The movers & shakers of BOTH major political parties subscribe to the vision of David Rockefeller, a one-world corporate-type government run by unelected elites. [It's NOT a "secret conspiracy"; it just isn't publicized.] Rockefeller stated in the early '90s that a "world government run by supra-national elites surely is preferable to what we have now", and he revealed how the elites in this country have been working for over 40 years to institute such a govt.
The Iraq war is one tiny part of the effort to convince the masses that such a govt is necessary. Plus, a lot of multi-national companies are making a lot of money off the war. Ike was right about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Once the Middle East and Central Asia are "secure", plans to merge the various commerce-based "Unions" can proceed. By then the Asian Union, the North American Union, and the South American Union will have become practical realities. That's why the elite Dems and Repubs want to keep the Iraq war going as long as possible.
To those who STILL don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the publications of the Rockefeller Foundation. The journal "Foreign Affairs" is a good source as well. The concept has been discussed (by the elites) in obscure think-tank journals and publications for decades.This bizarre and somewhat insane idea is promoted as being entirely altruistic: supposedly, such a govt would eliminate hunger and war world-wide. Sounds great, but (even if true) keep in mind that in the process wealth will be redistributed ON A GLOBAL BASIS. That's already underway. One method is to funnel funds from USAID and the World Bank to U.S. multi-national corporations, as long as they relocate their factories to foreign countries.
Showing posts with label Globalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Globalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Corporate Globalism: The Big Scam
Globalism is part of a 40-year-old plan to establish a corporate-type world government and redistribute wealth on a global basis. The electorate has been snookered by the elites in the two-party monopoly, both Democrats and Republicans.
David Rockefeller must be pleased as punch. He has stated publicly, ever since the early '90s, that once we have a one-world corporate-type government in place, the world will be so much better off. He's proposing a weird sort of corporate-socialism (my term, not his) in which jobs, wealth, and other resources will be redistributed in order to eliminate poverty world-wide...yeah, right. America, of course, will be the head honcho of this whole ridiculous scheme...and the Corporate Elites will run the whole show from on high. That's why America must be certain to have access to world-wide natural resources.
The first task in the plan was to make multi-national businesses rich and all-powerful---that's pretty much done. Next was to form commerce-based global "Unions"---that's about half done. Next is to totally eliminate national sovereignty. Next is to merge the various economic "Unions". [At the moment, I forget what's after that.]
Very few have paid attention because someone somewhere sometime started saying that the whole thing was an "Illuminati" secret conspiracy... so people who actually read the obscure think-tank journals where all this was OPENLY described, and tried to warn others, were relegated to the tin-foil hat brigade. It's NOT a conspiracy...it's NOT secret (just not publicized)...and it has nothing to do with some Illuminati group. But it does exist...the plans have been pursued ever since the early '60s. The whole scheme has been discussed (by the elites) in journals such as Foreign Affairs for decades. David Rockefeller admitted to all this years ago, and stated that the one-world government to be run as a corporation (by non-elected elites) is "surely preferable to what we have now". (!) That's a direct quote.
We've been sold a bill of goods...and a big part of that is the MYTH that Republican and Democrat elites are somehow very different from each other. They aren't. They support the plan.
To those who still don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation. Globalism IS the Corporatocracy, and the elite movers-and-shakers in both parts of the two-party monopoly are a significant part of the whole thing. The "have-mores" will prevail as long as the electorate allows the elites to divide and conquer...pitting one group against another.
David Rockefeller must be pleased as punch. He has stated publicly, ever since the early '90s, that once we have a one-world corporate-type government in place, the world will be so much better off. He's proposing a weird sort of corporate-socialism (my term, not his) in which jobs, wealth, and other resources will be redistributed in order to eliminate poverty world-wide...yeah, right. America, of course, will be the head honcho of this whole ridiculous scheme...and the Corporate Elites will run the whole show from on high. That's why America must be certain to have access to world-wide natural resources.
