EcoTort Videos


Saturday, 10 December 2011


Protect LIFE and PROPERTY Uphold the LAW.







                                                - pass it on !

COPYLEFT by EcoTort Theatre

Tuesday, 8 November 2011

EcoTort's POSTS IN "THE GUARDIAN" re the protest at St Paul's Cathedral

27 October 2011 12:27AM
It would seem that:-
1. by means of extensive criminal malpractice, the world's major banks have assumed financial control over nearly all of the world's governments.
2. they have assumed near infinite financial wealth by charging untold interest on loans of virtual money which was created through the stupendous criminal fraud known as "fractional reserve banking".
3. the banks are financing heinous "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment" we all share " by means of criminal industrial piracy.
4. furthermore they are guilty of criminal economic exclusion of lawful organic & sustainable permaculture theory and practice, the general 'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The financial arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual money and lawfully unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment".
5. When combined, points 1 to 4 above clearly constitute "criminal global economic slavery" by the bankers, in other words: "we are in criminal bondage to destroy our planet!"
As in North Dakota, USA, bankers must be public servants, not agents of unlawful free-market enterprise including salvery.
7. The only necessary criteria for a public servant's finances, is that all those finances be open to public scrutiny. Any concealment may constitute a criminal offence punishable in law.

Noblesse Oblige.

27 October 2011 1:04AM
Definition of an " Occupier ". rude, obnoxious, insensitive, unaware of reality and history,pretentious, uneducated, chav( in thinking ), intolerant,stupid, self centered,incomplete, pseudo-labour, lazy thinkers, non thinkers, unemployed, rude,rude, rude.
Capitalism has always had its faults but it has helped to make Britain put bread on everyones table. ( and cake ).
Perhaps they should have lived in Russia after the revolution.
Peace be with you.

27 October 2011 11:49AM
"@Nedlly: not being anti semetic myself, (zionists are NOT of the semetic tribe, whereas Palestinians ARE semetic, which makes zionists anti-semetic!), this is quoted from English translation of German MP Martin Hohmann's 'antisemic speech' of October 3 2003:
How many Jews were actually represented in the (Russian) revolutionary assemblies?
4 Jews were part of the 7 men Politibureau. Leo Trotsky, Leo Kamenjew, Gregory Sinowjew and Gregory Sokolnikow.
The none-Jews were Lenin, Stalin and Bubnow (1).
Among the 21 members of the Revolutionary Central Committee in Russia in 1917, 6 had the Jewish nationality, which is 28.6 %.
This overrepresentation of Jews amongst the creators of the Communist Movement was in no way limited to the Soviet Union.
Also Ferdinand LaSalle was Jewish, as were Eduard Bernstein and Rosa Luxemburg.
In Germany in 1924 4 out of 6 leaders of the Communist Party were Jewish, and thereby made up one third.
In Vienna out of 137 leading Austro-Marxists there were 81 Jews, which comprises 60%.
Among the 48 Folk Commissionaires, there were 30 Jews.
But also among the Soviet revolutionary secret police the Jewish quota was exceptionally large. While the Jewish quota of the total Russian population in 1939 was about 2 %, the Jewish Cheka (Tcheka) leaders made up no less than 39 %.
"Jewish", to make things clear, was recognized as a separate nationality in the Soviet Union.
The Jewish quota of the Cheka was by 36% higher than the Russian.
In the Ukraine even 75 % of the Cheka were Jews
These facts lead onward to a chapter that at that time caused an enormous outrage. The murder of the Russian Tsar family had been planned by the Jew Jacob Swerdlov, and Tsar Nicholas II was murdered by the Jew Chaimowits Jurowski in person.
Furthermore, there is the question if the Jews in the Communist movement were merely followers, or if they had a leading function. The latter was the case. Leo Trotsky in the UUSR, and Bela Kun in Hungary.
According to a statistical study by a professor who was presented by Churchill in 1930, 28 orthodox Bishops, 1.219 orthodox priests, 6.000 professors and teachers, 9.000 doctors, 12.950 landowners, 54.000 officers, 70.000 policemen, 193.000 workers, 260.000 soldiers, 355.000 intellectuals and merchants and 815.000 farmers had fallen as victims of the Soviets until 1924.
An especially revolting chapter was the annihilation of any resistance against the forced collectivization in the Ukraine. Under the examplatory participation of Jewish Chekists far more than 10 million people found their death here.
The outspoken anti-church and anti-Christian objectives of the Bolshevist Revolution shall not be played down, as is the case in most schoolbooks. It is a fact, that Bolshevism, with their militant atheism has carried out the greatest persecutions of Christians, and religion as such.
According to statistics worked out by the Russian authorities, 96,000 orthodox Christians, among them priests, deaconesses, monks, nuns, and other church workers were shot after having been arrested.
Quoted from English translation of German MP Martin Hohmann's 'antisemic speech' of October 3 2003.

for your information 'Nedlly' it is BAKERS who make cake, NOT BANKSTERS !
Peace be with you.

