|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 463
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: A Hidden Agenda |
  |
|
| Wu Li wrote: | Has anyone here seen this very interesting interview by G.Edward Griffin?
Hidden Agenda
If all this insanity is really on the up and up this video is old enough to show how far back these ideas have been in the works. The one thing I do know is that the Reese Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations did exist and there is some literature floating around to put credence to this mans statements.
Anyway this discussion is one we all may be careful.
Sometimes when up against such subjects we should understand that their is a fine line between information dispersal and fear mongering.
I was actually quite surprised by this audio. 
But i am very happy it was done. |
Greetings,
That is a very interesting little video.
For those who are unable to download the 190 odd Mb of data to view this, I've made a copy of the audio (only) which is about 23Mb.
It can be downloaded from here:The Hidden Agenda for World Government An interview with Norman Dodd
Here is a transcript of the interview http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm
Some notable quotes:
| Quote: | Dodd: Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York. He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.
Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves."
And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war. We have had experience operating under directives. The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?"
I said, “Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.” Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." |
| Quote: | Dodd: We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?
Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. And finally, they answer that question as follows: we must control the State Department.
And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective. Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over.
At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States. And they realize that is a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone.
So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion: that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.
They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History. So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country -- people like Charles and Mary Byrd. Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject”” And, they get turned down, flatly.
So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians." Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say” “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is, “Yes.”
So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London. There, they are briefed in what is expected of them -- when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.
That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association. And then, toward the end of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.
That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency. |
| Quote: | Griffin: How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations -- the big foundations -- in the very beginning? What was their motivation?
Dodd: Their motivation was, well, let's take Mr. Carnegie, as an example. His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.
Griffin: Would that have required the collectivism to which they were dedicated?
Dodd: No. No. No. These policies are the foundations' allegiance to these un-American concepts; these policies are all traceable to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of Trustees, Mr. Griffin. Those Trustees were not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment, or the use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.
Griffin: It was a subversion of the original intent, then?
Dodd: Oh, yes! Completely so. We got into the worlds, traditionally, of bankers and lawyers.
Griffin: How have the purpose and direction of the major foundations changed, over the years, up to the present? What are their purposes and directions today?
Dodd: 100% behind meeting the cost of education, such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of this United States, on the subject of our history -– to prove that our original ideas are no longer practical. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts. There is just no disagreement on this.
Griffin: Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States?
Dodd: Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly -- as the organization, we'll say, of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.
Griffin: Do they think that they will?
Dodd: They will be the beneficiary of it, yes. |
_________________
Choices For Your Soul
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/
Last edited by Ozregeneration on Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:58 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ormond
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | One reason I say this is that the leading movement of "alleged opposition" in America includes some very hard core right wing anti-communist anti-liberal anti-leftist "pro-Liberty" types affiliated with the John Birch Society and other actual fascists.
It's like the choice you're given is Communism as Noakes describes it, or hard right Fascism disguised as Patriotism and Libertarianism, et |
The way I see it, that's exactly how they've set it up. I already feel careful how to tell people about it, as the mine field of 'right wing nut' has already been laid.
To even suggest that there is a plan to merge the US Canada and Mexico brings a dirty look from 'left' folks. They take it as racist. It's because they have them thinking borders are racist. They are RIPE for supporting the NAU though they won't have a clue that's what they're supporting. Just as the 'right' who got behind the PATRIOT Act, and invasions of Afgahnistan and Iraq were essential To Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way of course.
Yes, we've got quite an obstacle the way they've so adeptly split the public into a 'left and right', and don't reason or discuss. It works on brainwashing and trigger words. Guilt by association.
_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dilbert_g
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:03 am Post subject: Eustace Mullins |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's because they have them thinking borders are racist. |
I think the Left feels bad for poor Latinos, and I think that's legitimate sympathy. They're really fucked. But they are fucked NOT just by "their own corrupt leaders" as Alex Jones likes to say, but by the World Bank, IMF, and other corrupt Washington and Wall Street players. The Economic Hit Man scenario, which I knew about before him. Central American leaders would rather get rich than whacked. Typically, ONLY corruptible leaders ever get elected.
The Left Liberals should attack the IMF and World Bank and push for economic fairness instead of looting, not for bandaid measure of open border crossings so the poor can compete for more wage slavery. How many Mexicans and other Central Americans would REALLY want to get uprooted and leave their country and culture if their country wasn't Corporate America's and Wall Street's slave colony?
