BrusselsThere is an issue looming over this way and that is between the left wing and centre-right bloggers [the majority of the political bloggers in the blogosphere].
By and large, if you skip round the political blogs, the centre-right gets stuck into the left and puts difficult questions [because these are easier to find] and scorns when the left avoids them and calls for everyone to be nice to one another instead.
The centre-right interprets this to mean that the left has no answers for their curly questions because their philosophy doesn’t stand the light of day and the left “know” in their hearts that they are correct in their ideals. So they say nothing and think their ideals are slowly being realized, if only they keep up the struggle.
Two left wingers recently suggested that one should be careful flinging around epithets – presumably they meant the epithet of socialist. The problem with epithets was alluded to in the post on the Crusades which was more a political than a religious post, i.e. that groups and individuals adopt a label to project an image and align themselves with a certain desirable [in most people’s minds] stance, when in fact their true stance is anything but benign.
The Democratic Republic of Germany was the example I used.
There are three major thrusts in political life but most people see only two and that’s why the terms left wing/right wing are so convenient and comfortable to use.
Almost no one identifies the third discrete political thrust, which I label Them, for want of a better term. Them includes what is generally accepted as communists, extreme nationalists [in terms of their methods], global socialists, anarchists, Gore-nutters, monopolists [aligned anyway with the State – see the Morgan Fed], higher degree Masons and a rag tag of other extreme views which wish to see the complete transformation of society resembling 1984.
The greatest problem for those who can only see left wing/right wing is that Them cut across all political spectra. The [alleged] worst capital monopolists, e.g. Goldman Sachs, are in the same trough as the Trotskyites and Maoists. Skargill and Mandelson are of the same ilk, all attached to a world view which is anything but benign.
They suck in the left through its do-gooder, nicy-nicy idealism where everyone loves everyone else and everything’s in the great melting pot and they cynically play on that. The result is the way all socialist movements which have ever gained a foothold have gone – it always ends up the same way:
# inflation, followed by great unemployment;
# massive and crushing debt, such as Maggie inherited from the Wilson era and passed on to Blair who made it many times worse again;
# vast bureaucracy, most administering the administrators or chasing people up for things which it was entirely unnecessary for the State to involve itself in in the first place;
# nannyism – the view that people cannot make do or get on in life unguided or without social engineering;
# social engineering, multiculturalism, relativism, moral equivalence, the denial of moral absolutes, political correctness and its stablemate – revisionism, the proliferation of human degradation – drugs, child sex etc., breakdown of the family unit;
# the move to the police state, ID cards, data bases, CCTV, Health and Safety procrusteanism, the hemming in of people into their own homes and the need for passes to go anywhere or find work, all in the name of making us happier and safer;
# procrusteanism, forcing all into impossible equality and yet demanding of each according to his/her expertise for no difference in remuneration;
# the elimination of incentive to try, to set up a new business, to try a new idea and the slow blanketing of the nation, the snuffing out of life and joy, in a malaise of weariness and resignation to the inevitable.
When Them work on the ambitious, the young capitalist trying to make good in a “free market”, we get the Billionnaire Boys Club, the Nick Leesons, the Royal Scottish, the greed, the belief that one is above the riff-raff stuck in their employee status. These people are the movers and shakers, so Them lead them to believe, playing on vanity, indifferent to others’ suffering, narrowly selfish and adoring, nay, fixated on that comfort that only riches can bring, free of any inevitable social consequences [or so they believe].
Common Purpose is semi-governmental and yet it plays on this Elite motif, the feeling that one is above the common herd who are expendable via warfare or even swine flu. The Elite don’t travel on public transport by and large, they don’t mix with the common herd, they become immune from humanitarian considerations although they believe they are the true humanitarians, re-ordering society for the better – the yahoos ruled by the wise, the adepts, of which they are part.
So when Cherie says that Gordon Brown is right wing, she doesn’t see what is really happening. Them work on the left and right equally. Brown is one of Them, a believer in The Great Work of Ages, the grand plan, the re-ordering of society in line with global considerations. Cherie is correct in this respect - he is not of the movement she thought they were all part of - idealistically desiring to raise the living standards of the poor, wanting to reorder society so that everyone is equal and has a fair chance – the impossible dream.
The cynical Them know it is a dream for two reasons:
# they’d never allow it to come about – they never have allowed it throughout history, with the stakes so high;
# it is the way they can get their hooks into the agenda, through the portal of leftish people’s essential niceness and failure to understand the politcal process in all its nastiness.
Any attack on Them can be easily deflected by appealing to the do-gooder leftist’s natural disinclination for the cold-hearted, aggressive approach and by appealing to the conservative's rationalist view on most issues.
The reason society is in such trouble is the simple fact that it cannot recognize the presence, the existence of Them, its true enemy though the stateless, non-party political Sutherlands and Mandelsons are right before their eyes, the simple fact that people instantly label any attempt to expose Them as conspiracy theory without ever delving into the matter, the simple fact that Them keep a super-low profile and operate within Round Tables and Inner Circles, far away from the milling hordes, making it triply impossible to get people to see what is happening.
Here is The Club in operation:
All very chummy, great entertainment but precious little to do with undoing the damage done to the nation.
Them laugh when a leftist suggests that capitalism caused the current woes or when the free enterprise advocate blames socialism for Britain’s current ills. Though the latter is undoubtedly true and the greed of the monopolist capitalists knows no bounds, both left and right miss the point that it is the machinations of Them which is behind all major social upheavals – these monopolist capitalists are part of Them. They are not the average free-marketeer.
For those who doubt the presence and the conniving of Them, I ask the doubter to explain Colonel House. It's a good starting point. Read not only the bowdlerized and sanitized potted biography but the documentation of the time, including congressional papers and there you see Them in all their arrogant ignominy.
The hope for this part of the world is that these people are so dog-eat-dog that should Irish Lisbon 2 be passed and Cameron gets in, he will be forced by pressure into a position of holding an EU Referendum and the EU will be severely damaged. With the other bloodsucking states in the EU feeding off Germany, France and Britain, with Britain essentially gone over to the U.S., Germany and France will be at each other’s throats and the whole Sauronesque Mordor might just tumble to the ground.
It’s a small hope, a tiny flicker and not yet forlorn.
Here's a little video on some of the ways Them operates:
.
Bravo!
ReplyDeleteHowever you crumble the cake, it was disgusting to learn from this recent estimate that we are governed by a political oligarchy comprising only 29,000 people:
ReplyDelete"The number of politicians and their advisers on the UK public payroll now tops 29,000, BBC research has found. The figure includes councillors, MPs, peers, MEPs, members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies and their staff.
