EU IS COMMIE PLAN!
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 3:48 PM
we hear and see evidence from many countries around the world, where this
disestablishment of the old order is occurring, Australia is another case in
point and Fabio-Marxism is now ‘metastasised’ exactly as their ‘Grand
Plan’ (& I’m damned sure it’s well programmed) predicted
it should.
As you observe, the political leaders
appear emasculated, their parties a theatre mask for the tragic-comedy played
out behind the scenes.
What to do? If in doubt hold back for
now but the peoples of the world are not all bloody, obeisant fools and they’re
getting restless!!
===================================================
I view the establishment political parties as just a charade to give the illusion of choice . In Canada some of the provinces allow one to “decline the ballot”, which is intended to be registered as a vote indicating that none of the candidates are acceptable. This wasn’t allowed last time I checked at Fed level.
The purpose of our political system is to polarize the people with trivial issues, while none of the parties address the essential fundamental issues that would threaten the establishment hold on power.
In terms of political view, I would vote for someone like Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas) if we had anyone up here in Canada like him, but we don’t. We are truly dumbed down as a society
I should explain how I process information. I used to get my shorts really in twist at all the spin with which we are enveloped. The MSM for example is pathetic and primarily an organ of propaganda. However I was wasting my anger on something I cannot change, and one still needs to inform oneself. So how can one inform oneself when one is enveloped in spin and propaganda that is truly Orwellian?.
There’s just no substitute for taking what info is available and unspinning it in my opinion. Good propaganda must contain some limited truths and commonly accepted beliefs. That’s required for leaders/demagogues to attract a following and set the hook. Then there’s the deception.
So the way I use all outside info is very interpretive. I.e. not for what it says, but for what it reveals. I parse and interpret heavily and read between a lot of lines. I think one must do that if one is to inform oneself at all.
With the above in mind, link below is the political justification concocted by a bureaucrat to “justify” what Tiny Blur wanted to do. I think it is quite revealing in a number of ways.
The new liberal imperialism
Senior British diplomat Robert Cooper has helped to shape British Prime Minister Tony Blair's calls for a new internationalism and a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention which would place limits on state sovereignty.This article contains the full text of Cooper's essay on "the postmodern state"
European states are not the only members of the postmodern world. Outside Europe, Canada is certainly a postmodern state
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/07/1
In terms of his characterization of Canada as a postmodern state, I think he’s quite accurate. In terms of the supposed altruistic justification of a politician of any stripe seeking to secure “rights” for the less advantaged, I think Mencken’s comment is appropriate
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule
-- H.L. Mencken
One of the most offensive societal change mechanisms in Canada draws directly from the institution and subsequent application of the Canadian Charter of Rights. People should think through more carefully the concept of what rights are and from whence are they derived. It seems now almost any bizarre/tawdry practice may be deemed a right.
The following gives a decent insight into the issue
Tribute to Trudeau
The deception, imposed upon a nominally free people, changed Canada’s system of government from its foundation in the evolutionary common law, in which individuals exercised their inherent freedom to abstain from doing what the law prohibited, to a system where their "Rights" and "Freedoms" were no longer inherent; they were written down and "Guaranteed" by the state, that is, they were vulnerable to whatever meaning the state or its courts decided to give them." (p. 49)
The Canadian people were stripped of the one and only absolutely benign and dependable system for the protection of individual freedom in the world the British common law. In its place Trudeau gave to the people the French
kind of constitution, which submits the interpretation of a set of enumerated individual rights to the pleasure of a group of judges who are unelected and who are accountable to no one. Furthermore, this colossal constitutional change was implemented without consulting the citizens by referendum, as they rightly should have been consulted. It was a robbery of precious rights, and the people cherish Pierre Elliott Trudeau for being the robber. Some things
truly are beyond human understanding!
http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/Trudeau.html
This is purely cursory and a very limited view, but some observations . I’m an early boomer and was born and raised in Montreal. I’m one of the “maudit anglais” who left Quebec long ago although it was of course originally home to me.
When I was growing up of the Catholic Church was still a big influence on the lives of particularly French Quebecers. Now the pendulum has swung strongly(maybe too much) and I’d say the religion is more of “business”.
It’s an article of faith and the essence of the identity of Quebec nationalists, that they are victims of oppression by the “maudit anglais”. The demagogic Quebec nationalist leaders play strongly on this mythology.
One of the tenets of a leader of the Parti Quebecois, Jacques Parizeau (incidently an Oxbridge graduate as I recall, and very much an elitist) was that the relation of Quebec to the ROC (rest of Canada) was intended to be like a never ending visit to the dentists drill (and they do this very well). He also played the demagogue card after the last referendum, by saying they didn’t win the overall vote because of the ethnic note (those “maudit anglais” again! ) and big money.
I used to be puzzled a bit by what I perceived as the revisionist historical indoctrination that students got in Quebec, but this was the characterization by a Quebecoise friend. That the French children are indoctrinated about their “nationhood” and history that in essence “Quebecers are the woman, and the “Anglais” are the Male (I.E, abusing her).. This neatly combines two PC agendas and I thought was very perceptive and apt description.
At the same time that the ROC was supposed to turn a blind eye as Quebec was allowed it’s never ending xenophobic fixation on it’s identity (still ongoing); Trudeau rammed down the Multiculturism agenda on the rest of Canada
(Punishing the anglos lets Charest look tough
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Punishing+anglos+lets+Charest+look+tough/3104646/story.html )
.
