The Story of Our Unenslavement

True News: The Truth About Wikileaks

Winning the Case for Freedom!

Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio helps you close the case for freedom. Recorded at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in New Hampshire.

Farewell Father

PARTE 1 of 3 - Demostrando la Moral Libertaria (Proving Libertarian Mora...

Freedomain Radio - The Free iPhone/iPad App!

http://www.fdrurl.com/apple - a free application to help you access Freedomain Radio podcasts, videos, news, books and give feedback on the show! Wisdom - there's an app for that!

Collaborative Problem Solving with Kids - Dr. Ross Greene Interviewed

Delusions of Gender - Dr. Cordelia Fine, The Freedomain Radio Interview

Cordelia Fine studied Experimental Psychology at Oxford University, followed by an M.Phil in Criminology at Cambridge University. She was awarded a Ph.D in Psychology from University College London. From 2002 to 2007 she was a Research Associate at Monash University, and then at the Australian National University. She is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Agency, Values and Ethics at Macquarie University, and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

Against the Gods? Atheism Versus Agnoticism: The Great Debate

The Ethics of Self Defense - A Freedomain Radio Article

UPB and Self-Defense

Self-defense against the initiation of force is generally accepted, though not always advocated, in most systems of morality. My book “Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics” touched on general aspects of self-defense, which I would like to expand upon here.

Generally speaking, self-defense is the ability to use proportional violence to avoid or minimize harm to oneself during an unprovoked attack. The phrase thus generally refers to the use of violence, rather than merely escaping a violent situation, and so, in the UPB framework, must be subject to moral evaluation, rather than a neutral or aesthetic (APA) evaluation.

The first thing to recognize about self-defense is that although it describes the use of violence, it remains fundamentally different from the initiation of force, in that it is reactive, rather than proactive violence. Self-defense, then, does not exist in the absence of the initiation of force. In other words, self-defense is a potential effect of the initiation of force, and thus the primary moral evaluation must be focused on the initiation of force, which is discussed in great detail in “Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.”

A second aspect of self-defense is that it covers far more than physical attacks from other people. Few people would object to a man hitting an attacking bear or shark on the nose, or taking antibiotics to kill off an infection, or having a swollen appendix or rotten tooth removed. These can all be considered categories of self-defense, in that force (and poison against bacteria) is used to defend the body against an imminent and growing physical danger or attack. If self-defense is morally invalid, then all these actions would be very hard to justify. This does not constitute an ironclad proof of the validity of self-defense, but it does indicate that opposing self-defense creates insurmountable practical obstacles.

Three Possibilities

Using the UPB framework, there are three main possibilities to consider when evaluating moral propositions regarding self-defense:.

1. Self-defense is morally permissible.

2. Self-defense is morally required.

3. Self-defense is morally prohibited.

In the first instance, self-defense is morally permissible, but it is not immoral to refrain from defending yourself. In the second instance, self-defense is morally required – and thus, as proved in the UPB book, violence can be used against those who do not defend themselves. In the third instance, self-defense is morally prohibited, and thus violence can be used against those who do defend themselves.

Common sense draws us towards the first instance – that self-defense is morally permissible, but not morally required – but let us discuss this possibility last, because if we have disposed of the other two options, this first one becomes much more credible.

Self-Defense Is Morally Prohibited

If self-defense is morally prohibited, then the UPB-compliant moral statement would be something like this:

“It is universally preferable for all people at all times and in all locations to refrain from defending themselves against attack.”

This proposition falls apart very quickly. First of all, since that which is universally banned may be subject to violent opposition, then the initiation of violence cannot be universally banned, since self-defense is also universally banned. However, the arguments in the UPB book clearly demonstrate that the initiation of force cannot be universally preferred, and therefore self-defense cannot be invalid.

Secondly, to ban self-defense is to ban the effect of an action (the initiation of force), but not the action itself. This is like banning murder, but not killing, or to argue that making someone fall off a cliff is immoral, but pushing them off a cliff is moral. You cannot have a shadow without an object and a light source, and neither can the effects of an action be immoral, but that action which causes it be moral. Thus self-defense cannot be immoral, while the initiation of force is moral. But if the initiation of force is immoral, then self-defense is justified, again, as described in “Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.”

