ISIS and the Alliance of Oil

ISIS is a hot topic in the news these days.  And although their evil actions upset me greatly, what upsets me more is the truth behind ISIS.  I've been meaning to blog about this for a long time.  I guess it took 100+ people to be killed in Paris for me to finally motivate myself to share my thoughts.

ISIS is not a natural phenomenon.  Most terrorism is funded.  

ISIS was created by the Alliance of Oil.  They are funded by the Alliance of Oil.  They are managed by the Alliance of Oil.  

Precedent:  It is a known fact that the USA and Great Britain were planning on invading Iraq years before it actually happened.  It is a known fact that our reason for invading Iraq was a lie.  Why did it happen?  Perhaps there was a larger geopolitical goal being accomplished by the invasion?  Perhaps it had to do with oil?

I don't have the time to source and site everything I explain here.  I am writing purely based on my memory of the events that have transpired.  I may make some slight mistakes in some of the details. But that shouldn't matter.  Because when you look at everything in the Middle East, there is an overall pattern as to what is happening.  What I am going to do is give my best effort at showing a chronology of the events in the Middle East and show how we are being manipulated.

In 2010, the Arab Spring started.  USA helped overthrow multiple Middle Eastern dictators.  Unfortunately it seemed like we were always supporting a more radical replacement. 

In 2011, USA pulled out of Iraq.  

In 2014, ISIS gets mentioned in the news for the first time.

In 2014, USA sent 3000 soldiers on a top secret training mission to Northern Iraq [1]

In 2015, ISIS begins to rise to power. 

ISIS begins creating terror videos.

1) they speak English (videos are directed towards a western audience)

2) they never show the actual cutting of the head of their victims (fake?) [2]

3) ISIS targets Americans, Frenchman, Brits, and Japanese (the Alliance of Oil)

After watching the ISIS beheading, I was filled with an insatiable rage at this organization of terror.  My gut reaction was that America should fly over there and bomb the crap out of them.  But then I paused for a second and asked myself, what if this is the exactly reaction the video is trying to provoke?  In fact, the way the video is designed, it is design to provoke the maximum amount of anger.  It makes one think, why would a terror organization provoke multiple first world nations to anger in such a manner?  It is suicide!  But the curious thing is that they are very selective in who they provoke to anger.  Why are they not killing the Russians or Chinese?  In fact, more curiously, why are they not killing the Jews like a normal terror group?

Later on ISIS begins killing and burning Christians (main religion within the Alliance of Oil).  Again, why is ISIS more bent on pissing off western nations than accomplishing true goals like destroying Israel?  What can ISIS accomplish by assassinating one citizen at a time?   

Later on, ISIS gets pictures in the news.  They all have black uniforms.  They are well equipped with American weaponry.  They have a long line of brand new white Toyota trucks.  I'm thinking to myself, nothing about this looks like a normal terror organization.  

 

The created a flag.  They created twitter hashtags.  The news keeps talking about how successful they are.  They have a very detailed system for accounting their cash flow.  They have taken over Iraqi and Syrian oil.  They operate like a business with supply chains and marketing teams.  This organization screams fake and fraudulent more and more.  The question that keeps pounding at the back of my head is "why?”  Who in their right mind would support this organization?  Who would fund them?  (Hint - US Government purchased a large supply of Toyota trucks that disappeared).

Obama's first reaction to ISIS was to tell everyone that we don't have a strategy.  Then Obama said that we need to make ISIS manageable.  Later Obama said that the issue in the Middle East is that ISIS needs jobs.  Nothing in Obama's narrative makes it sound like he is interested in wiping out ISIS.  Sounds more like he wants to control them and use them as a tool.

More and more stories appear in the news trying to explain ISIS's rise to power.  They talk about how the USA left supplies to the Iraqis.  ISIS attracted the Iraqis but the Iraqis retreated leaving behind the supplies.  They talked about how the USA army retreated and allowed ISIS to take their supplies. Maybe the USA might be purposefully helping ISIS under the guise of "retreat"?