"Their total cost is estimated at more than £499m for the year 2007/8."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8147353.stm
That compares with a UK electorate of 44 millions. At the last general election in 2005, a larger percentage of the electorate didn't vote than the percentage which voted for the Labour candidates of the winning party. The electoral system we have is not remotely representative:
"The average electorate size [in the 2005 general election] was 68,492. In Conservative won seats the average was 72,715, Labour 66,665, LibDem 69,162, Plaid Cymru 44,296, and SNP 58,448. . . The average majority was 7,687. Among Conservative seats the average was 8,283, in Labour seats 7,815, and in the LibDem seats it was 5,357."
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/results.htm
"Labour majority of 67 based on 35.2% of the UK vote - flimsiest base of public support ever for a majority government. Labour supported by only 9.6m out of 44.4m voters - lowest total of Labour votes in any post-1945 election except for 1983. With turnout an abysmal 61.3% this government was supported by only 21.6% of whole electorate. . . For every million who voted Labour they secured 37 MPs, for every million who voted Conservative they achieved 22 MPs and for every million who voted Liberal Democrat they secured 10 MPs."
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/opus19056.html
Yes, gerrymandering, Bob.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of bankers, we owe to Nathan Rothschilds, I believe, the perceptive insight that there are three ways to ruin: wine, women and engineers: if the first two are the most enjoyable, the last is the most certain. By reports, he was particularly motivated by the Caledonian Canal project:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
Excellent post
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding Issues.
ReplyDeleteLet us now look at developments.
First, in order to set the scene, let's recapitulate a section from a previous part, from Prof Carroll Quigley's book, TRAGEDY AND HOPE. (First published, 1966).
"...The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations....
"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called 'international' or 'merchant' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. this dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and
throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their
own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds though bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their own control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupes, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates."
That passage was also included in the Introduction to the book, written by Michael L. Chadwick.
Continued 2His narrative continues........
ReplyDelete“For the next twenty-five years I traveled throughout the United States, Europe and the Middle East following one lead after another to determine if the incredible words of the professor were really true. While serving as the Editor of a scholarly journal on international affairs, Director of the Center for Global Studies and foreign policy advisor for a key U.S. Senator in Washington, D. C.,
I conducted over 1000 interviews with influential world leaders, government officials, military generals, intelligence officers, scholars and businessmen, including corporate CEOs and prominent international bankers and investment bankers. I went through over 25,000 books and over 50,000 documents. I learned for myself that the professor was telling the truth.
There really is a "world system of financial control in private hands" that is "able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world." I call this system the World Trade Federation. It is an ultra-secret group of the most powerful men on the earth. They now control every major international institution, every major multinational and transnational corporation both public and private, every major domestic and international banking institution, every central bank, every nation-state on earth, the natural resources on every continent and the people around the world through complicated inter-locking networks that resemble giant spider webs. This group is
comprised of the leading family dynasties of the Canada, United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and China. This self-perpetuating group has developed an elaborate system of control that enables them to manipulate government leaders, consumers and people throughout the world. They are in the last stages of developing a World Empire that will rival the ancient Roman Empire. However, this new Empire will rule the entire world, not just a goodly portion of it as Rome did long ago, from its ultra-secret world headquarters in Germany.
Continued 3
ReplyDeleteThis group is responsible for the death and suffering of over 180 million men, women and children. They were responsible for World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam, etc. They have created periods of inflation and deflation in order to confiscate and consolidate the wealth of the world. They were responsible for the enslavement of over two billion people in all communist nations—Russia, China, Eastern Europe, etc., inasmuch as they were directly responsible for the creation of communism in these nations. They built up and sustain these evil totalitarian systems for private gain. They brought Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Roosevelt to power and guided their governments from behind the scenes to achieve a state of plunder unparalleled in world history. They make Attila the Hun look like a kindergarten child compared to their accomplishments. Six million Jews were tortured and killed in order to confiscate billions of dollars in assets, gold, silver, currency, diamonds and art work from the Tribe of Judah–a special group of people. The people in
Eastern Europe suffered a similar fate as the armies of Hitler overran these countries, murdered, enslaved, robbed and plundered the unique people who resided there. For the last two and one half centuries wealth and power have been concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer men and women. This wealth is now being used to construct and maintain the World Empire that is in the last stages of development. The World Empire is partly visible and partly invisible today.
The chief architects of this new World Empire are planning another war—World War III—to eliminate any vestiges of political, economic or religious freedom from the face of the earth. They will then completely control the earth. and its natural resources. The people will be completely enslaved just as the people were in the ancient Roman Empire. While the above may sound like fiction, I can assure you that it is true. I wish it was fiction, but it is not, it is reality.
The above recitation is quite blunt, perhaps more blunt than the professor would have liked, but he knows and I know that what I have just written is true. However, most people do not want to know that such a Machiavellian group of men, spread strategically throughout the world, really exists. They prefer to believe that all is well and that we are traveling down the road to world peace, global interdependence and economic prosperity.
This is not true.
The above professor describes the network I have just described in elaborate detail— far too elaborate for most people. That is why I am truly surprised that it was ever published. […........] The contents of the above book will probably astound most people. Most people will undoubtedly not believe the professor. That will be a great mistake. Why? Because many of the tragedies of the future may be avoided with proper action.
Winfred, thanks - always welcome.
ReplyDeleteQuiet Man, thanks - I miss you. Where are you now?
Sonus - artillery when needed, thanks.
Continued 3
ReplyDeleteThe apathy and indifference of people in the Western World to the suffering, torture, misery, bondage and death of millions and millions of people around the world in the years ahead may be one of the greatest tragedies of the twenty first century.
The message of the above volume is that the last century was a tragedy that could have been avoided. The author argues that wars and depressions are man-made. The hope is that we may avoid similar tragedies in the future. That will not happen unless we give diligent heed to the warnings of the professor. Unless we carefully study his book and learn the secret history of the twentieth century and avoid allowing these same people, their heirs and associates—the rulers of various financial, corporate and governmental systems around the world—from ruining the twenty first century, his work and the work of countless others will have been in vain.
[….]
The insights and information contained in his massive study open the door to a true understanding of world history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In fact, if the scholar, student, businessman, businesswoman, government official and general reader has not thoroughly studied
Tragedy and Hope there is no way they can understand the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is a work of exceptional scholarship and is truly a classic. The author should have received a Nobel Prize for his work”.
Sonus:- Quite an introduction, don't you think!
The author of that introduction. Michael L Chadwick, goes on to say,-
“In 1996 I published a 24 volume study entitled Global Governance in the Twenty First
Century. The multi-volume work was the result of my extensive travels and research
throughout the United States, Europe and Middle East. It fully collaborates the assertions
and statements made by professor Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope. It is my sincere
hope the reader will take the time to carefully peruse and ponder the words of this rather
remarkable book. And afterwards, I hope the reader will have a desire to thoroughly read
and ponder the contents of Global Governance in the Twenty First Century”.