27 October 2011 9:55PM
I thank you for your very detailed contribution to this debate. However I am rather confused why you should go to very detailed lengths to refute my very simple statement ( although you may say very simple ).
Not really sure what to say except that you have brought up issues which I was not at all implying but all power to you.
Peace be with you.

27 October 2011 11:42PM
@Nedlly: . . . as an "Occupier" of more than thirty years standing, I am, I hope, simply making the point that I am neither, rude, obnoxious, insensitive, unaware of reality and history, pretentious, uneducated, chav ( in thinking ), intolerant, stupid, self centered, incomplete, pseudo-labour, lazy thinkers, a non thinker, nor am I unemployed, or rude,rude, rude except when sorely provoked . . .
28 October 2011 12:07AM
@ ecotort.
What can i say except that i was rude , which was wrong and I apologize.

27 October 2011 12:07PM
there is much confusion between 'anti semetic' and 'anti zionist'.
anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism:
. . . - it is alleged that the City of London:
1. is private "CITY STATE" owned by a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as the "CROWN ESTATE".
2. that it is not subject to English Law.
3. it has it's own Government and Police Force.
4. it was responsible for financing the African Slave Trade and the Opium Wars.
5. it financed monsanto in the production of "AGENT ORANGE", otherwise known as "DIOXIN", a defoliant used for killing trees in the Vietnam War to expose the Vietnamese who were hiding in the Trees. . . "AGENT ORANGE" was sprayed indiscriminantly upon Americans and Vietnamese alike, and has produced extraordinarily painful mutations in children for three subsequent generations, both in America and in Vietnam.
6. it is responsible for RECKLESSLY financing continuous attempts to SELL UNTESTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ALL OVER THE WORLD.
6. it is currently responsible for financing wholesale AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH, to the extent that the threat of environmental damage and destruction to the Earth is now as serious as a World War.
It is recorded in History that the territory known as the "City of London" was given to "Jewish" Bankers by Cromwell in exchange for financial support in his invasion of Britain against the Crown.
It is essential at this point, in order not to be labeled as "Anti-Semetic", to be clear that just because we are saying that the the CRIMINAL Bankers in question were "Jewish", does not mean we are saying that all Jews are to be tarred with the same brush as those Criminal Bankers amongst them. There is also some doubt as to whether those CRIMINAL "Jewish" Bankers are Semetic at all, that they are in fact descendants of Esau not Jacob/Israel:
In the time of Jesus, 2000 years ago, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judaea, and their ruler king Herod, were Edomites (sons of Esau not Jacob/Israel), who had stolen the land from the “House of Judah” whilst the House of Judah had been in slavery in Babylon and the Idumeans were pretending to be Israelites when they were really Edomites (Idumeans) - sons of Esau (who had sold his birth-right to his younger brother Jacob in exchange for a bowl of soup).
Jesus condemned them and warned the world against them in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
King of kings’ Bible – Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan."
3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
1688: A. N. Field, in his book, “All These Things,” published in 1931, explains the situation in England this year, as a result of Cromwell’s decision to ignore the law banning the Jews from entering England, and allowing them back in defiance of the law, only 33 years earlier, as follows,
“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”
1694: The deceptively named, “Bank of England,” is founded. It is deceptively named as it gives the impression it is controlled by the Government of England when in fact it is a private institution founded by Jews. In his book, “The Breakdown of Money,” published in 1934, Christopher Hollis explains the formation of the Bank of England, as follows,
“In 1694 the Government of William III (who had come in from Holland with the Jews) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 per cent on the condition that, ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 (that is, double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves.
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or