More news stories pop up.  Apparently ISIS guns have been discovered but the serial numbers are scratched off.  Really?  Why would the serial number be scratched off?  The news article gave some BS explanation, but the real reason is that the gun manufacturer is embarrassed because they know that they are selling their guns to ISIS but they are doing it anyway.  US guns with serial numbers scratched off?  Sounds like the US is directly involved in helping ISIS.  But why?  ISIS is so evil! They are the most evil organization imaginable!  Perhaps they provide a benefit to the US?  It still doesn't make sense.  No benefit could justify supporting such an organization!  Right?

I continue to follow the news.  USA begins training rebels in Syria.  For some reason we don't like the dictator of Syria.  Apparently Assad is a bad guy so we need to wipe him out.  Right?  Makes sense.  But American's are tired of policing the Middle East.  We don't want our boys to die.  We already are sick of Iraq and don't want another Iraq style mistake in Syria.  

Well, the problem is there is a geopolitical goal that involves Syria.  Many countries are interested in Syria for top secret reasons.  So the USA government thinks they have a really good reason for wiping out Syria, but they can't tell the American people what it is.  Therefore the US Government is having a hard time persuading everyone into war.  Now the US Government has to get creative right?  We have to create a good reason for an invasion.  

All of the sudden the news is telling us that Assad is responsible for using chemical weapons of mass destruction against the rebels!  Oh no! He is a bad guy with weapons of mass destruction! We must invade!!  This narrative sounds all too familiar (hint Iraq) and the American people aren't buying it.  Nobody wants to invade Syria despite the chemical weapons.  Later on they find out that it was actually the America supported rebels who were using the chemical weapons to frame Assad (false flag evidence).  So know we know it’s all a hoax right?  But that isn't good enough because the US Government still want to wipe out Assad really bad.  But why?  Why is it so important?  At this point in time, I still haven't figured it out.  

ISIS begins conquering territory in Syria.  Now that ISIS is inside Syria, we are finally interested in bombing ISIS.  But unfortunately in our pursuit of ISIS in Syria we have really bad aim.  Every time we try to bomb ISIS we accidentally miss and hit Syrian oil plants.  So ISIS is kind of our false moving target that lets us accidentally wipe out the true target who happens to be in their path right?  Meanwhile ISIS conveniently takes over the Syrian oil.  ISIS gets stronger and stronger, yet no one is bombing ISIS infrastructure and cutting off their supply chain.  In fact, someone is buying their oil and helping their rise to power!

Wait, what about our secret base in north Iraq?  It is rather convenient that ISIS dominates in the north at the same time we send a secret training mission there.  Maybe they were training and supplying ISIS instead of fighting them?  The secret base in Irbil, Iraq occupies Kurd territory.  Kurds function separate from Turkey and Iraq, while existing in both countries.  Seems like it would be easy for America to supply the Kurds with weaponry in Turkey, and then have the Kurds hand the weaponry over to ISIS in north Iraq.  Hopefully the embassy in Benghazi wasn't involved in supplying ISIS right?  Unfortunately the US Government allowed an attack on Benghazi that killed the non-CIA witnesses that day so we will never know the truth.  What happened to the CIA witnesses in Benghazi?  CIA is sworn to secrecy.  

News articles start talking about how Turkey is supplying weaponry to ISIS and Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS with money.  Well that is odd right?  Why could that be?  Syria and Iraq are right between Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  What is ISIS doing that helps Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

This was when I finally realized the truth behind all of the Middle Eastern nonsense.  There is a secret economic war at hand between the Western Alliance of Oil and Eastern Alliance of Oil.  Syria just happen to be in the middle of this war [3].

The truth is Europe just wants to be independent from Russian oil.  USA also wants Europe to be independent from Russian oil.  Saudi Arabia wants to profit from providing oil to Europe.  Turkey wants to profit of providing oil to Europe as a middle man.  The problem is that Assad, the dictator of Syria, does not want to allow an oil pipeline through his country.  The Western Alliance of Oil doesn't like his resistance.  Meanwhile Russia/Iran/Syria are trying to build their own pipeline.  By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, USA severely limited Iran's pipeline options.  They can't build pipelines east or west.  That is why they hate us so much.  Bush's wars probably had nothing to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, and everything to do with cutting back the Eastern Alliance of Oil (Syria, Iran, Russia, and China).  

