Methods

“3rd wold nations would need 2000 4th world nations to steal from in order to reproduce the US consumption model”

Orwell On Totalitarianism

And I believe that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph again.
-George Orwell

Mankind and the individuals that comprise it, conscious of it or not, are in a constant pursuit of something: happiness, perfection, wealth, or popularity. Yet there is something, a more worthy, substantial pursuit that is common amongst many others: the relentless pursuit of what he believes to be a certain TRUTH that exists. Perhaps one of the most dedicated of these people in his attempts to seek out and expose the truth is writer Eric Arthur Blair, (Nom de plume: George Orwell) particularly in his novel 1984. In order to understand Orwell’s political opinions, platforms and his desire to unveil the truth about certain governments, we must analyse his
past: his experience in Burma, Spain, and England. It was through these experiences that involved propaganda and totalitarian regimes that Orwell came to develop his views on sovereignties which he later compiled in his satirical novel 1984. Though this allegorical story has an interesting “surface” tale, it must be analysed on a deeper level in order to fully understand the author’s
purpose. It is through a more intense investigation of the novel that the reader comes to recognize 1984’s verisimilitude. It has
become apparent that 1984 is not an anachronistic representation of a past totalitarian society; it has becomes a timeless book
whose characters, lessons, and themes can be seen in the year 1996.

Orwell was born in India in 1903, his father working for the Civil Service at a time when England’s imperialism was peaking. At the
age of fourteen Orwell entered Eton School in England. It was at Eton that Orwell first became exposed to totalitarian leadership
under the watchful eyes of his schoolmasters who “used kicks and caresses to keep the boys in line.” Once graduated from Eton, Orwell decided to work for the British Government in Burma as a member of the Imperial Police. There Orwell was exposed to many executions and other developments that resulted under imperial rule. It was at this points that Orwell “had already made up his mind that imperialism was an evil thing.” Therefore Burma was seen as a point of change for Orwell: in Burma Orwell established a hatred for the superimposition of the British Government upon the Burmese. Yet while this developed Orwell’s opinion of such governments, his experience in Burma was only the beginning of what would come to be an extensive political resumé of experience.

Following his work in Burma, Orwell felt “obligated to expose the truth,” as he had fully come to recognize that “totalitarianism was a basic evil.” His further experience strengthened his opinions. After returning from Burma, Orwell wasted away as a poor beggar for several years and then went to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War. In part, it is believed that this was done because Orwell felt indebted to the world for his actions in Burma. To “equal” himself with others, he felt it necessary to “reduce” himself on a social level. Moreover, Orwell wished for an experience where he was considered to be a commoner, since the class system in England was far too restrictive for this to happen. Orwell himself said: “the class system- it hit you like a stone wall.” In Spain Orwell fought with the Republicans and there recognized that it was “impossible to fight for any side without recognizing it as an unjustifiable tyranny.” While Orwell had originally thought that Spain would be a rejuvenating experience, he quickly came to learn that even the side he was fighting for was in arms with itself. That is, the Americans, British, and Communists fighting Fascism were themselves in dispute. It was as a result of Orwell’s dissatisfaction in this incident that he almost came to be slain by a group of Communists. In Spain Orwell suffered injuries and later returned to England where he worked for the BBC. Concurrently the Second World War was under way, and Orwell familiarised himself with the Russian situation. Having just felt the frustration of the Spanish War, Orwell was once again outraged that the Russians as a people and the rest of the World were not truly recognising Stalin’s oppressive ruling. He took the stage and pointed out the truth. The fact was that little was known about Russian life behind the iron curtain: information was limited to government agency reports that only published the good news while inside sources mysteriously contradicted one another. It was as a result of these experiences that Orwell came to develop his views as expressed in the novel 1984 and Animal Farm.

Through his political experience, Orwell was not only inspired to write, but he made his goal in writing to reveal the faults of a totalitarian system:

“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for socialism, as I understand it.”

And so, the world was given 1984 and Animal Farm where Orwell criticized the totalitarian governments of the world for their platforms. Collectively, his works came to reject the governments which sought a utopia that Orwell had, at an early age, recognised to be impossible to achieve. It was through his writing that this ultimate prophesy was established.

Orwell matured as an experienced man whose young and adult exposure had opened his eyes to multitude of political clashes. It was through these trials in Burma, Russia, and Spain that Orwell began to develop a disapproval for totalitarian ruling forces and an admiration for socialism. Moreover, through leaders such as Russia’s Stalin, identified as “the greatest,” Orwell found many flaws. Consequently Orwell set on a mission to expose the truth to the world; to save it’s countries from futile attempts to create utopian states far too idealistic to be reality. In his life and work, Orwell was truly dedicated to being a beacon of light in the totalitarian night!

Rudy Sedlak
14 December, 1996

src: http://www.theorwellreader.com/essays/sedlak.html

who owns the US FED = FED of New York – is 100% privately owned by wall-street-banks. It is not exactly known what bank owns how much.