27 October 2011 12:13PM
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696 (ie. within two years) we find them circulating £1,750,000 worth of notes against a cash reserve of £36,000. That is with a, ‘backing,’ of only about 2 percent of what they issued and drew interest on.”
The names of the Jewish controllers of the Bank of England are never revealed, but it is clear, as early as this year, through their control of the Bank of England, Jews had control over the British Royal family. However, whilst their identity is protected, they may have wished they picked a more discreet front man, after William Paterson states,
“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”
The fact that Paterson chose to let the cat out of the bag in this manner, may explain why he would go on to die a poor man, outcast by his associates, or maybe this, “shabbez goy,” (a non-Jew who chose to clandestinely represent the interests of Jews), had merely outlived his usefulness to the Jews behind the scenes.
1698: Following four years of the Bank of England, the Jewish control of the British money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from its’ initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years, an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, and sends that out into the economy through loans etc, then this will naturally reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 that was in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 that was 100% of the economy is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.
This causes inflation which is simply the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person’s money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.
Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the people in debt to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the pound. Inflation never affects a central bank, in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.
Almost every national bank in the World is either hosted or represented in the City of London, and almost all of them are guilty of the FRAUD which is otherwise known as "Fractional Reserve Banking".
The FRAUD known as "Fractional Reserve Banking" is one of the primary methods by which the internatioal banking cartel has gained (UNLAWFUL) posession and control (CONVERSION -see below) of the World, it's finance, and it's Governments.
Another primary tool is USURY, which is otherwise known as "the practice of charging rates of interest on loans of that (FRAUDULENTLY CREATED) money".
A third tactic is the practice of manipulating those rates of interest in order to operate the "BOOM AND BUST" cycles in the World's economies . . . when everyone goes BUST, the BANK-ERs buy the BANK-RUPT stock at Pennies on the Pound . . .
"an action for conversion lies for every species of personal property which is the subject of private ownership, whether animate or inanimate." [51][52][53][54][55]
Any unjustified exercise of dominion over property by one (THE BANKERS) who is not the owner, nor entitled to possession, which interferes with the LAWFUL right of possession of another (THE REST OF US), constitutes a conversion. [101][126][127][128][129][130]

IF IT IS TRUE, as alleged, that the "City of London" is an independent State, which is NOT constitutionally subject to English Law, then in the light of the serious crimes against Humanity committed therein, and in the LAWFUL INTEREST of GLOBAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, there is a MORAL AND LAWFUL IMPERATIVE for the People of England to peacefully re-occupy and reclaim that Square Mile of territory and bring it back under English Law.
IF however, the "City of London" IS constitutionally subject to English
27 October 2011 12:13PM
IF however, the "City of London" IS constitutionally subject to English Law, then similarly, there is a MORAL AND LAWFUL IMPERATIVE for the People of England to peacefully make a (?Symbolic!) citizens' arrest upon the senior executives of the City of London, and LAWFULLY insist that they be brought, in full Public View, before the Courts to answer for their crimes.
27 October 2011 11:35PM
under the "Proceeds of Crime Act 2002" [] all the money created out of nothing (FRAUD) can be CONFISCATED and placed in the PUBLIC PURSE in order to finance such worthy causes as the NHS, Libraries, a decent education for our kids, etc etc

Thursday, 27 October 2011



It would seem that:-

1. by means of extensive criminal malpractice, the world's major banks have assumed financial control over nearly all of the world's governments.

2. they have assumed near infinite financial wealth by charging untold interest on loans of virtual money which was created therby - through the stupendous criminal fraud known as "fractional reserve banking".

3. the banks are financing heinous "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment" we all share " by means of criminal industrial piracy.

4. furthermore they are guilty of criminal economic exclusion of lawful organic & sustainable permaculture theory and practice, the general 'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The financial arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual money and lawfully unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment".

5. When combined, points 1 to 4 above clearly constitute "criminal global economic slavery" by the bankers, in other words: "we are in criminal bondage to destroy our planet!"

As in North Dakota, USA, bankers must be public servants, not agents of unlawful free-market enterprise including salvery.

7. The only necessary criteria for a public servant's finances, is that all those  finances be open to public scrutiny. Any concealment may constitute a criminal offence punishable in law.

Noblesse Oblige.

26. The process of enslavement and, in many cases, the treatment of victims of slavery, servile status and forced labour are often accompanied by other violations of human rights. For example, THE CLASSIC PROCESS OF ENSLAVEMENT, INVOLVING either abduction or RECRUITMENT THROUGH FALSE PROMISES (education?) OR DUPLICITY, involves a violation of the individual’s right to liberty and security of person, as
guaranteed by article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as, in many cases, a violation of the right of a person deprived of his/her liberty to be treated with humanity and of the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (eg, working in an industry which is damaging and/or destroying the environment you live in).