Birch may very well have been created or funded by Rockefeller.
I had heard that Welch was a member of the CFR.
Reading below about Mullins' friend H.L. Hunt, I have some doubts about the Birch-Rockefeller link.
As for Mullins:
| Quote: | "Eustace Mullins, who was a researcher at the Library of Congress in 1950 when McCarthy asked him to look into who was financing the Communist Party, was the keynote speaker at a dinner Sunday evening sponsored by the Sen. Joseph McCarthy Educational Foundation.
"I've come to believe in recent years that he started to turn the tide against world communism," said Mullins." |
Joe McCarthy was a tool of Allen Dulles, CIA, Nazi-lover. Old Joe defended Nazi SS officers who killed American POWs, and he attacked ordinary Leftist or even Communist party members in the USA (ordinary people meeting to discuss ideas of economic egalitarianism), while leaving untouched actual Soviet spies in the govt -- like the head of the World Bank, Harry Dexter White (assuming that's true). I learned this distinction from a staunch anti-comm who called him a drunk and a loose cannon.
Mullins complains that praise for McCarthy is not "politically correct". If McCarthy is so great, then what the hell is the problem with Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act?
Ditto for G. Edward Griffin. Against PATRIOT Act, liked McCarthyite witchhunts, whether against SAG actors or union plumbers or National Lawyers Guild. WTF?! Am I the only one who registers a problem with this? [rhetorical question, i think]
| Quote: | | In 1968, Mullins authored a strongly anti-Semitic tract entitled "The Biological Jew" (Staunton, Va., Faith and Service Books, Aryan League of America, 1968). This book's central thesis is that Jews are parasites, contributing nothing to, and deriving benefit from whatever society of which they are part. It includes the following defense of Nazi antisemitism: "Nazism is simply this — a proposal that the German people rid themselves of the parasitic Jews. The gentile host dared to protest against the continued presence of the parasite, and attempted to throw it off." The book also claims that Jews "drink the blood of an innocent gentile child" in religious ceremonies, and that this practice represents the essence of Judaism. |
(wikipedia writer points out that he later repudiated or rather minimized that viewpoint, as if the public is being unfair for criticizing him for what HE wrote in a previous book)
| Quote: | | Mullins' New History of the Jews, The International Institute of Jewish Studies, Staunton, Virginia, 1978. Reprint of 1968 Edition. Quoting from the introduction "throughout the history of civilization, one particular problem of mankind has remained constant. In all of the vast records of peace and warsand rumors of wars, one great empire after another has had to come to grips with the same dilemma..the Jews." |
| Quote: | | Mullins revealed the depths of his racial hatred when he said: "The US government has been breeding negroes since the Civil War. But they have know idea what to do with them. They don't realize you're supposed to sell them." |
| Quote: | | protégé of H.L. Hunt, the anti-Communist entrepreneur |
Lovely, so H.L. Hunt was simply an anti-Communist entrepreneur. I think he was linked to Connolly, Johnson, and other forces behind the JFK assassination, people who thought JFK was not enough of a Cold Warrior since he balked on nuking it out with Cuba and the USSR.
www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/laborde012704.html
| Quote: | | At the head of the major oil companies were the Hunts arch enemies, the Rockefellers. Bunker felt that the Washington - New York Eastern establishment was being led down the road to socialism by the Rockefellers. |
Ah, NOW I get it. | Quote: | | The storage costs for the 40 million oz in Switzerland and the 15 million oz still in the US amounted to $3 million/year. |
Also, Hunts were later thwarted by the IMF from some massive silver trading deal involving Ferdinand Marcos, Phillipine sugar, and the Saudis, allegedly because he was not an "Eastern establishment liberal".
Makes me wonder how Bush -- up to his ass in Eastern Liberalism -- got so popular in Texas, Hunt's territory. | Quote: | At that point in time the Hunt's silver position was worth $4.5 billion dollars bringing their profits in silver to $3.5 billion dollars. [...] Their margin calls on those contracts amounted to $10 million dollars a day! [...] Crash ... When it was all over they owed $1.5 billion dollars. Fed Chairman Volker gave approval for a bailout plan for the brothers fearing a financial disaster. A group of banks agreed to loan the brothers 1.1 billion dollars.
|
| Quote: | The perfect society, according to Hunt, would give the most votes to the oldest, the wealthiest and the most ambitious. Citizens younger than age 22 would get one vote. Older voters would get two votes. The top 25% of taxpayers would get an extra two votes.
