Ghosts have fascinated me all of my life and all paranormal and here is pretty good info about how ghosts emerge and such:
What are ghosts and how does a person become one?
1. What are ghosts?
When a person dies only his gross body (sthūladēha) ceases to exist. His subtle-body (consisting of the subconscious mind, intellect, ego and soul, i.e. minus the physical body) however continues to exist and moves on to the other regions of the universe. Refer to the picture below for more detailed view of what we are comprised of and what we leave behind after death.
Some of these subtle-bodies become ghosts. Ghosts by definition meet all of the following criteria:
They are subtle-bodies.
They belong to the Nether region (Bhuvarlok) or one of the seven regions of Hell (Pātāl) but they are found on Earth region (Bhūlok) too. This is because ghosts from the more subtle-regions of the universe can travel to the more gross ones like Earth at will.
The entire universe is made up of fourteen regions or planes (lokas) of existence, comprising seven positive and seven negative planes. Earth is the only physical plane while all the other planes are subtle in nature. Heaven is just one of the positive planes we can go after death.
They do not exist in the positive planes of the universe i.e. Heaven (Swarga) and above.
They have unfulfilled desires such as cravings for sex, alcohol (things that they can only experience through a gross body), revenge etc.
They derive pleasure out of exerting control over and tormenting humans and other subtle-bodies. Their general aim is aligned with bringing about unrighteousness in society.
The subtle-body of a person after physical death is defined as a ghost if their characteristics and intentions match the above. There is no special process as such which they go through to become a ghost.
2. What decides where we go and what we become after death?
When we die, our course in the after-life is decided by a number of factors. These factors include:
The number and type of impressions that are created in the sub-conscious mind depending on how we have lived our lives. Refer to the article on the impressions in our mind that decides our basic nature and personality.
Our ego: The word ‘ego’ is used in a spiritual context here. In addition to its everyday usage as self esteem and self conceit, it also includes the attitude of duality with God. Duality means thinking of oneself as having an existence separate from God. Ego is a function of the extent to which we identify with our 5 senses, mind and intellect instead of identifying with the soul or the God within us.
The rituals as per Spiritual science done by our descendants after our death to help us in our after life.
3. Who are likely to become ghosts?
People are likely to become ghosts after their death when
They have many unfulfilled desires.
Many personality defects, such as anger, fear, greed, etc.
A lot of negative impressions in the mind.
A high amount of ego.
They have harmed others and have the basic nature of harming others.
They lack spiritual practice consisting of progressive level of surrender of mind body and intellect, done with the intention of God-realisation.
Samashti spiritual level refers to the spiritual level attained through spiritual practice for the sake of society (samashti sādhanā), while vyashti spiritual practice refers to the spiritual level attained through individual spiritual practice (vyashti sādhanā). In the current times, spiritual progress for the sake of society has 70% importance while individual spiritual practice has 30% importance.
Only people who have reached the 50% (samashṭi) or 60% (vyashṭi) spiritual level and have low ego are able to proceed to the higher regions of Heaven and beyond and do not become ghosts. The rest of humanity, when they die, finds themselves in the regions of the Nether world and Hell. Most subtle-bodies in the Nether region are highly likely to become ghosts. All subtle-bodies in Hell are ghosts.
In fact, even if one is a gentleman but doesn’t have enough spiritual strength through spiritual practice, he is liable to become a ghost when he dies. This is because he is attacked by higher level ghosts and is controlled by them. Just as on Earth, in the other regions of the universe also, ‘might is right’ and only the strongest survive. Ghosts (demons, devils, negative energies, etc.) of a higher level, with their high spiritual strength, make the subtle-bodies of ‘gentlemen’ of lower spiritual strength, do things against their will and thus indirectly make them ghosts. Over a period of time, the subtle-body of the ‘gentleman’ too succumbs and becomes a ghost deriving pleasure through tormenting humans or fulfilling their worldly desires by possessing humans.
Do spiritual practice with the intention of achieving God-realisation (the ultimate in spiritual growth).
Have less impressions in the mind, fewer personality defects, etc.
Have a low ego.
Are above the 50% ( samashti) or 60% ( vyashti) spiritual level.
When such persons die they move on to the higher regions, i.e. Heaven and beyond. Ghosts cannot influence or take them into custody due to their spiritual strength and protection from God.