The first task in the plan was to make multi-national businesses rich and all-powerful---that's pretty much done. Next was to form commerce-based global "Unions"---that's about half done. Next is to totally eliminate national sovereignty. Next is to merge the various economic "Unions". [At the moment, I forget what's after that.]
Very few have paid attention because someone somewhere sometime started saying that the whole thing was an "Illuminati" secret conspiracy... so people who actually read the obscure think-tank journals where all this was OPENLY described, and tried to warn others, were relegated to the tin-foil hat brigade. It's NOT a conspiracy...it's NOT secret (just not publicized)...and it has nothing to do with some Illuminati group. But it does exist...the plans have been pursued ever since the early '60s. The whole scheme has been discussed (by the elites) in journals such as Foreign Affairs for decades. David Rockefeller admitted to all this years ago, and stated that the one-world government to be run as a corporation (by non-elected elites) is "surely preferable to what we have now". (!) That's a direct quote.
We've been sold a bill of goods...and a big part of that is the MYTH that Republican and Democrat elites are somehow very different from each other. They aren't. They support the plan.
To those who still don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation. Globalism IS the Corporatocracy, and the elite movers-and-shakers in both parts of the two-party monopoly are a significant part of the whole thing. The "have-mores" will prevail as long as the electorate allows the elites to divide and conquer...pitting one group against another.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Tragic Comedy
The two-party monopoly in American politics is elitist, nonrepresentative, and mostly a tragic comedy.
I think it's all a big show...meant to distract us from the discovery that:
1) our borders slowly are being eliminated;
2) our national sovereignty slowly is being eliminated;
3) our money is virtually worthless (which will enhance the transition to the NAU "Amero");
4) multi-national corporate Globalism rules, not American interests...especially in economic and energy matters;
5) the purpose of a national ID is to keep track of us, not terrorists;
6) some unalienable individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the State is nothing but propaganda promoted by central planners;
7) foreign policy is designed to secure foreign natural resources and Corporatocracy business interests;
8) both political parties believe that the Corporatocracy is essential to our survival;
9) Government is no longer the servant; and,
10) the two-party monopoly has, for all intents and purposes, trashed our Constitutional Republic.
The Democrats are as big a tragic comedy as is King George. Except for a few minor corrections in the country's flawed path, the Dems spend most of their time making excuses, squabbling amongst themselves, and doing virtually nothing (or worse, providing support) in regard to the Globalist Corporatocracy takeover of our economy. Their impotence is unbelievable...and damning...and suspicious.
As for the Republicans, well, obviously they have been hijacked by those who believe in the philosophy of Irving Kristol (who formerly was a Trotskyite), the American Empire NeoCons. But even prior to that, Republicans have contributed to all of the points listed above.
The Republi-crats are the elitist Government Club. They all talk a good talk...and every so often produce a flurry of seemingly beneficial activity. Meanwhile, the march toward 1984 continues unabated...and supported by the two-party monopoly.
So, We the People are pretty much shafted...unless...
we boycott the Establishment two-party monopoly on a massive scale, thus crumbling the repressive ballot-access laws, political elitism, and Corporate Media political propaganda. Only then will folks with integrity and honor have a chance of being elected and making a difference. Our only chance is to return to citizen (not professional) politicians. [Our Founders never imagined that anyone would want to make a career out of the snakepit in DC. They figured people would serve a term or three and then go back to their real jobs.]
I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many people still believe that the rotten political system can be changed by remaining within the bounds of that system (the two-party monopoly). I look back over the last half century and ask myself, "How can they still believe that?".