Citizens could earn bonus votes through scholastic achievement, by waiving government salaries or by paying a voluntary poll tax. |
Another viewpoint on Hunt:
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm
| Quote: | Hunt developed extreme conservative political opinions. In 1951 he launched the Douglas MacArthur for President campaign. Along with two of his sons, Nelson Bunker Hunt and Lamar Hunt, he set-up a right-wing intelligence network, the International Committee for the Defence of Christian Culture.
Hunt also funded two right-wing radio shows, Facts Forum and Life Line. He used these radio stations to support the anti-communist campaign of Joseph McCarthy. He also helped to finance the political career of Lyndon B. Johnson. A member of the John Birch Society, Hunt was a close friend of Edwin Walker.
A strong opponent of Fidel Castro, Hunt helped to fund the Cuban Revolutionary Council, a group that worked with the Mafia and the Central Intelligence Agency in an effort to remove Castro from power.
President John F. Kennedy became concerned about people like Hunt who used tax exemptions to spread right-wing propaganda. According to Joachim Joesten, Hunt had an annual income of $30,000,000 but paid little in income tax. In 1963 Kennedy talked about plans to submit to Congress a tax reform plan designed to produce about $185,000,000 in additional revenues by changes in the favourable tax treatment until then accorded the gas-oil industry.
Some conspiracy theorists believe that Hunt was involved in the death of President John F. Kennedy. It was claimed that the day before the assassination, Jim Brading visited Hunt in his office in Dallas. Brading had links to Carlos Marcello, another figure suspected of being involved in the killing. Brading was arrested in the Dal-Tex building in the Dealey Plaza soon after the assassination took place, but was released soon afterwards. |
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1796
http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/canaan.html
| Quote: | In Mullins "New History of the Jews", Mullins claims that Jewish priests regularly kidnap little white boys, strip them naked, chain them to altars, pierce them with knives, and drink their blood while they lie dying (p. 50). He also claims that American parents should not leave their children in the care of a Jewish doctor or hospital, because they will be murdered and their blood shipped to Jews in Israel (p. 5 . On pages 116-117 he explicitly denies the Holocaust.
In "The Secret Holocaust", Mullins calls the Jews "furry scavengers who have found their way into every civilized place." "Because of his savage nature, the Jew wishes only to kill him (non-Jews) and drink his blood." "It was a matter of record that the Jews had actually done quite well during World War II. ... the Jews were safely ensconced in comfortable quarters in such refugee camps as Auschwitz." |
The rest of this page is pretty entertaining.
While I am opposed to locking up David Irving and Ernest Zundel, I think I'd almost have to vote for locking up Eustace Mullins. Fucking psycho.
All in all, Mullins' possible criticism of the Birch Society is a lot like Daryl Bradford Smith and Hufschmid's criticism of Alex Jones.
====================
Reading Brzezinski's newest book, The Choice:
| Quote: | | Since 1990, in the course of a mere decade, the United States has articulated three major themes as the new defining principles of it's engagement with the world. Under President George H.W. Bush, they were encapsulated by three words: New World Order. In some respects, the concept was reminisscent of the illusion harbored briefly after 1945 that the World War II coalistion woud serve as the pillar of a more peaceful and cooperative world order under the aegis of the newly established UN. the "New World Order" of the 1990's (spoken of by Nixon too) was similarly premised on a false hope: that America's Cold War victory would usher in a new global system based on legitimacy and contagious democracy. On occasion -- such as on March 6, 1991 (not Sept 11 1991?), when addressing the Congress -- President Bush was almost lyrical -- "Now we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is a very real proscpect of a new world order .... A world where the United Nations, freed from the Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of it's founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations." |
THAT is the first time I've seen the entire quote. Unless Bush gave similar speeches all year, the charge that he said this 10 years to-the-day before Sept 11 was an embellishment.
I want to state that I see nothing INHERENTLY wrong with the viewpoint of global peace and cooperation embodied in that Bush statement. Does anyone? (whoa, I'm not suddenly liking Poppy)
I am not afraid that global govt would INHERENTLY lead to Biblical Armageddon, and if I was a Christian, which I'm not, why fight God's Will? Don't fight Armageddon, don't try to use political machinations or clone a red calf to speed it up. Just pray.