5. Spiritual level and ghosts
Throughout the section on ghosts, we refer to higher level ghosts who have a lot of spiritual energy as a result of intense spiritual practice and penance. As a result, they have a high spiritual level and a lot of spiritual power. This may seem contradictory as one may ask, “How can one become a ghost when one has a high spiritual level?” The spiritual power of a Saint at the 70% spiritual level and a superior ghost such as a subtle-sorcerer (māntrik) from the 5th region of Hell may be the same. However, the key differences between them are:
The Saint does spiritual practice with the intention of surrendering his body, mind, wealth, ego, etc. to God so as to merge with Him.
The superior ghost or a person with high spiritual power (who after death becomes a ghost) does spiritual practice with the intention of gaining supernatural powers so as to play ‘God’ and thus has a lot of ego.
The Saint would identify more with the God principle or the soul within. The subtle-sorcerer on the other hand is very proud of the fact that he has the spiritual strength and identifies with his ego i.e. the 5 senses, mind and intellect.
I found this great website with tons of information and I will be posting some of it in my posts. Let’s start with the topic of life, death and the afterlife:
Every now and again, we hear the clichéd question, ‘What is the meaning of life?’ or ‘What is the purpose of life?’ or ‘Why are we born?’. In most cases, we have our own agenda on what our purpose in life is. However from a spiritual perspective, there are two generic reasons why we are born. These reasons include to complete the give-and-take account we have with various people and to make spiritual progress with the final aim of merging into God. Once we merge with God we come out of the cycle of birth and death. But what happens after death if we remain in this cycle? Is there an afterlife? The innumerable recorded and researched cases of past life experiences clearly point to life after death. In all the recorded cases of reincarnations, it was found that there was a variable time lag between the death of the person and his next reincarnation on Earth. So, where do we go after death till our reincarnation on Earth? Is it a single plane of existence or are there a variety of planes of existence? If so, what are the factors that decide where we go after death? In the following articles, we present the answers to these and other questions about this topic. These answers are obtained through spiritual research done by seekers of the Spiritual Science Research Foundation (SSRF) with highly developed sixth sense (ESP).
Introductory articles to life, death, and the afterlife
Immediately after we die, we all go through an interim region in the Universe which is known as the Region of the Dead. In this region, the subtle-body gets accustomed to its new state without a gross body.
Almost all of us have at some time wondered if we can meet our departed ancestors and loved ones when we leave this Earth at the time of death. The purpose of this article is to explain the factors and principles governing who we can meet and who we cannot in the afterlife.
After death the subtle-body becomes heavy due to sins and excessive ego and as a result gets stuck in lower subtle-planes of existence such as the Nether region. If the sins are intense then the subtle-body goes to Hell.
When family members die, we pay tribute to their lives by offering flowers at their grave, by publishing kind words about them in their memory in the obituary section of a newspaper or hanging the photograph of the deceased in one’s house. However, all these have no significance in helping our ancestors in the afterlife.
From a spiritual perspective what is the best colour of clothes to wear to a funeral? From a spiritual perspective, any sober colour other than black can be worn by relatives and well-wishers in the event of the death of a person.
The favourite objects of the dead person kept in the coffin are attacked by ghosts in the same way as the corpse is attacked. This includes even dressing up the dead body in their favourite clothes. The subtle sorcerers can use these objects to do black magic.
Losing a loved one is a traumatic experience for anyone. Sometimes people who are emotionally upset, hug and kiss the body of the deceased. This may however be harmful for both the person and the subtle-body of the deceased
It is common funeral etiquette in today’s world to have a funeral reception. From a Spiritual science perspective, this can be highly detrimental for the people involved as well as for the subtle-body of the deceased. But as it is not always possible to avoid attending a funeral reception, this article provides information on what to do or not to do.
[Editor’s Note: Smedley Butler is my idea of a true American patriot. Born into an upper class Quaker family from Pennsylvania, he dropped out of the elite Haverford School at age 16 in order to join the Marines with the outbreak of the Spanish American War against Spain (Cuba) in 1898. He lied about his age and was commissioned a second lieutenant. He was first wounded at Guantanamo; then fighting the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, in Hondurans in 1903 protecting the American consulate, at the Battle of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914 and in Haiti in 1915. His bravery under fire earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor twice, along with top medals from the Marine Corps and the government of France (First World War).
His father, Thomas S. Butler, was a judge who became a US congressman for 31 years and was chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee during the Harding and Coolidge administrations. Smedley’s high ranking within the military and his father’s high position within the government gave him the opportunity to see the Big Picture and the Money Boys behind the scenes. He learned in the first half of the twentieth century what I had only learned in the closing decade of that century. Simply stated : modern wars are maneuvered and engineered into existence in order to generate obscene profits for behind-the-scenes corporate manipulators whose sons and daughters never serve or die in those wars.