Thirdly, if self-defense is immoral, then violence can be used against somebody acting in self-defense. However, by definition someone acting in self-defense is already subject to violence – that of the attacker. However, the UPB framework clearly demonstrates that the initiation of violence is immoral – if self-defense is also immoral, then a man acting in self-defense can be aggressed against – which is already happening. In other words, the same action -- aggression against a man -- becomes both immoral and moral at the same time. It is immoral because the initiation of force is wrong, but it is moral because using force against a man acting in self-defense is moral.

These logical impossibilities and contradictions – not to mention the practical impossibilities of acting in accordance with such illogical rules – clearly refute the proposition that self-defense is morally prohibited.

Self-Defense Is Morally Required

Perhaps self-defense is morally required – this seems closer to the truth, but also feels problematic, to say the least. In the UPB framework, the non-initiation of force is morally required, which is to say that the non-initiation of force avoids immorality.

If a certain action is morally required, then the opposite action must be morally banned, and thus subject to restraining force. Since the non-initiation of force is morally required, the opposite action – i.e. the initiation of force – may then be subject to restraining force, i.e. self-defense.

However, if self-defense is morally required, then refraining from defending yourself must be morally evil, and thus subject to restraining force. However, we then run into the same logical contradiction outlined above. If Bob attacks Doug, and Doug is morally required to defend himself, but refrains to defend himself, then Bob's attack becomes morally justified, since Doug is acting in an evil manner by avoiding self-defense. However, the same attack cannot be magically transformed from evil into good, and thus self-defense cannot be morally required, since it would thus transform an evil action – the initiation of force – into a virtuous action, which would be the just punishment of defenselessness.

Furthermore, if self-defense is morally required, then any action taken – or avoided -- which brings harm to a person would justify a violent attack against him or her. I think most of us would be fairly uncomfortable with the idea of violently attacking the overweight, or those who do not get regular medical checkups, or take antibiotics for an infection, or get a rotten tooth pulled and so on.

Lastly, as discussed in the UPB book, a good rule of thumb regarding moral propositions is the “coma test,” which states that a man in a coma cannot be rationally accused of moral evil. Clearly, a comatose man cannot act in self-defense, which further supports the rational and empirical objections against the proposition that self-defense is morally required.

Self-Defense Is Morally Permissible

The elimination of the other two major possibilities lends strong support to the proposition that self-defense is morally permissible, but not required. This rule allows us to use force to defend against the initiation of violence, but does not support the use of force against us if we either do not or cannot use force in self-defense. It also accords with the medical reality that to undergo surgery to remove an inflamed appendix is not immoral, but neither is it immoral to avoid such a surgery – in other words, self-defense even against a dangerous organ is permissible, but not required.

Since self-defense is morally permissible, we may not use force against someone engaged in an active defense against an attack – in other words, we may not morally join in with the attacker. This restriction helps us avoid the logical impossibility of defining an attack as immoral, while our simultaneous attack becomes magically moral.

Since self-defense is a universal standard, it is not restricted to a single individual – i.e. the individual being attacked – but extends to everyone, thus permitting third-party defense such as security guards and courageous bystanders. (It also validates the highly useful proposition that it is preferable for a skilled third party to take out my appendix rather than forcing me to do it myself.)

Since self-defense is a reactive action, it can be universalized, since it is merely the shadow of the action of the initiation of force – where the initiation of force is not present, neither will self-defense be present. Any reasonable moralist would far prefer the non-initiation of force to self-defense, just as any sane person prefers not getting sick to getting cured. The initiation of force mathematically adds to the amount of violence in the world, while self-defense does quite the opposite, and even from this utilitarian standpoint, a lot of good is done through the moral permissibility of self-defense.

In summary, then, UPB validates the proposition that self-defense is morally permissible, but not required, which accords with our commonsense notions of morality, and with the logical rigor and strictness required by the approach of Universally Preferable Behavior.

Frankly Faithless: An Interview with the Thinking Atheist from Freedomai...

The Sunset of the State

The Truth Behind 'Lost' - A Philosophical Review

Greece, Democracy and Catastrophe

 

Greece has a long and complicated history with democracy, but the future of Greek democracy will be short and brutal.