What IS wrong is:
a) Poppy Bush said it, and he's a vampire linked to the Nazis via his father and his father's friends, incl the former CIA director, and linked with members of the Nazi WACL, buddies with fascist Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and head of the CIA while it was engaging in mass murder in Latin America and elsewhere, as well as the Iran-Contra scandal and the CIA-based BCCI money-laundering linked to Al-Qaeda.
b) Bush pretty positively linked to the JFK assassination.
c) Bush linked to the Richard Nixon who was McCarthy's boy. Besides secretly subverting North Vietnam peace talks with South Vietnam, leading to the deaths of 30,000 additional Americans and millions of Asians (his "secret plan" to end the war was expanding it to neighboring countries via a bombing campaign), Nixon and his "partners" also "arranged" the murders of four random Kent State college students, after he, Agnew, and Gov. Rhodes, demonized students as "brownshirts" and "the enemy".
Kind of like the media is doing today with "liberals" anyone not a wingnut.
Further, I should state for the record that I see nothing INHERENTLY wrong in principle with the existence a global governing body -- especially if it did not replace national govts but rather simply served to coordinate inter-national affairs in a positive manner.
The problem is that they really seek to eliminate that "goddamned piece of paper" known as the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution, and erase the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and replace that with a global corporate treaty arrangements and with corporate trade agreements which supercede democratic and republican will-of-the-people, replacing it with remote elite management.
They want to have some legitimacy when challenging ANY and ALL national sovereignty. It looks like shit when a bunch of corporations barge into Iraq, behind the US military "smearing democracy thick".
This process of eliminating self-rule began in 1791 anyhow, with the Hamiltonians. Also the Dartmouth College decision and later decisions including Santa Fe Railroad expanding corporate personhood. I think Jefferson and his gang and Patrick Henry really did want to preserve bottom-up democracy. However, I think these "treaty" rules definitely formalize these anti-democratic arrangements and make them permanent law, not aberrations or corruption. Obviously, the President of the USA can sign a treaty with another nation ending a conflict, but the whole notion of "trade agreements" being established as "treaties", to put them under sole executive domain, is garbage!
The problem as I see it (correct me if I'm wrong, please) is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered to be privileges, which are granted by UN bureaucrats voting collectively, and thus reversible by UN bureaucrats. To my understanding, the UN eliminates 'obsolete' references to individual inalienable sovereign rights granted to all Men as an inherent attribute due to have been created by God in His Image, that it eliminates that philosophical Foundation going back to Magna Carta etc. This Enlightenment notion challenged the rule of the royals and the aristocracy, says that we are ALL descended from God, no less than King George.
I'm not opposed to the hundreds of UN Resolutions condemning and deploring Israel for human rights violations against indigenous Palestinians. It's that this puppet institution was ever granted the power [by Britain and the USA] to seize land from Palestinian residents (who may not have gotten legal 'deeds' from the Ottomans, as many were resident families going back to Christ) and then hand the property (including property which had legal deeds) over to another group, the Zionists. I consider this a precedent, and not a good one.
It's not that there might be corruption in a large institution such as the UN. Any institution that's large will have corruption within it. Hopefully that corruption does not become endorsed at the top, or become a functioning principle. It's that the founding principles of the UN are probably corrupt. It seems to have been created as a Rockefeller playtoy.
As far as the General Council, hundreds of nations, it's toothless, and America wants it that way. America denounces the idea that 'dictators' can vote together and trump America's 'democratic' will to act internationally and violently. Yet the Security Council can be energized at will by the USA. It's a tool to grant a false air of legitimacy to America's imperialistic goals. Iraq seizing Kuwait NOT OK. Iraqis starved to death OK. Iraqis bombed to death OK. Iran developing nuclear fuel NOT OK.
Selective interest in "human rights". Brzezinski touts almost jokingly how concerns for "human rights" was a tool used against the Soviet Union. And that's ALL that "human rights" is about, IMO. Window dressing and lip service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6105
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: Various Issues |
|
|
| Quote: | maverick: Fintan............from about 39:00 to 42:33 on the
Program......... You put everything that has been happening in the past in
such SIMPLISTIC TERMS AND WORDS...........this is important because when
I try to talk to some of my friends its always get so bogged down by the
complexity of it all.......... Maybe you should put that down in some kind of
article or text?? |
Good point. I listened again and I will soon do a special overview audio
about the whole current global context -including 9/11, Iraq War, Iran
EU, NAU, etc..
