminent in their field and suddenly anything they say must be true. They become trusted by the general public. Anyone who disagrees with them will be discredited and shunned. Their data will be supreme and contradicting data and studies will be ignored, even to the point where legitimate and valid research is denied the exposure needed for the scientific community to suggest and test informed hypotheses. This can quickly degenerate to the point where other scientists see the trend and start tailoring their research to meet the needs of those dominating the field so that they can reap the benefits.

When the religion gains too much power, resources tend to be used in efforts to further an agenda or to solidify the base of the power rather than being allocated to those who wish to conduct research that may actually help mankind's understanding of a problem or natural phenomenon that needs to be explained. After all, the claim will be that there is a consensus, so why should additional resources be used up in an effort to discover something that's already been explained? Instead, resources will likely be used to create propaganda for public consumption in an effort to garner public support and increase public demand for the solutions to the perceived causes of the problems offered by those with the agenda.

We are all scientists. We can all make observations. We can all form hypotheses and test them. We can all formulate theories about why things are the way they are and use these observations and tests to judge for ourselves how accurate or inaccurate our theories likely are. The trick is to not close your mind. The trick is to not fall so in love with a theory that you become emotionally attached to it. Yes, you can feel strongly about a given theory and defend it vehemently, but be ready to admit when someone else makes a good point or offers contradicting evidence and be willing and prepared to explore that avenue of possibility a little more if you are so inclined. Remember, just because something occurs that is inexplicable within your theory, doesn't make your theory wrong, it just makes it less likely that your theory is correct, or more likely it isn't the only correct one.

It is helpful when evaluating the worth of science to look at a few things outside the realm of that science. It is not just data and a desire to understand the nature of things that drives science. Human nature is also involved. Look at the things that motivate people's behaviors. Ask a few questions. Does someone benefit from presenting the theory and the data in a certain way? If so, who? In what way do they benefit? Money? Power? Control? How much do they benefit? Greatly? Only a little? Will morality be a issue? How big of an issue is morality? What evidence is there that the benefits outweigh the morality issue? These are questions that can help an individual decide what to believe when science is muddled and data conflicting.

There are many issues in the modern world where science, government and industry are entwined. Energy. Overpopulation. Food. The impact of modern society on the natural environment. These are important and complex issues that have many variables. Any one size fits all solution to these huge issues is going to be flawed. There are likely as many solutions to these problems as there are questions about them. Who should we leave the answers up to? Well, one thing is certain, with government's record of failure, it certainly shouldn't be up to them. They should not be allowed to monopolize science, especially not a bureaucratic centralized world governmental organization. Carbon taxes, for instance, are not a solution, they are a way to empower governmental and corporate bodies and stifle competition.

We all have a stake in our future. The market should be open for all who wish to try to solve these problems to compete and the consumer should be able to chose which solutions he feels would work best for his personal needs and spend his money where he believes it is best spent. In this way, we as individuals are maximizing the possibilities. We are maximizing our power. We are maximizing our independence. We are maximizing the efforts to find solutions and we are producing many different answers to the problems we face. Our wealth will expand, both our economic wealth and our wealth of knowledge. Governments, despite all their power, will limit and restrict the possibilities. They will monopolize the answers. They will produce only the solutions which will help those in power or their friends. That is the nature of government, for it is the nature of power to corrupt.

It is worth repeating, we are all scientists. Let us not forget that. Let us not fall prey to those in power who would try to pervert science for their own gain and keep true information from being disseminated. Don't simply believe the religion of science or the word of the scientist preacher, but try to look at a bigger picture and engage in the scientific method on your own. Let us try to remain informed by our own tests and observations. Remember, education doesn't stop just because you're no longer in school. Become involved in your own education and remain open minded when it comes to alternative explanations. Weigh evidence from all sides and maybe even try to come up with an alternative explanation of your own. After all, we all have brains and the more they're used, the smarter they become.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Electronic Voting and Stealing Elections With Media Complicity

I don't trust establishment politicians. I don't trust the establishment media. I don't trust that the two groups don't have unwritten agreements to scratch each others backs. I don't trust the establishment, period. The establishment is not out to look after my best interests, your best interests, or the best interests of the common folk on the street. The establishment is out to look after the best interests of the establishment, and unscrupulous people inside the establishment will stop at nothing to make sure they maintain their power and keep their wealth stream flowing. There isn't a principle they won't forsake nor a law they won't break in order to protect their interests, including trashing any system that may help protect the interests of the less powerful individuals within society.

One of the basic principles of a democratic republic is the right of the people to be able to fairly and honestly select a representative that a majority of the populous can agree on. While the merits of this system are debatable, the reality of its effects is not. The vast majority of people will see this system as legitimate and go along with its dictates so long as the laws passed and requests made of the populous remain reasonable. In order for this type of system to maintain its perception of legitimacy, it also must remain transparent. Both these requisites have become extremely compromised over the past decade and more and more people are adopting the perception that our system is no longer legitimate.

I first began to suspect that the electoral system in this country had problems back in the late eighties, early nineties when Ross Perot was running for president and founded one of the most successful third parties in modern times. I voted for Mr. Perot. I remember asking many others who they voted for and the vast majority voted for Mr. Perot. I don't believe that most of the people I know are anything other than average Americans. I couldn't understand how so large a percentage of the people I asked had voted for Mr. Perot and yet he had obtained so low a percentage of the vote when the ballots were counted. I realized that I knew only a small percentage of people and understood that my sampling wasn't scientifically sound, but I still had a bad feeling in the back of my mind that something had gone rotten with the system.

(As an aside, I was reminded the other day of something Ross Perot said about passing NAFTA and a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country. Seems like his statement was very prophetic considering the present high unemployment rate and the gloomy outlook for creating jobs in the future.)

I think that the elections in which George W. Bush was elected showed us just how devious our electoral system had become. I'm not talking about the Electoral College or hanging chads, I'm talking about pure and simple corruption and the compromising of the very principle of free and open elections.

Now I am reading stories of electronic voting machines flipping votes. A few years ago, it was the Republicans who were benefiting from such mishaps. Now it's the Democrats. I've read stories of early voters in Nevada being unable to vote for Sharron Angle and instead Harry Reid and the whole slate of Democrats is registered by the machine. I've read stories of service technicians talking about how easy it is to hack into the machines.