I think it's all a big show...meant to distract us from the discovery that:
1) our borders slowly are being eliminated;
2) our national sovereignty slowly is being eliminated;
3) our money is virtually worthless (which will enhance the transition to the NAU "Amero");
4) multi-national corporate Globalism rules, not American interests...especially in economic and energy matters;
5) the purpose of a national ID is to keep track of us, not terrorists;
6) some unalienable individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the State is nothing but propaganda promoted by central planners;
7) foreign policy is designed to secure foreign natural resources and Corporatocracy business interests;
8) both political parties believe that the Corporatocracy is essential to our survival;
9) Government is no longer the servant; and,
10) the two-party monopoly has, for all intents and purposes, trashed our Constitutional Republic.
The Democrats are as big a tragic comedy as is King George. Except for a few minor corrections in the country's flawed path, the Dems spend most of their time making excuses, squabbling amongst themselves, and doing virtually nothing (or worse, providing support) in regard to the Globalist Corporatocracy takeover of our economy. Their impotence is unbelievable...and damning...and suspicious.
As for the Republicans, well, obviously they have been hijacked by those who believe in the philosophy of Irving Kristol (who formerly was a Trotskyite), the American Empire NeoCons. But even prior to that, Republicans have contributed to all of the points listed above.
The Republi-crats are the elitist Government Club. They all talk a good talk...and every so often produce a flurry of seemingly beneficial activity. Meanwhile, the march toward 1984 continues unabated...and supported by the two-party monopoly.
So, We the People are pretty much shafted...unless...
we boycott the Establishment two-party monopoly on a massive scale, thus crumbling the repressive ballot-access laws, political elitism, and Corporate Media political propaganda. Only then will folks with integrity and honor have a chance of being elected and making a difference. Our only chance is to return to citizen (not professional) politicians. [Our Founders never imagined that anyone would want to make a career out of the snakepit in DC. They figured people would serve a term or three and then go back to their real jobs.]
I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many people still believe that the rotten political system can be changed by remaining within the bounds of that system (the two-party monopoly). I look back over the last half century and ask myself, "How can they still believe that?".
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A Paradigm Shift in Politics
The word "paradigm" and the phrase "paradigm shift" should be reserved to the natural sciences (and excluded from the social sciences), according to the reknowned Thomas Kuhn--- author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Despite that, the words have found their way into many disciplines; therefore, with apologies to Kuhn, we shall apply them to politics.
The old paradigm in politics---Conservative versus Liberal (not classical liberal) or Right versus Left [or even Republican versus Democrat]---is rapidly dying, or already dead. This notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary. A new paradigm has been emerging for decades, and so, we are in a paradigm shift of monumental proportions and significance. The new paradigm is not easy to describe or comprehend, but we'll give it a try below.
This description is not meant to be all-encompassing or strictly definitive, but merely an overview of the situation. Nor is it meant to coin terms. For lack of established terms, let's refer to one group in the new paradigm as the Globalist Corporatocracy, or for simplicity, the Corporatocracy. It is comprised of elites in the banking field, the corporate landscape, and the Government (particularly the Fed Govt) who are loosely joined by mutual interests and goals. We shall refer to the other group---much more difficult to define---as the National Sovereignty-Individual Sovereignty-Populist folks, or for simplicity, the Sovereigns.
The Sovereigns, though comprised of dissimilar groups, have evolved into a broad political category largely because of a shared disappointment with Government. Even folks of the Progressive Left have begun to realize that they have common interests and goals with Conservatives (not Neoconservatives) and Libertarians when it comes to issues such as individual rights, and accountability in Government. Many Sovereigns undoubtedly still do not see completely that Government and Corporatism now have a perfect marriage in the U.S., but the opportunist Bush is making that lack of sight more and more a thing of the past.
Our current President (King George), who ran in 2000 on a platform with planks of a humble foreign policy and no nation-building, completely reversed himself once elected. Commentators may crow forever about how 9-11 changed everything, but elements of the Bush Administration had plans for more use of the military and for nation-building LONG before 9-11. We may thank the current Administration, however, for bringing together unlike groups of people who finally are beginning to see the outline of a Shadow Govt (the Corporatocracy).
