LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI've followed it with varying degrees of interest. Please, enlighten me if you feel the need to do so.Originally Posted by Almanac
I've followed it with varying degrees of interest. Please, enlighten me if you feel the need to do so.
Just read back the last twenty or thirty pages or so.
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Where do you think I am going wrong here? Seriously, I'm very interested. Beck is like an indication of just how crazy things have become over in America, or where it could go....
Conor I intended to reply to you but lost the thread.
Simple question.
Does Obama care about the poor or does he care about himself.
I would say a bit of both. I think he thinks that Universal Health Care was an issue where he said, 'If I can do some good, then this will be it.' On the other side of the coin, he is another politician in a very corrupt system. I like Obama, and I trust him more than most politicians. He is also an academic who probably did spend a lot of time thinking over these issues before he went into politics. But there is a lot of pressure on him, and power can distort. That is the way the system is designed - you may go in smelling like roses ....
He is still a massive improvement upon the the Texan cowboy
With regards to the title of the thread, I think that the whole world is fumbling from one crisis to another, like a man blindfolded in a field on a stormy night. Some of them may be generated, but you can bet that they did not go according to plan.
Most of the crisises we now find ourselves in have direct causal links to decisions made at one point or another. With hindsight we can have the benefit joining the dots.
A generated crisis is destined to screw up in some way shape or form - either it will work but it won't achieve the desired outcome, or it will fail in its initial deployment.
The world is a complicated place. We live in a time of crisis, generated or otherwise, which is like a storm - you can see an aspect of it, but maybe not this other aspect, and that's the one that will catch you out.
The crisis IS American Totalitarianism. Someone powerful deems fit to get Glenn Beck's ideas into as many homes as possible. I don't think it will work. And perhaps he is only on there because of ratings. In that case, that reflects a current in American thought at the moment. That's scary too.
But with too many variables I'm afraid I just can't commit to any conspiracy, because even if there is one, I think it will more than likely fail.
I also think that there are probably thousands of miniconspiracies going on at any given time, making for a heady cocktail of ambiguity, as interest groups step on each others feet.
It's a funny old world we live in, I think I can say that with a certain degree of accuracy!
Last edited by Conortobin; 28th November 2009 at 08:39 PM.
He is the same improvement on the Texan as Enda the Eejit will be upon Magic Arse.
I think that, is becoming clear to you. When Obama does not care about his brother and aunt what makes you think he cares about a stranger
The theme of the thread has expanded from the initial OP though it still addresses the general subject of the true nature of globalisation which is being driven largely by US-based interests. There is a huge amount of research collated in the thread at this stage. A lot of the research is frightening but one can't and shouldn't hide from it. You are right that there are all sorts of social and political movements and "miniconspiracies" but this can't negate the fact that extremely powerful people are actively shaping the world in their interests and have been for a long time:
The process of setting up global political institutions and reshaping the world economy, of gaining control of the remaining energy sources and food staples, of implementing worldwide depopulation policies, of recreating feudal conditions through the Green Revolution and argibusiness, whether one calls this process the New World Order, globalisation, world corporatism, or bureaucratic collectivism or whatever is essentially irrelevant. The descriptive term is not important but rather the reality described.
The one thing it can no longer be called though is a conspiracy theory. It is mainstream. Hence the 2008 book by political scientist David Rothkopf:
Superclass- The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making
in which he "argues that the world population of 6 billion people is governed by an elite of 6000 individuals." And who is Rothkopf? Someone who can hardly be airily dismissed-
Just as we have American military dominance- Full Spectrum Dominance- exercised globally by proxy totalitarian democracies headed by puppets, those pushing the genocidal programmes referred to in part below are based in the US, backed by the Rockefellers, who have been interested in depopulation since the thirties of the last century- their scientists conducted sterilisation and other kinds of experiments on Puerto Ricans at that time, taking advantage of the fact that Puerto Rico was outside American jurisdiction. They have been behind all the major depopulation programmes and policies of the last century. Their protoges such as Henry Kissinger are the people behind the Club of Rome. In fact Kissinger wrote NSSM 200. NSSM 200 classified third world population growth as a threat to US security. US access to strategic raw materials in developing countries was to be ensured by tying aid to these countries to severe population control programmes. Complementing this, supposedly independent NGOs were also to be involved in advancing population control programmes. NSSM 200 was adopted as official US policy by President Gerald Ford....David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the [COLOR=#0066cc]Carnegie Endowment for International Peace[/COLOR], specializing in U.S. foreign policy and economic strategy, as well as an international business consultant and professor. He served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade during the administration of [COLOR=#0066cc]Bill Clinton[/COLOR]. After leaving Commerce, Rothkopf became managing director of [COLOR=#0066cc]Kissinger and Associates[/COLOR] in January 1996"
The world is increasing dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population growth frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources. (NSSM 200, April 24, 1974)
The US can help to minimize charges of imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with...