As one who's had experience with computers, machine level programming code, RAM and ROM memory and other digital electronic basics, I understand perhaps a little better than most the holes in securing data on electronic voting machines. It is nowhere near as secure as good old paper ballots and a paper trail. In fact, I would suggest that electronic voting provides near zero security and the voting public should show near zero confidence that their vote is even being counted. But don't take my word for it. Bev Harris and Black Box Voting have done a marvelous job documenting the flaws and corruption of our current election processes. There is also a wonderful documentary available called Hacking Democracy. If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you find the time to watch it.

How are we to have even the illusion of legitimacy when we can't even be certain that the candidates elected to be representatives of the people were put into office by a majority of participating voters? How are we supposed to "throw the bums out" when we can't be sure that our votes against corrupt and criminal incumbents won't be flipped and counted for them? How can we hold anyone accountable when our electoral process is secretive and controlled by individuals and companies whose interests may conflict with or be served by certain politicians on the ballots?

Yet the problem goes deeper than just the voting machines. It takes confidence in the system by the majority of voters for the system to maintain its appearance of legitimacy. The voting machines might easily be done away with if the problems with them were widely reported. Yet one hardly hears anything about such problems in the establishment corporate media. With a few notable exceptions like the documentary mentioned above, one needs to go to alternative sources if one wants to really get the low down on these highly suspect election practices.

The press was supposed to be the de facto fourth branch of the American republic, a kind of watchdog over the other three branches of government in case the checks and balances failed. It was specifically mentioned in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. President Kennedy, emphasized its importance in a famous speech admonishing secrecy and concealment. The establishment press has failed miserably in carrying out this important duty. In fact, I would suggest that the modern day press has done the opposite of being a watchdog and has empowered the federal government to usurp the control one should have over his own life and to grow well past the limits written into the Constitution that were put there to constrain it. That's one reason why the citizen press, the blogs and opinions one finds on the Internet, is so important.

The establishment press has a tendency to attack those who may threaten the status quo. It seems to embellish insignificant faults and mishaps involving candidates who might threaten the establishment while ignoring glaring corruption of the candidates who likely serve the interests of globalists and the corporate elites. This is not new. It has been going on for quite some time. Remember how Ross Perot was painted as crazy? Remember how they did the same with Ron Paul back in 2008? More recently, it was Debra Medina in Texas who was painted with the crazy brush. It seems that any time a candidate espousing freedom principles and advocating more power to the individual and less to the government gains steam and starts to become popular, the establishment media jumps all over that person and tries to demonize or discredit them. It's the same MO, over and over. Perhaps that's why establishment news programs are losing viewers and establishment newspapers are losing readers. People aren't stupid, and they do remember.

I don't even trust the pollsters anymore. It seems to me that they have no accountability either. It seems to me that they can do and say what they want, and that they can do and say anything those paying them would like them to say. The polls seldom seem believable to me. They almost never seem to mesh or reflect the sentiment I encounter in my personal life. I don't know why.

Consider this, polls say that the approval rating for Congress is only 11%. I can believe that. That seems right. But when polled, often more than 11% of the people are planning on voting for their incumbent congress critters. That just doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would so many disapprove of the job their "representatives" are doing, but then go ahead and re-elect them? Where's the disconnect? Is it apathy? Could it be because they see both major parties as bought and paid for so they don't think there's any difference between the two candidates? Is it the "devil you know versus the devil you don't" meme? Perhaps it's the "lesser of two evils" saying at work. Whatever the case, it seems to me that a decent third party or independent candidate (with the exception of one Joe Lieberman) might help and a principled one reported on in a favorable light by the mainstream media outlets might have a chance.

So, go to the polls next Tuesday and vote. Vote the incumbents out of office. Vote for candidates that seem to you to be the most anti-establishment. Vote for those who claim to want to shrink government and give the common folk more power. Vote for whatever candidate you feel will best represent your interests. Just don't expect too much. Don't expect too much to change. Don't expect the system to roll over. Don't expect honesty. Don't expect truth. Don't expect any real investigative reporting from the media. These are things the common folk will likely have to do on their own. The system will not change until the common folk stop paying for and putting up with it. It will not change until we make it known in no uncertain terms that we've had enough.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Democrats Can Be Tea Partiers Too

There is a popular notion going around that the Tea Party has great influence in this election year. Candidates endorsed by the Tea Party are quite popular. It is also popularly believed that Tea Party candidates are basically revamped Republicans and Neocons. That may be what the Tea Party has become, but it certainly isn't what the spirit of the Tea Party is all about. Indeed, the Democrats could have hijacked the Tea Party early on if the had been politically savvy enough, but it was the Republicans that saw the power in the grass roots movement and took control of it early to use public sentiment to their advantage.

The Tea Party movement, however, is likely to prove more powerful than even the Republicans can contain. That is because at its core, and at its inception, the Tea Party is not about left or right, conservative or liberal, or Democrat and Republican. It was created as a vehicle to discuss freedom over tyranny, individualism over collectivism. That is the framework where we need to focus our discourse. These are the philosophies we need to make the politicians address. The concept of the United States of America, as a nation or as a lose affiliation of a group of nations, was to provide a structure under which the individual was honored and big government was not allowed to flourish. That idea has floundered in recent times and is in grave danger of being lost.

This is what the people of the United States need to regain, the spirit of individualism. We need to realize that by granting others the freedom to deal with their own lives as they see fit, to earn and to spend their resources as they feel is best for their lives, we can start to build a more prosperous society for all. We, above all others, should understand the importance of honoring the rights of others. We, above all others, should understand the power of individual liberty over big government directives. After all, America prospered while other places languished and failed in their collectivism because of the individualist nature of our founding documents. Now we have fallen on hard times along with the rest of the world and those in power seem to want to throw away what is left of our heritage and adopt collectivist ideologies that have already failed worldwide.

So, in a few days we will go to the polls and once again vote. This time we'll show them. This time we will put the Republicans back into power and things will be right. Yeah, sure. Remember how that went last time? Remember how the Democrats got into office because of our anger at the Bush regime? Remember change and hope? Well the change was for a bigger, more intrusive government than even the Republicans could dream up and the hope was dashed upon the hard concrete of the Wall Street where the elite pull the strings of the political establishment.