Continued 4
ReplyDeleteSonus speaking now....
Tragedy and Hope was published in 1966.
For the life of me I cannot understand how it came to be. Multiple national leaders, and probably hundreds of lesser functionaries have been murdered over the decades for showing opposition to this secret cartel.
Since 1966, nothing much has changed.
I mentioned John Perkins, and his book, “The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. This took place, mainly in nations in Southern America in the 1980s, although there were activities in the middle east.
During the 1990s, we experienced the multiple nation, South East Asian financial crisis, once again created by the same players using excessive loans that could not be repaid, the organised flight of “western capital” that resulted in the economic collapse of the targeted nations.
And now, from the late 90s, to present time, we witness the calculated destruction of the western middle classes, and the transfer of wealth to a smaller and smaller wealthy minority. Only in feudal times has the concentration of wealth in so few western families been so marked. And the UK has an allegedly “nulab” government.
In his book, Prof Quigley analyses the four stages of civilisations, thus,
“From these studies it would seem that civilizations pass through a process of evolution which can be analysed briefly as follows: each civilization is born in some inexplicable fashion and, after a slow start, enters a period of vigorous expansion, increasing its size and power, both internally and at the expense of its neighbors, until gradually a crisis of organization appears. When this crisis has passed and the civilization has been reorganized, it seems somewhat different. Its vigor and morale have weakened. It becomes stabilized and eventually stagnant. After a Golden Age of peace and prosperity, internal crises again arise. At this point there appears, for the first time, a moral and
physical weakness which raises, also for the first time, questions about the civilization's ability to defend itself against external enemies. Racked by internal struggles of a social and constitutional character, weakened by loss of faith in its older ideologies and by the challenge of newer ideas incompatible with its past nature, the civilization grows steadily weaker until it is submerged by outside enemies, and eventually disappears”.
Prof Quigley states that western civilisation differs from ALL previous civilisation because it had the ability, when the “Age of Crisis” came, to reorganise itself, and enter in to the “Vigorous Expansion” stage again. :- “It was this ability to reform or reorganize itself again and again which made Western Civilization the dominant factor in the world at the beginning of the twentieth century”.
Continued 5
ReplyDeleteAfter much detailed global analysis of multiple historical civilisations, Prof Quigley says,
“From a narrowly technical point of view, this shift from an Age of Conflict to an Age of Expansion is marked by a resumption of the investment of capital and the accumulation of capital on a large scale, just as the earlier shift from the Age of Expansion to the Age of Conflict was marked by a decreasing rate of investment and eventually by a decreasing rate of accumulation of capital”.
This is absolutely true. The genius Martin Armstrong in his latest writings “Destroying Capital Formation, - Economic Suicide” makes the point :-
“Direct taxation has always been the destroyer of civilisation. When Constantine the Great came to power, contemporary writers recorded events stating that there were more tax collectors (army) than tax payers. Indeed, following the great monetary crisis of the third century, the Roman Emperor Diocletian created the concept of the passport, and restricted movement to ensure that the government could collect its taxes.
We no more live in a free society today, than they did in Imperial Roman times. Whatever the government wants, it will justify, and the courts are merely an extension of the Executive desires. […..]
Just as Socrates was wrong believing that in a democracy, justice will always prevail, his famous debate with Thrasymachus, recorded in Plato's Republic, spoke the truth far more than one can comprehend. Thrasymachus argued correctly that “justice” is the same in all forms of government from dictatorships to democracies. He pointed out that all laws are passed in the self interest of the State. Therefore, justice is the same in all forms of government, it is only the self interest of the state.
This is all part of the same cycle. Edward Gibbon pointed out in his celebrated “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” that one of the primary causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire was (present currently in our own system) is the sheer corruption of the rule of law as the government always stacks the courts to ensure that they will always win. Gibbon made it perfectly clear that corruption had infiltrated the entire criminal law process and indeed that a “distinction of every kind soon became criminal”. Under the reign of Commodus 180-192AD, the son of Marcus Aurelius 161-180AD, where the line has been drawn from the peak of the Roman Empire, we find that Commodus began to target the rich by the abuse of his criminal laws, because of the loss of economic power. […] Under the reign of Commodus, ownership of wealth made you a target, and suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial by condemnation.
[…]
Continued 6
ReplyDeleteWhen the rule of law collapses, and the self interest of the state dominates, capital cannot long survive. It flees. […] People began to flee from Rome during the reign of Commodus, and this trend was given a Latin name, - Suburbian. The rights, privileges, and immunities disappeared, and the thrust of Roman Law became only the self interest of the state. Gibbon wrote that the Roman government prosecutors became “the most worthless of mankind who are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorder which they allow in themselves”. […].
Rome collapsed because the rule of law became corrupted. Rome became “corrupted by the multiplicity of laws”, that the judges, “being pro-government, (as today) merely interpreted the laws, according to the dictates of private interest” [...]”
Sonus:- Concisely put, Rome collapsed because military overstretch created a need for more taxes to pay government debts. The rich were targeted for their wealth, and iniquitous laws were created to extract that wealth. The rich went away, and in so doing withdrew their wealth. This created the greatest contraction of money supply and trade in history. The “Dark Ages” followed. Treasure was buried, literally, and then forgotten.
“The disaster of the dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices.......Without money,civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish.
At the Christian Era, the metallic money in the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800million, at the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200million History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages”
The US Silver Commission, 1876.
Here is a link.
Here
Think carefully about what you have just read, and relate it to the current economic/social situation.
Those were not my words, they were the words of celebrated ,world renowned, professors of history.
Continued 7
ReplyDeleteThink about ever more irrelevant laws emanating from the EU, or petty UK officials, that create criminals for over-filled dustbins, or wrong bins out on wrong days, - designed to inculcate obedience to state authority. Think about passports, data bases, RFID chips, medical record data bases, DNA data bases, illegally created/held. Think of teflon coated police forces with, in practice, legal immunity from prosecution, and being arrested under terrorism laws for photographing teflon police in action. Think of e-mail snooping, phone bugging, surfing patterns held by ISPs. Think of state sponsored sex education for 5 year olds, designed specifically to imitate the US state education experiment/experience that created proven massive problems within a generation, all dressed up, of course, in convincing language. Think of the web of debt now created, and the coming flight of capital, private and corporate, when taxes are increased after the next election.
Think of a panoply of PC laws designed to criminalise you, and protect the politicians FROM you. Think chipped passports, think un-chipped elites, think strategically.
Sigh!
We live in a Fiat world. The western world is highly indebted at a personal, corporate, and government, and international level.