Then maybe we can do a transcript of that. Thanks for the prompting.
| Quote: | Ormond: As for the NAU I'm not entirely on the same page
with his perception that the elected Democrats are going to help us or
even on our side. At street level, it's those who think they're democrats
that are inclined to be foolishly supporting doing away with borders, think
the UN is our friend, and will give up their rights to what they think is a
foreign global consortium that promises peace. Very likely when he lived
here, he was living in more aware circles here than I see in Houston. |
Yes, David was too focussed on Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act
and all that civil rights stuff --not giving enough weight to how Dems are
being well massaged to keep their eyes off the NAU ball.
I think they will play the NAU soft until they pull the economic plug.
Then comes the big NAU push --purely for economic necessity of course. 
| Quote: | profind: I wasn't sure if David Noakes was referring to a
merger with the former Soviet States, or with Russia (some people
confuse the two sometimes).
There is something of a battle going on in the former Soviet States (like
the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia etc.), and Russia (Putin) want them back.
But the US and Europe are keen to convert them into the "Western" fold.
|
I think that the US/EU and Russia are playing ping pong with the Eastern
European states. Making 'em seek cover from either Superpower group
while positioning to control their economies.
Putin is KGB and Bush Snr. is CIA. Both are playing the 'terror' card.
I think they will slowly move towards integrating the EU and Russia
across the grey area of Eastern Europe in between. Check out the weather
on http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=meteo&lng=1 , where they
include Moscow and Cairo in their European weather.
That's the ambit of this creeping Empire.
| Quote: | Wu Li: Did the Soviet State really die? My thoughts on
this is exactly what was suggested in this show, which is the planned
dismantling of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union was
nothing more than a lesson plan for what will need to be done to Europe as
well as America. We may want to look at the redevelopment plan of Russia
after the collapse and how the oligarchy was created. Then we see the
starvation which ensued along with the resentment of the russian people
towards Democracy and Capitalism. So then Putin begins to reign back
slowly the tide of Democracy with the popular acceptance of the people
that he will save them from the evils of the western style system. |
Yes, it's an illustration of how well these people can play the political
system --and the decades-long strategies they deploy. Some chutzpah!
| Quote: | Ta Seti:
BBC Audio: 1707 - The Birth of Britain
It is a tale of intrigue and skullduggery, |
Quite a touch of deja vu there.
Skullduggery's come a long way. 
| Quote: | dilbert_g: One thing I think we want to avoid is a knee jerk
Hegelian reaction to global EU and NAU takeover scenario. (This does not
detract from what I heard Noakes say.)
One reason I say this is that the leading movement of "alleged opposition"
in America includes some very hard core right wing anti-communist
anti-liberal anti-leftist "pro-Liberty" types affiliated with the John Birch
Society and other actual fascists. |
Yeah. I think you're on to the strategy there.
"Sheepdipping" resistance to the NAU as mere right-wing lunacy.
A related "anti-racist" ploy has been use to bolster EU integration.
| Quote: | Ozregeneration:
Griffin: Why do the foundations generously support communist
causes in the United States?
Dodd: Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of
developing what we call a monopoly -- as the organization, we'll say,
of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.
Griffin: Do they think that they will?
Dodd: They will be the beneficiary of it, yes. |
Good quote, which echoes dilbert_g's comment
| Quote: | dilbert_g: I think probably the most accurate description
would be the confusing term "inverted communism" described by Murray
Rothbard, i.e. not a wholly state-owned production system, but rather a
private profit-taking business system superficially resembling capitalism,
but controlled, protected, and largely funded by the State.
This NWO hybrid somewhat differs from "fascism", I think, in that fascism's
typical Nationalist and Super-Patriot ideology similar to Hitler is not overly
stressed (it IS stressed to an extent by the Neocons, but there is no
"American people" in the same sense as the "German people"), and
"international global cooperation" idea sounds like more "communistic"
rhetoric. |
I suppose notionally "Communist" China is the quintessential example of
the emerging new "Communo-Capitalist Fascism". With Russia already
adopting the same model, and thinly disguised totalitarian counterparts
arising in the EU and USA.
No prizes for guessing that real Democracy doesn't rate with this gang. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: NGO NWO or Corporate Con? |
|
|
I'm wondering how much this political maneuvering is actually a smokescreen for the real globo-corporate agenda.
The people's attention is grabbed by blatant fascist legislation, and it fills up the papers, but they won't actually stand for draconian roundups and stuff. There's too many of us now.
What if the real control architecture is being assembled in the background.
