How Western oligarchs created globalism by capitalising China
I will expand this post at some point. For now then, here is the key info. Earthlinggb explains how Western elites have created globalism for their own very selfish profit, and certainly not for our benefit.
The article was written in 2014 but it is still very pertinent today because most people have no idea that the current China bogeyman was created by the Western elites.
When you next hear a Western politician telling you that China is a worry because it is so dominant economically then remember this:
It's not what they SAY that is important, it's what they DO.
This is how they did it:
"1. From 1979 onwards the west gradually had closer and closer talks with China on their integration with the rest of the world from an economy and market perspective.
2. There was a fundamental problem which existed in China (from a globalist perspective): China did not recognise or use something called “THE LEGAL PERSON”. Such a concept did not exist in China.
3. The non existence of the legal person concept meant that the west and China could not “speak” to one another and the legal rights (invariably termed “human rights”) which were applied to CORPORATE PERSONS in the west DID NOT exist in China!
4. There was a need to integrate two very different legal systems which had two very different fundamental jurisprudences. The west using a concept called the LEGAL PERSON and China not. Someone had to “give”. That someone was China.
5. There are a multitude of what are called “Nominees” Accounts which exist as PRIVATE “subsidiaries” of Public organisations such as the Bank of England and what I have just found in Hong Kong (but US owned): HKSCC which is a PRIVATE subsidiary of the Hong Kong stock exchange.
6. Remember Hong Kong, although given back to China, is NOT fully integrated with China. It still has its own government.
7. These “Nominees” accounts DO NOT divulge who the beneficiaries are of the shareholdings which are bought through them. It is acknowledged formally, however, that those who have used BOEN (Bank of England Nominees) have been Heads of state of any and all countries. That is just the Bank of England Nominees however.
8. The HKSCC is a similar account to the BOEN (as all “Nominees” accounts are). They are entirely private (secret) accounts where the elite heads of state can invest in everything from the world’s banking institutions to the world’s largest energy and resource corporations.
9. Since the Chinese accepted the “legal person” as a fundamental of their jurisprudence, it has allowed our elite (our Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchy etc) to invest in Chinese banks and corporations entirely secretly.
10. Having achieved this change in the Chinese legal system and now having their money investing and controlling shareholdings in Chinese banks and corporations, they can also offshore the jobs of the west’s multinationals thereby reducing labour costs to a minimum.
11. Ok this is obvious as we know. BUT our elite have “sold” to us the idea of globalism as being to create ease in doing business and, therefore, creating jobs for us and allowing an easier flow of people between countries (ala the EU). Certainly the ease of flow of people is obvious and documented BUT has it provided more opportunity and wealth FOR any of these people? Yes for those coming into Britain and America – relative to their home state – but it has not had the effect of increasing prosperity on the aggregate, It has had the opposite effect.
12. The reality is that, yes, the “globalism” has made doing business easier but for whom? The BUSINESS/CORPORATE/MULTINATIONAL OWNERS.
13. It has reduced their costs by offshoring – made capable by introducing the legal person into chinese law.
14. It has, therefore, reduced the numbers of employed in the west. This results in people taking jobs which pay peanuts just to live and make ends meet.
15. Who OWNS the CORPORATIONS? The investors do! Who are the investors in the major chinese banks and corporations? HKSCC – a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON and, of course, the Chinese government and elite.
16. The western leaders “cry” about the rise of China BUT it is THEIR personal investments in it which has created that rise. They then turn to us and say we must be more competitive – which means our salaries go DOWN! So they are then the investors in corporations and businesses at home and achieve reduced costs and higher and higher profits therefore. PLUS, they are invested in China in their banks and corporations and make even bigger profits due to the low wages. They work on this over time and the result is this: The world’s labour costs are evened out across the board and they are at the LOWEST common denominator.
It’s like this:
The investor class (elite) take ownership shareholdings in banks worldwide. It is, of course, these banks which provide the liquidity (including interest) to the corporations of the world which these same investors are invested in. They, therefore, own the capital AND the labour. Why do multinational corporations hardly pay an ounce of tax? Because the banks want all the profit. Who do governments borrow from? The Banks!
The Nominees accounts are secret because what is happening is that our elite are absolutely destroying people’s lives for their own profit. YES we know that but what I’m showing you here is HOW they do it. These nominee accounts have VAST sums invested in all banks and all corporations. To ensure that the corporations make the profits they make, the elite destroy the “mom and pop” businesses, the small and medium businesses, by “choking” their liquidity cashflow. That’s why our high streets are dying and it is the large TESCOS and major multinational hypermarkets which are providing everything from clothes to food. furniture (IKEA) etc etc etc.