Rather than let due process of bankruptcy laws take their course, western governments have chosen to create more taxpayer debt by bailing out failed institutions, because they were scared of the political/voter backlash of immediacy, choosing instead the slow drip of future taxation and inflation, for future generations. International imbalances of trade, which should never have been created, created creditor and debtor nations that complicated any unwind. In the UK, recognise that the government largely responsible for these problems faces an election shortly. I will return to this theme later.
The total amount expended to date, by both the UK and US governments would have more than compensated all the deposit holders of the failed institutions, and also created a new, debt free, banking presence. Deep Capture on both sides of the Atlantic prevented this.
Continued 8
ReplyDeleteSo the western world is at a critical phase, as defined by Prof Quigley, and exampled by the fall of the Roman Empire, and the question we must address is the survival of the western culture as we know it. True, western capitalism in various forms has been transplanted throughout most of the world at this point, what I am referring to is Democratic, Free Market Capitalism. Can that element, that concept, regain its strength, to replace the Deep Capture Crony Capitalism of the US, or the State/Crony Industry Directed Capitalism of the EU, and increasingly, Brown, and the Capitalism, of Russia, and China, in whatever way you care to define them? We must also recognise that behind each of those definitions lies the corruption of the CFR, ECFR, the Trilateral and the Bilderberg, members and the perverted aspirations of their leaders, and the “families” behind the curtains. We must also recognise that those families, or their servants, dominate the IMF, UN, BIS, WHO, LBMA, and every other international body.
What we are witnessing is the failure of the US type of capitalism and EU type of capitalism, as defined above. Democratic Free Market Capitalism would NOT have created the problems currently besetting us. Market forces, free of manipulation, would have corrected the faults.
By their actions, western governments are still defying market forces, and it WILL end in tragedy for the populations, but by that time current politicians will be gone, with golden pensions trousered.
Can democratic Free Market Capitalism return? That is a difficult question.
Let us back-track a little.
In parts 5 and 6, I explained how emerging nations were subverted by Economic hitmen, in the employment of US based international companies, but profiled and trained by agents of the US government. Outrageous loans were given, always repayable in dollars, US companies would be the civil contractors who actually received the loans, the emerging nation responsible for the debt. As the debt load slowly destroyed the economy of the emerging nation, western capital would be systematically withdrawn to further collapse the economy and the currency of the emerging nation, so that the debt would now be unpayable in US dollars from a collapsed local currency. At this point, western creditors (banks) would seize undervalued assets, or the IMF would be called in to negotiate another loan, repayable in dollars, usually on even more stringent terms, which would involve austerity measures embracing the entire economy, which effectively gave control of the economy to the creditor western banks, via the IMF.
Remember, control is the objective of these people! - control of finance, control of natural resources, including food!
Iceland has just failed, and their currency underwent a massive devaluation. I mentioned this in an earlier post.
Continued 9
ReplyDeleteHere is an Icelandic blog. Tab down and watch all the videos, they revert to English after about thirty seconds. It would be useful if just once, somewhere in the world, the anchor man displayed a little economic knowledge, however,.......They feature a world famous economist, and also, John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. Listen carefully.
Here
Here is another series of videos, on a blog that is well rated. Once again, listen to Prof. Shakespeare carefully.
Here
At this point I would like to back-track in history a little further.
Prof Quigley, in his book, and Michael l Chadwick, in the introduction, made some statements concerning hidden financial cartels that have the power to manipulate the entire world.
I would not blame any reader for being doubtful concerning the accuracy of these claims. I was when I first commenced reading along these lines. Now I do not doubt. The evidence is all around us.
Therefore, in addition to the evidence produced in the previous parts, here is a melange of quotations from history. They will prove my point, and the points of the authors, beyond a shadow of doubt. Be prepared to have your world view shattered, that is, if it already isn't.
“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was directed long before the civil war by the high financial powers of Europe.
These bankers were afraid that the united states, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.
Otto Von Bismark, 19th Jan, 1923.
Sonus:- History shows that the states did become “United” as one nation. Otto was speaking of an early period in the US history, when the financial powers in Europe sought a fragmented structure to better control.
The point here is to consider the current EU policy of “regions”, which deliberately breaks up “nations”, having each “region” report directly to the centre, each region having a separate budget, set from the centre, with “carbon credits” (permission to manufacture/exist!) issuing from the centre.
Continued 10
ReplyDeleteConsider things strategically, people, the EU politburo is acting in strategic terms, designed purely for “control”, just as the financiers think! They have the same objectives.
“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy”
Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln's Secretary of Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, stated publicly, shortly after the passage of the National Banking Act, in 1863:
“My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. It should be repealed, but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side, and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never seen before in this country.”
Here is the link to chapter 49, read it for yourself, the constant corruption by the English banking cartel, whose families still exist, working to control the new colonies.
Here
Lincoln succeeded in restoring the government's power to issue the national currency, but his revolutionary monetary policy was opposed by powerful forces. The threat to established interests was captured in an editorial of unknown authorship, said to have been published in The London Times in 1865:
"If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
In 1865, Lincoln was assassinated. According to historian W. Cleon Skousen:
"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."
Continued 11
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the entire article, by Ellen Brown, in an open letter to President Obama.
Here
Ellen Brown is an accomplished Professional, her blog site home page is here
Here
The Book, “Web of Debt” is featured here. James, try reading chapter one, it is free to download. (Towards the right hand side of the page)
Here
Otto Von Bismark said the following concerning the assassination of Lincoln:-
“The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom.
There was no man great enough in the United States to wear his boots.......I fear foreign bankers with their craftiness and their tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it to systematically corrupt modern civilisation. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos, in order that the earth should become their inheritance”
Sonus:- O V B clearly laid the assassination of Lincoln at the door of the “Money Trust”. He was also entirely correct in his predictions, as we shall see shortly.
An “American Bankers Association” was formed to pursue the objective of a central bank, with the power to issue money, (debt) under the same architecture as the B of E, and to withdraw the “greenbacks” totally. These banks progressively withdrew loans and contracted the money supply, deliberately to create economic upheaval, until in 1877, riots broke out.
The banks response was to do nothing.
The “American Bankers Association” issued a letter to its members:-
“It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money, and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money,...To repeal the act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders”.
James Buel American Bankers Association.
Here
James Garfield was elected president on the 4th March, 1881.
He made the statement :-
“Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce..... and when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few, very powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate”.
James Garfield was assassinated and died later on 19th September, 1881.
Continued 12
ReplyDeletePressure from the bankers for a monopoly on the issuance of money persisted. The Congressional record of 29th April 1913, shows that a further letter from The American Bankers Association was circulated to members in 1981.
“On 1st September, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two thirds of all the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price....Then the farmers will become tenants, as in England...”