• Control of the people through energy resource legislation enforcing 'energy security' and 'carbon neutrality'.
• Control of information through internet copyright legislation.
• Control of land through debt collection and currency manipulation.
Do they really care where the borders are drawn anymore?
Does this latest attack on national sovereignty simply make the current 'Federal Democratic Republic' seem ethical by comparison, short circuiting activism against the current corporate regimes?
Is this a media sideshow to the real moves being made in legislation we'll never hear about till it's too late? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ormond
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
And on controlled destruction of the US middle class through Legistature...
I heard this morning on National Public Radio here that Democrats are putting through a bill to require small to middle businesses (ie, non-Corporate) to either provide health insurance for employees--or pay a $300 per year fine per employee.
Currently, such businesses use a system of group insurance, in which employees may opt to get insurance at an affordable group rate by paying in through a deduction from their paycheck. I've participated in that system and I think it's a fair solution...already in place.
The new bill will drive single proprietor business owners under within a year of deployment. Leaving......Corporate. What's going to happen is a lot of employees happy with working for businesses owned locally are going to find themselves unemployed when the businesses fold, and end up herded into Corporate. (or fall through the cracks).
The move seems intended to crash what local industry and businesses that are still hanging on. Let's be honest, Corporate is not the people's friend. They already side-step insurance and benefits through using sophisticated temp worker shuffles. And what always happens is once the target group has been forced to fold by a law, the law is withdrawn and Corporate rakes in all the chips.
_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ormond
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
G8's ugly head has just popped up in Kiev, with German EU rep diplomat as it's finger puppet.
3rd, April 2007
See: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2255
Ukraine elected representative body, the Rada (Parliament) DISSOLVED TODAY. EVAPORATED.
A dram if you guess who popped up to 'solve the crisis'.
_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RedMahna
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1408
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quoting JF:
| Quote: | | I'm wondering how much this political maneuvering is actually a smokescreen for the real globo-corporate agenda. |
I'm no political genius analyst, but I say "Bingo," when I see Bingo.
And again, I say, we are now phasing out the politician for the corporation. This is far worse. Local and State offices have been targeted for decades to bring down do-gooders in scam set-ups, and too were many union leaders done in the same way. This changed the political demographic towards a new corp-minded personnel in their place (thanks to the CIA & the FBI). Industries became de-regulated. Peace-mongers executed. Govt programs privatized.
Hey, look... no one left to corrupt or entrap!!
What corporations (and all sorts of private entities) spend on elections should be diverted to fighting their "WAR on TERROR," and not on a public office that pays a few hundred grand in salary. Since most Americans know (sort of) the costs of campaigning and the costs of war, have they gotten so confused that they can't see the irony and hypocracy in their spending priorities and what they tell us about patriotism?
The pieces of paper called the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights hardly apply to you inside your home/ apartment or the public street corner. It's obvious it does not follow you or me into the local supermarket. (I said "This big-ass store doesn't have a roll of tape?" in Lowes last month, and the check out clerk refused to ring up my order because I said "ass." I live in SW Virginia and it was a Sunday... oops. And I swear, I only said "ass.")
The other day, I rented and watched "A Beautiful Mind." Do you guys/ gals (if you've seen it) recall how John Nash saw clues and patterns when looking at tons of noise (data)?
That's how I see what's going on... lately.
Thanks for giving me a space to ramble, I hope it wasn't too elementary.
Red
_________________
just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abcar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 335
Location: Being Charles Mingus
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| profind wrote: |
I have tried many times to form a kind of "club" where its members are people like you and me. Imagine the power we would have if that membership was to total a billion people or more. Would governments be able to force their policies on us if such a large group were to say NO?
If there are enough serious people out there who want to develop a "club", let me know. I'm still willing to give it a try, are you? |
It seems to me that breakfornews is the "club" profind is dreaming about. This is the most aware group of people i have come across anywhere. This is my first real post, even though i've been diligently reading topics and posts on this site since being invited here by rumpl4skin. As a 'newbie" here i am just reading, listening to Fintan's wonderful radiocasts and learning and seeing the big picture of the great deceptions.
But I have to ask, if the EU is doing what David Noakes is saying, then isn't this in conflict with the idea put out by Fintan and alot of you veteran posters that the bubble is being burst on the G8 and they are 'blinking' and their house of cards is going to fall? Also, the 'rantings' of Alex Jones about the coming prison planet are not much different than what Mr. Noakes is saying is it? In other words...is Noakes a fake as well? Is this another fear tactic on the community of real investigators such as yourselves at BFN?