The double standards were very clear. However it was a long time before I realized that this was an explicit part of a broader strategy(and much broader than in the Canadian context) to deconstruct/neuter the historical social order so that a NWO could be instituted
Tebbit had it right
Lord Tebbit also condemned multiculturalism for undermining British society and said London was "sinking into the same abyss that Londonderry and Belfast sank".
He said: "I've been opposing the concept of a multicultural society for 10 years or more and that's because a multicultural society is an impossibility.
"A society is defined by its culture. It is not defined by its race, it is not a matter of skin colour or ethnicity, it is a matter of culture.
"If you have two cultures in one society then you have two societies. If you have two societies in the same place then you are going to have problems, like the kind we saw on July 7, sooner or later."
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200508/072d2cc0-3f3a-494f-8590-3e51127e853b.htm
Despite Tebbit’s attack on what he calls “the impossibility” of multiculturalism, he also attacks the current state of British culture which he said “was no role model to recommend to anyone in Bradford who looked over their garden fence and was told ‘this is what you have to aspire to’.”
He cites binge drinking, drunken behaviour, yob culture and “15-year-old single mothers pushing prams” as part of the “need to clean up our own act”.
http://www.sundayherald.com/51207
A couple of approaches I’ve found very useful to try to cut through to essentials. One is try to identify key leaders/opinion formers and very carefully scrutinize their doings. Most often the leaders are the radicals who drive agendas. They act as Pied Pipers leading their flock. The various bleatings of the followers can be ignored.
I detest Machievellian intrigue, however have found that it’s very useful often to analyze in terms of such principles to try to understand what is going on. I often find that what otherwise seems hopelessly contradictory and illogical if one took peoples statements in good faith, becomes quite logical and consistent if one assumes Machievellian intrigue is in play.
For example, suppose we assume the eugenicist Julian Huxley’s stated agenda is in play as follows;
To better understand UNESCO, consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture."
Then what one would do is first attack the existing cultures until they crumble. Of course ironically and extremely hypocritically this is being done under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” whereas of course to enforce an eventual PC “One World Culture” no tolerance or diversity at all would be allowed : (
===================================================
Canada was split before but as with America , it seems the whole edifice
is crumbling; and that of course is what ‘they’ want, anachy!!!
====================================================
Ever notice how closely related Trotsky’s permanent revolution, Schumpeter’s creative destruction, and current “politically (and business) applied” chaos theory can be?. There are some who advocate “bringing in on”.
Permanent Revolution, Creative Destruction, and Chaos Theory
Co-opting Chaos: The Role of Complexity Discourse in the War on Terror
What is new however, is the acceptance that chaos may not be so easily crushed and may in fact be creative.
Almost 7 years before the invasion Saperstein stated quite bluntly: “One of the prime reasons for our failure to deal successfully with Iraq – a sovereign element in the Newtonian system – is that we fear to deal with its possible break- up” (Saperstein 1997). Even more bluntly Stephen Mann argued: “that we need to be open to ways to accelerate and exploit criticality if it serves our national interest, for example, by destroying the Iraqi military and the Saddam state” (Mann 1997).
The question raised by chaos theorists such as Saperstein and Mann is that, in a global environment where the permanence of nation states can no longer be taken for granted, and where sub- and trans-state social forces are bubbling out of control, is the stability and integrity of nation states always an achievable, or even desirable objective?
Such a comment might seem the height of Bush administration hubris alone, if it hadn't also reflected the avant-garde of American business thinking of the previous decade or more. In his 1988 book Thriving on Chaos, for instance, business guru Tom Peters argued that Americans must "take the chaos as given and learn to thrive on it. The winners of tomorrow will deal proactively with chaos… Chaos and uncertainty are… market opportunities for the wise."
The advice of Peters and of the Pentagon was taken to heart by scholars and policymakers like Paul Wolfowitz, Samuel Huntington, and Robert Kaplan, who in the mid-1990s began writing of a "new cold war" or "clash of civilizations" between Islamism and neoliberalism across an "arc of instability" stretching from sub-Saharan Africa to Central Asia. Specifically, post-Cold War experiences in Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, and elsewhere in Africa called for an organized effort to figure out how the United States could best "manage the chaos" that the coming global "anarchy" was certain to bring. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/100272
THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN
This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island
© 2002 by G. Edward Griffin
Maurice Strong's fanciful plot probably shouldn't be taken too seriously, at least in terms of a literal reading of future events. It is unlikely they will unfold in exactly that manner – although it is not impossible. For one thing, it would not be necessary to hold the leaders of the industrialized nations at gun point. They would be the ones engineering this plot. Leaders from Third-World countries do not have the means to cause a global crisis. That would have to come from the money centers in New York, London, or Tokyo. Furthermore, the masterminds behind this thrust for global government have always resided in the industrialized nations. They have come from the ranks of the CFR in America and from other branches of the International Roundtable in England, France, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere. They are the ideological descendants of Cecil Rhodes and they are fulfilling his dream.
It is not important whether or not Maurice Strong's plot for global economic collapse is to be taken literally. What is important is that men like him are thinking along those lines. As Wood pointed out, they are in a position to do it. Or something like it. If it is not this scenario, they will consider another one with similar
consequences.
http://tinyurl.com/yf3n38m
all the best
Posts