Well, the techniques have changed very little. The Roman Empire is the prime example of the devastation caused by the contraction of the money supply.
Banks have used the technique for hundreds of years to manipulate the public and politicians into demanding more stability, by selecting solutions offered by the bankers. In the 1980s, and 90s, they used the technique on entire nations, now the entire planet is on its knees.
James Garfield realised all those years ago, as did Lincoln before him, as did the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution, that in a Fiat system, booms and busts were deliberately manufactured by those controlling the money supply, and that therefore the creation of the money supply should be the responsibility of the Government of the day. The bankers pressure was always geared towards wresting that power from the government, and seizing it for themselves.
Now they have that power in many countries, and they are moving to control the world.
And so, omitting a few skirmishes, we come to 1913, and the Federal Reserve, and Jekyll Island, 1910, and the secret meetings. A link to a video of this history was given in Part 1. Here it is again. Please, please watch it in its entirety to understand the power of this system, and the lengths bankers will go to attain that power
Here
also read the book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island”, by G. Edward Griffin.
The bankers who gathered on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia, in 1910, at the private resort of J P Morgan, to prepare the details of the Federal Reserve Act, were:-
Continued 13
ReplyDeleteNelson W Aldrich, Republican whip in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, business associate of J P Morgan, father-in-law to John D Rockefeller, Jr., and maternal grandfather to Nelson Rockefeller.
Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury.
Frank A Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, the most powerful of the banks at that time, representing William Rockefeller and the international investment banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co,
Henry P Davison, senior partner of J P Morgan Company.
Charles D Norton, president of J P Morgan's First National Bank of New York.
Benjamin Strong, head of J P Morgan's Bankers Trust Company.
Paul M Warburg, a partner in Kuhn Loeb and Company, and a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg, who was head of the Warburg Banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands.
(Paul M Warburg was the only expert on the European Model of a central bank, and thus he became the principle architect and guiding mind throughout all the discussions.)
Benjamin Strong, head of J P Morgan's Bankers Trust Company would eventually become Chairman/Head of the Federal Reserve, from 1914 to his death in 1928.
Together these seven men represented an estimated one quarter of the total wealth of the entire world at that time.
The centralisation of control over financial resources was far advanced by 1910.
In the US, there were two main focal points of this control: the Morgan group, and the Rockefeller group. Within each orbit was a maze of commercial banks, acceptance banks, and investment firms. In Europe the same process had proceeded even further, and had coalesced into the Rothschild group and the Warburg group.
This was the power of those men that gathered to plot the Federal Reserve Act, and the subsequent financial take-over of the United States. And note also, that part of the effort to gain that objective, was the temporary collapsing of their own economy! They play for high stakes, with a long term plan, - they know the profits to be made long term, once the objective is achieved.
Continued 14
ReplyDeleteThe Jekyll Island conspirators also had another, shorter term objective at that time, the elimination of competition.
Competition was coming from a new trend in industry, to finance future growth out of profits rather than from borrowed capital. This was the outgrowth of free market interest rates which set a realistic balance between debt and thrift. Rates were low enough to attract serious borrowers, but high enough to deter frivolous ventures. The balance between debt and thrift was the result of a limited money supply. Banks could create loans in excess of their deposits, but there was a limit. The limit was created ultimately by their supply of Gold. Between 1900, and 1910, 70% of the funding for American corporate growth was generated internally, making industry increasingly independent from the banks. Even the Federal government was becoming thrifty, gold bullion stocks were increasing, Greenbacks were being systematically redeemed, and the National Debt was being reduced.
This would be death to the banks, and the trend had to be reversed. They had to intervene in the free market to tip the the balance of interest rates downwards, to favour debt over thrift. To accomplish this the money supply had to be disconnected from Gold. (Remember in an earlier part how I explained the role of Gold and how its price had to be suppressed, and interest rates lowered, - two contradictory economic targets that could only be attained by gross market manipulation)
A further problem that the seven conspirators faced was that of “currency drain”. Currency drain occurs between banks because of cheque writing by customers making purchases from companies, and those companies paying those cheques into banks other than the bank they were drawn on. Banks who created more loans than the overall average were at greater risk of “currency drain”, which would eliminate their balances. Historian John Klein states that “The financial panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 were an outgrowth of reserve pyramiding and excessive deposit creation by … banks. These panics were caused by “currency drains” in periods of relative prosperity, by differing loan creation policies between various banks”.
In summary, the 7 conspirators had 4 objectives
1) How to eliminate growing competition from small, rival banks and to ensure control remained with the 7 gathered.
2) How to make the money supply more elastic, with lower interest rates, and reverse the trend towards private capital formation and to recapture the industrial loan market.
3) How to pool the reserves of the banks into one large reserve so as to force all banks to follow the same loan-to-deposit ratios and avoid the problems of “currency drainage”.
4) In the eventuality of the collapse of the whole banking system, how to move the losses from the owners of the banks, to the taxpayers.
Continued 15
ReplyDeletePaul M Warburg, the brains behind the details of the eventual “Federal Reserve Bank” was a leading member of the investment firm M M Warburg & Co, of Hamburg, Germany, and Amsterdam, in Holland. He had traveled to the US 9 years earlier with his brother, Felix, and with funding by the Rothschild Group, he and his brother Felix had been able to buy partnerships in the New York investment banking firm, Kuhn Loeb & Co, while continuing as partners in M M Warburg, in Hamburg.
A third brother, Max Warburg, was the financial adviser to The Kaiser, and became Director of “The Reichsbank” in Germany. This was a “Central Bank” and formed one of the models used by Paul M Warburg, to design the structure of the Federal Reserve Bank. Incidentally it was the Reichsbank that created the hyper inflation in Germany which wiped out the middle classes in Germany, and the entire economy. I linked to this incident in Part 5. (Wiemar hyper-inflation)
Warburg's plan was modified before it was legalised, the modification being that the 12 major banks, (Warburg had wanted all) would be headed by persons appointed by the President of the US, thus it was thought that political control was maintained. Warburg viewed these as administrative difficulties to be worked round later.
And so we move forward to WW1, where the German Branch of the Rothschild Dynasty loaned money to the German government, the British branch of the Rothschild Dynasty loaned money to the British government, and the French branch loaned money to the French Government. In the US, J P Morgan became the largest purchaser of war materials from US factories on behalf of the British and French nations, $10 million per day.
In January 1875, Jacob Schiff was invited to join Kuhn Loeb & Co. He brought with him his connections with Sir Ernest Cassel of London, Robert Fleming of Dundee (later of London), and Edouard Noetzlin of the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas. On May 6, 1875, he married Therese Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb. The couple were the parents of a son, Mortimer, and a daughter, Frieda who married Felix Warburg, of Kuhn Loeb.