Do you think putting Republicans back into power will bring about the change necessary to restore our great nation to the prominence it once held? Do you think prosperity will return because we shuffle the deck of bought and paid for politicians? Oh sure, there are a few out there who may actually believe in following the Constitution and limiting the federal government to the powers enumerated in it, but I fear that there are not going to be enough in positions of power to make that change happen. I fear that there are not going to be enough good men and women in congress to force political obedience to that document. I fear that, like the British in the 1700s, our modern day political and elitist establishments will ignore the men throwing the tea into the harbor and go forward with their plans to fleece the affluent middle class despite the warnings that the anger is roiling beneath the surface.

Big government Republicans are mostly the same as big government Democrats. Both these parties want to grow the government in one way or another. The Republicans wish to do it through war, espionage and turning peaceful people who harm no one into criminals by cracking down on victimless crimes. The Democrats wish to do so by forcing everyone into a welfare state where all wealth is thrown into a bureaucratic pot and then redistributed where they feel the need is. Oh, and they don't seem to mind the war thing either. Oh yeah, and recent events involving marijuana legalization suggest they also don't mind keeping the prison/industrial complex healthy. And through it all the wealth of this nation is funneled to the top of the food chain, the central banks and the multi national corporations they protect. All the marbles seem to be going to an ultra rich elite class who own the politicians and the media.

We have been propagandized for too long by the left/right Republican/Democrat paradigm. Framing the debate this way has kept us from focusing on real issues. It has prevented us from seeing the transfer of wealth to an elite ultra rich class that has been happening for decades. It has kept us from understanding the true nature of the societal change the elite want to foist upon us with their collectivist agenda. They seem to want all the wealth for themselves. They seem to want you dependent and indebted to them. They seem to want to own everything, including all of humanity. That is the nature of collectivist ideologies.

The elites of the world have been using their political pawns to take our wealth and use it against our best interests. They have used it to corral us into a system that was destined to break down. They created the financial system so that they would end up with all the real wealth and now they look for scapegoats for the populace to focus on. They don't want the public eye on them and their incredible wealth as the rest of the world is impoverished. They want to maintain their control of the system. That's what their collectivist system is really about, making sure they have all wealth and can dictate where and how the money flows. An individualist system, on the other hand, puts wealth into the hands of those who earn it and lets them determine who is the most deserving and where the money is best spent.

A Democrat can be a tea partier too. The Tea Party, as it were, was originally set up to protest the actions of the state. Like the original Boston Tea Party, the modern day version was supposed to be about saying "No" to those in power. It was about telling the big government of the day that enough was enough, that we weren't going to take it anymore. The British government responded with violent force, and the people defended themselves. Hopefully, it does not come to such extremes in these times. Hopefully, the politicians stop thinking they can keep doing what they've been doing, keep growing the government, keep making pretty speeches but taking no positive actions, keep breaking their word and their oaths.

Politicians everywhere, Democrats and Republicans alike, Independents and Libertarians, left, right and center, need to adhere to the law of the land. They need to serve the interests of the people instead of the powerful elite class they presently serve. It's time for them to take action rather than making slick speeches full of promises they can't keep. Stop these occupations we can no longer afford. Repeal the laws that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Investigate the fraud of the recent bailouts. Do a full and complete audit of the Federal Reserve. Audit the gold in the treasury. Recover the wealth of the middle class. Shrink the over bloated federal bureaucracy. These are the issues that must be dealt with. They are the issues which affect us all and our way of life. Words and promises are no longer enough.

Free market economics might not be perfect, but they've proven to be the best system we've found for bringing prosperity to the majority of people. The politicians of this country have been slowly shutting it down for a very long time now, likely exercising the wishes of the ultra rich special interests that seem to own them. They've even gone as far as demonizing and blaming the very system that made us prosperous in the first place and removing restrictions that were actually working to keep the ultra rich corporations in check. Genuine Tea Partiers and other liberty activists should want to see these policies halted. They should want to see the fraud stopped. They should want to see freedoms restored and respected. They should want to see independence restored to the populace. That should be the spirit of the Tea Party, the spirit we as Americans need to rediscover in our hearts and souls, no matter what other party we might be affiliated with.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Austerity and Riots, a Matter of Broken Trust and Fraud

There are some who might wonder at the recent riots in France. They might want to blame them on the French people being lazy, or greedy, or unwilling to make sacrifices. They might wonder if the French people don't realize that the world is in a financial mess, that we are all going to have to work a little harder and change our lifestyles if we are going to muddle through these tough times. Personally, I don't believe these protests and riots in France are about such things. I don't think they're about being unwilling to make sacrifices or work harder. I think they're about recognizing the fraud that has been perpetrated upon humanity and demanding justice on those who perpetrated the fraud. I think it's about finally saying "Enough!" and demanding that promises made be kept.

It seems that people worldwide are beginning to realize that the global central banking cartel along with their government and international corporate buddies have been taking us all for a ride. First the Greeks, then the Icelanders, and now the French have reacted in a predictable manner after being told they'd been lied to all these years. They are angry and upset. Who can blame them? The French pay what, up to 80% of their paychecks in taxes? They were promised they'd be taken care of after the age of 60 if they just gave over that much of their income. Is it any wonder they're pissed off when that promise is broken and they figure they could have done a better job keeping that money and deciding for themselves how to invest or save it?

We Americans have had promises made to us and broken also. We've also had our trust violated by the moneyed elite. Our forefathers were cautious and very suspicious about central banking and fiat currency. For those who may not know, fiat currency is money by decree, or money backed by nothing to be used in exchange for real goods and services because the law says it must be accepted. If there needs to be laws made requiring people to take the money, one has to wonder about the true nature of that money. Is it any wonder we've been warned about this system? Is there any wonder that it is prone to corruption?

The French are mad because they have worked hard all their lives and looked forward to the day they could retire, and now they're being told they'll have to put it off a little longer. I know that there is an image created that the French aren't as hard working as everyone else, but they have roads to make and maintain, buildings to be built, products to be produced, services to be rendered just like any other modern western nation. They have hard working people and lazy people just as any other community has. That's not the point. They have likely figured out that the workers, those who earn the money, are being ripped off by an elite class whose members haven't earned a dime in over a century, a class who was taught by their predecessors to continue a fraudulent ponzi scheme in order to live off the backs of the working class.

Although the French are historically some of the most liberty oriented people in the world, they allowed the promise of socialism to lure them into creating a collectivist system that has taken power from each individual and put it into the hands of a very few. Now they are finding that the promise of socialism is not economically sustainable. They are finding that the price for their demands of state run retirement programs, health programs, and other socialized benefits is a lowered standard of living for the common man. They are seeing their dreams destroyed by the austerity an elite class wants to impose upon them. They are waking up to a frightening reality and taking to the streets to express their disgust and disapproval to what they see as criminal activity.