The Supplementary Convention of 1956 explicitly prohibits “the act of mutilating, branding or otherwise marking a slave or a person of servile status in order to indicate his status, or as a punishment, or for any other reason” (art. 5).  (BAR CODES AND PROPOESED MICROCHIPPING OF HUMANS!)

27. Victims of slavery, servile status and forced labour are, almost by definition, deprived of their right under article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence. ALMOST INVARIABLY, THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF OR PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL 31 BY THEIR OWNERS, CONTROLLERS, EMPLOYERS OR BY THE AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES.

28. …Virtually all cases involve violations of the victims’ freedom of expression, their right to receive and impart information, their right of peaceful assembly and their freedom of association.

29.. . . on the death of former slaves, the families of their former owners still intervene to take possession of their property – sometimes with the author-
ity of the courts – thus preventing the heirs of former slaves from inheriting. (DEATH DUTIES ? )

33. The Supplementary Convention of 1956 categorizes serfdom as a form of “servile status”, and defines it as “the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status” (art. 1(b)). Land tenure systems viewed in all their aspects – legal, economic, social and political – can in certain circumstances be seen as oppressive power relationships arising from ownership or use of land and disposition of its products to create forms of servitude and bondage.

34. Records of discussions that occurred both in the United Nations and in the ILO before the adoption of the Supplementary Convention in 1956 indicate that the term “serfdom” was intended to apply to a range of practices reported in Latin American countries and more generally referred to as “peonage”. Those practices, which had developed in a context of conquest, subjugation of indigenous peoples, and seizure of their lands, involved a landowner granting a piece of land to an individual “serf” or “peon” in return for specific services, including (1) providing the landowner with a proportion of the crop at harvest (INTEREST CHARGED ON A MORTGAGE!)), (2) working for the landowner or (3) doing other work, for example domestic chores for the landowner’s household. In each case, it is not the provision of labour in return for access to land that is in itself considered a form of servitude, but the inability of the person of serf status to leave that status. The term “serfdom” and its prohibition in the Supplementary Convention appear applicable to a range of practices that still occur today but are rarely recognized or described in the countries concerned as “serfdom”, as the term is linked by many to the political and economic order of medieval Europe.

35. In some cases the status of “serf” is hereditary, affecting entire families on a permanent basis,
while in others it is linked to and reinforced by debt bondage; in the latter case those affected are
obliged to continue working for their landowner on account of debts they supposedly owe as well
as on account of their tenant status.

1. by means of extensive criminal malpractice, it seems that the world's major banks have assumed financial control over nearly all of the world's governments.

2. they have assumed near infinite financial wealth by charging untold interest on loans of virtual money which was created therby - through the stupendous criminal fraud known as "fractional reserve banking".

3. the banks are financing heinous "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment" we all share " by means of criminal industrial piracy.

4. they are guilty of criminal economic exclusion of lawful organic & sustainable permaculture theory and practice, the 'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The financial arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual money and legally unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment".

5. when combined, points 1 to 4 above constitute criminal economic slavery by the bankers, in other words: "we are in criminal bondage to destroy our planet!"

Sunday, 18 September 2011

The Protocols of Zion - In Modern English
The Protocols of Zion

The basic premise of the protocols is that the end justifies the means. Here is a one page summary…

Goyim are mentally inferior to Jews and can’t run their nations properly.  For their sake and ours, we need to abolish their governments and replace them with a single government.  This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it’s for a good cause.  Here’s what we’ll need to do:
  • Place our agents and helpers everywhere
  • Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
  • Start fights between different races, classes and religions
  • Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
  • Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
  • Appeal to successful people’s egos
  • Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
  • Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism
  • Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
  • Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
  • Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
  • Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
  • Rewrite history to our benefit
  • Create entertaining distractions
  • Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
  • Encourage people to spy on one another
  • Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
  • Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold
  • Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
  • Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
  • Replace sound investment with speculation
  • Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
  • Give bad advice to governments and everyone else
Eventually the Goyim will be so angry with their governments (because we’ll blame them for the resulting mess) that they’ll gladly have us take over.  We will then appoint a descendant of David to be King of the World, and the remaining Goyim will bow down and sing his praises.  Everyone will live in peace and obedient order under his glorious rule.