Jacob Schiff was elected a director of Wells Fargo in September 1914 to succeed his brother-in-law, Paul Warburg, who had resigned to accept appointment to the original Federal Reserve Board.
Jacob Schiff's descendant Andrew Newman Schiff is married to former Vice President Al Gore's daughter, Karenna.
Current politicians tell us that “The Business Cycle” is a natural part of a capitalist system. Every system has an ebb, and flow, many times correlated with the psychology of a nation, aggressive, optimistic, pessimistic, etc, and they use this excuse constantly. I made the point in an earlier Part that under a controlled Fiat system whatever target was required, absent extraneous circumstances, it would be achieved. Brown said using his methods would eliminate the boom and bust cycle, - and he freed the B of E to set the nations interest rates. He changes the measures used to assess “inflation”, and then requires a “free” bank to target the new measures. He sets spending targets to be spent over “the business cycle”, which he supposedly eliminated, and then adjusts the timing of the business cycle to suit his “political” spending when things go wrong. Do you believe him?? Is he honest?? In anything?? He does NOT understand pro cyclicality, or anti-cyclicality. At all.
Continued 16
ReplyDeleteRead this quotation.
“To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do is to lower the rediscount rate, ....producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when.......Business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check.....prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the interest rate
It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.
This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privileged class by any government that ever existed.
The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money.
They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance”.
Rep Charles Limbergh (R-MN) 1914.
At least politicians were slightly more honest 100 years ago.
This is a quotation.
“The course of Russian history has indeed been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers....The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board.....acting through the Chase Bank.
England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve Banks, and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government......The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks”.
Rep Louis T McFadden (D-PA) Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920s and into the Great Depression Years 1931.
Vladimir Lenin eventually understood the manipulation. Powerful as he was, he was powerless against the cartel.
“The State does not function as we desired.
The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel, and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes”.
Continued 17
ReplyDelete"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." - Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991.
"I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money." -
Ernest Seyd, agent of Bank of England.
"The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices... Without money, civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800 million. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,million. History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..." - United States Silver Commission
"I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. .. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." -John Danforth, Republican senator from Missouri, reported in the Arizona Republic of April 21, 1992
Continued 18
ReplyDelete"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States." -Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
"Your money's value is determined by a global casino of unprecedented proportions: $2 trillion are traded per day in foreign exchange markets, 100 times more than the trading volume of all the stockmarkets of the world combined. Only 2% of these foreign exchange transactions relate to the "real" economy reflecting movements of real goods and services in the world, and 98% are purely speculative. This global casino is triggering the foreign exchange crises which shook Mexico in 1994-5, Asia in 1997 and Russia in 1998. These emergencies are the dislocation symptoms of the old Industrial Age money system." - Future of Money by Bernard Lietaer
Here is a simple story for you. It cuts through the fog.
One of the master corporate criminals in charge of ransacking the US Treasury in recent years has been investment banker Goldman Sachs. One of their comrade companies has been AIG, the now 80%-owned government insurance company which failed last year and had to be bought out to the tune of $75 Billion worth of taxpayer money. AIG was a conduit company used by Goldman to route those taxpayer funds into their own accounts under the cover of "CDS"---unregulated insurance policies---which AIG had supposedly written to cover losses Goldman suffered as a result of the recent market meltdown.
Goldman just happens to have its tendrils entwined everywhere in the government and especially so in the Treasury, as you no doubt know. The Chief Financial Officer of Goldman, David Viniar, says he's "mystified" by the current government probe into possible criminal conspiracy between Goldman and AIG.
Continued 19
ReplyDeleteYves Smith at NakedCapitalism.com points out that:
Viniar pretends Here AIG is a mere "counterparty." Let's see, the CEO of AIG was recently a board member of Goldman and still owns $3 million of Goldman stock. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street representative asked to confer with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson when the AIG crisis broke. AIG paid out all its counterparties in full on their exposures at each downgrade, a move that has since been questioned, and Goldman was far and away the biggest recipient of these payments. Viniar's defense is that the payments netted to zero, which is technically correct but more than a tad misleading---why should Goldman be made whole on a bad business decision? Since when is the taxpayer in the business of propping up Goldman, particularly since the firm paid large bonuses in 2008? And, unlike AIG, where the bonuses are mere chicken feed, we are talking bonuses easily in excess of $10 billion.
And, we should add, the former Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, was, of course, a key player at Goldman before starting his government job under Bush. Remember, the whole transfer of cash from the taxpayer to banks was his idea. Hmmm.... Sounds like strong circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy, doesn't it? Anyone who claims the bankers are innocent victims in this scam has been looking the other way while the crooks made off with the money.
The power of the banks is absolute. They control the media and what you read and hear. For instance, after criticizing the corruption in the banking system, Dylan Ratigan of CNBC-TV was summarily fired. [Caution: if you have a blood pressure problem, for your own health do not listen to the interview.] He pointed out exactly what we've been pointing out: the crooks screwed up and they now have our money. Rick Santelli's days on air are likely numbered in the small digits if he expresses his opinion again.
According to Wikipedia:
Ratigan left the network on 2009-03-27 after naming Goldman Sachs as one of the alleged perpetrators of government sanctioned insurance fraud against U.S. taxpayers, according to a taxpayer fund probe conducted by the New York Attorney General's office and the ensuing subpoena issued to AIG for disclosing the recipients of credit default swap contract payouts funded by taxpayers, thus resulting in Ratigan's last appearance on CNBC from the floor of the NYSE. The New York Times reported he was considering all options but quoted him as saying he was dedicated to covering the economy, "The story that is affecting every American in every setting."
Final
ReplyDeleteMore on Goldman Sachs in political prisoner Martin Armstrong's Behind the Curtain,
Here
It tells how a hired thug tried to murder Armstrong in prison to keep him from telling the truth about Goldman Sachs and their takeover of our country and its institutions, including government. The attack almost succeeded---Armstrong spent a week in intensive care and almost didn't survive the ordeal. But, he's telling all now from behind prison bars.
I left blogging to look after a relative. I thought I'd left the blog in hiatus, however it seems I deleted it by mistake. Unfortunately, I can't get online as often as I'd like and any regular posting will be some time off in the far future.
ReplyDeleteJames.
ReplyDeleteThose were my thoughts on a further part to "Understanding Issues" series.
I gave up writing for a number of reasons.
Primarily the disgust that became overwhelming, the more I dug into the details. The global wholesale slaughter, and poverty, create by unsustainable debt.
Secondly, time, - I am pushed right now.
If the above is of use to you, good, it may help.
Suffice to say that at the moment, China principally, and many of the emerging nations, are pushing for an end to the debt based criminality, and are working through the BIS.
The West is shaken.