There was a reason governments were supposed to be set up to represent the interests of the common man. This reason was to prevent a powerful moneyed elite from taking over society and violently imposing their will upon the masses. This is in essence what was experienced in feudal times when lords owned most of the land and you either lived on their land and paid tribute to them or you lived on your own in the wilds and took your chances that a larger, more powerful gang wouldn't stumble upon you or your little community and take everything you had, including your life. It was this slavery, this theft of labor that modern man and civilized society was trying to stop.

Liberty isn't about equity, or fairness, or justice, it's about opportunity. It's about the ability to earn an honest living and keep for yourself the fruits of your labor. It's about the ability to own your own private property and not having to worry about some large, powerful group being able to forcefully take that property from you. It's about earning your own keep and not having some parasitic organization demanding a portion of your earnings just so they'll leave you be. The government was supposed to prevent these types of powerful entities from such tyrannical practices. Instead, they have become the very predator they were meant to protect against. Worse still, they have colluded with other predators, huge international corporate interests and central banking cartels, to help bring down a formerly affluent middle class and horde the wealth for themselves.

The French have joined the ranks of the Greeks and the Icelanders in taking to the streets and letting the elitists on top know that they are not pleased by the fraud and broken promises that have been perpetrated upon hard working common folk. The riots are unfortunate occurrences that have likely created innocent victims. They are predictable consequences to government failure, the failure to prosecute the real criminals, the elite class that has brought all this about.

One might wonder what nation will follow in France's footsteps. Will it be Spain, Italy, Portugal or Ireland, as some have suggested? Will it be Germany, England or the United States, as may surprise some analysts? Will it be one of the traditionally more obedient countries, like Japan? One can wonder which populations are going to take to the streets and which are just going to bend over and take it. One can also wonder what the reactions of the various governments will be and what force will be used to suppress protests and opposition when austerity measures are put in place. One can hope all will remain peaceful, but the chances of civil unrest occurring grow greater with each measure governments take to punish the common folk and protect the interests of the moneyed elite.

I don't blame the French for their actions and I hope Americans can stand up and be counted when push comes to shove. I certainly don't condone violence of any kind, nor do I wish to see it in the streets, but people can and should only take so much before they reach a breaking point. I can only hope that the elected officials in this nation take note of what's happening in Europe and start taking steps to back off their attempts to restrict our decision making abilities. I can only hope they take steps to start repealing the freedom killing legislation that has been passed over the past decade. I can only hope they take steps to start exposing the fraud and prosecuting the super elite who have engineered this economic disaster. I can only hope they do the right thing to defuse the situation, but I don't think it's very likely they will.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Thinking, It's not For Humans Anymore

It doesn't matter what I think. Really. If it did, we'd all be living free right now. We'd all have domain over our bodies and minds. We wouldn't be paying taxes. We wouldn't be worried about the penalties for questioning the authority of strangers who claim to represent our interests. We'd be able to put into our bodies what we want, for we would have self ownership and we'd be able to associate with who we want for they would also have self ownership. We wouldn't have to worry about government spies poking about trying to determine our political, religious, or philosophical beliefs. We wouldn't have to be dependent upon government agencies who have failed and proven to be incompetent and corrupt time and again.

If you're reading this than it's more than likely it doesn't matter what you think either. You're likely part of the 99.99% of the world's population that isn't supposed to think. At least, that's the impression I get these days. It seems to me that more and more the government wants control. It seems that it only matters, at least when it comes to economic policy, what a very few elite at the top think.

This was more than evident when it came to the bailouts. Our supposed representatives admitted that they had massive calls opposing the bank bailouts. I heard at least one case of 300 to 1 against. Yet somehow this massively unpopular legislation went through. What happened to democracy? Our government makes these grandiose claims that they are protecting democracy and bringing it to the poor of the world, yet they won't even exercise it in their own legislation.

It was apparent that it doesn't matter what you think when it came to the recent healthcare legislation. The democrats had a majority control in both the house and senate and their man was sitting in the White House. They were determined to ram it through. Despite the battles, despite the animated protests, despite the boisterous confrontations at town hall meetings, the democrats decided that what they thought was more important than what you thought (unless you agreed with them) and they decided to cram that legislative tome down the throats of the American people.

It's most recently apparent by remarks made by Eric Holder that they couldn't care less what the people in California think. If proposition 19 passes, he promises to crack down on marijuana in California. Democracy doesn't seem to matter to Mr. Holder. Doing what is right and allowing people to decide for themselves what products of nature they want to consume doesn't matter to Mr. Holder. What you think doesn't matter to Mr. Holder. All that matters is what Mr. Holder thinks. All that matters is his attempt to maintain his power. All that matters is that he has command of an army enforcers who let him do their thinking for them. That situation, to me, is the most telling of them all, for it shows without a doubt how frightened they are of people thinking for themselves.

What this situation demonstrates, at least in my eyes, is a deeper problem with the system. The elite at the top have control, and they don't care what you or I or anyone else thinks. They don't care how you feel. They simply don't give two poops in a handbag about you or anyone else who isn't running in their inner circles. The elites are going to do what the elites want to do, and yet they can't. You see, they do know that we outnumber them by about a million to one or so. They know that if we figure that out then we are likely to realize just how much power we really have. They are frightened because they don't want to give up what they believe is theirs.

While it might not matter what you or I think as individuals, it does start to matter if enough people start to think in certain ways. That's why those at the top want to control what you and I think. That's why they want to hide or misrepresent certain information. That's why they want to control the school system and what the children learn. That's why they want to control the media and the news you see. That's why they want to censor the Internet, where the dissidents dwell. The elite don't want you to see reality, they want you to see the reality they present. They want you to believe in their collectivist system, to think in their collectivist terms, so that they can enslave your collectivist minds and snuff out any notion of the importance of the individual.

The elite don't want anyone thinking. The less the masses think, the greater control they can have over them. They pay people big bucks to do the thinking that matters, and they pay them to think of ways to maintain control. But their system seems to be falling apart right before our eyes. As the base of the pyramid awakens, the foundations shake. Those at the top have the farthest to fall, but a pyramid is a pretty solid structure. They likely plan on landing on another part of the pyramid and building another foundation.