 

Largely as a result of 400 years of savage Turkish occupation, Greeks retain an innate distrust of and hostility towards the State – as one Greek said: "We never had the Enlightenment because of the Turks."

 

As a result -- and this is no different in America -- political power has only been maintained through outright bribery of special interest groups. Chief among these are the military-industrial complex, born out of military rivalry with Turkey, which costs over €14 billion, or 6% of GDP. Naturally, nearly 80% of the Defense Ministry budget is spent on administrative costs and payments to Army staff.

 

20%-30% of the entire Greek population works for the government; they cannot be fired, and many are allowed to retire with a pension in their 40s. Tens of thousands of unmarried or divorced daughters of civil servants collect their dead parents' pensions, and pension outlays are projected to rise to 12% of GDP, over four times the EU average. Some civil servants receive bonuses for using a computer, speaking a foreign language and even arriving to work on time - and all workers get 14 monthly salaries a year, the result of a plan to keep monthly wages -- and so future pensions – low.

 

Two weeks extra salary is paid out at Easter, and also during the summer -- the 14th salary is paid to government workers at Christmas. Until 2008, the government owned Olympic Airways, whose employees and their families were allowed to fly around the world for "free." It was only able to sell the money pit after lavishly paying or rehiring almost 5,000 employees. Overall, the Greek government owns 74 companies, mainly utilities and transport firms, most of which are overstaffed and bleeding money. The state rail company warehouses over 9,000 people and reported 2008 losses of 800 million Euros.

 

Nebulous and pointless committees infest government payrolls -- one committee is supposed to manage Lake Kopais, which actually dried out in the 1930s.

 

Greece was able to gain entry to the European Union by cooking its books and hiding debt through swap agreements, with the help of US financial services firms. Greece then continued to fake its budget numbers until 2008, when it ran out of money, and revealed that its deficit was four times larger than reported – 14% of GDP. It is important to note that this GDP measure is completely misleading, since the government does not have access to the entire GDP – it's like planning to pay down your debts by using your pre-tax income and ignoring your interest payments. The Greek public sector consumes about 40% of GDP, which represent a cost to the state, not an income, while taxation rarely rises above 50% – so at best only 10% of the GDP is available to address the debt, which basically means that debt levels are in reality 10 times the numbers commonly reported.

 

Like all doomed governments, Greece imagines that it can "grow itself" out of its fiscal crisis, referring to the fantasy that the Greek economy grew by almost 4% per year between 2003 and 2007. However, even if these numbers are true - and the source is not at all credible – this was due largely to massive infrastructure spending for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, and consumer borrowing as a result of easy credit -- even before this crisis, Greece was a major beneficiary of EU aid, equal to about 3.3% of GDP. If past growth was an illusion, future growth is an impossibility.

 

What about increasing government income? There is little room to raise taxes; the top income tax rate is already 40%, and the sales tax is 21%. In addition, 44% of salary is taxed for Social Security, with employees paying 16%, and employers paying 28%. These ridiculous tax rates, combined with a historical mistrust of government, have created an enormous black market and a culture of tax evasion. In one wealthy Athenian neighborhood, 324 residents admitted on their tax forms that they owned pools, while satellite photos revealed almost 17,000 pools. More than half of the doctors in a trendy neighbourhood claimed incomes of less than $40,000, while a quarter claimed less than $13,000, and so were tax exempt.

 

It is an axiom of statism that compulsion and control must always expand, and the current bailout of Greece is an inevitable result of the long-term subsidization that has already occurred. S&P has already downgraded four Greek banks to junk status. Euro zone banks are holding about 75 billion Euros of Greek bonds (about $97.5 billion). French and German banks are holding about 34 and 20 billion Euros respectively, so a noticeable amount of their capital is at risk. A retreat of investors from the debt of Greece, Spain, and Portugal could lead to high interest rates, declining investment, and slow economic growth in Europe. This will affect countries, including the U.S., that export to Europe.

 

Greece's dismal economic performance has in part occurred because it is already being bailed out by the EU, and has been for the past 11 years -- first because Greek bonds are priced relative to the economic strength of the EU as a whole, rather than its own basket-case economy, and second because the European Central Bank accepts Greek government bonds as collateral. European banks that buy Greek government bonds (paying higher interest than German bonds, because of the additional risk) use these Greek bonds to obtain a loan from the European Central Bank at 1% interest.