  1. What We Believe
  2. Economic Wars
  3. Methods of Conquest
  4. Materialism to Replace Religion
  5. Despotism and Modern Progress
  6. Take-Over Technique
  7. World-Wide Wars
  8. Provisional Government
  9. Re-education
  10. Preparing for Power
  11. The Totalitarian State
  12. Control of the Media
  13. Distractions
  14. Assault on Religion
  15. Ruthless Suppression
  16. Brainwashing
  17. Abuse of Authority
  18. Arrest of Opponents
  19. Rulers and People
  20. Financial Program
  21. Loans and Credit
  22. Power of Gold
  23. Instilling Obedience
  24. Qualities of the Ruler

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

A Creative Response to the UK Government's Proposed Criminalisation of "Squatting" . . .

A Creative Response to the UK Government's Proposed Criminalisation of "Squatting" . . .

The obvious bias in the consultation shows a predjudice that Squatters are (already)

criminal in that their point of view is not asked for, in fact it is actively discouraged by the

loaded nature of the questions - this makes the whole consultation unbalanced, hence it is

inequitable, and therefore without doubt unlawful and invalid.

The very word "Squatting" has extreemely predjudicial connotations; and in fairness it

ought to be relegated to the dustbin of civilised society, in the same way that words such

as Nigger, Wog, and Chink already have been.

A new name needs to be chosen to describe lawful occupation of otherwise empty,

abandonned, and/or disused properties. 

In the particular case of eco-activists occupying a property for the purposes of eco-activism

(including accommodation for eco-activists), the word "Requisition" springs readily to mind

 - particularly bearing in mind that the threat of environmental damage and destruction is

commonly agreed to be every bit as serious as a threat of World War.

An entirely new consultation must be initiated, which seeks to obtain balanced information,

 including facts about the many benefits of Squatting otherwise disused and empty


Such benefits may include, but are certainly not limited to:

-fostering self reliance and a healthy "outside the box" mentality.
-development of arts and craft skills.
-furthering social skills.
-providing self-funded/resourced housing and further education; in particular to socially excluded younger people, at little or no cost to the local council or government.
-renovation and care of properties in many cases.
-formation of housing associations - partnerships with local councils.
-eco-activism - eg Ploughhares, Trident, Transport Policies (RTS), GMO's banned in Europe, etc


Organiations, many of whose members would say that Squatting has nurtured their activism include, but are not limited to:
Green Party
Monetary Reform

The fact that the present "consultation" is clearly designed to lead respondants in a

negative train of thought with regard to squatting, while almost entirely disregarding the possibility of 

lawful occupation of disused properties for positive and genuinely socially beneficiant purposes,

can only lead the reasonable person to the conclusion that the present consultation be

entirely set aside
, and a new equitably balanced one be inaugrated prior to any proposed

legislation being enacted, lest any such legislation be later found by the Courts to be

unlawful, thereby further undermining the demonstrably already tenuous respect

bestowed upon our government by the youth of today.

Sunday, 14 August 2011

A Response to the London Riots . . ..

A common cause of disaffection shared by most of the people

involved in the riots, (and a great multitude who were not

involved), has to be the inhumanity of the built environment on

inner city housing estates, together with extreemely limited

education and employment (escape) prospects, except for

exceptionally gifted and highly motivated young people in an

extreemely challenging environment.

Our built environment is directly created through investment of

finance, or lack of it, which is directly controlled by the banks.

The banks are controlled from the City of London, which is an

independant state, similar to the Vatican State, and it is NOT

subject, nor is it answerable, to the English Parliament.

In fact, for several hundred years, due to insufferable levels of

National Dect, and consequent interest payments thereupon

(since the time of Cromwell), the English Government has been

heavily influenced, if not completely controlled by the City.

People need to be engaged in employment which benefits the

environment in which we all live, rather than damaging and

destroying it for limited financial gain; this is the only way for

people to gain proper respect for self AND others, and a 

healthy pride in the local area, which will halt vandalism and 

anti-social behaviour

Bearing in mind that over 95% of the money in the world has

been created by the fraudulent (criminal) practice of Fractional

Reserve Banking, and consists of nothing more substantial than

millivolts of electricity in a computer, there is no real economic

reason why that 'money' should not be seized by the English

Government under the 'Proceeds of Crime Act', and used to 

pay the people to use all our splendid and amazing 

technologies in the creation of a beautiful  

Permaculture world to live in.