The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind – Who Owns The Federal Reserve? Hidden Secrets of Money 4

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_investment_banks

One thing that muddies this discussion on “ownership” is the issuance of stock by the regional Fed banks to the member banks.  This stock pays a fixed 6% dividend and gives the banks a claim on the Fed’s annual profits.   But let’s keep this in the right perspective.  Last year the Fed earned $90.5B.  Of this, $1.6B was paid out in dividends.  The remaining $88B was remitted back to the US Treasury.  While the US Treasury doesn’t technically own shares in the Federal Reserve the Fed is required to remit its profits at the end of the year back to the Federal Government.  As you can see, remittance often dwarfs any dividends paid back to the banks.  In other words, the US Treasury is the recipient of most of the Fed’s profits.

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-federal-reserve-2013-10

 

Short answer: THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ONLY.

Bank-Credit-Creation is a community privilege:

  • It is not a law of nature, that banks are the main-supplier of money – a state-run money-creation system would be way more efficient.
  • it is a public privilege which was given to the banks and implied that the banks would not use it against society (haha lol idiots buy this shit)
  • banks were never asked to only give credits for “productive purposes” and transactions which effect the GDP positively. Only productive money use is sustainable.
  • big banks specialized on credit-money-creation for speculative purposes to maximize profits.
  • this creates financial bubbles and bank-crisis with it’s following recession.

Reform-Vorschlag 3

Give the privilege of money creation back to the people + direct the distribution of money-creation + decentralize this forces to the local governments: regional and local-money.

Advantages:

  • decentralization adds checks and balances
  • improves local economies and reduces CO2
  • allows local diversification of money-politics. Usage for local purposes.
  • better accessible to the input of the people – more democratic.
  • allows local communities to act independent and with less potential for economic blackmailing (boycott/embargo) and manipulation.
  • historic example:

Books:

What he also says: in europe – there  is no bank-supervision – the ECB is saying it is doing it – badly.

 

1874

1948

1980

Banknoten und Geldwesen

(Angaben 1890)

Umlaufsfähig im gesamten Reichsgebiet sind außer den Reichskassenscheinen (zu 5, 20, 50 Mark vom 10. Januar 1882) die Noten nachfolgender Banken in Markwährung, zu 100 Mark und darüber lautend:

1.) Reichsbank in Berlin, sowie Noten der vormaligen preußischen Bank von 500 und 1000 Mark

2.) Badische Bank in Mannheim

3.) Bank für Süddeutschland in Darmstadt

4.) Bayrische Notenbank in München

5.) Bremer Bank

6.) Breslauer Stadtbank

7.) Chemnitzer Stadtbank

8.) Danziger Privat-Aktienbank

9.) Frankfurter Bank

10.) Hannoversche Bank

11.) Leipziger Kassenverein

12.) Magdeburger Privatbank

13.) Posener Provinz-Aktienbank

14.) Sächsische Bank zu Dresden

15.) Württembergische Notenbank in Stuttgart

Noten mit beschränktem Umlaufgebiet, welche nur innerhalb des Gebietes des betreffenden Landes zu Zahlungen verwendet werden dürfen:

1.) Braunschweigische Bank zu 100 Mark vom 1. Juli 1874 (nur zulässig im Herzogtum Braunschweig)

2.) Hannoversche Stadtkassenscheine u 100 Mark (nur zulässig im Königreich Preußen)

3.) Landständische Bank in Bautzen zu 100 Mark vom 1. Januar 1875 (nur zulässig im Königreich Sachsen)

Diese Noten dürfen außerhalb desjenigen Staates, welcher ihnen die Befugnis zur Notenausgabe erteilt hat, bei einer Geldstrafe von 150 Mark zu Zahlungen nicht verwendet werden.

Dagegen können sie gegen andere Banknoten, Papiergeld oder Münzen umgetauscht werden.

Außer Kurs gesetztes Papiergeld, welches noch eingelöst wird:

1.) Reichskassenscheine von 5, 20, 50 Mark vom 11. Juli 1874, werden nur noch bei der königlich-preußischen Kontrolle der Staatspapiere in Berlin eingelöst.

2.) Preußische Banknoten zu 100 Mark vom 1. Mai 1874, sowie Talernoten zu 10, 25, 50, 100, 500 Thalern von 1846-67 werden nur noch in der Reichsbank-Hauptkasse in Berlin eingelöst.

3.) Lübecker Kommerzbank zu 100 Mark vom 1. Januar 1875, haben nur noch die Kraft einfacher Schuldscheine und werden als solche bis zum 31. Dezember 1889 von der Kommerzbank eingelöst.

(Angaben 1906)

Im Deutschen Reich waren außer der Reichsbank, die nach dem Gesetz vom 20. Februar 1906 Banknoten zu 1000 Mark, 100 Mark, 50 Mark und 20 Mark ausgeben durfte, nur noch 4 Privatnotenbanken zur Ausgabe von Banknoten zum Mindestbetrag von 100 Mark berechtigt.

Eine Änderung der gesetzlichen Vorschriften erfolgte am 4. August 1914.

Auch die einzelnen Länder gaben eigene Banknoten heraus.

1000,- Mark waren um die Jahrhundertwende eine Menge Geld, ein mittlerer Beamter verdiente diese Summe nicht einmal als Jahresgehalt.

More Books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boyle_%28author%29