Ukraine has been cutting back on Russian oil which pressured a Russian invasion into Ukraine.  Now ISIS is putting pressure on Syria.  This has now prompted a Russian response.  Russia began establishing a base in Syria and wiping out ISIS and the Syrian Rebels.  Everyone foolishly looked to him as a hero rather than a dictator just looking out for his oil interests.  Amazingly, rather than being happy that Russia was helping in the fight against ISIS, America is very upset.  We don't want Russia killing our secret weapon.  We don't want Russia conquering Syria.  Russia in Syria means no European pipeline.  This means Europe is still dependent on Russia for oil.  

No one in the West wants a direct confrontation with Russia.  No one wants WWIII.  What is the US strategy now?  Give ISIS more teeth?  ISIS for the first time goes after Russia.  They bomb a Russian plane.  Perhaps with enough terror Russia will leave?  Nope.  Looks like Russia is here to stay.  

What is the strategy now?  There is no political will in the West to wipe out Syria and kick out Russia, right?  Queue the Syrian refugee crisis.  It’s almost like the USA has a backup plan to accomplish their geopolitical goals.  Now all of the USA trained Syrian rebels are going into Europe and America.  Why???  Why are only the young and strong men leaving?  Why is ISIS mixed in with them?  Lots of foreshadowing in the news... Why?  The western governments want the people to put some of the pieces together, just not all of them.  Trump said it could be the greatest Trojan horse in history.  Why are the governments allowing it?  Why is it only Europe and America [4]???  There are a lot of other countries closer.  Why not Turkey?  That a close option right?  Saudi Arabia already said no.  But for some reason the governments in Europe are okay with this idea?  And the Syrians are okay walking that distance for no reason?  

The Syrian refugee crisis was planned.  It was a planned infiltration by ISIS.  The governments of Europe allowed this.  Why??  Because the people in Europe do not have the will to attack Syria and kick out Russia.  They think that only by a continuous round of terror attacks can they create enough willpower to invade Syria.  

Paris under attack?  ISIS takes credit?  The terrorists have Syrian passports?  So convenient.  Many more attacks planned?  Seems like ISIS is being used as a tool to create a coalition in Syria.  What was Obama's response to the attack?  Obama says this attack represents an attack on all of humanity.  Obama says we will coordinate a response with the French.  

My message to people of the world - 

The purpose of terrorism is to start wars.  Don't let your governments manipulate you.  Don't fall for it.  Don't let your people die in vain.  Don't let the deaths of your people trick you into accomplishing the motive behind their death.  Don't let your governments start wars for of fraudulent reasons.  Don't let your government plan terrorism on your own people for geopolitical purposes.  Don't let them realize that this method works.  If governments realize that self-terrorism is effective, they will continue to use it.  Hold people in government responsible for any self-terrorism.  If Syria needs to be attacked, the true reason should be known and not kept a secret.  People should debate the true reasons, not the false ones, for war.  I would rather live in a world where Russia owns all of the oil than a world where governments secretly terrorize their own people.

[1]  
Obama Secretly Orders 3,000 American Troops Into Iraq! http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/12/13/obama-secretly-orders-3000-american-troops-into-iraq/ 

U.S. Troops, Back in Iraq, Train a Force to Fight ISIS  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/us-troops-back-in-iraq-train-a-force-to-fight-isis.html?_r=0

[2]  
CORPORATE MEDIA COVERS STAGED ISIS BEHEADING VIDEO  http://www.infowars.com/corporate-media-covers-staged-isis-beheading-video/

Video footage of fake ISIS beheading?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scD3oYQuigk

Does this video suggest ISIS beheading videos were STAGED by actors?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/453413/ISIS-beheading-videos-staged-actors

[3]
Migrant Crisis & Syria War Fueled By Competing Gas Pipelines  http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/

The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria. Oil Gas Pipeline War  http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130

[4]  
Where are the Syrian refugees going?http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/29/where-are-the-syrian-refugees-going

Man vs. Nature Debate

On 2/18/2014, Expanded Consciousness posted the above picture for all their followers to see.  I fundamentally disagreed with the message portrayed and the following debate ensued…

Seth Garrett

The natural order is not superior to man made order.

Seth Garrett

The natural order is based on unlimited reproduction, unlimited killing, and unlimited starvation. Man made order is much more civilized.

Expanded Consciousness

Would respectfully disagree Seth, man made order has lead to more dangerous weaponry and thus more deaths per attack. It has also lead to the pollution and devastation of much of this Earth. If we respected natural order a bit more perhaps we wouldn't look at nature as a commodity, but as our only home. In 2007, the United Nations said that on average, around 25,000 people die every day due to hunger or hunger-related causes, even though we have the means to feed all people of this earth. And this is civil? Much peace.

Seth Garrett

If we embraced natural order, the starvation deaths would be MUCH higher. If you think our current system isn't civil, wait till farms are shut down and people have to look for berries. Half of Arizona would die in a month due to lack of natural resources.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, I again respectfully disagree. Had humans not become so dependent on someone else to grow their food, but instead insisted on growing themselves or with a community co-op they would feed themselves just fine, in any weather or climate since you can grow organically indoors. Now what do you have? Monsanto controlling the seeds and selling terminator seeds, makes no sense. Why would farms be shut down anyway? Again, we have the resources to feed everyone in the world but why don't we? Perhaps we are too civil. I am not advocating for one over the other...perhaps the best course of action would be to have more of a balance. Peace.

Seth Garrett 

Because in order to have farmland you have to cut down the trees which, according to this post, means they are savages.

Seth Garrett 

When populations grow, specialization occurs. When specialization occurs, interdependence occurs. When interdependence occurs peace occurs. If you want everyone to be a farmer then you will take away 1000 years of social advancement placing us back into the dark ages where people are fighting constantly over land.

Claudia Zazueta

Umm Seth, man made order is more civilized? Are you serious?

SMH

There is enough food and water on this planet to nourish EVERY single human being but since greed is in control many do die of hunger and starvation and that is due to the disconnection we have as a humans with each other.  We lack love, Compassion, Understanding and Unity as a whole.  If man made order wasn’t in control our world would be a much better place.

Expanded Consciousness

Correct Seth, but not all farms require the destruction of the trees though, some do and sadly many of those that do are producing for other countries...so if those other countries got back to the natural order (grow or produce more sustainable/local) much of this would be alleviate. Take Brazil for instance, Brazil is today the world's largest exporter and producer of beef. Much of its expansion has taken place in the Amazon, which currently has more than 90 million head of cattle, up from 26.6 million in 1990 and equivalent to more than 90 percent of the total U.S. herd. The Brazilian Amazon has more than 214,000 square miles of pasture, an open space larger than France. More here. http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, 'when interdependence grows peace occurs' the US is very interdependent on many other countries...yet could you please name a year from the birth of this country until now where it was not at war? I didn't say I want everyone to become farmers, but everyone could grow something, anything...then you have the option to barter and trade your goods for the goods grow around you. Again, you could do a community garden, where the community pitches in and helps to feed everyone...like we used to do. This is not a step back in social advancement it is reasserting that which many know, we need to be more self sustainable or we will continue to ruin this planet we call home and Earth. Please provide any sourcing for your claims as well. Thanks.

Seth Garrett

@Claudia - Greed is in control? I disagree. The desire for financial stability and success is in control. If greed was in control, why would business provide free services? Why would Cashiers return to you correct change? Why would employees be friendly to you and keep lost and found items for your retrieval? The fact of the matter is capitalism encourages people to be good to each other. If you are greedy and corrupt, someone will find out. You will lose your reputation and financial stability because no one wants your business any more. Americans are extremely generous. Your anti-capitalism is based on a myth.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, but what happens when someone does find out you are corrupt? What if millions knew, but there was nothing anyone could do because the company is so intertwined with the US government? See Monsanto and head of FDA. Head of FDA is former head exec for Monsanto, millions know this yet he still exist at his position.

Seth Garrett

http://www.voxeu.org/article/globalisation-promotes-peace

Bilateral trade deters military conflicts

In a recent paper (Lee and Pyun 2008), we assess the impact of trade integration on military conflict based on a large panel data set of 290,040 country-pair observations from 1950 to 2000. Results show that an increase in bilateral trade interdependence reduces the probability of inter-state military conflict between the two partners. If bilateral trade volume increases 10% from the world mean value, the probability of military conflict between the two trading partners decreases by about 0.1% from its predicted mean probability, other variables remaining constant. The peace-promotion effect of bilateral trade integration is significantly higher for contiguous countries that are likely to experience more conflicts. For example, an increase of 10% in bilateral trade volume lowers the probability of military conflict between two contiguous states by about 1.9%.

Expanded Consciousness

Thank you kindly for the article, Seth. A few key take aways....

1) Only countries willing to participate will see peace, what of those that don't and are peaceful within their country but because they will not sell the US their products we go to war with them? (See Economic Hitman)

2) " If bilateral trade volume increases 10% from the world mean value, the probability of military conflict between the two trading partners decreases by about 0.1% from its predicted mean probability, other variables remaining constant." (What if it does not increase 10%?)

3) Although it seems integration helps with war, the leading cause of death in the world is still hunger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-dsiufhMu0

Seth Garrett

Globalization also helps the hunger crisis. Natural order does nothing to help the hunger crisis. Do deer store up piles of grass in bundles and transport them to hungry cattle in desert areas? No. I have seen cattle die in the desert. Only humankind has the full capacity for good and evil. To revert back to natural order is anti-human and immoral.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, if globalization works so well why is starvation still the number 1 cause of death worldwide? Perhaps because it doesn't work, why? Because you can't make money on people who can't pay. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/holt-gimenez.htm

"The World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the World Food Program, the Millennium Challenge, The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and industrial giants like Yara Fertilizer, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, DuPont, and Monsanto, carefully avoid addressing the root causes of the food crisis. The "solutions" they prescribe are rooted in the same policies and technologies that created the problem in the first place: increased food aid, de-regulated global trade in agricultural commodities, and more technological and genetic fixes. These measures only strengthen the corporate status quo controlling the world's food."

"The future of our food—and fuel—systems are being decided de facto by unregulated global markets, financial speculators, and global monopolies."

" The World Bank reported that global food prices rose 83% over the last three years and the FAO cited a 45% increase in their world food price index over just nine months."

"The food crisis appeared to explode overnight, reinforcing fears that there are just too many people in the world. But according to the FAO, there were record grain harvests in 2007. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. In fact, over the last 20 years, world food production has risen steadily at over 2% a year, while the rate of global population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not outstripping food supply."

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, I never said revert back to a natural order either, I am advocating balance. Right now we are way out of balance with mother Earth. In doing so we have put all of humanity at risk.

Expanded Consciousness

The amount of food Americans throw away has risen by approximately 50 percent since 1974 according to a new study in PLoS ONE. American now waste on average 1,400 calories per person everyday, equaling 150 trillion calories a year nationwide. Considering that the average person requires approximately 2,000 calories a day, this means that the US could feed over 200 million adults every year with the food that ends up in the trash. Currently, the UN estimates that one billion people—an historical record—are going hungry worldwide.

Read more at

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1129-hance_foodwastetwo.html#AZjz4Z9hWxI3sJ8k.99

Seth Garrett

It is not always feasible to transport excess food to other countries. Waste is an inevitable part of food production.

Seth Garrett 

Food goes bad. It expires. Demand doesn't always remain constant.