Thursday, 11 August 2011

Riot victims help: personal insurance, business insurance, crisis loans

This article is from "Martin's Money Savng Expert"

Business owners, motorists and residents affected by the riots that hit many parts of the UK should be covered under most insurance policies, according to senior insurance figures.
For those without cover, there may be help available via crisis loans or a separate compensation scheme.

Key Points

  • Insurance likely to pay out
  • But check policy wording
  • If no insurance, crisis loans may be available
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) estimates the cost to households, businesses and insurers will top £100 million.
Even those with insurance should act fast as some policies have a time limit on when you can claim. Some are within seven days of the incident.
Below, we round up the financial aid available to those affected.
We need your help to help those affected
This is a constantly evolving story, we will update it throughout the week. If you have ideas or suggestions that may help victims please email

Insurance – damage to homes
The ABI says damage to homes, including riot damage and fire, would be covered under a standard home insurance policy. It adds that many policies will also cover people for accommodation costs if they can't stay in their home.
Insurance – damage to cars
The AA similarly says comprehensive car insurance policies will normally cover you for any damage to cars that have been smashed, burnt out or damaged in any other way by the rioting.
Third party policies will not cover you because they exclude cover for your car by their nature.
Third party, fire and theft may cover you for fire-related damage, so check the policy wording.
Insurance – damage to businesses
The ABI says most policies will cover the direct physical damage and theft, plus they will pay compensation for business interruption, if the policy includes that cover.
How to claim
Contact your insurer or broker as soon as possible. Some policies will have a time limit on when you can claim so don't delay.
As with all insurance, the policy wording is key so check to ensure there are no exclusions, though your insurer will be able to advise you on that.
Nick Starling, director of general insurance and health at the ABI, says: "It is important for people to contact their insurer to check what they are covered for and arrange for immediate help."
The British Insurance Brokers' Association says the majority of insurance providers operate a 24 hour claims line and can help people arrange for emergency repairs and the damage to be inspected as quickly as possible.
Martin Lewis, creator of, says: "After a horrible night, thankfully people are volunteering to clean up the streets. Unfortunately, it will take longer than that for those personally affected. It's to be hoped the insurance companies and social security operatives will pay speedy and quick attention to help people get back on their feet.
"If you have been a victim of the riots and are struggling to get what you are owed, please email the link above and let us know, and if we can, we'll try to help."
If you don't have insurance - can you get compensation?
Many insurance experts say large numbers of homes, cars and businesses affected will not be insured, especially those in deprived areas. However, there may be help available.
Assuming the event is officially deemed a riot under the Riot Damages Act 1886 , the police/Government must compensate individuals and businesses that suffer loss or damage as a result of a riot, if a claim is made. There is no cap on the level of compensation.
Some suggestions state this only applies to building property or contents damage, not damage to cars or business interruption, though this is unconfirmed.
The 'riot loss' compensation scheme applies to all persons and organisations who suffer a riot-related loss regardless of whether or not they are insured.
Crucially, anyone claiming must do so within 14 days. The ABI points out this will be difficult for those unable to get to their property if it's still a crime scene.
It is calling for the Government to extend the deadline to 42 days.
Insurers are also able to claim their losses from payout to customers from the Government under the same scheme.
How do you claim under this Act? The Home Office says you need to make a claim to your local police authority. However, some aspects are still unclear.
Crucially, as the Metropolitan Police Authority states, it has not yet been decided whether to define the disturbances as a riot according to the definition within the Act.
For instance, a Home Office spokesman says he "thinks" the 14-day window begins from when the damage happened, rather than when the incident is officially deemed a riot. But this has not yet been determined.
He also says that if the 14 days is up before the event is deemed a riot it will be up to the local police authority to decide whether to still allow claims.
If you don't have insurance - crisis loans
If you're struggling, there are two main types of loan available from the Government's Social Fund that can give out up to £1,500. These may be able to provide you with interest-free borrowing rather than getting any commercial debt.
  • Crisis loans are for emergencies or disasters, and to help stop serious damage or risk to you or your family's health and safety. You don't need to be in receipt of benefits to get them.
  • Budgeting loans are only for benefit-recipients, but allow a wider range of borrowing. For instance, to pay for clothes and furnishing.
To apply, fill in the Department of Work & Pension's claim form for the crisis loan or budgeting loan and take it into your nearest Job Centre.
Demand may be extremely high at the moment and there isn't a bottomless pot of money, so if the Job Centre decides your circumstances aren't urgent or you're not struggling, you may not get anything.
Help from banks
Talk to your bank or building society if you're struggling financially as a result of the riots.
Some, such as Barclays, have already pledged to waive overdraft fees, temporarily extend customers' overdrafts, or start an overdraft for those who don't have one, if affected.
Charitable help
Another option is to contact any charities or benevolent funds you may be linked to as these can help with advice, counselling and in some circumstances grants. Some examples include:
  • Civil Service Benevolent fund – for current, former and retired employees of a civil service department.
  • The Royal British Legion – for serving and ex-service personnel and their families.
  • Teachers' Support Network – for training, serving and retired teachers.
  • Nurse Aid – for all nurses registered with the UK Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), together with retired nurses, health care assistants, auxiliaries and student nurses.
  • Retail Trust – for employees or business owners within the retail sector.
If you've nowhere to sleep
If your home is damaged and you can't get any help from an insurer or you have no-where else to go, housing charity Shelter says you can contact it for advice on 0808 8004444 or by visiting the Shelter website.