Naturally, all this is below the headlines.
Enjoy!
Er ... um ... thank you, Sonus. If this is you "not" writing, I wonder what you writing would be? :)
ReplyDeleteI shall commence on it now.
Quiet Man, I did catch that comment of yours somewhere along the way here.
I've read to number eight so far and will use much of this in point form. At this moment, I ahve a psot in the pipeline on Mullins and I'd like your opinion on him.
ReplyDeleteNow, you wrote:
Tragedy and Hope was published in 1966.
For the life of me I cannot understand how it came to be. Multiple national leaders, and probably hundreds of lesser functionaries have been murdered over the decades for showing opposition to this secret cartel.
I also can't understand how Mullins is still alive, unless they know that his work is so extensive that it's difficult to get through [not unlike you at times, old chap].
My task is to break it into bite sized portions with backup and post it as a series. I should have made your original series in to 12, not 6.
OK, back to the reading.
Wow! thank you Sonus, you have covered the three things I was trying to get James to see. The cycle, privatisations, big corporations.
ReplyDeleteWe just seem to get bogged down by the left/right/socialist issue which isn't where I was coming from at all.
No Cherie, you have completely misconstrued and misread what Sonus said.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, you clearly have neither read my post, which people have kindly commented and agreed is the case, nor have you learnt any lesson from this at all.
It was intended to show you in particular that by calling Brown right wing, you were in error. This is not a case of "getting James to see" but of getting Cherie to see, which you seem to refuse to do.
Sonus has backed this up by showing that Them does indeed exist. You seized on the word "corporations" without understanding anything of what you had read or in which context.
It was here for you to read - a lot of time and effort on both of our parts and for what? Nothing?
Try to actually read my paost and then Sonus's comments.
1. From Sonus:
ReplyDeleteThis group is responsible for the death and suffering of over 180 million men, women and children. They were responsible for World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam, etc. They have created periods of inflation and deflation in order to confiscate and consolidate the wealth of the world.
This is what Sonus said:
So the western world is at a critical phase, as defined by Prof Quigley, and exampled by the fall of the Roman Empire, and the question we must address is the survival of the western culture as we know it.
A far cry from your "The cycle, privatisations, big corporations" or about getting bogged down in left/right/socialist.
Cherie - what was the title of the post? It was about Them, wasn't it and how they suck in both left and right.
Sonus also said:
What we are witnessing is the failure of the US type of capitalism and EU type of capitalism, as defined above. Democratic Free Market Capitalism would NOT have created the problems currently besetting us. Market forces, free of manipulation, would have corrected the faults.
This is what my post said. Those of us who believe in free market capitalism know that it would have corrected the faults but not the global socialism pursued by the EU or America.
The problem is, from your left wing perspective, you can't see two types of capitalism - one which is monopolistic and destructive - this is global socialism, which I've been referring to for some time.
The other type is good capitalism - the free market type.
2. Sonus adds and I have blogged on this many times previously - try searching this blog under Jeckyl Island:
ReplyDeleteTogether these seven men represented an estimated one quarter of the total wealth of the entire world at that time.
The centralisation of control over financial resources was far advanced by 1910.
In the US, there were two main focal points of this control: the Morgan group, and the Rockefeller group.
What we are both referring to is Them - the leadership of your party and the Tories is part of Them.
My article showed how the do-gooder socialism of yourself and many others, designed to help out the less fortunate and your own members towards a decent living standard [quite commendable] is nevertheless always hijacked by Them.
I also pointed out that capitalism is also hijacked by Them and produces Morgans and Nick Leesons.
Read Mullins on the Federal Reserve and you'll see what we mean, Sonus and I.
3. In this Dylan Rattigan interview [posted here by Sonus]:
ReplyDeleteHere 'tis
... he stated:
The problem with this bubble is that it has put a few billion dollars into a few guys’ pockets and left us with absolutely nothing.
You, Cherie, and I would agree on that, no? Now what do you conclude from that? That capitalism is corrupt and that nationalized resources, production and the redistribution of wealth are the answer? I shan’t put words in your mouth.
Here is the next part of the interview:
We need to use capitalism to solve our energy problems so we’re not dealing with the middle-east. We need to use capitalism to solve our health care problems … we need to use the innovative and creative force of capitalism and we demand that our policy makers create structures that allow for this possibility as opposed to simply engendering the very short sighted interests of the lobbyists so that they can line their own pockets.
That’s what the leftists get wrong. They say capitalism has caused all this, ipso facto we get rid of capitalism and give socialism a chance.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is precisely what Them has manouevred us into wanting to see happen. But there'll never be any socialism - there never ever has been - it's always been hijacked by Them into State or National Socialism.
Every time.
Rattigan again - we need to use the innovative and creative force of CAPITALISM and we demand that our policy makers create structures that allow for this possibility.
We need to cut Them out of the equation and the only way is to institute GENUINE CAPITALISM.
We need to create new industry and firms and thus provide employment for all your members, Cherie.
That's the way to go.
Would probably help if you read what I had to say rather than make assumptions!
ReplyDeleteCherie, let me ask you a question.
ReplyDeleteIf you see inequality and injustice, do you expect the government to step in and correct it?
Are you asking me if that is what they should do or if that is what they will do?
ReplyDeleteYou have mail BTW
Common Purpose
ReplyDeleteIf they should.
ReplyDeleteLooked at the mail. Nothing yet but will check again.
I think they should, but they don't
ReplyDeleteThe non receipt of the email makes me wonder if you haven't received quite a few I was sending...
Anon - I'm having trouble finding his piece on CP. Part 1 didn't have it and Part 2 had to be extracted via search engine. I'm listening to that now but it's on Afghanistan. Do you know when CP comes up?
ReplyDeleteCherie - your reply means you believe in intervention by the government, whereas the classic liberal or free marketeer does not - he says that the government should interfere to a minimum and certainly not on social issues.
This is the traditional left versus right divide. The left believes the solution is legislation to adjust anomalies and spending on the issue.
The right believes that government should stay out of it, more money remains in the community thereby instead of being frittered away on possible solutions. That money causes people to be more prosperous overall, demand is strong, supply tries to meet it and there is employment.
Those who miss out - most centre right people believe that there has to be a catchment, definitely but not on the massive scale there is now.
Where do you stand on this?
My reply was a response to a single issue, it doesn't mean I believe in left or right ideals. The question as you raised it didn't mention the monetary cost and I didn't base my answer to include that.
ReplyDeleteNow going back to your left right argument I could say well there should be no rules, the people should be able to work it our for themselves. But if we work on that libertarian thought to the extreme that would mean anarchy...
It is all about balance.
I am not sure what you mean about the catchment so you need to explain that a bit more.
