The comments below on the Wall Street protests were red-arrowed, one badly and yet they were quite pertinent:
A hundred dollars says that the vast majority of these people are Obama voters therefore liberal Democrats who did or would have agreed with Carter and his Democratic Congress’ passage of the Community Refinance Act in 1977 that was the root cause of our current recession and banking practices. They have no one to blame but themselves. They are surely NOT middle class Americans. There may be a few middle income workers sprinkled among all the rest of the hippies (modern and over-the-hill) but don’t mistake that for middle class America. – Rod, Michigan, USA
The left loves feel-good exercises. Protesting against abstract concepts like ‘greed’ and ‘capitalism’ feels righteous and doesn’t require much thinking. If thinking were required, perhaps some of these protestors would realize they are nothing but dupes for ever-expanding government control of the economy. That is the true objective of the government unions, leftist academics and wealthy agitators who created this amazing opportunity for the kids to show up, shout a bit for the cameras, maybe find a hookup when the sun goes down. Statism has been sold to naive students as ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ for generations. One batch grows up and wises up, and there’s always a new crop ready to swallow the same old leftist lies. – Sir A. Ted Edge, USA
This latter comment was savaged but it is essentially correct. The left hate being called the left and protest that “we should all work together”. What, just as we should all work together for diversity and equality, as defined by “positive discrimination”, for “gay marriage”, for the welfare state, for drugs and condoms for toddlers and for the whole scene? They say education is bad but do they ever think why? Do they ever move beyond “well it was bad in Thatcher’s day” or “Bush was just as bad”?
Do they ever look beyond the abstract word “capitalism” and see just what has been going down for decades and who has been behind it? The 60s were where it really started falling apart, particularly in the educational decline but you have to look beyond symptoms to causes. Education depends greatly on the thought leaders of the age in which it finds itself. In the 60s, these were the Deweys and Piagets, Neale and more broadly – Leary, Marcuse, not so much Reich and also in there were the Eric Foners, quietly being given university chairs and pumping out their bilge.
The curriculum development branches never had a chance, the new teacher trainers never had a chance, the new teachers never had a chance and consequently, the kids never had a chance. Meanwhile, parents were unlearning how to parent and here we are today, also with the Judaeo-Christian moral code abandoned by the majority, even though they nod to it as their nominal “religion”. At this time, feminazis were meeting behind closed doors and furiously rewriting history taught in schools, dropping the patriotic aspect [a very leftist characteristic], thereby aligning themselves with Them.
I mean – really! Just look at this comment which was green-arrowed:
Bankers are capitalist pigs. They like a free market, free to skim anyone they can put their hands on. – EC, US
Clearly written by a leftist. One – he quite rightly identifies the banksters and there is no argument there but he doesn’t identify whom they are running with. According to himIt’s just the banksters alone running government, meaning Washington or Westminster and he only need read Ike’s farewell speech about the MIC to boraden that definition. Two – he sees capitalist “pigs” as corrupt, but lumps in all free enterprise and all bosses. He doesn’t mean just the part of it – Them – who run governments and are interwoven with the banksters – CFR, TLC, BIS, all CBs, C300, Bilderberg, Tavistock, Common Purpose, Rothschilds, Skull & Bones and so on and so on .
He doesn’t see that these are just manifestations of the same crowd. To this leftist commenter, anyone who “has” is the enemy and he who “hasn’t” is the good guy, by definition. What we have to do, according to him, is to redirect the wealth of the rich into his pockets [and some of you others can have some of it too]. It’s all self-interest.
Meanwhile, back in the real but hidden world, “Them” sit in the background and taint anything they touch. They have no patriotism to the nation state and the notion of Constitution is a joke to them, as is immediately apparent in throwaway lines in their speeches. The leftist who wrote that comment above can see only three concepts of the enemy – the capitalist pigs, the fascists and the right [such as us] who enable the capitalist/fascist pigs.
And who are these reactionary pigdog imperialists? Well actually, it is anyone not embracing the leftist vision of “fairness” [meaning discrimination], not embracing “anti-discrimination” [meaning anti anything it defines as a target], anyone showing “racism” [meaning not embracing unfettered immigration], sexism [meaning, for example, that parachutees are only spoken about by "misogynists", that any criticism of women's activism is also misogynist, that misandry doesn't exist and that we should all work together to get Harriet Harmans and Caroline Flints into power]. And so on and so on.
No, no, a thousand times no – that is not the vision we follow but the average person, susceptible to all these vague feelgood terms, does tend to swallow the guff which follows, as defined by the leftist media, e.g. the Beeb. And the left [plus many on the right], just will not accept, refuse to even contemplate, that the whole bloody thing is stage-managed, as The Who obliquely referred to but didn’t quite get to the point of defining more precisely.