It's time to think about who's at the top of the heap. It's time to recognize the power structure and realize who's pulling the strings. It's time to put some thought into where all this is heading and to let those at the top know that we are thinking, and that our thoughts do matter. The super rich have taken us at the bottom of the pyramid for a ride. Not the wealthy, not the upper middle class, not the small business man who has made good, but the super rich. The owners of the central banks. Those in control of the mega global corporations. The too big to fail. They are the ones pulling the strings of governments worldwide. They are the ones who have led us into the current mess we find ourselves in. They are the ones who need to relinquish control so that we can all work individually to get us out of it.

It's time to start moving toward a place where it does matter what you think. It's time to move in a different direction. It's time to take back the power of the individual and use it for the betterment of society. This can be done in many ways, but it can start by paring down the federal government. It can start by letting them know that we will hold them accountable. It can start by demanding in no uncertain terms that they obey the laws written to restrain their power, that they follow the Constitution that they take an oath to uphold and stop trying to create a centralized, fascistic style corporate state. They need to leave us alone, to let us make the decisions about where we spend the money we earn, and stop trying to establish a world empire run by a corporate elite.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is no longer enough. We need better mechanism to hold those in office accountable. We need a fairer justice system where those who have been given the public trust are actually punished if they misuse that trust or become corrupt. We need to start taking back our local politics, to start speaking out against unjust laws, and to allow more competition and choice when it comes to services that have been monopolized for far too long by government agencies. We need to create a system where honest hard work is rewarded, putting a dollar into savings is meaningful, and private property is honored. These are the principles for which this nation was built, and they are the principles that have been forgotten and discarded by the ruling elite who want to do the thinking for everyone else. It may be a long, hard journey, but it is one that is possible providing we all just put some thought into it.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Inflation and the Federal Reserve Fiat System

I recently engaged in an email exchange with a reader. He was interested in finding out more information about the subjects broached in my article about the financial mess in Iceland released earlier this year. I assumed he was looking for information about central banking and told him about a book I had read years ago called "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. This is a book written by a highly respected author that tells of the secretive creation of the Federal Reserve.

To begin with, I told him that I feel the current system is immoral and that is what I base my opinion on. When the power to print the money people use is given to a very few people, then those people become very powerful, too powerful. I believe those people have, without a doubt, abused the power they were entrusted with for their own benefit.

Anyway, this particular gentleman is almost done with "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and he had a couple of questions for me. I'm paraphrasing here, but he basically asked me why, if fiat money is really just worthless, counterfeit notes, would the Federal Reserve want to get their money back? He then went on to ask about inflation and wondered how anyone would know more money was in circulation if that was its cause. The following is part of the answer I gave him.

I'm no financial expert, but I do have a way at looking at these issues that may help. Let me run it past you to see if it works. The first thing to remember is that money may be counterfeit, but it is not worthless. In the case of a monopoly fiat system, this is usually because there are laws called legal tender laws that force people to trade using the fiat money that is created by the elite at the top of the pyramid. Money is just a medium of exchange. People have a tendency to think of money as a special case because of these laws, but in a free market, or a freer market, there'd be many choices we could make as to what to use as a medium of exchange. So, try to think of money as just a commodity. A commodity on the open market is only worth what people will give you for it. To illustrate, I'll try to use simple numbers. Say you can buy a loaf of bread at the market for a dollar. One could say that the loaf of bread is worth a dollar, but one could also say that a dollar is worth a loaf of bread.

Ok, now let's examine the question of why Federal Reserve notes are counterfeit. Early on in the history of the United States the US dollar was defined. It was to be worth about an ounce of silver. As you can see by the cost of an ounce of silver today this is no longer true. The Federal Reserve worked hard early on to get away from the silver definition and the gold standard in order to be able to print as much money as it wanted and to flood the system with that money. They got around these laws by printing the words Federal Reserve Note on their bills, which are actually debt notes, good for all debts, public and private. But you can see how much less a dollar is worth today than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, just try to buy an ounce of silver for a dollar today and see how far you get.

Inflation doesn't necessarily pop up overnight. It creeps upon us slowly. It has to do with how difficult it is to come upon a dollar. Let's look at the loaf of bread example. For simplicity's sake, let's say a loaf of bread cost a penny back in 1900. In the year 2000 that same loaf of bread cost $2.00. That's inflation of 20,000% over 100 years. Think about that. It means that a penny is 20,000 times easier to earn in the year 2000 than it was in the year 1900. A penny was actually worth something back then, it was worth a loaf of bread, it's more or less worthless these days. But it's also a measure of how easy it is to come across a loaf of bread. Back in the 1700s, a loaf of bread may have cost a nickel. This would be because it was harder to make loaves of bread back in the 1700s than it was in 1900. As a result of technology in farming and food production, the cost of a loaf of bread actually falls from the 1700s to the 1900s. In a stable economy, as the production of bread improves, the cost should go down. Indeed, if not for inflation, we might be paying a penny for two loaves of bread or it may have been necessary to introduce new coinage such as half pennies, quarter pennies or even tenth pennies. However, this wasn't the case after the Federal Reserve was created because suddenly it became easier to come across a dollar.

At the same time, the exchange rate of silver and gold remain approximately the same. I like this example, I'm sure you've heard it. In the Roman times, you could get a nice quality toga, a nice sash, a pair of high quality sandals and a nice haircut in exchange for an ounce of gold. In today's world, you can get a quality suit, a nice belt, a pair of high quality shoes and a nice haircut for about the price of an ounce of gold. You see, the buying power, the exchange rate of gold, has remained the same.

So, why would the fed want to keep printing their "worthless" notes? Well, if those who own the fed have been smart, and I think they have, they've bought and stockpiled tons and tons of stable commodities like gold, silver, copper, palladium, platinum, oil, diamonds, precious gems, etc. with their "worthless" notes. They're busy buying up or legally stealing the real wealth of the common man as I type this. They are acquiring land, houses, other products created and adding these things to their own coffers. Money is not real wealth, it is simply a means of exchange. Real wealth is what we create with the money.

You don't need to consciously "know" what the money supply is to be affected by it. It's a matter of how easy it is to come across a dollar that determines its worth. When the market is flooded with them, they become very easy to come across and prices rise. The buying power of the fiat currency drops. At the same time, there is the give and take of how easy it is to produce a product. It is easier to come across a dollar, for instance, but it is also easier to produce that loaf of bread in mass quantities. Meanwhile, other commodities that can also be used as means of exchange maintain their buying power. The wealthy elite, with their stockpiles of commodities, remain wealthy while the rest of us drown in the flood of dollars they created with the blessings of our politicians.