THE NOMINEE ACCOUNT SHAREHOLDERS MUST BE SECRET BECAUSE, IF THEY WERE NOT, PEOPLE – THAT IS THE MAN IN THE STREET WHO HAS LOST EVERYTHING AND ALSO THE SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSMAN (PERHAPS WORTH A MILLION OR TWO) WOULD SEE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE SAYING TO THEM “THE PROBLEM IS CHINA” (OR WHATEVER OTHER COUNTRY) ARE THE VERY PEOPLE INVESTED IN CHINA AND CREATING THE MISERY!
THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” FOR THESE NOMINEE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND WHY YOU HAVE THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT COVERING PARAGRAPHS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1946.
AND FOR THE COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT PLAY BALL – I.E. DO NOT ALLOW THEIR ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL/LEGAL STRUCTURE TO BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED WITH GLOBALIST/WESTERN (AND EASTERN) INTERESTS – THEY WILL FIND THEY HAVE A PLANE GO MISSING AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CHASTISE THEM – INCLUDING ONE OF THEIR MAJOR ECONOMIC PARTNERS (CHINA) – OR, THEY WILL FIND THEIR “REGIME” DEMONISED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE US AND NATO START DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM!
But the bottom line is this:
Our own Heads of state and elite (bankers/politicians) are SCREWING US while they smile in our faces."
Source:
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/capitalizing-china-condensed/
For the fuller picture:
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/capitalizing-china/
Monday 12 August 2019
Friday 8 March 2019
The Human Rights scam
A wolf in sheep's clothing
Here is the full text. Bold is my emphasis. Source and my brief comments at the end:
"In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, many Remainers were keen to emphasise that leaving the European Union (EU) did not mean leaving the remit of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). As they saw it, retaining the human-rights regime was a means to retain some vestige of what they perceived to be the progressive European project. It was as though they felt, in the aftermath of Brexit, that all was not lost as long as they could hold on to human-rights laws. Hence, human-rights proponents were keen to highlight the fact that the Human Rights Act was passed into English law by the UK parliament and did not represent a law ‘imposed by Brussels’ – a retort they find useful when the human-rights regime is called ‘undemocratic’.
Aspects of this narrative are technically true. The EU and the ECHR are legally separate institutions. The UK did not join what was to become the EU, namely the European Economic Community, until 1973, whereas the European Convention on Human Rights came into force in 1953 and Britain granted individuals the right to petition the ECHR in 1966. The convention itself is now a part of English law through the 1998 Human Rights Act, which was passed by parliament under prime minister Tony Blair’s Labour administration. The presence of the human-rights regime in UK law cannot be attributed, therefore, to any foreign body, nor is there anything to say that leaving the EU entails leaving the ECHR.
However, it is also right to see the EU and the ECHR as politically and historically aligned. Both developed out of the emerging European movement following the Second World War. This movement was motivated by conservative ruling elites’ need to manage democracy in the face of political threats, in particular the perceived threat of the spread of socialism from Eastern Europe (1). The existence of a human-rights framework owes everything to the attempts of postwar elites to centralise economic and political control over the European continent and to manage the democratic will of European peoples.
Until recently, the anti-democratic motivations of the ECHR’s founders have been hidden by an appeal to humanitarian sentiments. It has become commonly accepted that the creation of the ECHR, and related human-rights institutions, was designed to prevent a repeat of the atrocities that marked the first half of the 20th century. However, it is more accurate to say that these atrocities, and their political precursors, especially Nazism, were used to discredit democracy as a means of protecting individual rights.
Marco Duranti’s The Conservative Human Rights Revolution provides an insight into the anti-democratic foundation of the European human-rights movement. According to Duranti, the ‘surprisingly small group of individuals [who] shaped the basic contours of the European human-rights system yearned for the mythical Christian Europe of a bygone age’ (2). These were individuals like David Maxwell Fyfe, a staunch free-market conservative. He, like Churchill, saw a serious threat in the apparently social-democratic direction taken by Britain following the election of Labour and Clement Attlee as prime minister. Socialist and Communist parties contributed to the drafting of the European Convention and there could be little doubt that the Convention had a ‘social-democratic orientation’, but the primary role of the human-rights framework was to provide an alternative moral framework to that offered by socialism.
