Corporatism or Them?

The Occupy movement must be dismayed that we all don’t get on down to St Pauls or Wall Street and join the throng [not overnight though – many go home to sleep]. The issue is that we all see a different enemy and there was a debate [?] at my place about that some days back.

I maintain, as I always do, that it is “Them”. One lady was dismissive about there being any Them – what’s this Them? No, it’s corporatism at fault and why do we:

“fight against each other instead of joining forces to oppose corporations who buy politicians”

What she needed to add to that was maybe what Lord Somber brought in: “particularly the transnational ones” for it’s within them that the interesting things happen.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Transnationalprogressivis.shtml

The error is in extrapolating blame to all corporations, e.g. Starbucks [although some say that’s cultural imperialism and its relationship with its workers is another question].

There is most certainly something beyond the corporation. Ike called it the military-industrial complex, Senator Jenner called it “a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening”.

We get whiffs of it.  For example, the Trilateral Commission has a strong connection to the EU Commissioners and the major corporations in Europe. Why?

#  Zbigniew Brzezinski [mentioned in Part 1]
#  Peter Sutherland [European Commission]
#  David Rockefeller [’nuff said]
#  Paul Volcker [chairman of the Federal Reserve under Carter]
#  Sadako Ogata

Look at her sanitized CV here. Here is her real self though:

Libya anyone?  Iraq, Afghanistan?  Rwanda or Darfur?

Interesting bunch of people, yes?  Corporatists?  Well they serve on boards around the world, directing, voting for things.  They’re Directors, aren’t they?   Or advisors, such as in Common Purpose “advisors”, unelected, unnoted in council publications but still in those offices doing their “advising”.  And what did their alma mater teach them?  Leading beyond authority.

Another Director, Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR’s “Foreign Affairs, wrote:

“How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?”

This is a man who, being CFR, is probably thought of as one of the business elite but he’s something else. The Independent’s obit on his son wrote of him:

“Sir Harold Butler, a member of the Ormonde clan, was head of the International Labour Office in Switzerland.”

Now there’s an interesting connection – CFR, a descendant of a baron and yet a Labour man in the heart of Europe. So where are left and right here? Seems more sensible to call this an unholy alliance between aristocracy and labour.
Take two of the main culprits of this corporatism  – Peter Sutherland and Viscount Davignon.

Sutherland: an Irish international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland, associated with the Fine Gael party (part of the European People’s Party bloc). He is a barrister by profession, and is also Senior Counsel at the Irish Bar. He is also known for serving in a variety of business and political roles.

What a mix, eh?

Davignon: As chairman of Société Générale de Belgique, he was a member of the European Round Table of Industrialists. He is the current co-chairman of the EU-Japan Business Dialogue Round Table, chairman of the Paul-Henri Spaak Foundation, president of the EGMONT – Royal Institute for International Relations, chairman of [CSR Europe], chairman of the European Academy of Business in Society and current chairman of the annual Bilderberg conference.

What links all these industrialists, barons, banksters, board members, lawyers and council officers in areas not their own? A common outlook unites them:

Feb. 7, 1950 – International financier and CFR member James Warburg tells a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”

That might be precisely the corporatism the lady was referring to and in that case, it’s only the terminology we disagree on. It’s something more though than just the corporation. The corporation was just the route by which they got to be with all those other people and the mechanism for carrying out their goals, whatever they happen to be.

Take board member of Tesco, Veronique Morali – so, businesswoman, yes? What the hell has she to do with Coca Cola in Atlanta, Georgia then? She’s a director, not on the management side, so she knows diddly-squat about business itself:

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Georgia/Atlanta/veronique-morali/47927193.aspx

She’s a placewoman.

What she also is is the founder and head of Force Femmes, the ultrafeminist group which rules EU policy on women’s equality, promotion etc. in every sphere of life and the promoter of the “positive discrimination” push in Europe.

In 2008 she set up Terrafemina – “woman’s earth”. I think you get the idea. This is one dangerous person because of her patronage and her presence in Atlanta can only be divisive because look what’s followed her everywhere she’s gone.

Another who created mayhem anywhere he went was Kissinger and that’s been well written up. Where did I read about him? Leftwing sites of course. Where about Morali? Rightwing sites, of course. She’s a feminist/marxist.

So yes, there is a corporate element but in directorships, in appointments to boards.

Geithner: He worked for Kissinger Associates in Washington for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as an attaché at the Embassy of the United States in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996–1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).

In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.  He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001–2003) at the International Monetary Fund.

Yet he’s financially incompetent, a complete nincompoop:

http://allisonkilkenny.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/damning-bloomberg-article/

So yes, the “corporatism” is certainly so in the sense of people not integrally involved in the nuts and bolts of a particular industry flitting from one to the other, aided by the Kissingers, the CFRs and the IMFs. The IMF is more concerned with Europe than the States so how do they fit into the picture?

What gives here? What’s the connection between them all?

The answer is that though they’re corporate in manifestation, the binding force is the ideology [disagree a bit with Jenner in this] and that ideology has been given many names. As you saw in the Butler and Warburg quotes, these people have no sense of nation, no sense of the people. Their actions are directed towards monopoly and control in a few hands.

Morali uses the useful feminism to split society but the result is the same – control of the money and production in a few hands and the rest at each other’s throats. She first vests power in women’s hands but not just any women. No – in the hands of the Pelosis and Harriet Harmans, in the Jody Farhats and so it goes on. And an examination of these women shows they’re all tarred with the same ideological brush and level of incompetence.  Ideologues are the last people you need not concentrating on their actual jobs.

