Fair point parallel.

- and truth to tell, I was hoping that the comments section would push the envelope a bit.

When you dig deep, you find yourself amongst the fortunes of (raech's) Rothschilds and Rockerfellers. Then there are the ancient fortunes of the Crown Heads of Europe and the City of London as well as (dozer's) Zionists. Since the turn of the 20th century, there are the giant corporations like DuPont. Now we have the hedge funds, insurance giants and banks with a collossal reach and influence, as well as the small but powerful johnny-come-latelies like the Bush family.

- so is all this steered subtly and deliberately by a few people?

- or is it built into the system?

Do the rules of the corporate game follow the rules of cancer? Monopolise the blood supply and grow as fast as you can, until the host is dead. Maybe that's where wars come from.

If I had waited until I knew all the answers, I would never have gotten around to writing the article. If I didn't have grandchildren, I wouldn't have had the incentive. If I had a thin skin, I would never have had the cheek.

But there it is - something started. For sure, my kids and grandkids will never swallow the myths that I have consumed so naively for most of my life.

The relevance of Milton Friedman's death at age 94.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Nobelwinning-eco [...]

How could Friedman have envisioned his economic theories creating the cowby-and-Indian economics that are bringing the world to its knees with growing terrorist activity.

Starting with the S&L debacle under Reaganomics, working its way up to Enron clumsily unzipping its fly in public to the first world still riding ecomomic undercurrents with secretive global KKR style hostile takeovers, Freidman's economics has come to a nexus of terror.

The problem goes back to the early 80s when Thatcher, Reagan and Co laboured over what to do with the developing world to avoid econimic crises in terms of failed states and unrecoverable loans.

Despite the IMB embarking on a program of debt forgiveness and renegotiationism, the root cause of these problems was never addressed properly and was swept under the carpet.

The belief that a new Friedman led Cowboy and Indian approach to third world countries was best practice by helping the west and thus eventually helping the third world emerged.
Unfortunately, like all cowboy and indian stories the indians turn into disgruntled savages and the west duly sends out the cavalry followed in hot pursuit by the good old American pioneer spirit of hostile takeover.
Terrorism and the subsequent war on terror has resulted.

In essence, even Friedman would have to acknowledge that his economics would only work if there was a PREEXISTING level playing field among all world nations. Failure to understand that greed, secrecy and other human frailties preclude any such bootstrapping of this level playing field without constant feedback of progress using mathematical modelling and modern high tech tools, has led to the current failure of Friedman economics. Anyone who thinks differently, and their grandchildren, will still be debating this in 100 years time if they get get to keep their cowboy way

kaep,
Simple economic theory that still pervades our world. We should be looking at sustainable economics not growth economics, you still don't get it do you. If thge planet deteriorares the economoc policy can't and won't save our world, only enviromental policy can do that, get that into your thich head. If we don't have a planet, we don't have an economy, it's that simple.

Wev have to live by natures rulrs, not our profit rules, what a rerrible system human have invented, a way of robbing fellow human beings, while similtaneously stuffing the Eath's enviroment. Even the billionaires now recognise that they will not be able to get their decendents off Earth, before the calamody which is why certain media barons have all of a sudden come out in favor of attemots to reverse global warming, how can the ordinary person be so stupid!

Dozer claims "Shaw’s article exhibits many ideas and prejudices which can be traced back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
(http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf)
Presumably hoping to smear the author's independent research and thought with the hysteria that particular document holds around the world ('used by Hitler', etc)

For anyone (and i think you are in the majority) who does not truly understand what all THAT fuss is about I would like to offer another link for further reading and research.

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/toolkit.html

I do not claim to support all the webauthor's views but i do believe his research to be accurate and his intention to ask for honest contradiction of his views with actual fact to be worthy of some trust in the work he has done on this particular issue. Very few of those opposing him allow for any such direct contradiction.

Basically, the thrust is: The Protocols are NOT the origin of most ideas expressed but were held long before any book with that name was published.

To accuse someone of copying the Protocols to thus deny any credibility is akin to saying anyone who copies material from an encyclopaedia concering terrorism must have terrorist sympathies or believes only what the encyclopaedia's author believes.

That 'works' on many uneducated people (sadly - and even on a few who really should know better) and the smear can stick. Read the link and see why you should not believe all smears you hear.

As for 'so someone can make a few measly million?' US$400,000,000,000 was the DIRECT sum ONE country spent on ONE war in a little over 3 years. Consider the INDIRECT ONGOING costs to it, and every other country that their populations will pay for in taxes and not complain about because of the FEAR of attack and (manufactured)'need' for 'defence' engendered by the likes of Howard and Bush who are really little more than puppets having their strings pulled (by whom do you think? and for what reason?)

Not so someone can make a measly few million that's for sure. Doesn't mean such people would not try to.

Paralllel

Your comfy lifestyle (like mine and the entire 'developed' world's ecomomies) depends upon and was built ENTIRELY from the poverty of the third world and even today could not be maintained without the cheap resources and slave labour conditions we turn a blind eye to.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Damn right it does.

What am i going to do about it? Tell as many as i can what i KNOW to be true and why what we (still all) do is Wrong.

What are you going to do about it?

Economics is a shell game - it hides the truth and deceives those it suckers in.

Those at the top are the winners (and make the rules) while those below lose progressively more and more - ultimately their livesand the lives of their new born babies, because they cannot afford to eat or drink or have to go into a war they did not make to get money to 'live' (or pay for the funerals).

BrainDrain,

I’m well aware of the texts and ideas from which the Protocols draw inspiration. The link you provided is interesting but there are holes in Myers argument. Here are but a few:

Myers argues that Bernstein (a critic of the Protocols,) attempts to smear his opponent, Goedsche, with hyperbole. Myers claims that Bernstein falsely accuses Goedsche of presenting the Devil as being present in the story “The Jewish Cemetary in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.” Myers suggests that the character who Bernstein depicts as the Devil is merely a Levite.

But consider that there are three indications that the character is indeed the Devil. “Son of the accursed” is self explanatory. The term “the Levite” also suggests infernal origins when understood in context- Jews were frequently associated with witchcraft, and as the Levite tribe was the priestly class, the connotations should be obvious. Furthermore, “the Levite” is recorded as saying, “I am myself wandering about all over the world in order that I may unite you,”- consider the similarity to Job 1:7;

The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the Lord, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

Anybody with an elementary understanding of Christian theology would recognise this immediately. This is especially embarrassing considering that later he compares the similarity of the Protocols to the works of Joly, Venedy and Marx, with the similarity between the canonical Gospels.

Myers highlights disagreement between two scholars on the Protocols, Bernstein and Cohn. But what does this prove? Disagreement between scientists over aspects of evolution does not disprove the theory, (despite what Creationists would like us to believe.) In fact, the evidence Cohn presents to show how events in French politics, and the Zionist Congress in Basel, “interpreted by anti-Semites as a giant stride toward Jewish world domination,” which made their way into the Protocols, appears compelling.

Myers shows how the role and nature of the participants is inverted- for example, in the Dialogues, Napoleon III is the Machiavellian, preventing the people from

cont..