 

Without a doubt, and with no possible alternatives, the EU is doomed, and Greece is just the start of the avalanche. Since wages and social benefits constitute 75% of total (non-interest) public spending, the Greek government will attempt to stave off the inevitable by targeting public wages and pension bills. Daniel Gros, an eminent EU economist, argues that for each 1% of GDP decline in Greek government spending, total demand in the country collapses by 2.5%. If the government reduces spending by 15% of GDP — the initial shock to demand could be well over 30% of GDP. These sorts of transitions from public to private employment can work in a low tax, low regulation environment -- think of the millions of soldiers returning from the Second World War -- but the Greek economy is crippled by suffocating state controls and crushing taxation.

 

Firing government workers provokes violent, expensive and destructive conflicts, raises short-term costs for severance packages and legal battles, and the resulting unemployment destroys income tax receipts, and raises welfare and retraining costs.

 

What is rarely mentioned is the basic economic reality that every EU nation is currently running enormous deficits, carries catastrophic debt levels, and so has no actual money to give to Greece. Germany remains the strongest European economy, but German voters, already weary from decades of bailing out Eastern Germany, will find themselves hard pressed to muster the motivation to cut back on bratwurst in order to pay for the sundrenched retirements of Greek public servants. England is beyond useless, since its own budget deficit is poised to surpass Greece's as the worst in the European Union.

 

The entire European Economic Union is a house of cards, with governments all loaning money to each other in order to hide their true deficits from potential bond purchasers. Bailing out Greece with imaginary fiat currency is not a solution to a problem, but only a brief respite, designed so that those at the top of the political class can finish their looting before escaping the collapse.

 

 

 

Heroism Part 2 - from Freedomain Radio

Heroism Part 1 - from Freedomain Radio

What you think is feeding you is actually eating you. An examination of the heroism that is stolen from you. http://www.freedomainradio.com TEXT: http://www.fdrurl.com/heroism1

The Story of Your Enslavement

Digeus Registry Cleaner

Registry Cleaner

The Bomb in the Brain Part 4: The Death of Reason - The Effects of Child Abuse

The scientific evidence underlying the near-universal resistance to reason and evidence. If you want to change the world, you first must understand the unconscious barriers to thinking.

References: http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse4

From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the Web, hosted by Stefan Molyneux -- http://www.freedomainradio.com

需要政府的时代已经过去了 (Freedomain Radio 'Matrix' video in Chinese)

需要政府的时代已经过去了


黑客帝国这个电影的情节是历史上最恰当的比喻之一。为人类的方便而发明的机器后来反而使得人类成为奴隶。这是反乌托邦科幻故事当中最常见的主题。

这种成为奴隶的恐惧感怎么会如此普遍，如此引人注目呢？我们真的害怕家里的电视机和笔记本电脑以后会成为人类的主人吗？

当然不是这样子。

这不是我们所害怕出现的未来，而是我们正在经历的过去。

在理论上，政府之所以出现了，是因为要使得人民的生活过的更安宁，更幸福些。但是呢，最终政府唯一会做的恐怕只有束缚人民。

我们所发明的“服务”机关，最终成为严重损害人民利益的统治权力。

所谓的“民有，民治，民享”的美国政府目前已经把数百万人关押起来，夺取国家总收入的一半资金以上，向外国人实施复杂缠人的不必要的法律法规，并且日日进行拷打，屠杀，侵犯他国，推翻异国政府，同时支撑着700多海外帝国性质的军队基地。另外，还引起通货膨胀，使得未来的人民需要还的债务不断地增多。

我们所发明的“服务”机关，最终成为严重损害人民利益的统治权力。

这个所谓的“为人民服务”的政府概念从历史的客观角度来分析是一个彻底不正确的概念。

国家政府为了保护人民而被人民建立起来这个传说完全没有依据。

在有政府之前的社会里，也就是说在部落时代时，人们所生产的东西只够自己使用，根本没有多余的财产，食物等资源。因此，拥有奴隶很不划算，因为奴隶只能生产使得自己能够生存下去的东西，所以主人没有可夺取的资源。

