The Solution

Resource-Based Economy

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Global Warming Hoax

Info Warrior – Daniel Aspey-Smith

Essentially after a lot of research and I’m no scientist but I have looked at a lot of scientific studies, think tanks and so on I’ve basically come to the conclusion that man made global warming is a scam, I’m not denying its happening, but what I’m saying is that it’s wrongly interpreted by the main stream media.

If you look at the science behind it you can clearly see there are errors and it is in fact the sun, which is the main driver of the planetary climate, which has been increasing in thermal output and is now the hottest it’s ever been which has resulted in warming not just on Earth but throughout the solar system (NASA), which is why the ice caps on Mars are melting and the moons on Saturn and Jupiter are now liquid seas (now are SUV’s causing that?) And I looked at studies written by scientists with good track records who say where having very serious climate change and that human activity is tiny compared to other inputs like volcanoes etc.

In the last 1000 years there has been a period of warm temperatures where we’ve had periods of high and low sun spot activity and currently we’ve been experiencing a warm episode known as the medieval warm period, just like in the 1600’s when the Earth experienced a cold period (where there was a mini ice age in N Europe where the N sea froze and was filled with ice) which corresponded with an all time minimum of sun spot activity, but where well within the limits of that period and the earth’s warming by about ½ a degree every 100 years, part of this natural cycle. Additionally there is no evidence that the increase in carbon dioxide measured in the last 50 years has anything to do with this, primarily because the warming started before the industrial revolution ever began. People forget plants breathe CO2; they’ve found that life blooms in a CO2 Oxygen rich environment. Everyone knows the ice caps expand and collapse that’s documented fact.

But the other concern is that governments could actually be gobbling up the worlds concern to line their own pockets and bring in global carbon taxes – nothing to do with environment, to tax basically everything from cattle to light bulbs.

So overall man made global warming is not a large contributor to the overall solar cycle, no denying things are shifting and I’m all for renewable energy, but the climate system is very complex and can’t be accurately be modelled which has lead to invalid assumptions and fear mongering through the media, scaring people to the point where saving the planet is now hailed as the planets new religion and that we’ve got to seriously reduce the number of children where having (UK population decline) anyway that’s my hypnosis.

Vaccination - The Hidden Truth

A land of liberty destroyed by stealth

Returning to Britain from a summer holiday abroad, you begin to notice things that perhaps escaped your attention before – the huge number of CCTV cameras that infest our public spaces and, much less obviously, the atmosphere of watchfulness and control that has now become a way of life.

This is the regime that 12 years of New Labour have imposed on Britain, a place of unwavering suspicion, paranoia – and obsessive surveillance.

We have become the sort of society that we would unhesitatingly have railed against a few years ago. But, because the change has been brought about with such stealth, we are the very last to see it.

Chemtrails

For over a year, the military has been spraying the skies throughout America, Canada, and now parts of Europe (including Britain, France, and the Netherlands) with substances that were initially referred to as "mystery contrails" , but later were named "chemtrails" by investigative reporter and author William Thomas. When questioned, military and government officials either deny any knowledge of these sprayings outright or they offer unbelievable and ludicrous explanations that only a moron could believe. Joe Burton has been aggressively investigating and reporting on this story from early on. Apparently he had been too aggressive, because his house had been targeted for direct spraying by low flying, unmarked aircraft. In a story posted Feb. 15, 1999, Joe reports the physical symptoms that his family and his pet have been experiencing from the sprayings. Joe believes that many of these military tankers responsible for the sprayings are remote controlled aircraft, but Al Cuppet (6 years with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff) has told radio talk show host Jeff Rense during interviews on June 1, 1999, May 16, 1999, and May 7, 1999 felt that many of these tanker planes were more likely being flown by foreign pilots, possibly Chinese or Russian.

Read More

Big Brother Alert - Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes

The UK government is about to spend $700 million dollars installing surveillance cameras inside the private homes of citizens to ensure that children go to bed on time, attend school and eat proper meals.

No you aren’t reading a passage from George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, this is Britain in 2009, a country which already has more surveillance cameras watching its population than the whole of Europe put together.

Now the government is embarking on a scheme called “Family Intervention Projects” which will literally create a nanny state on steroids, with social services goons and private security guards given the authority to make regular “home checks” to ensure parents are raising their children correctly.

Telescreens will also be installed so government spies can keep an eye on whether parents are mistreating kids and whether the kids are fulfilling their obligations under a pre-signed contract.

Around 2,000 families have been targeted by this program so far and the government wants to snare 20,000 more within the next two years. The tab will be picked up by the taxpayer, with the “interventions” being funded through local council authorities.

Another key aspect of the program will see parents deemed “responsible” by the government handed the power to denounce and report bad parents who allow their children to engage in bad behavior. Such families will then be targeted for “interventions”.

Both parents and children will also be forced to sign a “behavior contract” with the government known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, in which the state will dictate obligations that it expects to be met.

The opposition Conservative Party, who are clear favorites to win the next British election, commented that the program does not go far enough and is “too little, too late.”