The Corporatocracy continues to promote the old political paradigm (Right versus Left) because it makes the electorate easier to manipulate. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mainstream, Corporate Media---which appear to be dominated completely by the Corporatocracy. Edward R. Murrow's warning about the devolvement of (in particular) TV News shows into vehicles controlled by biased Corporatism certainly was right on the mark. The old "divide and conquer" strategy is blatantly obvious in Corporate Media's promotion of an outdated, dying political paradigm. Pitting one group against the other is a good way to keep the shadow government out of the light of exposure. [The premise is: our ills are not due to the Corporatocracy, but rather to the activities of the Right...or, those of the Left.]
In our opinion, the paradigm shift became readily apparent (though it existed previously) shortly after the 1964 Presidential election. Barry Goldwater (the Right) and Lyndon Johnson (the Left) had been through a volatile and heated campaign for the Presidency, and Johnson won in a landslide victory. There were many issues involved, but it eventually boiled down to this: Goldwater was portrayed as a "warmonger", and Johnson was portrayed as the "peace" candidate. Keep in mind that up until the election our involvement in Vietnam was relatively minor. We all know what happened: after being elected to office and sworn in as President, it didn't take Johnson long to begin an exponential escalation of the Vietnam "War" (it was officially known as the Vietnam Conflict, primarily because Congress had not declared war). The "peace" candidate of the Left became the "warmonger" of the Right, so to speak.
Johnson did not run for a second full term, so in 1968 it was Richard Nixon running against Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey definitely could be considered a Liberal, but Nixon---though he ran as one---was no Conservative. At best, Nixon was a Moderate. He ran vowing to end the increasingly unpopular Vietnam "War". We all know what happened: Nixon took office in January, 1969, and our involvement in Vietnam did not end until 1975. [Nixon was out of office by then, due to the Watergate scandal.]
The point of this bit of history is to illustrate that the influence of the Corporatocracy was becoming more and more apparent in the middle to late '60s, and into the '70s. The military-industrial complex made a ton of money because of the involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam. Johnson, the "peace" candidate in '64, most likely was influenced heavily by the military-industrial complex (a major part of the Corporatocracy) to expand the war. Same with Nixon, who had run on a platform of ending the war. The Corporatocracy won---it didn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat was President.
Other moves by the Globalist Corporatocracy can be seen in my previous post, The Fed Government & the Corporatocracy. The ultimate goal is seamless global business, with the political governments of the world run by a Corporatist shadow government, all for the benefit of billionaires. In all fairness though, we should concede that a few members of the Corporatocracy (e.g., David Rockefeller) do have some altruistic goals---they actually believe that they can save the world (eliminate poverty, etc.) if only we eliminate the restraints of national sovereignty and have a one-world government run by business people (corporatists).
In order for the Sovereigns to be politically effective, they have to throw off completely the old Right-Left paradigm. Should that happen (and it probably will...eventually), a political force will emerge that is fully capable of defeating the Corporatocracy. Until then, we should expect less individual freedom, the virtual elimination of borders, almost zero accountability in government, and more war.
The old paradigm in politics---Conservative versus Liberal (not classical liberal) or Right versus Left [or even Republican versus Democrat]---is rapidly dying, or already dead. This notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary. A new paradigm has been emerging for decades, and so, we are in a paradigm shift of monumental proportions and significance. The new paradigm is not easy to describe or comprehend, but we'll give it a try below.
This description is not meant to be all-encompassing or strictly definitive, but merely an overview of the situation. Nor is it meant to coin terms. For lack of established terms, let's refer to one group in the new paradigm as the Globalist Corporatocracy, or for simplicity, the Corporatocracy. It is comprised of elites in the banking field, the corporate landscape, and the Government (particularly the Fed Govt) who are loosely joined by mutual interests and goals. We shall refer to the other group---much more difficult to define---as the National Sovereignty-Individual Sovereignty-Populist folks, or for simplicity, the Sovereigns.