如果一匹马所能生产的食物只够自己吃，那么人不会去捕猎，驯服这匹马。

然而，当农业技术的提高允许生产多余的庄稼以后，拥有奴隶突然变得很划算。

当牛开始提供剩余的奶和肉以后，拥有牛就变得很划算。

历史上最早的政府和帝国实际上是一群奴隶主，他们明白人既然能生产剩余的食物和物品，所以捕猎，抓获，制服，最终拥有他们是很划算的。

最早的埃及和中国帝国本质上是人类养殖场，在这些地方人们被捕猎，被抓获，被制服，最终被拥有了，正如其他动物一样。
基于技术的提高，这些奴隶的生产量远远超过了抓获和束缚他们的费用。
统治阶级，也就是养殖场的管理人，得到了大部分剩余的生产物品，并给了残酷无情的阶级一部分东西来鼓励他们继续束缚人民。
这个阶级包括警察，奴隶捕猎人，宣传阶级，宗教徒，知识分子，和艺术家。

这个情况持续不断数千年的时间，直到16或17世纪。到了这时候，因为农业技术和方法的迅速提高，所以产生了生产量直线上升的新时代。

英国的圈地运动把该国的农业土地重组规划，导致庄稼收获增加5到10倍以上，而其结果就引起了工业工人阶级的诞生，使得大量人民从农村搬到城市里居住。

这个令人感叹的农业改革就是工业革命的根源和前提条件。

工业革命可不是统治阶级希望释放农奴的表现，反而是统治阶级发现了一个道理，他们意识到了如果给动物一定的自由，它们就会变得令人惊讶得勤快。

当你把牛放在很狭窄的空间里生活，它们会发疯似地撞墙，给管理人添加很多不必要的麻烦。
因此，管理养殖场人员便给它们更宽阔的空间 --- 当然，这不是因为想释放牛，而是想提高生产量并减少费用。

“自由放养”的下一步绝对不是“自由”。

19世纪的国家资本主义实际上是“自由放养奴隶制”的崛起。

这个自由现象不是想解脱人民的枷锁而发生的，反而是想提高奴隶的工作效率而已。

与此同时，知识分子，艺术家等人都能享受各种各样的利益鼓励他们隐藏真实的情况。

现代人类养殖场管理学的一个大挑战即时人的“积极性”。

国家资本主义只能在人们有自愿的创业心促使他们努力才能够成功实行。

然而，一旦出现生产量提高的情况，国家政府各阶层一律会扩大人数，使得统治阶级和他们的受益人人数膨胀。这种膨胀会直接影响人们努力工作的积极性。
税务提高了，法律条款增多了，国债上升，生活水平下降。

人们越意识到他们的勤快和努力成果不属于自己而属于他人，郁闷情绪和绝望便越成为一个社会现象。

为了解决问题，统治阶级使用各种各样的新手段，包括：更多宣传活动，抗抑郁药物的支持，迷信，战争，社会道德活动，创造新“敌人”，
爱国主义的反复灌输，排外情绪和反对移民的现象等等。

你一定要搞明白这个世界的真实情况。

当你看世界地图的时候，你看到的不是国家，而是养殖场。

尽管你享有一些很有限的自由 （包括有限的拥有权，迁徙权，结社自由，就业自由），
但这不是因为政府在原则上支持（他们不断的侵犯这些权利），而是因为“自由放养”的动物无比得便宜和勤快。

你一定要搞明白人的实际想法。

国家资本主义，社会主义，共产主义，法西斯主义，民主主义。。。都是动物管理解决方案。

有的方法比较成功（比如国家资本主义），有的效果很差（比如共产主义）。

最终它们都失败，因为把人看成动物来对待严重违反道德和逻辑。

在中国，印度，和整个亚洲的新来的自由现象实际上是当地国家养殖场管理人更新了他们的养殖技术。
他们已经发现了，如果给牛一点自由空间，它会给统治阶级更多奶和肉。

统治者也意识到了，如果不让你离开养殖场，你会变得不开心，精神上将会有问题，工作效率将会下降。
当奴隶以为自己很自由的时候奴隶才会比较勤快。因此，统治阶级需要让你产生自由幻想才能夺取到你的工作成果的最大比例。