Respondents to a Daily Express article about the new program expressed their shock at the totalitarian implications of what is unfolding in the United Kingdom under the guise of social services initiatives.

“Sorry, but what the hell? Why are people not up in arms about this?,” writes one, “This is a complete invasion of privacy, and it totally ignores the fact that the state does NOT own kids. It’s not up to them how parents choose to raise their children, as long as the parents do not actively harm them. Why on earth aren’t the public rioting? It’s completely anathema to basic British freedoms.”

“Excuse me!?! What an incredible intrusion into the privacy of a family! George Orwell must be spinning in his grave right now,” writes another.

“I have one comment to make: it completely violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998). Has this minister and his lackies even done any basic homework on basic human rights and civil liberties? Or rather they’ve just decided to completely ignore them,” adds another.

The move to install surveillance cameras inside private homes is also on the agenda across the pond. In February 2006, Houston Chief of Police Harold Hurtt said cameras should be placed inside apartments and homes in order to “fight crime” due to there being a shortage of police officers.

“I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?” Chief Hurtt told reporters.

Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association supported the proposal, saying privacy concerns would take a back seat to many people who would, “appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them.”

If such programs come to fruition and are implemented on a mass scale then the full scope of George Orwell’s depiction of a totalitarian society is his classic novel 1984 will have been realized.

The following passage is from Orwell’s 1984;

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

To set the record straight ~ Obama's Alleged Birth Certificate

I was in East Africa many years ago. The Birth Certificate in 1961 would have been a British Protectorate Certificate. In 1965 the Republic of Kenya was in place. It is doubtful that the government would have issued one of their own certificates for a pre-independence birth, especially as the Republic only came into being 10 months after the date of issue. I believe that the information obtained from What Really Happened is correct, after checking using Google, and I thank them both for this.

Obama's "Birth Cerificate"

The above purports to be a 1964 certified copy of the original 1961 birth certificate. Whether Kenya would spend the resources to recopy all the British birth certificates is open to doubt, but there are two other aspects of this certificate which call its authenticity into doubt.

Let us take a closer look at the document.

Note that the document number is given as 47,044. Obama is a 47 year old chief executive and 44th president of the United States. A rather amazing coincidence.

But the really damning part of the document is this. The location of birth is given as Mombasa. But Mombasa was part of the state of Zanzibar* until December of 1963. This certificate is dated February 1964 and carries the name "Republic of Kenya", Kenya did not formally declare itself a Republic until December of 1964. *This is substantially correct. Germany swapped Zanzibar for Heligoland with the British in the 19th Century. It was leased by the Zanzibaris to Britain but legal ownership only took place in 1963. Zanzibar became a part of Tanzania. In 1961 it was still run by the British, so a British Protectorate Certificate would have been issued. Zanzibar was also Administered as a British Colony. The United Republic of Tanzania was formed in 1964 with the union of the mainland country of Tanganyika and the Zanzibar archipelago,

Zanzibar
British and German Era
The 18th century was an era where Europeans were looking for colonies throughout the world and East Africa was not an exception. Upon his death, Sayyid Said had controlled a large empire but his successors did not have a legal claim to the lands they controlled commercially, and did not have the power to keep the Germans and British from annexing them when the European nations began dividing up Africa later in the century. But realizing the extent of Sultan's control, the Germans and later British colonial agents decided to give him a special status on his territories. The partition of Africa following the Berlin Confrence of 1884 offered the Sultan a claim to the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba and a coastal strip of 10 miles on the mainland of East Africa.

The domination of Germans coupled with the abolition of slave trade weakened the Sultan's empire and bit by bit he lost more land to the new European colonizers. The British and Germans came into some agreement with the Sultan to sell his possession on the mainland and by the end of 19th century very little remained in his control. The Germans, who were first in colonizing Tanzania agreed with the British to exchange Zanzibar with Heligoland and though the Sultan was still ruling, it was a de facto British colony. Zanzibar was thus ruled by two colonial masters at the same time, an event political scientists call unique in history. On the one hand there was Sultan and on the other the British colonial agents. Zanzibar of that time included the islands of Zanzibar, Pemba, Latham and surrounding islets and theoretically it included the coastal strip of Kenya. Mombasa and the coastal strip of Kenya was handed to the new independent government of Kenya as late as 1963.

Mombasa
History: post-independence

The British rule on Kenya officially ended when Kenya finally gained its hard-fought independence on the 12th December 1963. The first president of Kenya was Jomo Kenyatta, who was an instrumental figure in the fight to gain independence from the British. His appointment as president led to the creation of a political party known as KANU (Kenya Africa National Union). President Kenyatta died in the August of 1978, and was succeeded by his vice president Daniel Arap Moi who ruled as president until 2002. President Moi stepped down in December of 2002 following fair and peaceful elections. For the first time since 1992 when Kenya’s first multiparty elections were first held, there was a new leader. Mwai Kibaki, running as the candidate of the multiethnic, united opposition group, the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC), defeated KANU candidate