So let’s define Them again in terms of specific things members of it have been about.
Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.:
This act [the Fed] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the monetary power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized … The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill.
On October 28, 1939, John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State] gave an address in which he proposed that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.
Less independent? Semi-sovereign? And this is the man who was later in government?
Sixty-six years later, Bush, Martin and Fox met to arrange precisely that, under the auspices of the SPPNA, which is run by the CFR, which comes back to House. So Americans have their sovereignty nibbled away by the influence of a man from the 1920s whom most have never heard of. That’s what’s been going on behind the scenes and before the term conspiracy th … trips off your tongue, just do the research and you’ll see all of what has just been written here and more. It’s there if people would but look.
Always there is this nibbling away [the Fabian method], never the Big Change in the preliminary stages [although that's coming up Oct 2011 - July 2012]:
June 28, 1945 – President Truman: “It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States.”
That’s just plain treason agaisnt both the people who hang on the Constitution as their bulwark and the United States as an entity. And this man was President?
And it’s not just in visible government but with the captains of business. In 1953, Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, told a Congressional commission investigating tax-exempt foundations:
We at the executive level here were active in either the OSS [forerunner of the CIA], the State Department, or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives, the substance of which were to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.
1953 – the height of the anti-communist “scare” and we’ve all read the beat poets and left intelligentsia on all those things. Yet business leaders are suggesting that? It’s time the enemy really was redefined.
They’ve always been at it. Always they are coming out with new ideas, new world projects, new amalgamating proposals, fuelled by this leftist idea of “the whole world getting along together”. The scam is now, as it always has been, that the wrong people are “appointed” to be in charge of it – the very people you do not wish to see anywhere near the reins of power.
Vaclav Klaus in our time, on these people:
Illiberal ideas are becoming to be formulated, spread and preached under the name of ideologies or “isms”, which have – at least formally and nominally – nothing in common with the old-styled, explicit socialism. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.
You want to see the genesis of
the daleks Them:
On May 30, 1919, prominent British and American personalities established the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House; attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes. In 1921, Col. House reorganized the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). [For the past 60 years, 80% of the top positions in every administration - whether Democrat or Republican - have been occupied by members of this organization.
So who the hell was House? Does the average person out there know who has had a major influence on the way our society is now structured and why things have been strangely going awry? And don't forget these people are wholly unelected. You only have to look at their heirs - Barroso, Mandelson, Ashton etc. to see that.
"Leading beyond authority". Anyone heard that before? Go to any council in Britain and you'll find at least one of these people - you could start at Sheffield City Council, for example. Examine Yorkshire Forward in fine detail. Try South-West Region.
This is not talking out of our a***es, this is very real and coming back to the Wall Street protests - these are entirely the wrong people to have speaking on the huge danger we face because they patently fail to understand who the real enemy is - the full extent of that enemy. Sure it includes the banksters and Washington, Westminster et al yet you have to look beyond that to the CFR and elements in Bavaria and Zurich, to name a few. So diffuse, so fragmented, so nebulous, unable to be pinned down and yet they are there, even popping up to speak some new global inanity from time to time.
It goes on and on:
Nov. 25, 1959 - Council on Foreign Relations Study Number 7 calls for a "...new international order which must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, for social and economic change...an international order...including states labeling themselves as 'socialist'."
This is where the left gets terribly confused. The CFR is known for being of the right, is it not?
No it's not - it is global socialist. It is Them. The old labels "socialist" or "capitalist" or whatever, all of which serve their purpose and have sell-by dates, are replaced by some new political movement. A rose by any other name etc. The real enemy who are doing to you all which is happening today and will finally snuff out your freedom wear suits and drink champagne - they're the new oligarchs. They're the old oligarchs. They're the Venetians. You choose whatever labels you like. Whether it is under a green mantle [Maurice Strong, Gore et al] is irrelevant – the only important thing is that the wealth is concentrated in its hands and therefore the political power.
We are disposable pawns in ther vision of the future.
If you’re of the left, you will never get people to combine, all of us in one huge push against Them, until you understand the true nature of the enemy and realize certain things … such as capitalism not being synonymous with banksters and banksters not being synonymous with free enterprise [which we have never had]. When my leftist friends realize that it is the snuffers-out of freedom who are the enemy, not your local shopkeeper down the road, not the person who has built up a business and made a comfortable living for his family, not someone who’s paid off a mortgage in late middle age, then and only then can we start talking about rising up against the oppressor.
And the enemy also include those who unwittingly facilitate these people. I agree iDave is the pits, along with Osborne and Clarke and let’s not even speak of Clegg but look at the alternative. Would you seriously go to a general election and vote in one of Red Ed’s lot? Would you be so tribal as to do that?
Throw the whole lot of the bums out, don’t vote for any of them.