Regardless of age, after having served in the military (and especially in a war zone), you feel a sense of connectedness and camaraderie with all who have served or are currently serving. It’s frustrating to get derogatory mail from service personnel who are under the same delusions about the government and our “mission” that I had once assumed. Smedley Butler published this short book in order to SAVE the lives of young American military personnel, to SAVE the unnecessary tax yoke placed on the American citizen, and to preserve the sovereignty of this nation. He was a true patriot because he could recognize the truth from the mountain of lies that we are fed by the government and their stooges in the press. He wasn’t about to sit back in silence while the manipulators were setting the stage for World War Two.
In the six years prior to his death in 1940 (at age 58), he was actively trying to expose a plot by wealthy industrialists to take over control of the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in a military coup. Today, we know that such a ‘takeover’ of the country did occur during the Roosevelt administration, albeit in a silent and bloodless manner. Today we live with the legacy of that takeover and face the same daunting task of educating the American public to the misadventure of war and the reality of the betrayal at the Top…Ken Adachi]
By USMC Major General Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the [First] World War, a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000newmillionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns, no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war, nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became “internationally minded.” We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances.” We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.
WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?
The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven’t paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children’s children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.
Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let’s just take a few examples:
Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.
There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let’s look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.
Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.
Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
Let’s group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.
A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.
Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren’t the only ones. There are still others. Let’s take leather.
For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That’s all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
International Nickel Company – and you can’t have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.
But here’s how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.
Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn’t any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!
Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.
There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.
Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.
Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.
Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.
There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.
One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.
Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn’t ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.
The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn’t float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.
It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.
The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.
Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying “for some time” methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn’t suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.
Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.
There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.
Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.
WHO PAYS THE BILLS?
Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don’t believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran’s hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to “about face”; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another “about face” ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers’ aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn’t need them any more. So we scattered them about without any “three-minute” or “Liberty Loan” speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final “about face” alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don’t even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn’t stand it.
That’s a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.
But don’t forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.
Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn’t bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn’t.
Napoleon once said,
“All men are enamored of decorations…they positively hunger for them.”
So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.
In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army.
So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side…it is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies…to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”
Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.
All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill…and be killed.
Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.
Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.
We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn’t find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!
Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.
When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.
And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.
HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!
WELL, it’s a racket, all right.
A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –
yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn’t they?
They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.
Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.
Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn’t be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.
At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can’t go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.
TO HELL WITH WAR!
I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.
Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had “kept us out of war” and on the implied promise that he would “keep us out of war.” Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money…and Germany won’t. So...
“Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars.”
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don’t mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.
Health officials in the U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia and around the world are officially crossing into dangerous territory with parents when it comes to vaccinations. Not only are public health entities habitually and deliberately failing to inform the public of their right to refuse vaccines in both school and work settings, but they are working towards mandatory vaccination protocols which will allow officials to conduct childhood vaccinations without any parental consent at all.
It was just a little over one year ago when the pharmaceutical industry, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control allocated millions of dollars in funding to establish vaccine clinics in public schools, causing a huge uproar from concerned parents.
These school based health centers (SBHCs) are located in school settings that claim to provide children and adolescents with comprehensive primary, acute, and preventive care for physical and mental health conditions. The following report Are We ‘Making the Grade’ With Our Children is a concise overview of school based vaccination centers and their objectives.
Naturopathic Doctor and vaccine researcher, Dave Mihalovic stated that public health agencies are pushing the centers in the guise of preventive medicine, when they will effectively promote the opposite. “The centers are providing an entry portal for pharmaceutical giants to access student health records and provide dangerous treatments such as untested drugs and vaccines without the full informed consent of parents.”
Consent packets are sent home by the school, completed by a parent/guardian, and then returned to the school. Vaccines are provided during the school day by nursing staff. Parents are not required to be present.
The consent forms are a one-time process, meaning parents will not have to submit consent more than once regardless how many vaccines their child receives. “This leaves the door open for the injection or administration of any drug treatment to the child which the school’s health staff deems appropriate, without any informed consent by the parents on the treatment’s effects, contraindications or consequences,” said Mihalovic.
“It’s certainly an incredibly advantageous position for big pharma,” said Mihalovic. The decisions will ultimately be between parents and the respective policy makers of school system, however the responsibility to make the right decision will lie solely with the parents. “Any parent who would not sound the alarm at a policy that does not inform them of every single injection, drug or treatment to their child is simply not paying attention to the potential consequences,” concluded Mihalovic.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry recently came under fire from the public and his opposition for an executive order mandating the HPV vaccine as a requirement for young girls without their informed consent or that of their parents.
One of the most concerning issues relating to Perry’s executive order is that HPV has been repeatedly shown not to cause cervical cancer, and that it is the persistant infection, not the virus, that determines the risk. More than 90% of women initially infected with a particular strain of HPV will not show the same strain four menstrual cycles later making the vaccine useless. Another astonishing fact, as shown by a CDC study, is that HPV types 16 and 18, the two HPV vaccine-relevant strains, are NOT the prevalent types in American women. Three published papers on HPV prevalence in the U.S., indicated that types 62, 84 and 52 are the most prevalent. None of these are targeted in either approved HPV vaccine, and type 52 is an accepted high-risk “carcinogenic” strain of HPV.
SANE Vax, Inc. recently informed the FDA that the Gardasil HPV vaccine currently on the market has been found to be contaminated with residual recombinant HPV DNA. This hitherto unknown contaminant may have provided a scientific basis for Gardasil-induced autoimmune-based inflammatory diseases in various tissues, including inflammation in the joints and central nervous system.
SANE Vax contracted with an independent lab to test for contamination and found HPV recombinant DNA (rDNA) in 13 vaccine vials. The Gardasil vials with different lot numbers were from New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Poland, France and three states in the U.S. 100% of the samples tested positive for the presence of the genetically modified HPV DNA.
The state of California recently passed bill AB499, permitting minors as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with vaccines such as Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent. The worst part is that parents will still be legally and financially responsible for their child even if severe damage results from the secret vaccinations without parental consent.
The overbearing reach of public health officials extends far beyond the United States. As vaccine examiner noted last year, a ‘demonstration project’ conducted by PATH International in cooperation with ICMR and the Indian state governments and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was called to an abrupt halt amidst allegations of unethical conduct.
58 various health advocacy groups took it upon themselves to conduct an independent fact finding mission when reports of 4 unexplained deaths and 120 girls suffering from debilitating new illnesses after being vaccinated against the HPV virus.
In Canada, health officials routinely ignore the fact that there are no laws that can force a person to be vaccinated against their will. Parents are often pressured to vaccinate their young infants with the threat that the child won’t be allowed in school–even though most provinces don’t have acts legislating compulsory vaccination.
In the three provinces (Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba) that have legislation for school-entry vaccinations, parents are rarely told that exemptions for reasons of conscience and/or religion exist within these laws to allow their children to opt out of having any shots.
Although there is no specific law in British Columbia that governs vaccination for school entry, the Infant’s Act gives health officials a veritable carte blanche to perform medical procedures on children without parental knowledge and consent. The Vaccine Risk Awareness Network (VRAN) has been contacted on several occasions by parents whose children were hauled in by school nurses and vaccinated against their will despite the child’s protest that they were not to get any vaccines.
In Burnaby, BC, parents have been infuriated by the lack of parental consent obtained by health authorities. A Burnaby mom was one of those parents upset that her 13-year-old daughter was vaccinated for HPV without her parental consent. “She didn’t bring home any forms or anything,” said Rosemary Reid. “I had absolutely no idea.”
The BC based Fraser Health Authority states they try to get parental consent, and if the girls don’t bring the forms back, it’s up to a public health nurse to decide if they are mature enough to give informed consent. “This informed consent thing, I don’t think I agree with it. I think it should still be up to the parents. You can take some kids into a room and brainwash them,” she said. “They’re only 13 and 14.” Fraser Health spokesperson Lisa Thibault said kids can overrule parental objection if they’re deemed mature enough by a public health nurse, and it’s the nurse’s responsibility to make that assessment.
At issue, of course, is whether 12-, 13- or 14-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the alternatives.
On a broader level, the vaccine situation involving nursing students, students in teachers’ college, dental tech students, health care workers and workers in nursing homes is fairly grim. These people are often threatened with expulsion and job loss if they refuse to submit to hepatitis B, tuberculosis tests or flu shots.
Health workers who refused the flu shots have been laid-off their nursing home jobs without pay when cases of flu have broken out. Those who do agree to get the flu shot are required to sign a waiver that absolves the institution, the union and the pharmaceutical company from any liability for damages should health injury or disabilities occur from vaccine reactions.
In the U.K, nurses regularly disregard the wishes of parents relating to the health and welfare of their children. U.K department of health does not deny that parental consent is desirable but not essential. Family rights campaigners called for a change in the law one year ago after it was revealed that girls as young as 12 can be given the cervical cancer vaccine without their parents’ consent. Doctors and nurses have been told they are under no legal obligation to seek the permission of the parent or guardian.
Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, said: ‘Giving the vaccination to girls without the consent of their parents is unethical and a recipe for disaster. “It is sending out the message that girls under 16 have a right to a private sex life and is treating parents with contempt.”
U.K Doctors have reported that girls aged just 12 and 13 have suffered paralysis, convulsions and sight problems after being given the HPV vaccine.
Family doctors in the U.K have even been accused of administering the MMR jab by stealth to children coming into their surgeries to receive other vaccinations. At least 50 horrified parents have complained that their GPs have ‘mistakenly’ given their children the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, it has emerged.
Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical giants continue to embark on several qualitative and quantitative research projects to show biased results on how to assess the competency of consent from children for vaccinations. BMC Public Health published a study in 2009 which claimed to demonstrate that health providers have a duty of care to girls for whom no parental consent for HPV vaccination has been given, and in the UK, this includes conducting, and acting upon, an assessment of the maturity and competence of an adolescent minor.
The British Journal of Cancer published a clinical study on HPV vaccination among ethnic minorities in the UK: knowledge, acceptability and attitudes, to assess what they refer to as unique opportunities for the “primary prevention” of cervical cancer. The background statement alone was erroneous and false before the study was even initiated. Vaccination has never been proven on any scientific grounds to be a primary prevention tool for cervical cancer.
Regardless, the quantitative study assessed ethnic differences in knowledge and acceptability of HPV vaccination in the UK to attempt to validate informed consent and refusal of HPV vaccination in ethnic communities.
The study further demonstrates how desperate vaccine manufacturers have become to obtain public acceptance for bypassing informed consent. The need to initiate a study to derive data on the differentiation between ethnicity, religion and other factors to define acceptability of informed consent is not only immoral, but also shows a complete disregard for what consent represents as a human right.
The right to “informed consent” when considering any medical procedure or drug, is a fundamental human right and a key medical ethic that governs medical law in almost every country in the world. This ethic has grown from the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It forbids human experimentation and the use of force or intimidation in medical procedures.
The institutions that are using these strong-arm tactics are in violation of fundamental medical ethics and must be challenged forcefully if we are to preserve what remains of health freedom for humanity. The unions who have conspired with the various institutions to enforce vaccination must also be called to task for failing to protect children and workers’ rights from medical coercion and battery.
At the pinnacle of defending our health freedoms, we need to muster strength in numbers as the majority to secure amendments that will guarantee freedom of choice in health, and protection from enforced medication at all costs.
The totalitarian tip-toe is tap dancing to tyranny with the proposed Internet censorship bill in the United Kingdom. In the name of keeping children safe from porn, the UK law will impose Internet filters on far more than just porn.
As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on “violent material”, “extremist related content”, “anorexia and eating disorder websites” and “suicide related websites”, “alcohol” and “smoking”. But the list doesn’t stop there. It even extends to blocking “web forums” and “esoteric material“, whatever that is. “Web blocking circumvention tools” is also included, of course.
The definition of “esoteric” makes clear that censorship of broad topics is the goal of this so-called ISP filter:
es·o·ter·ic [es-uh-ter-ik] adjective
1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest;
2. belonging to the select few.
3. private; secret; confidential.
Translation: anything outside the acceptable mainstream narrative will be filtered. In short, the free flow of information is under assault with this law.
What’s clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind ‘nudge theory‘ and ‘choice architecture’ that is popular with Cameron.
The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there’s not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website’s audience.
Open Rights also says the law could be used to play economic favorites, thus undermining the free market on the Internet:
There comes a point that it is simply better to place your sales through Amazon and ebay, and circulate your news and promotions exclusively through Facebook and Twitter, as you know none of these will ever be filtered.
It seems Western government’s voracity for Internet censorship has increased many fold since the Snowden revelations about digital spying.
Direct Internet censorship was imposed on millions of U.S. government computers blocking them from viewing any material related to the Snowden leak, which at the time of the leak and even now represents a large percentage of all political and technical news stories.
And as John Naughton of the Guardian points out today, the real story about the Snowden leak that everyone is ignoring are the implications on Internet freedom, which he lists as the following:
The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.
Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become very contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable.
Third, as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the Obama administration’s “internet freedom agenda” has been exposed as patronising cant. “Today,” he writes, “the rhetoric of the ‘internet freedom agenda’ looks as trustworthy as George Bush’s ‘freedom agenda’ after Abu Ghraib.”
As a final note, porn filters already exist for parents in the private marketplace if they choose to use them. So, there is no need for governments to make them mandatory, which indicates that the real agenda behind these new proposed laws is much more about censorship than protecting children.