After hearing Fintan on the Jim Fetzer show and his clear outlining of the CIA fakes etc, this is very ironic to hear Noakes' warnings taken seriously by Fintan and you all...am i missing something here?
Thank you..Gigi
_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RedMahna
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1408
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
got a point there, gigi.
red
_________________
just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wu Li
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First I would like to say a Big Thank You to OZ for even acknowledging the Dodd video. Because of it's age it held some real clarification for me and after studying the subject I began to think and study him and many other things.
Fintan has just gave me strength to go further.
We may want to look into the likes of McCarthy.
Mr. witchhunter himself and who was he really looking for in the end? He was searching for a ghost because his only job was to uphold the idea that we must all have a little communist inside us. NO? This was his ultimate outcome because he could really never pinpoint where his beliefs would lead him. To the very faction of Power Elite that may be the very beneficiaries Mr. Dodd was speaking?
I asked myself many questions regarding the actions of this man and why he destroyed himself(or how it was portrayed).
Who was he really looking for? Is it not possibly that those who gave him his stage are the very people that lead to his demise. These are the very people who he could never implicate in his conspiracy.
I would also say that Edward R. Murrow may need to be readjusted for history's sake as well. Although I appreciate his actions, was he not a dupe in the card dealt? It does not surprise me that freedom won out by the very media that is now a lie and a blight on our own free information age. "Network" is an elevation of this and a great movie to fully understand in comparison to these events. We are living in the movie "Network" Today...Is this a coincidence? The cable companies or massive "Network" conglamorates who have there own agendas which do not easily mesh with our own ideals.
I personally am beginning to have a much different take on history than that we have been taught, to a profound level.
The Norman Dodd video was "one clue into the puzzle of history" as Griffin states.
It seems we have been given what we have needed all this time and is still being used to this day.
I did a little short story a few months ago on "MY SPACE" about the nation of MIKE(my name) and how smaller nations are lured by these international Money masters into destroying their nations. They are told that they have something to offer the world society. Then they are told through proper loans they may increase their productions while utilizing their populace at the same time(giving more people jobs). Then they are told to keep their wealth for themselves in order to create a wealth which may be used to increase their yields to gain power within this same world community. While all the time the compounded interests on these loans accumulate to the point of default. Once the nation is adequately demonitized they come in as saviors.
They tell these people they will bring in experts and they should sell off their industries and property to major financiers in order to get themselves back on par.
Once this begins it is no better than what we have seen in the movie "Goodfella's"
They end up controling their country and begin to place their own puppet leaders(Hence creating for themselves an Aritocratic class that they give wealth and those that they can deal with (they are in their pockets). They begin to buy up all their land in which the owners(the people of that country) own nothing. So simple and typical. I feel like my Brooklynese makes me astute to the scam. But I m sure you all understand this already.
If you can find it I would ask you to look at the video"The Globalization tapes"(I think it is called). It shows how the demise of an independant Indonesia took place and it is the typical/standard of the precedures which are employed throughout the "Emerging markets"(their words and how they become emerging). This DOC is done by the people who have been hurt most and is fully done in "Bahasa" language which was voted back after their independance.
Ask yourself this question. Who saved us from the crisis of Asian nations in the nineties which most people do not know about. Look no further than Manhattan and the City of London for this bail out. WHY? Because they realized that the collapse of one nation on a Global scale will mean the collapse of our world when we deal with a world of fake interdependency. YES FAKE I SAY! "YOU JUST A SQUIRREL JUST TRYING TO GET A NUT" orange juice jones
I will revert to "OSMOND's" last statement
"Yes, we've got quite an obstacle the way they've so adeptly split the public into a 'left and right', and don't reason or discuss. It works on brainwashing and trigger words. Guilt by association."
Hey Dilbert I didnt forget about your statements but there's so much I still must read.
Great Great analysis from this place.
Thank you all for being you!! 
_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 330
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just listened to the interview, Fintan.
Great stuff.
Many thanks.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | dilbert_g wrote:
"All in all, Mullins' possible criticism of the Birch Society is a lot like Daryl Bradford Smith and Hufschmid's criticism of Alex Jones. " |
Hi, as I originally brought up Mullins in connection to JBS earlier in this thread, I thought I'd respond here to clarify. I'm not sure what Mullins 'possible criticism' is (perhaps you are referring to something I haven't yet read), however he does state 'as fact' that the JBS founder Robert Welch was a tool of the Rockefellers (as I commented in my earlier post). You seem to be agreeing to this as at least a possible but I'm a little confused because I can't find any other references to Mullins in the thread.
