Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@ThorEgil, respectfully, Stifling free speech is NEVER for the best.
Whoah! Bit of a gear change at 14:23 – wasn't expecting that!
Seriously, this series of vault releases couldn't be more timely, as it turns out. Much appreciation to all concerned. But I won't shake your hands, if it's all the same with you.
Thanks Juergen and fillmore for keeping us informed. That stream means I don't have the difficult job of arranging next Friday around the broadcast!
Thanks Bernie! Really like the split screen by the way. Also, how is it that things sound just that little bit better, I think, on your choice of platform, Vimeo, than on YouTube – like the trailer, for example? Serious question.
Mon plaisir – like relaxing in a warm bath until gradually realising: there's an intruder in the house…
@bionaut First, let me say I'd be very happy to have a beer with you. However, you might be disappointed with what I am going to say next. Unfortunately, I perhaps didn't use very precise language before, but I was trying to say that, with that paragraph of Norman_Gold's at least, i.e.
Quote:Take corporatism: (Bill) Clinton, Blair, Schröder, Obama. These social democratic leaders made a pact with the devil: To promote their left-ideological agenda of internationalism (abolishment of the nation state to get it ultimately replaced by a one world central government, plus the total ethic mix of people), they dealt hand in glove with the mightiest multinational companies and the institutions who represent the rules-based international order. Both with the same goal: A multi-ethic, borderless world as undemocratic as the EU or China. One government, one policy, one currency, total control.I was largely in agreement. I would only remove the word 'left', because I don't believe that Clinton, Obama and Blair represent the left. I would also add that you can't really put the EU in the same category as China. Not yet, anyway!
As for the rest of what Norman says, I would go along with some of it up to a point. I do see where he is coming from. At the same time, I am sympathetic to many of the views held on the other side.
There are now so many areas of debate opened up by all contributors that I feel a bit daunted! There is so much to address, and just not enough time. You can't do justice to any of the issues here with just a few words.
I am interested in building common ground, because I believe we – that is, you, me, Norman_Gold and everyone else here trying to work out what the hell is going on, because that's what we're all doing – have a common enemy, and in that paragraph, Norman starts to bring it into view. He, it seems, will be looking for an enemy that wears the colours of the left. Others here will be looking for an enemy that wears the colours of the right. I believe we are under attack by this enemy via the left, the right and the centre.
Divide and conquer.
This doesn't take away some of the age-old bones of contention, of course. They are real, although there is something to be gained by seeing that there is wisdom on both sides.
As an aside, one of the things I admire about Germany is that the workers sit on the boards of the manufacturing companies. They help make the big decisions. Their view is valued, and they feel a sense of ownership. No wonder the Germans are so good in that area! If this German approach to manufacturing is capitalism, then it is capitalism of a better kind. Yet, if you tried to develop the same model in the UK, it would be regarded with suspicion as being somehow left-wing.
Back to my main point. Norman uses the phrase 'one-world central government'. This is not conspiracy theory. It is conspiracy fact. It is, I believe, something greatly to be feared by all of us.
Ostensibly, Trump has put the brakes on the movement towards it. However, I don't trust him, and some of his recent actions on the world stage ought to give great cause for concern even to Norman.
The one-world government that is going to come into existence unless we stop it – and we have to be able to see it coming in order to stop it – will not be good for the vast majority.
At this point, I'll just say what I think is meant by corporatism. I know the word can have a number of applications. In our current context – and I assume this is what Norman meant – it is, for me, essentially, big business making the rules.
The thing is, doesn't unregulated capitalism, together with cronyism, lobbyists throwing money at politicians, and the revolving door between the boardroom, the regulatory agency and the political sphere take us down this path?
The rules suit the corporations at the expense of smaller businesses. The little fish get eaten by the bigger fish.
Maybe one day there will just be one big fish. Would that be so different from a Soviet-style situation?
Increasingly, in our day, the rules made in this corrupt and undemocratic manner are coming to govern every aspect of our lives, and being applied on an international scale. What is this if not global governance in embryo?
Incidentally, so-called 'free-trade' agreements, to which Trump is not, after all, averse, are one of the major means by which this plot advances.
Fair play to Norman for talking about 'corporatism' and 'the mightiest multinational companies' along with 'one-world central government' in the paragraph I cite. However, he should include in that list of names – Obama, the Clintons and Blair (for him, the left) – the likes of Father and Son Bush, Cheney and Kissinger. I'll give Trump a pass just now if I have to.
Politicians of every hue have helped move the agenda along, usually in deceitful ways. For their voters, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. These politicians are little more than salesman – richly rewarded salesmen – although some are more deeply involved than others. However, there is a more permanent power behind the throne.
What is taking shape, guided by the power behind the throne, in the form of a nascent global government, will turn out to look rather different from the rosy view of 'global solutions for global problems' (global problems which are often contrived – Chomsky's 'manufactured consent' is apposite here). In fact, it will be an awful amalgamation of capitalism/corporatism and communism (and not the ideal kind!). That is the long game, however Trump is or is not frustrating it.
With the mind-boggling rise of technology – 5G, all those satellites going up, AI and the 'internet-of-things' (and, by the way, the smart-phone, far from being the wonderful object so many seem to be in thrall to, is the precursor to an implant, tied into the grid under construction – even then there will be those who welcome it) – comes the possibility of total surveillance – maybe more than just surveillance – and control of the many by a very small number. The term is technocracy.
Take a look at China's deployment of some of this technology right now (including the treatment of the Uighurs) for a vision of the global future. Note that China is no longer a communist state in the sense that it used to be, having adopted a form of capitalism or corporatism.
And there is a very real American exceptionalism. The US has a special role alright. Its whole architecture of military might is at the disposal of the globalists. They play the American people (enough of them anyway) like a piano, exploiting their patriotism for the most unpatriotic of ends. The link to Eisenhower's speech is most relevant here.
Anybody who is not familiar with that speech needs to watch it, read it, digest it and take in its full meaning. Remember who it is making this speech, where he had come from, what he would have known. He is talking to us.
(Fun fact! Donald Rumsfeld announced, just before 9/11, that $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for in just one fiscal year by the Department of Defense! Have a look down the back of your sofa, guys! It must be there somewhere!)
In case there is any doubt about the reality of the drive towards a global government, the deceitful exploitation of the US as part of this drive and the likely nature of such a global government, I will leave you with three quotes from David Rockefeller. A lot of people would have taken him as what they understood to be a capitalist – someone those on the right might admire. What has become apparent is that he was one of the arch-globalists – still very active until recently.
With David Rockefeller, you are seeing more the power behind the throne to which I referred earlier.
Here is what he wrote in his own memoirs
Quote:Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.This is Rockefeller addressing the Trilateral Commission in 1991:
Quote: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.Finally, see how you feel reading David Rockefeller's verdict on Mao's China:
Quote:Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.Quote:Take corporatism: (Bill) Clinton, Blair, Schröder, Obama. These social democratic leaders made a pact with the devil: To promote their left-ideological agenda of internationalism (abolishment of the nation state to get it ultimately replaced by a one world central government, plus the total ethic mix of people), they dealt hand in glove with the mightiest multinational companies and the institutions who represent the rules-based international order. Both with the same goal: A multi-ethic, borderless world as undemocratic as the EU or China. One government, one policy, one currency, total control.At the risk of alienating others here, you should know that you'll get no argument from me about anything in that paragraph, with the possible exception of the word 'left'.
More later…