It ends up being a matter of control. Most of us common folk have nothing to offer as a means of exchange but our labor. If the amount of dollars to buy a loaf of bread becomes so great that we can no longer afford a loaf a bread, we will start to offer up our labor for that loaf of bread. A starving, desperate man will do most anything to get some food for himself and his family. In the end, we will likely even offer up our sweat and our labor for a very small amount of food. The powerful elite will be able to decide who eats and who starves. I fear that is the kind of power these people, the elite, are striving for, and we have helped them along by allowing the central banks of the world to control our money supplies. That's why I feel it's so important to allow competition in the currency market.

After reading that explanation, the gentleman emailing me asked another. He wondered if the elite were out to introduce a world currency and what gold would be worth if they did so. He also mentioned poverty and overpopulation. The following paraphrases my answer to his ruminations.

I certainly don't have the answers, just my opinion. Yes, I believe they are out to create a world currency. In fact, I wonder if they have as much gold in reserve as they say the do, or if they are selling non existent gold to people. That's why, in my opinion, it's important that if you buy gold you physically possess it. As for myself, I buy silver whenever I can, there's more of it and it's more useful to industry. Also, they will have the power to confiscate gold if they need to, like they did in the 1930s.

After driving across this great nation of ours, eastward bound, I no longer believe the hype of overpopulation. It's another propaganda ploy put out there by the elite to excuse their murderous ways. There's plenty of room in this world for everyone, and it can support us just fine. As our population grows, so does the technology to meet our needs. Not to mention, it has been shown that as technology progresses and the standard of living goes up, population growth levels off. The wealth pie is not static. We don't get just so much and then that's it. We created the wealth we have and we will continue to create it as we grow. It is government that I believe causes poverty with their restrictions on markets creating monopolies and preventing competition and innovation and their creative wars that kill and maim so many millions. I don't know what will happen with gold and other precious metals in the future, but I do know that honesty has to be demanded, the fraud has to stop and those responsible for the fraud need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

It is my hope that these explanations help others better understand the fiat money system we currently operate under. My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

The New Green Fascists Threaten Everyone

I used to argue in favor of using green technologies. I used to believe that green technology was the way of the future and that taking steps to conserve energy was good for the planet. I no longer believe such things. Want to know what changed my mind? It was Greenpeace. It was others who were promoting the ideas I was promoting a few years back. They have abandoned all reason and have resorted to blatant threats to promote their agenda. I don't take kindly to threats.

I am talking about a couple of videos that have popped up onto the scene recently. The first was actually a video that came out a few years back, but it was only brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago. In it, a brainwashed child makes veiled threats to adults who refuse to accept the "reality" of climate change. Of course, this came out before the Copenhagen debacle, the exposure of climategate and the revelations of the data manipulation that went along with it. Still, had I seen this video back then, I certainly would have questioned the wisdom of those who decided that threats of violence, however veiled, is the way to promote the ideas of saving energy or creating greener ways of producing energy.

That video wasn't that bad, just a bit misguided. The problems were a bit overstated and a lot misunderstood. The debate rages hotter than ever whether manmade global warming ever really existed, or whether climate change is mainly driven by the sun. Gee, what a concept, the star that provides our planet with the warmth and radiation it needs for life to exist can effect the warming and cooling conditions on Earth. The giant orb in the sky which experiences temperature fluctuations beyond our imaginings affects the climate. Makes sense to me. It makes a lot more sense than the small impact we puny beings have on climate.

But we've been through that before. I know there are a few diehard global warming believers who won't be reached no matter the reasoning used. They will insist that global warming, um, global cooling, um, climate change, um whatever you want to call it exists and is caused by man even if the sun blew up and melted us all or stopped shining and sentenced us to an icy death. Man must be the cause of it. We must be creating the planet's doom. And, here's the best part, the only way to stop this happening is through authoritarian global government and a global carbon tax. Nothing else will work.

That's the real rub. Their agenda isn't a green agenda. They are not concerned with saving the Earth. They are only concerned with social engineering. They are only concerned with controlling human life. Their message is simple and obvious, mankind bad, nature good. We need to de-industrialize and those who disagree and continue to advance technology, use technology, engage in manufacturing and/or simply live as modern people should live, they should be taxed to the maximum or perhaps even punished. More frightening, their latest message suggests they should be killed.

This video is quite disturbing. It is brought to you by It depicts school children, office workers, a professional soccer player and a professional voice over actress getting blown to bloody, fleshy bits for disagreeing with the ecological views of the organization. Watching it, one can make the argument that it's a joke, but if it is, it's an awfully sick one. It may be amusing to some sick folks, perhaps the same people who are amused by pictures of depleted uranium babies or men being tortured, but to those of us who have a semblance of empathy and a general respect for life, the kind of callous disregard for human life enacted in the video is abhorrent.

The message seems obvious to me; "If you don't agree with our point of view, you deserve to die and we're happy to kill you." If you or I were to make this kind of threat to someone we'd be arrested, thrown in jail, and likely later found guilty and sentenced to spend some time in prison. The people who produced and aired this short film have threatened thousands of people and will likely never be investigated. I doubt they'll even be put on a terrorist watch list despite their obvious call to instigate violence against those who disagree with them. Perhaps that's because they said "no pressure" to their victims before blowing them up. Perhaps it's because supposedly a majority agree with these people, so it's okay to murder because that's democracy. You know democracy, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, so it's okay to violate the natural rights of the individual because most people agree with the 1010 people and they are, after all, trying to protect the Earth.

Along with the disturbing nature of the video there's the questionable target of the organization's ire. These people keep talking about carbon emissions, specifically carbon dioxide. They speak of it as if carbon dioxide is the culprit of all our environmental problems. They speak of it as if it's as bad as mercury, lead, sulfur dioxides and other harmful pollutants. But carbon dioxide is necessary for life. Plants thrive on carbon dioxide. The more carbon dioxide is produced, the greener the planet becomes. As a bonus, the plants create oxygen with the carbon dioxide they use. It's a symbiotic relationship animals have with plants, they produce oxygen, we produce carbon dioxide, that's how the planet evolved. But the green fascists believe carbon dioxide is bad and we should be killed if we produce too much of it.