I quoted Mullins as he appears to have been one of the first to make the connection between JBS & Nelson Rockefeller. If people wish to verify what Eustace Mullins had to say (and of course it is not just him saying it), one place of many they can find this is as follows:
An Afternoon With Eustace Mullins - A Rense Exclusive
| Quote: | | EM "JBS was setup by Nelson Rockefeller. I knew two people at the original meeting. They needed a right-wing, anti-communist organization. NR decided that Robert Welch was the man to run JBS, so he arranged for the sale of Welch's Candy Co. (where Robert Welch had been working for his brother John) to Nabisco (which was a Rockefeller controlled company) at a highly inflated price and Welch was given an income to run the John Birch Society." |
Alex Jones has also criticised JBS as being disinfo on multiple occasions, IIRC Alex typically says that the facts JBS presents are usually accurate and well researched but that they use them to draw false conclusions and send people in the wrong direction.
I haven't found the need to check the following however there is a substantial amount on the web that also concurs with JBS being controlled opposition. I've also found reference to the JBS being 'networked' to the CFR (you say you have also heard similar) and that Robert Welch was a 32 Degree Mason. I've also found reference to JBS later having certain no-go areas to debate, eg Zionism & Freemasonry, I'm not saying that is the case but anyone concerned may wish to research this.
Again, I suspect perhaps that you are referring to something I haven't yet read (maybe not), as your own comments below and elsewhere would appear to tally with what I actually said and also what several others are saying elsewhere.
| Quote: | dilbert_g wrote:
Birch may very well have been created or funded by Rockefeller.
I had heard that Welch was a member of the CFR. |
| Quote: | dilbert_g wrote:
One reason I say this is that the leading movement of "alleged opposition" in America includes some very hard core right wing anti-communist anti-liberal anti-leftist "pro-Liberty" types affiliated with the John Birch Society and other actual fascists. |
Whilst I'm at the keyboard:
You also mention the oft' quoted: -
"Now we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is a very real proscpect of a new world order .... A world where the United Nations, freed from the Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of it's founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations."
First, if you wish you can grab a video of GHWB's September 11th, 1991 speech
... It so happens I recently stumbled across this following little gem which would appear to be connected.
You'll notice it predates the Sept 11th, 1991 speech by a full fifteen years and that both speeches refer not only to a 'New World Order' but also to the function of the 'United Nations' in the deal. Another point worth noting is that it references 'INTERdependence' (a term increasingly being heard these days), in fact it even has it in the title.
"Declaration of Interdependence" Jan 30 1976
Signed by 124 members of Congress 32 Senators & 92 Representatives in Washington D.C. Jan. 30, 1976 (traitors)
"Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a NEW WORLD ORDER." "Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation." "To establish a NEW WORLD ORDER it is essential that mankind free itself from limitations of national prejudice. No one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity of collaborative regulation BY INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES. We call upon all nations to strengthen the UNITED NATIONS and other institutions of WORLD ORDER!"
Last edited by Ta Seti on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 330
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ta Seti,
can I just say what a great website you link to (911kemet.co.uk).
Is it yours?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RedMahna wrote: |
I'm no political genius analyst, but I say "Bingo," when I see Bingo.
Thanks for giving me a space to ramble, I hope it wasn't too elementary.
Red |
I can only speak for myself but please don't ever stop posting, I often find my own postings far too dry at times and life would be hell if there was nothing but pointy hat speak here (whatever that is(?)).
Further, I firmly believe we pretty much all have far more of a genius inside of us than most realise - I consider this a part of the journey of exploration we have embarked upon. The ability to avoid convoluted speech and put things back into plain english is genius all by itself. I sometimes wish I could learn to write shorter pieces.
e.g.
| RedMahna wrote: | | And again, I say, we are now phasing out the politician for the corporation. |
I wish I'd though of that line, - so 'to the point'. So much easier to slip into a conversation too. If you don't mind I just might steal it 
| Craig W wrote: | Ta Seti,
can I just say what a great website you link to (911kemet.co.uk).
Is it yours? |
Thank you Craig W for your kind words. I did indeed make it, some parts are perhaps better than others and you remind me I have several updates pending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