Thirteen countries in particular were highlighted including India, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, and Colombia. Kissinger argued that only a drastic reduction in their populations would allow continued exploitation of their resources.
In 1991, the Brazilian government was shocked to find that 44% of all Brazilian women aged 14 to 55 had been sterilised. 90% of Brazilian women of African descent had been sterilised. At the time Brazilians of African descent constituted half of Brazil's population. After learning of the existence of NSSM 200, a congressional investigation was demanded by more than 165 Brazilian legislators. The sterilisations, the government discovered, had been carried out by a number of NGOs including International Planned Parenthood Federation, all sponsored by the US Agency for International Development.
Professor Nicholas Hagger's analysis of these concerns is entitled simply The Syndicate. Edward Garnier, a former Tory party Shadow Attorney General, reviewed the whole book before publication for accuracy, advising from the perspective of his own knowledge of politicians and public figures.
Towards the end of the book, Professor Haigger analyses Global 2000 Report to the President which was released in 1980, and particularly the policy recommendations which appeared in an additional report Global Future: Time to Act in 1981. These were in direct ideological continuity with the earlier memorandum. The tenor of these reports based on the modelling of estimated population growth was that radical action was required to ensure "sustainable development." Global Future estimated that aggressive family planning, sterilisation, contraception and abortion might reduce the population by 4.16 billion. Yet even this let a "half-declared ambiguity regarding 2 billion people (ie. 6.18 billion minus 4.16 billion- a third of mankind on its present total of just over 6 billion)."
The conclusion is unstated by the Reports' authors but others were in no doubt as to the intended meaning. Executive Intelligence Review entitled its critique of the Report: Global 2000, Blueprint for Genocide. They wrote "Global 2000 and Global Future are correctly understood as political statements of intent- the intent on the part of such policy centres as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the International Monetary Fund [the groups who commissioned the Reports], to pursue policies that will result not only in the death of the 170 million cited in the Reports but in the death of upwards of 2 billion people..."
The Reports explicitly advocate the restriction of scientific development including nuclear energy, and food production in developing countries. Loans became conditional "on reducing imports of food and fuel, cutting investment in industry, decreasing food subsidies while increasing their crop exports" [Ring a 19th century bell?] The Reports also point to the population regulating functions of wars and famine. Since the Report both have been commonplace in developing countries but, strangely, largely absent elsewhere.
"There is surely something strange going on." notes Haigger pointing to the butter mountains and milk lakes in Europe, along with the farming quotas entailing mass deliberate waste while "one fifth of the world's population is on the starvation line, or under it."
Further on he adds, "In 2002 the US was blocking an international plan to halve, by 2015, the 2.4 billion people around the world who lack even a bucket for their wastes- one of the main causes of disease. The US gave no clear reason for their objection to the sanitation plan at a meeting at Bali, which was to prepare for an international earth summit." (pg 272)
Last edited by Almanac; 29th November 2009 at 12:19 AM.
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cheers Almanac!
I agree with most of what you're saying. But while these things are happening, I suppose I can deal with things on a more individual level. There probably is a global elite, and I'd say they are fairly entrenched. And I'm sure that there are some warped ideologies whispered about in the highest coridoors of power.