Seth Garrett 

I agree that world hunger is still an issue. I disagree about why. You have an anti-capitalism attitude infused into your response saying that the problem is "we can't make money off people who can't pay". The reality is it is not always feasible to produce food for people who can't pay. We have the capacity to produce as much food as people have money for. But financial issues are legitimate issues. How is a business supposed to afford to give away free products? How do they pay their employees? It is better to teach a man to fish than to feed him for a day. Poor countries cannot rely on free food. The need capital investment so they can build their own wealth.

Expanded Consciousness

Exactly Seth! Which means these areas need to get back to self-sustainable measures. You seem to be complimenting my remarks. Forget about capitalism for a moment. I am looking at the system as a whole, with no definition attached, and it has not, is not, and will not work. It's that simple. If we are to only live for money and profit then millions will continue to die, and millions of acres of land will continue to be wiped out. Again, it's about balance. We don't need folks like Monsanto for our survival. Our survival always has and always will be linked to what we can provide for ourselves as close to home as possible.

You mention in your previous comment that companies give away things for free, yet you comment now about how can companies make money off giving things away for free?

The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest....and you want me to believe the system in place is the best we have got and have had throughout history? Trickle effect does not, has not, and will never work the way it was told. Sorry.

Seth Garrett

Growing a garden in your backyard is fine, but that does little to help the poor worldwide. The problem is a good backyard farm will not likely be able to sustain a family for a whole year even in good environments. Poor can barely afford a back yard. Poor countries need to fully embrace individual rights, capitalism, and foreign investment. Then things will improve.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, 1/10th of an acre can feed an entire family for over a year. The moment a country accepts foreign aid they are forever in debt in many, many cases. Again, see Econimic Hitman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM

Seth Garrett

With regard to the top 1%, where do you think all of their money is? It exists within investments and ownership of businesses. It is ignorant to say that the top 1% are ripping everyone off. Because of the businesses they own, you can afford cheap products at Walmart and cheap food at fast food chains. Take away their wealth and you destroy the businesses that make your life good.

Seth Garrett

My family has grown gardens in our back yard many times through multiple seasons in Arizona. I can tell you from experience that it is wholly inadequate as a sole food source for a family.

Michael Koleoso

If greed is not in control, can you tell me where the trillions in profit the so-called multinational corporations, notoriously famed for their tax evasion practices, are spirited away to? There are no free services that businesses provide because it is all included in the price somewhere along the line. Anywhere there is profit, there will be deficit somewhere else. A businesses main objective is to turn a profit. And no corporation cares much about reputation when it has a captive market

Expanded Consciousness

Investments and offshore bank accounts Seth  If you are going to claim something, please back it up with sourcing like I have. Otherwise it simply seems like your opinion and not fact. Many thanks.

Expanded Consciousness

It's not all about investment Seth, it's a joke really. The min wage in the US should be $20/hr to keep up with cost of living and these people can't afford to raise it?

"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report.

This "capture of opportunities" by the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes has led to a situation where 70% of the world's population live in countries where inequality has increased since the 1980s and 1% of families own 46% of global wealth - almost £70tn." 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Seth Garrett

Okay, so what happens when money is in an off shore bank account? What do banks do? They loan money for an interest rate. When banks have more money, interest rates go down. That means more people can afford housing. That means more people can get a loan to start a business. EC, I don't need to source common sense.

Expanded Consciousness

"In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

Expanded Consciousness

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’

Expanded Consciousness

You haven't sourced much of anything Seth , so forgive me if that sounds rude but I'll take what you write largely as opinion. Because your family can't do it doesn't mean it can't and hasn't been done before my friend. I could source more examples then the one I already provided if need be. Peace.

Seth Garrett

There is nothing evil about pursuing a profit in order to maintain financial stability, support continued growth, and produce greater value for the public. Tax evasion is a natural side effect of an oppressive tax system.

Seth Garrett Under capitalism, companies have a motivation to make the customer happy. They provide free napkins, catsup, bathrooms, wifi, etc. But they can't do that unless they make a profit.