It doesn’t even alter when the GOP gets in – Bush was just as bad – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfensohn etc. Incompetents who swagger, are bigmouthed, limited of brain, generalists and dedicated to control politics.

Condi wrote of these people in her latest book. Here is Senator Jenner on them [1954]:

We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it ‘democratic centralism.’

The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.

This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like ‘democracy’ in place of ‘representative government.’ ”

Communist witchhunt? Revolutionary? Yes indeed – look at the changes in society today, the introduction of “positive” discrimination, the rise of PCism, the promotion of minorities over the indigenous people, the takeover by women of N2 positions across the board and so it goes on – profound change in the society.

1962 – “The Future of Federalism” by Nelson Rockefeller claims that current events compellingly demand a “new world order.” He says there is: “A fever of nationalism…but the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to perform its international political tasks…These are some of the reasons pressing us to lead vigorously toward the true building of a new world order…Sooner perhaps than we may realize…there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world.”

They’re all singing from the same songbook – a land of milk and honey for them but as the Georgia Guidestones point out – with a 500m world population.

All these people named above and thousands more I’ve been studying for some years now, following their career paths, following their activities and interconnections and the same names come up, the same policies in foreign countries, to the detriment of those countries, the same never-ending slush funds.

It can be viewed as corporatism but to conflate that with free enterprise, corporations in general and businesses is going offtrack. Lord Nazh sees corporations as merely employers and the vast majority are. Lord Somber brings in transnational progressivism, which attempts to explain how corporations could have anything to do with world socialist principles because that is essentially what Morali and others are spouting, as Jenner noted.

I simplify it and call this third force, neither left-liberal nor right [the 99%] but “Them”. By oversimplifying it, I’ve run the risk of being dismissed and have been, often. Yet you can see, even in in this small selection above, that there is much to show that there is this Them worldwide – the UN is the portal to their new world governance and look at the Vatican’s latest pronouncement on that.

These people are in the driving seat and reordering societies in every country, under the guise of “corporatism” but what it really is is the new elite controlling the expanding 99% population, which they intend to cull [Georgia Guidestones]. Look at the language on those stones – soft and gentle, open-palmed reasonableness of the new Age of Reason.

it just happened to be written by a genocidal maniac.  Lord Nazh is right when he says:

People in the last couple of years realized what was actually wrong in the US (the TEA Party) but they are called extremists, racists, hatemongers and whatnot because they understand that too much government is the problem, not too much corporation.

It’s right about the visible corporatism of Them but not about companies in general – companies give employment and serve a community productively, binding it together.
In the expat city of my parents, Geelong, Ford was the monolithic employer. It’s on the football team’s shirts and is everything in that town. Take it away and the city goes down or else a new corporation comes in and pumps money into the community. This, I think, is what Nazh was referring to.

Yet a Walmart comes in and decimates the local businesses. Why? Look into their corporate structure. There’s something very nasty with these people at the top and the fervently religious company meetings.

Again and again, it comes back to Them, a disparate string of lawyers, businesses, aristocracy, marxist professors, council advisors, teachers and so on and so on across the globe, commuting to any country, not unlike the Templars of old, connected by the ideology of a brave new world, all living happily together – a world of 500 million instead of 7 billion and backed by seemingly limitless money.

This is why I’m dedicated to helping bring down Them for in doing so, we are opposing evil.

13 comments for “Corporatism or Them?

  1. Jeremy Poynton
    October 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Am I being thick here? You keep referring to “CFR”, but nowhere do you tell us what “CFR” is. Should I know? Because I don’t! And none of the links reference it.

  2. Jeremy Poynton
    October 27, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    James – thanks. Yes, I was aware of the CFR but unable to summon them into my 60 year old brain. Great article. We are indeed in a very bad way with regard to our basic freedoms

  3. October 27, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I happily went along to OccupyLSX for a bit and last week I was outside Parliament campaigning for an EU referendum.

    I don’t see a contradiction at all, I’m against ALL rent-seekers, whether that’s EU bureaucrats, corporatists (who have long ago bought up most governments, including the EU itself), bankers, all industries that depends on state subsidies, quangocrats generally, Home-Owner-Ists, or last but not least welfare scroungers and criminals generally.

    I have nothing against big corporations as such, people who don’t like Starbucks coffee can go elsewhere, can’t they? (I prefer Costa Coffee as it happens).

    • james Higham
      October 27, 2011 at 2:43 pm

      I’m against ALL rent-seekers

      Mark – what of my landlord who rebuilt this house from dilapidated and poured about a million into it? He has private rents coming in, determined by the market, to offset that outlay.

      • Thornavis.
        October 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm

        That doesn’t count, he’s a Homeownerist and therefore a rent seeking enemy of the people, just like those dreadful Kulaks.

  4. October 27, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    “The Occupy movement must be dismayed that we all don’t get on down to St Pauls or Wall Street and join the throng [not overnight though – many go home to sleep]. The issue is that we all see a different enemy and there was a debate [?] at my place about that some days back.”

    Maybe we are all our own worse enemies. Unless we can find peace within ourselves we will never be truly happy. There’s a massive cosmos out there, and we spend all our time thinking about this wretched planet earth.

    • October 27, 2011 at 2:56 pm

      There is a massive cosmos out there, and if I could get to it I would probably go.

      • October 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm

        Like in the Bill Hicks joke, I’m just waiting for the aliens to abduct me.

        • October 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm

          As long as there is no anal probe 😯

          • james Higham
            October 27, 2011 at 4:03 pm

            Now boys, are you taking this thing seriously?

            • October 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm

              Sorry James. We won’t do it again :mrgreen:

Comments are closed.