因此，他们“允许”你离开，但你到不了自由的地方，只能到另一个养殖场去，
因为全世界都是不同的养殖场。
政府会阻碍你随带太多金钱，会用复杂的申请手续缠住你，会限制你就业的机会。。。
但你总可以“自由”地离开。由于这些麻烦，很少有人真的离开，但自由的幻影仍在。
一千牛当中的一个如果走丢了的话，仍在的999头牛更感觉自己很自由，所以养殖场管理人更加获利。

政府也通过许可制度把你束缚于国家内。最有工作效率的动物是专家，所以统治阶级把类似于电子颈圈的“营业许可证”套在他们脖子上，只让他们在自己的养殖场工作。

为了进一步创造自由的形象，有的养殖场还允许当地动物选择统治阶级事先筛选好的人当中的一个代表。
这些人之间的区别很小，而进行选举时从来不让动物选择直接关闭养殖场并过真正自由的生活。

政府学校是动物的教条灌输基地。
在这些地方，学校教儿童要懂得“爱”养殖场，并且教他们害怕真正的自由和独立性，
让他们攻击任何反对养殖场的叛逆动物。政府也为支持政府的知识分子提供待遇良好的工作单位以鼓励他们。

政府的荒唐矛盾 -- 正如宗教 -- 只能在向无助的儿童灌输不计其数的宣传下才有人相信，才能维持下去。

民主主义和某种“社会契约”能容许少数人统治几十亿人这个想法真是太荒唐的了。

如果你告诉一个奴隶他的祖先选择做奴隶，所以他也要做奴隶，他会简单地说：

“如果当做奴隶是一种选择，那么我决定不做奴隶。”

统治阶级最害怕听到的就是那一句话，所以他们让奴隶攻击任何说出类似于这一句话的人。

政府不是一种哲学论。

政府没有历史上或逻辑上的继续存在的依据。

政府是统治阶级的一种拥有人类奴隶的借口。

政府是进行暴力的委婉理由。

各种各样的政府机构都属于养殖人类的解决方案和养殖方法。

宗教是一种受欢迎的迷信，使得儿童产生害怕情绪并且愿意付出代价缓解不安的心情。

爱国主义是一种固执观念，使得当地的动物产生对主人的好感。

迷信的相反不是另一个迷信，而是真实。

一个错误概念的相反不是另一个概念，而是客观的证据和原则。

迷信，错误概念，和政府的相反。。。是哲学。

理性和勇气将会把我们释放了。

你不必要当其他人的奴才。

选择看准真相。

从梦中醒来吧。

True News: The 'Economist' Defends the US Government

The free market of legal bribery meets with the moral approval of the magazine the 'Economist'.

From Freedomain Radio -- Http://www.freedomainradio.com

Greece, Gold and Financial Terrorism - Freedomain Radio Interviews Max Keiser

The economic war being waged against Greece, the EU - and North America!

Max Keiser is a TV presenter, radio host, entrepeneur, broadcaster and journalist.

Max Keiser is the inventor of the virtual specialist technology / prediction markets, Hollywood Stock Exchange, Karmabanque, and PirateMyFilm

Max is presenter of The Oracle with Max Keiser on BBC World News, which aired every Friday from 9 January 2009 through March 2009.

Max also presented films for AlJazeera English and is a blogger for Huffington Post.

Max and Stacy host of the weekly radio talk show, The Truth About Markets, on Resonance 104.4 FM in London every Saturday night since January 2005.

Max is a former Wall Street broker.

The Biology, Morality and Politics of Addiction - Dr Gabor Maté - The Freedomain Radio Interview

Dr Gabor Maté reveals the biological basis of addiction, and the insanity of the statist war on drugs.

http://www.drgabormate.com

Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1944, Gabor Maté emigrated to Canada with his family in 1957. After graduating with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and a few years as a high school English and literature teacher, he returned to school to pursue his childhood dream of being a doctor.

Dr. Maté ran a private family practice in East Vancouver for over twenty years. He was also the Medical Co-ordinator of the Palliative Care Unit at Vancouver Hospital for seven years.

Currently he is the staff physician at the Portland Hotel, a residence and resource centre for the people of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Many of his patients suffer from mental illness, drug addiction and HIV, or all three.