I want to thank for showing me their true colors. I want to thank them for exposing the green movement as the brutal, dictatorial bunch they are. I am now more certain than ever that all this green eco hype is nothing more than political propaganda meant to frighten the unthinking masses into accepting a global tax and control system. Anytime any movement feels it has to abandon reasoned debate and resort to threats, lies and secrets, that just reeks of government force. Anytime an attempt such as this is made to manipulate the emotions of the masses, that's when it's time to stand one's ground and demand accountability. Hopefully, savvy politicians will see the folly in associating with such a group and start opposing any efforts to impose carbon taxes anywhere.

You know, it's too bad, I still think some green technologies are worth employing. I still think that personal wind and solar plants on one's house would be a good idea to not only achieve energy independence, but help create financial independence as people would be able to stop paying energy companies on a monthly basis. I think there's a lot of good alternatives to coal and oil out there just waiting to be developed. I'd love to see mankind freed from the old technologies and moving forward with more modern ways of generating energy. I just don't want to see government force, or any force, employed to achieve these ends. I just can't support these things while so many violent people inhabit the movement. I don't want to be associated with those who would use such despicable threats to forward their agenda. Until those people leave the movement and find some other project to focus their fascism upon, I will have to protest their ideas and actions.

I think on 10/10 I will take my SUV out for a nice long drive. I think I'll leave every light in my house on and run all my fans. I think I'll leave the vacuum running and the refrigerator door open. I think I'll do my best to produce as much carbon dioxide as I can and increase my carbon footprint so that my houseplants can get a little greener. Sure, it might cost me a few extra dollars, but it's worth it to see the efforts of such an evil, violent organization backfire. Besides, I believe I'll be doing the plants of the world a favor and helping them to thrive. I'll be making this planet a little greener for everyone. Will you help in my effort? Personally for me, I couldn't care less if you do or not, there truly is no pressure, and I don't want to see anyone killed regardless of what they believe.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Politicians, the Blame Game, the Constitution and the American System

Anyone who has ever had to deal with elected officials, particularly at the federal level, has probably been frustrated trying to get them to listen to your point of view, let alone agree with it. Unless, of course, you have lots of money. It seems to me that the congress critters inhabiting the halls of power in Washington DC represent no one but themselves and their corporate sponsors. They certainly don't seem to want to have anything to do with the common folk. It seems to me that even when a great number of their constituents complain and ask for change and accountability, they do their best to wriggle free from their responsibilities and chase an agenda that grants them and their cronies more power and control.

One of the senators from the state of Illinois has once again managed to raise my ire without really trying. Mr. Dick Durbin, upon answering a request for more transparency and accountability in government, decided to play the blame game. The request was made by myself and thousands of others through, an organization dedicated to putting pressure on our elected officials to actually do something about shrinking the size of the federal government and adhere to the laws that are supposed to govern them.

Mr. Durbin wrote an email explaining that there was a budget surplus when Mr. Bill Clinton was serving as president, but that it disappeared during Mr. George W. Bush's administration. While this is a true statement, I do not believe that it is a legitimate excuse for the continuation of the practices that drove our nation into such debt. Nor do I think it is a legitimate reason to excuse Mr. Durbin and the current batch of spending crazed congress critters who continue to shirk their responsibilities and blame others for the mess we're in.

Certainly, I've no doubt that Mr. Bush bears much of the responsibility for our current financial mess, but he was not the only one to blame. Indeed, in the American form of government, it's supposed to be congress that approves the spending. So, if we're going to play the blame game, shouldn't we mention that the Republicans controlled congress during Clinton's presidency? Mr. Durbin seems to conveniently forget that fact as he tries to convince myself and others that the fault does not lie with him or his fellow Democrats. Well, the fault lies with all of them, Democrats and Republicans.

The political class long ago decided to stop following the Constitution, that little bit of writing they swear an oath to uphold, and to just do whatever they want. They don't seem to remember that there were three branches of government created in order to create a separation of power that was supposed to protect the natural rights of individuals from the intrusive and too often tyrannical power of the state. Instead, those in power made backroom deals with each other behind closed doors. They slowly eroded individual rights until we have left only a sliver of what we were meant to have. The powers of the states were usurped by the federal government and they became the tyrants they were supposed to protect us from. Now we sit and worry about them violating those natural rights they pledged to respect as they fish for dissidents challenging their "authority."

The president is not a dictator, or a king, or a despot, or any kind of lone authoritarian, as much as some seem to want him to be. He can't just make laws by decree and expect his "subjects" to obey them. There is a process, Mr. Dick Durbin, that this country must go through in order to take us down the road to ruin. You must all be on board for this to happen, or at least the majority of you. You don't need a dictator when there are 545 petty tyrants who can create the same tyranny, and a federal justice system that will support and even encourage it. The only reason to have such an authoritarian figure is so there is someone to blame when things go south. So, you want to blame George W. Bush for our current situation, as if he was the king and the sole decision maker during our slide into socialism, do you? Well, I have a few questions for you then.

Did you vote against the Patriot Act? Did you speak out against it citing how it would trample upon the natural rights of sovereign citizens? How about the Military Commissions Act? Did you stand and argue against that bill because of its unconstitutional nature? Did you ever try to introduce legislation repealing these laws when it became obvious that abuses were taking place? Did you ever bravely stand before your compatriots in the Senate and demand unbiased investigations into such allegations?

Did you speak out against going to war with Iraq? Did you vote against going to war? Did you speak out about the constitutional requirement that war be declared by congress? Did you speak against sending our troops into Afghanistan? Did you ever vote against funding these wars so we would be forced to end them? Did you do anything at all to try to prevent these catastrophes and avoid the expense that goes along with them?

Did you vote against the bailouts back in 2008 when the Bush administration was on the way out? Did you speak out against the timing of such a move? Did you point out the folly of such an action? Did you point out the price that would be paid by future generations? Did you stand up and vote against such a bill because so many of your constituents were calling, writing and emailing telling you to allow the mega banks to fail? Did you ever do the right thing, or did you just do as you were told by your corporate handlers, like so many of your colleagues? I only know of one man in Washington DC who stuck to his principles through all that, and he was not in the senate, but the house.