Discuss this MSE news story: Riots: your financial rights

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

Yesterday in Hackney

Copied from an email from the "University For Strategic Optimism"

Yesterday in Hackney there was an air of anticipation and waiting, some kind of word had gone round that “Today’s Hackney”. People were hanging around on corners and shopkeepers were standing on the pavement outside their shops. There was some running backwards and forwards, then the flashpoint came when the police stopped and searched two black men on the Narrow Way. A big crowd gathered and surrounded the police, and people were shouting that police harrassment was the cause of the riots in Tottenham. Reinforcements quickly came with riot gear and started chasing people around and trying to block people in.

The crowd ended up on Mare Street and a pattern soon developed where the police had a strong line to the north of the street, slowly advancing, and also blocking some side streets, and the crowd were gathered and moving slowly south. Whenever the police advanced people panicked and ran but in general the police were not trying to make arrests or charge seriously. Possibly their main priority was keeping people away from the shops in the Narrow Way.

The businesses that were damaged on Mare Street were fairly targetted: businesses seen as parasites like the bookmakers, the Cashconverters pawn shop and so on; a bank; and places with valuables such as a sports shop and a jewellers’. The petrol station was also looted for drinks and people handed out bottles of water to strangers. The only cafe looted was one which is a big chain and also has no atmosphere and really crap tea so I had no problem with it. Quite ridiculously one of the few arrests early in the day was a kid who had looted a packet of crisps from there. A man with a good grasp of targetted looting was shouting to the crowd “if it ain’t gold, don’t be bold!” The atmosphere during the day was pretty friendly and open, the crowd was very multiracial and of different ages and there was lot of passive support. The line between spectators and participants wasn’t clear. There was only one attempted mugging which was broken up quickly by the crowd.

Later on in the night people were gathered around Clarence Road, next to the Pembury Estate. Possibly the police were trying to keep them there away from the shops and main roads or maybe people felt comfortable there. There were quite a few burning cars and a line of riot cops that every now and then someone threw a bottle at. The atmosphere there was pretty different, heavier and nastier. There were some robberies of people in the crowd and I didn’t feel as safe as I did earlier. The convenience store on Clarence Road was looted for drinks which was upsetting and today I can hear lots of people objecting to: “He’s been here twenty years”, “we all shopped there” and so on.

Today walking around that is the only small shop attacked that I have seen apart from one optician, the rest are electrical goods shops or big brand stores. Contrary to what I’ve heard I didn’t see any houses burned but there were a lot of burned out cars. One thing that I keep hearing people say is “What’s the point of cleaning it all up when it’s all going to happen again tonight?”

Re-blogged from:

Tuesday, 2 August 2011


Government Gone Wild! is dedicated to educating people about rampant wasteful government spending and motivating people to become active in politics so our counties, states and federal government do not become bankrupt


there are nearly seven billion of us who seem to be afraid of the few thousand people in charge of the global economic and ecological mess we all have to live in . . .

have them all arrested and put in jail for life, where they all belong!

"War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley D. Butler

Written by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Major General Smedley D. Butler
USMC, Retired

WAR is a racket. It always has been.
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 World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires 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.
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 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 is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the 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.
But wait!
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.

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.


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.
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.
So...I say,


Note: The subtle ".com" has been added to the sticker above to point folks here and get them to read the book.

It you enjoyed 'War Is A Racket' you should also read THE WAR PRAYER by Mark Twain.