Dr. Maté has had regular medical columns in The Vancouver Sun and the national Globe and Mail.

Widely recognized for his unique perspective on Attention Deficit Disorder, and his firmly held belief in the connection between mind and body health, he is a sought-after speaker and seminar leader on these topics.

He is the author of four books -- When the Body Says No: The Cost of Hidden Stress, and Scattered Minds: A New Look at the Origins and Healing of Attention Deficit Disorder. The third book, Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers, he co-authored with developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld. Most recently published is In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters With Addiction.

True News: Public Miseducation and the Shame of History (from Freedomain Radio)

Why it is sooo insane for pundits to argue that Obama is having a hard time getting things done because the electorate is sooo dumb! :(

'You Are Not Alone' - Freedomain Radio Interviews Dr Richard Schwartz

Richard Schwartz earned his Ph.D. in Marriage and Family Therapy from Purdue University, after which he began a long association with the Institute for Juvenile Research at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and more recently at The Family Institute at Northwestern University, attaining the status of Associate Professor at both institutions. He is coauthor, with Michael Nichols, of Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods, the most widely used family therapy text in the United States.

Dr. Schwartz developed Internal Family Systems in response to clients descriptions of experiencing various parts—many extreme—within themselves. He noticed that when these parts felt safe and had their concerns addressed, they were less disruptive and would accede to the wise leadership of what Dr. Schwartz came to call the Self. In developing IFS, he recognized that, as in systemic family theory, parts take on characteristic roles that help define the inner world of the client. The coordinating Self, which embodies qualities of confidence, openness, and compassion, acts as a center around which the various parts constellate. Because IFS locates the source of healing within the client, the therapist is freed to focus on guiding the clients access to his or her true Self and supporting the client in harnessing its wisdom. This approach makes IFS a non-pathologizing, hopeful framework within which to practice psychotherapy. It provides an alternative understanding of psychic functioning and healing that allows for innovative techniques in relieving clients symptoms and suffering.

http://www.selfleadership.org

The Politics of Obesity - Freedomain Radio Interviews Dr. Robert H. Lustig

An interview uncovering the political and medical causes of the current obesity crisis. To read the article referenced, please visit http://www.fdrurl.com/sucrose

The Fructose Epidemic - An Article by Dr Robert H. Lustig

'Fructose consumption has increased coincidentally with the worldwide epidemics of obesity...' A powerful article on the diseases caused by sugar and high fructose corn syrup. To read the entire article, please visit http:///www.fdrurl.com/sucrose

True News: The Truth About Haiti from Freedomain Radio

The real facts behind the disaster in Haiti - the only natural part of the catastrophe was the earthquake, the rest is man-made. An interview with Carl Lindskoog from the City University of New York..

He has suggested the following links for additional research:

Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti
http://ijdh.org/

Jubilee USA Network
http://www.jubileeusa.org/

Suggested Reading:
Paul Farmer, The Uses of Haiti, 3rd ed. Common Courage Press, 2006.

Josh DeWind and David H. Kinley III, Aiding Migration: The Impact of International Development Assistance in Haiti. Westview Press, 1988.

Alex Dupuy, Haiti in the World Economy: Class, Race, and Underdevelopment Since 1700, Westview Press, 1989.

The Peter Schiff Interview - Freedomain Radio

Economist Peter Schiff answers questions about the coming fiscal crisis, and how to survive it, from Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio.

Global Warming Skepticism: The Freedomain Radio Interview with Warren Meyer

"Millions of lives hang in the balance" - The Scientific, Economic and Political Realities behind Climate Change and Global Warming - an Interview with Warren Meyer of http://www.climate-skeptic.com

Freedomain Radio: http://www.freedomanradio.com

Die "Staats-Matrix" von Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux präsentiert auf seinem Freedomain Radio (www.freedomainradio.com) mehrere Bücher und über 1500 Podcasts mit Nachrichten, historischen Analysen und philosophischen Themen, welche leicht verständlich sind und einen grösseren Zusammenhang des aktuellen Weltgeschehens bieten.

The True Meaning of 'Avatar' - The Freedomain Radio movie review... (spoilers)

From crippled soldier to ten foot tall painted hippy - one of the greatest transformations in artistic history! http://www.freedomainradio.com