And then how about after Bush left office and Obama became the anointed one? Did you speak out against his socialist agenda? Did you stick up for the natural individual rights of the freeman? Did you argue against passing the tome that is the new health care law? Did you pay attention to the multitudes coming out to protest that law? Did you see the fury of the masses as they challenged their representatives and demanded they oppose the health care bill? Did you read that bill before voting for it, or did you listen to Ms. Nancy Pelosi as she determined it needed to be passed so we could find out what was in it? Did you ever once even care what the common folk thought, or did you simply follow the dictates of your corporate masters? I think the answer to all the above is a resounding "no."

You, Mr. Durbin, had ample opportunity to show your courage. You had ample opportunity to be one of the few who should not be blamed for the mess that has been created. You decided to ignore popular sentiment, ignore the Constitution, and ignore the principles this nation was built upon. You decided to do what you were told to do by those who pay for your campaigns. You, my friend, have no room to play the blame game. You are just as culpable for this mess as Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, or any of the other bought and paid for congress critters.

We don't need senators who play the blame game anymore, Mr. Durbin. We need men with the guts to stand up to those in power and say "enough." We need someone with the courage to defend the common man. We need someone who understands the power of the free market and will allow his financial backers to fail. We need someone who will demand accountability from the corporate elite. We need someone who will deny the wishes of special interests in order to empower the common man through honoring his natural rights. Don't try to tell me who's to blame for the current mess we're in, concentrate on doing what's right and getting back to obeying the Constitution so that we might have a future we can look forward to.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Why I Still Won't Take a Flu Shot, Even if Paid

It's that time of year again. The flu season is upon us, or should I say the season to push flu shots for the benefit of the bottom line of the big pharmaceutical companies. I am now hearing radio ads, seeing print ads and being generally inundated with pronouncements about the necessity of flu shots to prevent coming down with such a malady. I've read stories about how the flu shot should be taken, especially by pregnant women. Every time I hear or see such nonsense, it makes me want to cringe.

I must say, however, that at least this year they're not pushing it as hard as they did last year. Remember last year? The media hype was huge. There was going to be a terrible plague like we hadn't seen since 1918. Millions were going to die. It was going to be terrifying. The flu was going to wipe us all out.

Well, that didn't happen. In fact, it was the lowest flu rate in years. Not only that, but less people than normal were taking the flu shot. It seems that maybe the hype and fear mongering had the opposite effect than it was supposed to. Or maybe people are just becoming more wary. Maybe they're starting to research claims on their own rather than simply trusting large corporations and doing as they're told by the media. Maybe others besides me just don't trust the way flu vaccines are made and don't like the thimerosal, squalene, adjuvants and other questionable ingredients in the shots. Maybe some, also like me, discovered that the flu shots made them sick. I can't say for sure, but I'm fairly certain that the low numbers of people getting the flu and the low numbers of people taking the shots are not merely coincidental.

I read at MSNBC that scientists are now saying most Americans have an immunity to the swine flu. How convenient. Just at a time when people are finally beginning to question the effectiveness of flu vaccines, they had to figure out something to say to explain away the low amount of flu cases last year after all their fear mongering. They call it herd immunity, I call it herd mentality. We are beginning to think for ourselves, to question authority, to worry about ourselves and to stop worrying so much about the herd. This is scaring the establishment.

The specter of millions of deaths like in 1918 wasn't enough to send the people flocking to get their shots, and now they have to think of some reason flu cases were down at the same time inoculations were also down. So, most of us have an (cough) immunity to swine flu because of past exposure or we already had the vaccine. Yeah, right. Next look for fear to be raised of some other kind of flu, something we haven't been exposed to. Maybe the bird flu. Or the Asian flu. Or perhaps a horse flu. Or a cat flu. Or a kangaroo flu. It doesn't matter. They need to figure out something to scare us with so that we'll flock to them begging to be saved from some malady. They need to make their money.

Do you suppose that the past deceptions and misleading statements have taken effect against the makers of flu shots? How often were we told how safe the shots were only to find out later that they might have links to certain side effects like Guillain Barre, autism and even Alzheimer's? How much covering up can the media do for corporate big pharma before people scream enough and learn not to trust them? Personally, I discovered long ago that I'd rather take my chances with nature and risk catching the flu than risk putting the chemicals in my body that the greedy big pharmaceutical companies tell me are safe. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

I'm not saying that all vaccinations are bad. I will say this, however. I had the measles. I had the chicken pox. I had the childhood diseases and lived through them, and now I am immune for life. Those vaccinations, the shots that you take once when you're a child and then never again, those perhaps aren't so bad. Or at least they weren't when I was a child, I'm not so sure anymore. But if you have to take a shot every year to prevent illness, is it worth it? Is it worth the risk when combined with even the small amounts of questionable ingredients and poisons necessary to preserve the active ingredients in the shot?

The shot isn't even guaranteed to prevent the flu. They have to guess the type of flu that's going to be catching that year. And if they prevent one flu this year, they may not prevent another, or that flu may be around again next year. One is better off just taking precautions like washing their hands often, eating well to boost immune health and avoiding crowds if possible. I also wonder that if one catches the flu, how long will that immunity last as opposed to the immunity one gets by taking the shot? I remember the really bad flu I got the last time I took the shot because I thought I was going to die and now I wonder if I have an immunity to that flu for life. I hope I do.

It bears repeating, the hype doesn't seem to be there this year. I don't see the corporate media pushing the shots. I don't see celebrities taking the shots to show how safe they are or news outlets talking about a viral infestation threatening to take out mankind this year. The advertising is still there, but much more low key, which just might work for them. As for me, they couldn't pay me to take their shot, let alone get me to pay for it. In fact, if I had a job where the flu shot was required, I just might be forced out of work. That's how much I distrust the pharmaceutical establishment and their government cronies. I know there are others with similar feelings. I hope this is one battle the corporate establishment is going to lose as more and more people discover that maybe they can survive quite well without taking part in the yearly ritual of getting a flu shot.

I guess the big pharmaceutical companies are just going to have to figure out another way to make lots of money. Perhaps they can get the government to pass some kind of health care reform bill. Oh, wait, that already happened. I wonder how much big pharma contributed to that tome. Perhaps they can start experimenting on our soldiers overseas, vaccinating them against strange diseases and over charging our government for their medical products and services. Perhaps they can sell their questionable wares to third world nations where no one is paying attention. Perhaps they'll think of something even more devious and destructive than imaginable. One can only hope that those with principle can keep an eye on them and expose any shady dealings they may have. One can only hope that one day we will live in a world where individuals can chose to frequent medical professionals they feel are principled and trustworthy rather than being forced to use products that are only available due to political connections.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.