But it's only part of the story. WE are the story - we are what they fear, we are the real agents of change, we are the ones with the power. Yes, there are powerful interests and movers who shape the world in unseen and, more importantly, unforeseen ways. And there are many untold injustices which pass us 'enlightened' Western people by - things which people pay a lot of money to keep out of the public eye. But think about this: we live in a time when people can write books like the one you talk about and not have it suppressed or not be shot. That in and of itself is not enough, for if it is off the people's radar, and they aren't exposed to it, then it's just as effective. But we have something which no generation before us has had the benefit of - we have the internet. Now more than ever global decisions and political and commercial machinations can be diseminated, criticised, and discussed.
We have never been so disgusted with our politicians because we are beginning to see the full picture. And it ain't pretty. Even the recession, IMO, is essentially a movement of commercial focus on a global scale, taking into account two different commercial elements.
One is a shift from fossil fuels to green technology. And as we wait for the next breakthrough, we have to endure a recession.
The other is entertainment and media. Traditional versions of these are being forced into a kind of crisis of confidence. The traditional models are failing, as pretty much everything is free on the web if you know where to look.
So, I think we are living through a time of great change. These times also happen to be the times when elites get very uncomfortable. Think of Murdoch declaring war upon the internet - about as useful as declaring war on a cloud.
But I still believe, like Chomsky said on Frontline a couple of weeks ago, that real change, the things which matter, does not come from elites or politicians or commercial hegemonies. Real change comes from below, and rises up like an unstoppable fire. Elites react, in various different ways. In a totalitarian state they can kill people. In a democracy they can ridicule, collude and isolate dissenting voices. But when something truly has momentum, then there isn't anything that anyone can do about it. Perhaps I am naive, but I truly think this to be true.
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Yes you are right. I am full of hope. There are all sorts of counter movements (was going to name them but ran out of space) and the advent of the internet has really made a radical difference (which is why Senator Rockefeller referred a couple of years ago to its dangers). Now as never before are the populace aware that things are not as they seem, that the real reasons for foreign (and domestic) policy decisions are very different from the public face put on them. There are international bodies opposing the elite's agenda. The favourite talking shops such as the Bilderberg Group are under scrutiny as never before. There all sorts of leaders from opposite ends of the political spectrum (from Pat Buchanan to George Galloway) speaking out forcefully.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Of course America is not a totalitarian state but even as astute an analyst as Professor Antony Sutton described it as "quasi-totalitarian." For clearly if there were a true free press in America, American citizens would be far more aware of what's been and being done in their name- such as CIA involvement in the overthrow of fifty governments, Kissinger's personal involvement in the murder of two heads of state, his war crimes, the population control programmes forced on third world countries, along with de-industrialisation policies, and food and fuel quotas. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]As you say, thanks to the internet the alternative media has received a real shot in the arm, which explains, for example, why the facts about the agenda behind the Iraqi invasion became so widely known and accepted. However near monolithic control is still exercised over the mainstream media:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]Among the NBC directors named in the Exposure article were John Brademas, a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, Peter G Peterson, a former head of Kuhn, Loeb & Co (Rothschild), and a former US Secretary of Commerce; Robert Cizik, chairman of RCA and of First City Bancorp, which was identified in Congressional testimony as a Rothschild bank.... Thorton Bradshaw, chairman of RCA, director of the Rockefellers Brothers Fund, Atlantic Richfield, and the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies...[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana](Daniel Estulin The True Story... pg 97)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Chase Manhattan Bank controls 6.7% of ABC's stock- enough to give it a controlling interest. Chase, through its trust department, controls 14% of CBS and 4.5% of RCA. Instead of three competing television networks called NBC, CBS, and ABC, what we really have is the Rockefeller Broadcasting Company, the Rockefeller Broadcasting System and the Rockefeller Broadcasting Consortium. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Five corporations control the whole media:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana](pg 152).[/FONT][/COLOR]The idea of a "media control" and "media monopoly" that obfuscates truth may seem preposterous to many a Western person. Nevertheless, as early as 1983, Ben Bagdikian, the former editor of the Saturday Evening Post, in a book simply titled The Media Monopoly, revealed the interlocking directorates among the fifty corporations that control what Americans see, hear and read... Bagdikian's most recent update The New Media Monopoly (2004) puts the number at five corporations controlling America's Fourth Estate
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote