FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: SuperState vs. The People
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Ta Seti



Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:47 pm    Post subject: BBC - 1707: The Birth of Britain [Audio] Reply with quote

BBC Audio: 1707 - The Birth of Britain
(as aired today - April 1st, 2007)
You may find the following of interest. It is the BBC's 'Factual' Interpretation of the events that lead up to the 1707 'Act of Union', which joined England with Scotland and thus created Britain, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/ydhuy/
Select the button labelled: Listen again to this programme

For those with the ability to directly download/ play this type of file, the url is:
rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/radio4/1700_sun.ra
Alternatively it has a built-in, listen online facility.

Quote:
Allan Little presents George Rosie's dramatised account of the wheeling and dealing which led to the Act of Union of 1707, which merged the parliaments of England and Scotland. In a tale of bribery, corruption and fiercely argued negotiation, he overhears the deals done in London coffee houses and the spin doctoring in Edinburgh inns which resulted in the Union and the beginning of the country we now call Britain.

With John Sessions as Daniel Defoe.


I cannot vouch for its accuracy as it is an area of history I am not too familiar with however it does contain much detail and is of course relevant to the 'death' of Britain.

The timing has to be said to be curious, considering the current EU proposals (not to mention it is being played on "Fool's Day"). For those in America, it does contain details about how Scotland planned to use America for commerce. Much more I cannot say as I am yet to listen to the audio all the way through.

It is a tale of intrigue and skullduggery,
Enjoy.

PS I can't help but say thanks to Fintan, Mr. Noakes and all the rest for bringing this information to light, it is amazing what you can find hidden under the carpet these days!

PPS I've now heard the audio in its entirety and had an opportunity to verify some of the 'Factuals'. As to be expected, it is to the BBC's usual high standard - that is to say they leave out all the important stuff and misrepresent the rest Smile

One notable remark in this Drama Documentary is the closing comment at 51mins: It ends with the rather cryptic "It was in 1707, a marriage of convenience and, - that It has lasted 300 yrs is no guarantee that it will last forever." It seems this is their way of saying they know it is coming to an end but have no intention of alerting anyone.


Last edited by Ta Seti on Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:07 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

It's like the choice you're given is Communism as Noakes describes it, or hard right Fascism disguised as Patriotism and Libertarianism, etc.



Rather than a movement towards transnational finance and trade policies with justice at their core, OR a reform or elimination of the IMF and World Bank, many of these anti-NAU types in the US seem geared to the old-fashioned fascist (or thinly veiled) "Blame the Immigrants" platform. I would include Alex Jones, Chuck Baldwin, and the guy who seems to be the head spokesman, Jerome Corsi.

Corsi's other web home Human Events feat. an invite for an email list Newt Gingrich or Ann Coulter, gives away Ann's book, and links to RedState.com.

Corsi -- and the bulk of the anti-NAU fight in the USA -- is a player with the vast CNP, John Birch, fake Christian Dominionist, Nazi SS, death squad elite, described here.

I really do not think we want to go there, at least not to JOIN this crud.

I realize that by "sheep-dipping" the NAU controversy in the bizarre far right, it guarantees that the normal, Left-Moderates and active antiwar people will remain oblivious to the stealth dismantling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (national and personal sovereignty) all for "free trade", just as the Right remains oblivious of surrendering all their freedom and liberty to fight a medium-sized cult of Muslim Brotherhood fanatics. (One of my Lebanese friends tells me that Saudis homegrown fanatics are not a tiny fringe and could topple the more westernized ruling family IF there was an attempt to crack down. But toppling America is another story.)

As a matter of fact, the Dem website People for the American Way (correctly) posts titles like this by Corsi
Quote:
'Swift Vet' Coauthor Warns 'Sexual Extremists' Will Take over in Ohio
If Democratic candidate (and former pastor) Strickland wins over “openly religious” Blackwell.
Corsi also coauthored a book with Blackwell. Meanwhile, Blackwell accuses Strickland of siding with NAMBLA.
and then links the words "North American Union" to a wikipedia page on "Black Helicopters". (them right wingnuts are obsessed with NAMBLA Laughing )

I also the language issue with all the politically activist lefties like World Can't Wait who think the word "communism" refers to a [color=Blue]democratic workers' society, not the Cheka run by corporate capitalists. In other words, like it or not, these terms have a variety of charged historical meanings, and most people just pick their identified "side".[/color]

Quote:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jerome_Corsi
A biographical note at WorldNetDaily, for whom Corsi writes a weekly column, states that he "received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972" and that he "is an expert on political violence and terrorism".[1]

After the November 2004 Presidential election, Corsi emerged as one of the leading advocates for the U.S. government to take a hard line with the Iranian government.

A January 2005 article in the Financial Times (UK) described Corsi as a "prominent backer" of the Alliance for Democracy in Iran: "He believes the freeze on nuclear development agreed between Iran and the European Union will collapse by March and that Israel, supported by the US, will then launch military strikes," it stated.


MORE:
Useful Idiots: Back in style!

As for Penn, Sheen, O’Donnell and their fellow crackpots, may they sleep well tonight knowing that our Armed Forces are forever on the frontlines, forever vigilant, forever defending their right to regurgitate such rubbish.
Dear Dumbass 911 Truthers
Corsi is heavily featured on World Net Daily, for example.
from WND: Commies thrilled with Iraq politicking
U.S. Reds like Democrat strategy for deadlines
Gingrich: Abolish bilingual education
'Confronting the donkey' By David Limbaugh



Here's another perspective on the economic positioning from Michael Hudson on Guns and Butter.
www.Takeoverworld.info/mp3/GnB_Hudson_20070314.mp3
I'm not saying he's 100% right. I also do not think he would disagree with what Noakes is saying, although the people on Guns and Butter like Faulkner and Schoenman would probably be offended at the use of the term "communism" to describe this process.

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'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard either, I won't go into detail here, but it has to do with the Mont Pelerin institute and the far right neo-feudal vision of theirs, espoused by 1930's Nazis.


I also wonder, how does the emergence of this global model which will destroy "free enterprise" and labor mesh with what Harold Channer was promoting about Bucky Fuller and the elimination of "work" due to workers becoming obsolete compared to machines and the end of scarcity.
Back to top
Ta Seti



Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with 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.


I've heard Eustace Mullins (Eustace Mullins - Money and the Conspiracy of Evil.mp3 (Conspiracy Con 2002)) describe the John Birch Society as being effectively owned by Nelson Rockefeller. Details are roughly as follows ...

Robert Welch sold his candy? Company for several times its worth to Nelson Rockefeller/ 'National Biscuit Company' (NABISCO) and this money 'founded' the JBS.

Nelson Rockefeller maintained a $250,000 rollover account at Chase Manhattan Bank so that Welch could meet his payroll, whenever funds were withdrawn, Rockefeller would automatically top it back up. .. So Robert Welch was effectively an employee of Nelson Rockefeller.

I'm unable to verify the exact details here but apparently there is also a booklet by someone called Daniel that details this, called: 'The Enigma of The John Birch Society'. IIRC, Eustace said on the audio that Welch was still on the Board of Directors (as of 2002).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:36 pm    Post subject: Re: A Hidden Agenda Reply with quote

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. Shocked
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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:03 am    Post subject: Eustace Mullins Reply with quote

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. 5Cool. 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: 8726

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:54 pm    Post subject: Various Issues Reply with quote

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. Wink

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. Very Happy

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject: NGO NWO or Corporate Con? Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
RedMahna



Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1512
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.