Seth Garrett

With regard to the top 1% (top 85 individuals), that is a bunch of hype that is based on poor logic. The problem with the logic is that it assumes that wealth is finite. It assumes that the every year the earth produces X amount of GDP and each country has to divide it amongst themselves. You're train of thought leads me to believe that you have are assuming that the top 1% are taking more that their fair share of the worlds output. But what you don't seem to understand is that the earth does not have a limit on the amount of wealth it is able to produce. The rich are not taking more than their fair share, they are PRODUCING more than their fair share. It is about time that the poor countries of the world stopped blaming the rich for their problems and started creating their own wealth. China did it. Why can't Africa? China is unique in its disciplined culture. They have hard work and educational values instilled in them at a young age. It is time that the world realized that poverty is a cultural problem, not an exploitation problem.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, sorry but under capitalism the companies don't need a motivation to make a customer happy, when you own the entire market people will have to buy from you either way. How else do you think Walmart, Monsanto, oil companies, stay in business....they are so tied to the government they would never be in trouble. Look at the banking system, they completely bankrupt the people of the US in their subprime rage and they got bailed out when others were left to be homeless.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, you say there is “nothing evil about pursuing a profit in order to maintain financial stability, support continued growth, and produce greater value for the public.” Do you understand the notion of growing just for growth is the same that cancer has in the body?  Eventually you outgrow, this model is vastly flawed and will not be sustainable in the future.  If companies want to make true investments they should invest in homes with built-in solar, making hemp legal so it can fuel our cars, etc.  What we have now is a prison of sorts, where the upper class owns the resources and they decide the price at which we should pay for these.

Seth Garrett

Crony capitalism is different from capitalism. Where corruption exists, it should be purged because it violates free market principles. Where monopolies exist, they should be disbanded by the government because free markets require competition.

Seth Garrett

Good analogy to cancer. But unlike cancer, economic "growth for growth sake" is limited to supply and demand. People are free to choose alternatives like solar and back yard gardens but they don't because the current prices are not oppressive enough. If prices skyrocketed, people would naturally gravitate to other options.

While it may seem like humans are a cancer on the earth, humans naturally appreciate nature. It is our God given role to tend the earth. Nature flourishes under the dominion of man. We organize beautiful gardens, build parks, create wildlife preserves, decorate our houses and roads with nature. We take care of pets. We feed animals on farms. We help animals and nature as we expand. We are not a cancer to the earth. We are gods of the earth. We make the earth a better place as we expand.

Expanded Consciousness 

Uh, Seth, if you think people are free to choose why is hemp biofuel not in use? Because dominate companies like DuPont don't want it to cut into their margins. "Nature flourishes under the dominion of man." -Please site your sources for this....ask BP, Shell, Chevron whether they really care about the Earth or if all they care about is profit margin. Humans are not a cancer...the way in which humans have become so detached from Earth and not caring about it is the cancer.

Please site sources that explain how we make the Earth a better place by expanding?

Expanded Consciousness

Either way though Seth, if a company is to please its share holders it must expand and make more profit...whether it is good for the Earth and its people or not...right?

Expanded Consciousness

Sorry, Seth, it is impossible to believe you since most of what you are saying is seen as opinion and not fact...present the facts and perhaps my view might change. But I have done enough research over the years to know that you don't have those facts, otherwise you would have presented them. peace.

Seth Garrett

EC, I have presented plenty of anecdotal evidence to support my case. If you refuse to acknowledge my arguments then that shows how closed-minded you are. You might need to expand your consciousness a bit.

Expanded Consciousness

Seth, anecdotal: (of an account) NOT necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research

You're right Seth, you have provided ample anecdotal evidence now provide actual evidence.....you see I base my beliefs on facts, not on the beliefs of others. Provide your facts and we will have an easier time understanding each other. You have provided one source, I have provided ample. My mind may appear closed because the door lacks validation to open

Seth Garrett 

I am not involved in the Biofuel industry, but my answer is the same, crony capitalism should be abolished so that people are free to choose.