Next morning
ReplyDeleteCatchment - I meant catching those who are genuinely incapable through age, mental or physical but not social disability.
We might as well cut to the chase and look at the single teenage mother who goes directly to welfare as a matter of course. Schools are almost factories now.
Compassion says that a single mother can't defend herself so if that is used as a starting point, she needs support, doesn't she?
Even if she made an error, rather than did it deliberately or through ignorance [but I've heard a few girls in this area actually discussing it in detail]she still has to have baseline support because we don't throw people on the street in the UK.
Fine - now the next question - who supports her? The taxpayer or the ratepayer? The trouble is that these people are not greedy in saying they don't wish to support her - they are hurting economically themselves right now and many are on the brink.
That's before it even gets into the moral argument of the employed person who is under the hammer [employers wanting more than their pound of flesh these days in this interfered with market]with mortgages, credit debt and with pensions stolen by Brown, not qualifying for any state assistance, supporting someone else who's never worked.
What's been the historical solution, even in Britain? The extended family - it's their responsibility. Either that or she finds her own solution through a partner.
Into this comes the moral fluidity of the current day, having abandoned the old values [let's not get religious].
To argue that this girl has every right to be pregnant at fifteen and if she "chooses" to be single, then what business is that of ours - fine, fine. But does she expect the taxpayer and ratepayer to pay for that freedom and right?
The first step back from this brink [and you know the figures on debt now] is to set a timeframe for non-essential dole people to come off it, say five years, nothing draconian, during which time she learns a trade with the help of the extended family. A gradual thing.
Accompanying that [and it must accompany it] is immediate repeal of a raft of wasteful socialist government legislation, e.g. pursuing people for not doing the rubbish bins properly, cutting wastage like equality legislation and People Wellbeing departments, quangos, false charities, ID cards, vast databases - it goes on and on, those employees redeployed into other departments, albeit for less money all round in the country and therefore all costs also reducing in tandem due to market forces.
A period of belt tightening, rather than total collapse in 2010.
Taxation is progressively altered and councils reined in so that it is appealing to set up businesses in the area again, removing concessions and alowing competition, which is the only sustainable answer to unemployment.
In the compassionate context of those changes, people are weaned off the dole and back onto work.
What's happening instead today is that people are soon to be excised and thrown onto the street because of public calls for "cuts"; essential medical attention is going to be withheld and so on.
To address your own points, Cherie:
ReplyDelete"Now going back to your left right argument"
Left, right and THEM. You're still leaving out THEM. This is what the post was about and all Sonus's comments. Not about left/right.
[Slight pause while that is considered]
"I could say well there should be no rules, the people should be able to work it our for themselves."
Who exactly is calling for NO rules? Did you detect anyone, Cherie, in this discussion, discussing an anrchical situation with no rules?
"But if we work on that libertarian thought to the extreme that would mean anarchy..."
Agreed. If taken to the extreme. But who's taking it to the extreme? Who exactly was calling for no rules?
Have you read LPUK's manifesto?
The Rule of Law encompasses, amongst other things, property rights, due process, equality and transparency. It also includes the notion that there should be as few laws as possible, and that those that do exist should be simple, clear and predictable in their application.
We shall shift towards taxing spending, not income. The State has a responsibility to not destabilise the economy nor create government debt, which is both a tax on the existing population and a mortgage on our children's future.
I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. [Milton Friedman]
State interference in land use and housing often results in an unresponsive market or projects that suit outside interests and not the community. Our policies aim to reverse this position, and put local people back in charge of local developments.
Hardly anarchy, is it?
"It is all about balance."
What sort of balance? Balance between prices and income or balance between State intervention and non State intervention?
How does one "balance" that? How does one stop the State encroaching more and more when the ruling party's platform promise is "‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’"?
Where is the balance there? They plan to take over all institutions of society and put them in the hands of the state, except where they are not profitable and in those cases, they'll have PFIs.
Please tell what you meant by "balance"? Where is the incentive for private small and medium businesses to start up in this "balance"?
Tavistock
ReplyDeleteRecap
ReplyDeleteThe Shape of Things to Come!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anon.
ReplyDeleteGoldman Sucks interactive relationship map.
ReplyDeleteSwine flu began in a lab
ReplyDeleteThis could be "Plan B"
The ultimate control of a "disgruntled" population, when economic stimulus fails.
Note that once again Tamiflu is being bought by the millions.
I blogged on Tamiflu maybe 18 months ago, when Bush officials were major shareholders in the company that developed Tamiflu, and now extracts a royalty on every unit sold.
Gilead Sciences
One
ReplyDeleteTwo
Three
Four
I'm very late to this thread.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what anyone has to say on questions of society who is not, broadly speaking, classical liberal, which includes a universe of opinion by itself. So my only important criticism, if I have any important criticicm, can only be directed at what are present-day conservatives.
I think you are carrying a degree of error in your thinking that has been established so long ago it has been accepted as part of conservative custom. You may recall that Chesterton wrote brilliantly about this.
When you say a single girl who becomes pregnant--intentionally or intentionally--must be helped, you have bought into the destruction of society with a revolutionary idea that you would have opposed in a previous generation for its obvious consequences.
It is the baby who must be helped. That is a completely different thing. Adoption and orphanages are a vast improvement over what is being inflicted on these children, and society.
This is the cruel result of our endless stuggle to think well of ourselves. What may take years to create takes so little effort to destroy.
Not a year passes without some bubble popping in my expectations that was placed there forty years ago. Sometimes it was placed there with the best of intentions, but lately I think that is so less and less.
I haven't bought in, Xlbrl. Of course it is the baby but in a moment of weakness, not wanting to alienate the single mum readers, I wrote what I did.
ReplyDeleteOf course I agree with you.
A good point, Xlbrl.
ReplyDeleteHowever, supporting the child would also require a change in the definition of the "couple" that would be eligible to adopt the child.
And that would require a major return to "common-sense" thinking, an old paradigm that would require significant re-writing of legislation and the roll-back and death of many lunacy based sacred cows.
Once would hope so.
ReplyDeleteI must quickly learn to see through the lens of British understatement.
ReplyDeleteV late on this I know but my two penneth. There are four kinds of sociaslist.
ReplyDelete1/ There is the tribalist, like the Glasgow East voter who's reasons for voting labour were that their father and grandfather had. They will decline in numbers over decades- but only from a lack of new recruits
2/ The convinced socialist who believes in authority wielded by a politician who started from humble beginnings. These can be convinced otherwise by experience, provided there is in fact an opportunity for them to actually change their votes
3/ Those who genuinely believe that socialists in authority will work for the common man. They again can be convinced otherwise by experience with the same caveats.
4/ Those who seek power over other men and use the above three groups to achieve it. Even if socialism were killed, these last would find another excuse to dominate their fellow men.