The Sovereigns, though comprised of dissimilar groups, have evolved into a broad political category largely because of a shared disappointment with Government. Even folks of the Progressive Left have begun to realize that they have common interests and goals with Conservatives (not Neoconservatives) and Libertarians when it comes to issues such as individual rights, and accountability in Government. Many Sovereigns undoubtedly still do not see completely that Government and Corporatism now have a perfect marriage in the U.S., but the opportunist Bush is making that lack of sight more and more a thing of the past.
Our current President (King George), who ran in 2000 on a platform with planks of a humble foreign policy and no nation-building, completely reversed himself once elected. Commentators may crow forever about how 9-11 changed everything, but elements of the Bush Administration had plans for more use of the military and for nation-building LONG before 9-11. We may thank the current Administration, however, for bringing together unlike groups of people who finally are beginning to see the outline of a Shadow Govt (the Corporatocracy).
The Corporatocracy continues to promote the old political paradigm (Right versus Left) because it makes the electorate easier to manipulate. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mainstream, Corporate Media---which appear to be dominated completely by the Corporatocracy. Edward R. Murrow's warning about the devolvement of (in particular) TV News shows into vehicles controlled by biased Corporatism certainly was right on the mark. The old "divide and conquer" strategy is blatantly obvious in Corporate Media's promotion of an outdated, dying political paradigm. Pitting one group against the other is a good way to keep the shadow government out of the light of exposure. [The premise is: our ills are not due to the Corporatocracy, but rather to the activities of the Right...or, those of the Left.]
In our opinion, the paradigm shift became readily apparent (though it existed previously) shortly after the 1964 Presidential election. Barry Goldwater (the Right) and Lyndon Johnson (the Left) had been through a volatile and heated campaign for the Presidency, and Johnson won in a landslide victory. There were many issues involved, but it eventually boiled down to this: Goldwater was portrayed as a "warmonger", and Johnson was portrayed as the "peace" candidate. Keep in mind that up until the election our involvement in Vietnam was relatively minor. We all know what happened: after being elected to office and sworn in as President, it didn't take Johnson long to begin an exponential escalation of the Vietnam "War" (it was officially known as the Vietnam Conflict, primarily because Congress had not declared war). The "peace" candidate of the Left became the "warmonger" of the Right, so to speak.
Johnson did not run for a second full term, so in 1968 it was Richard Nixon running against Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey definitely could be considered a Liberal, but Nixon---though he ran as one---was no Conservative. At best, Nixon was a Moderate. He ran vowing to end the increasingly unpopular Vietnam "War". We all know what happened: Nixon took office in January, 1969, and our involvement in Vietnam did not end until 1975. [Nixon was out of office by then, due to the Watergate scandal.]
The point of this bit of history is to illustrate that the influence of the Corporatocracy was becoming more and more apparent in the middle to late '60s, and into the '70s. The military-industrial complex made a ton of money because of the involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam. Johnson, the "peace" candidate in '64, most likely was influenced heavily by the military-industrial complex (a major part of the Corporatocracy) to expand the war. Same with Nixon, who had run on a platform of ending the war. The Corporatocracy won---it didn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat was President.
Other moves by the Globalist Corporatocracy can be seen in my previous post, The Fed Government & the Corporatocracy. The ultimate goal is seamless global business, with the political governments of the world run by a Corporatist shadow government, all for the benefit of billionaires. In all fairness though, we should concede that a few members of the Corporatocracy (e.g., David Rockefeller) do have some altruistic goals---they actually believe that they can save the world (eliminate poverty, etc.) if only we eliminate the restraints of national sovereignty and have a one-world government run by business people (corporatists).
In order for the Sovereigns to be politically effective, they have to throw off completely the old Right-Left paradigm. Should that happen (and it probably will...eventually), a political force will emerge that is fully capable of defeating the Corporatocracy. Until then, we should expect less individual freedom, the virtual elimination of borders, almost zero accountability in government, and more war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)