Seth Garrett 

@Ayn Nugen - You asked "How does the rich produce more than their fair share and for what purpose other than greed?" The rich usually get their riches from "ownership". They make their money off of assets that they own. It is not because they are greedy. That is very unfair to assume. Flawed logic would make one think that the rich can exploit everyone by owning everything, but that is not the case. As I said before, there is not a finite amount of wealth. If there are only 100 homes for sale and the rich own them all, you can just build your own home and create your own wealth.

Seth Garrett 

I can take pictures of my neighborhood if you don't believe humans nurture plants in their front yards. I can google Yellowstone national park for you if you don't believe humans create wildlife preserves. Your insistence on my providing a reference for every obvious example is a futile waste of my time.

Expanded Consciousness 

And I can take pictures of the destruction happening in the rain forest, what's your point Seth?

Expanded Consciousness 

Seth, if you can provide me factual data that proves we are restoring the Earth at a faster pace than we are destroying it then I will believe much more than you say...but a picture of your front yard isn't going to cut it. Sorry, it seems your scope of the world is vastly limited and because you refuse to provide any sourcing this discussion must end as I feel as though I am running on a tread mill....gives me something to do, but not getting anywhere. peace.

Seth Garrett

I think that they whole crux of this argument is based on two conflicting views - 1) nature dominant with humans fitting in with nature, 2) human dominant with nature fitting in with humans. I have explained already why I view the latter as the more correct and moral path for the future. Namely because natural order is not superior to man made order.

Expanded Consciousness

Except for the fact that natural order will always prevail since we can not control all aspects of nature, Seth  If humans vanish from this planet it will flourish, if humans vanish the planet, they too vanish...we are nature, to try and separate that is a grave mistake of the psyche. You said it yourself, you gave only anecdotal evidence, which translate to giving opinion not fact.

Seth Garrett 

You are correct, the natural order will always exist in the absence of a higher order. Nature is based on random chance. Man made order is based on intelligence. The natural order has no morals. Nature kills without regard to right or wrong. Suffering is commonplace in the natural order. Man made order distinguishes between right and wrong. Man made order minimizes suffering.

Expanded Consciousness 

Seth, please tell me how it is intelligent to destroy your own planet for profit?

Seth Garrett 

If you consider cutting down trees "destroying your planet", then you must not understand that trees grow back. If you consider exhaust from cars "destroying your planet", you must not understand that volcanoes produce much more pollution. Using the earth is not destroying the earth. The more we use the earth, the better our technology. With better technology we can built better cars and more efficiently use trees, etc. With intelligence, we can cultivate nature on the earth. This is not "destroying your planet".

Expanded Consciousness 

Seth, what about the oil spills in our water ways? The radiation from Fukushima and other nuclear power-plants, and nuclear weapons at that? How do these help the earth...again, you speak as if what you say is fact with no regard for providing your sourcing. So, again, I will take what you say as your individual opinion and not universal truth 

Yes trees grow back...VERY slowly, some have been growing for hundreds of years, and how many are grown back vs torn down?

Sorry brother, you won't win this debate, you really can't since we are debating your opinion and not facts.

Expanded Consciousness 

Let's not also forget about the depleted soil nutrition, gene diseases, etc that stem from just pesticides alone, Seth. Let us also not forget that Monsanto insists that farmers grow monoculture produce, very dangerous to our food system. Let's not also forget about the barium that is being tossed into our air. The list really goes on and on Seth...it's not just trees being taken down. And to compare what a naturally occurring volcano does vs what we consciously do is a bit silly really. Since we CAN control ourselves if we really wanted to.

Jackson Gash

@expanded consciousness...I applaud your patience and concise retorts when debating with Seth. It's quite sobering to see that people like Seth (who are obviously quite educated) still can't see the wood for the trees (no offence intended Seth)...such a deep seeded issue it is to displace the common doxa, subvert the capitalistic nature of both producers/consumers and its associated insatiable appetite which we are all subject too. Many people still live in this state of "plausible deniability" kind of feels like we are being held to ransom when we wake up! I hope we will see things change in our lifetime

To be continued...