The European human-rights movement began in 1948. It was the year the Soviet Union had blockaded West Berlin in response to the Western allies introducing the Deutsche Mark, and countries in both east and west Europe began receiving $13 billion in aid from America under the Marshall Plan, which many saw as an attempt at suppressing Communist influence in western Europe (3). Perhaps most significantly, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, backed by the Soviet Union, staged the ‘Victorious February’ coup d’etat. This represented the first overthrow of a democratically elected government by Soviet-backed forces since the conclusion of the war. These events all helped to fuel the overwhelming fear of Communism among Europe’s elites.
The existence of a human-rights framework owes everything to postwar elites’ attempt to exert economic and political control over the heads of European peoples
It was against this background that The Hague Congress, or the Congress of Europe, seen as the birth of the European project, took place. So it was, in the Hall of Knights, that a network of politicians, journalists, philosophers, artists and thinkers, from 17 countries, gathered to discuss the future of Europe. In the hall’s palatial banqueting space, the congress was set up as an alternative parliament for a divided continent. Eight-hundred contributors attended at the invitation of the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity, an organisation that brought together the various campaigns for a federal Europe that had emerged during the first half of the 20th century.
The purpose of the congress, as one account has it, was to ‘demonstrate the existence, in all free countries of Europe, of a body of public opinion in support of European unity, to discuss the challenges posed by European unity and propose practical solutions to governments’. By the end of the congress, the delegates had formulated a ‘message to Europeans’, promising the development of a new ‘human-rights court’ and the establishment of a united Europe, within which ‘the free movement of persons, ideas and goods is restored’.
The reference to ‘free’ countries was highly significant. First, because it defined those attending the congress in opposition to the unfree countries of Eastern Europe, which the West wanted to portray as beholden to Moscow. And secondly, because it showed how the congress was defining a ‘free’ country in postwar Europe, as being free from Communism. Right from its inception, the European movement attempted to take ownership of the meaning of freedom as part of its attempt to define itself against the evils of the Soviet Union. Human-rights laws would come to be fundamental to the European movement’s attempt to define freedom in its own image.
The men who arrived in The Hague intent on crafting a new future for Europe were, in Duranti’s words, ‘united in their belief that a democracy in which tyranny of the majority held sway was little better than a dictatorship’. Duranti notes that ‘while their socialist opponents called them anti-democratic, conservatives saw their aim at The Hague Congress as protecting democracy from itself’. Throughout the congress, the spectre of Nazism and the threat of Communism were presented as possible outcomes of untrammelled democracy.
Winston Churchill opened proceedings at The Hague by proclaiming that the congress could ‘fairly claim to be the voice of Europe’. These few words were telling. For this ‘voice of Europe’ belonged to attendees who were, in the main, not there on any democratic mandate. It was predominantly attended by people who had either recently been rejected by their voting public, including Churchill, or who had never won a vote in their lives. Even those delegations which did include elected members of parliament tended to be dominated by Catholic conservatives over liberals and socialists. The claim in the congress’s mission statement — that it wished to ‘demonstrate the existence, in all free countries of Europe, of a body of public opinion in support of European unity’ — suggested that the performative display of unity was more important than its political substance.
Churchill argued that a nation-state-based democracy had been responsible for the rise of Hitler. He spoke of ‘the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty [as opposed to national sovereignty] which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions, all of which under totalitarian systems, whether Nazi, Fascist, or Communist, would certainly be blotted out for ever’. Throughout the congress, totalitarianism was held up as a possible outcome of nation-state democracy in Europe. Attendees talked of the need ‘to modify the traditional nation-state pattern’ and ‘establish political jurisdiction broad enough to satisfy the political and economic needs’ of the time. A speech given by one leader showed how human rights were always conceived of as part of broader efforts towards European federalism. She proclaimed that given Europe’s ‘future is a federalist future, we believe that the defence of human rights is impossible in international terms except in a federalist framework’.
Throughout The Hague Congress in 1948, the spectre of Nazism and the threat of Communism were presented as possible outcomes of untrammelled democracy
The threat of Communism was uppermost among Churchill’s concerns. He had written to Anthony Eden, the Conservative deputy leader, in 1942 to say that his ‘thoughts rest[ed] primarily in […] the revival and glory of Europe’, and he feared that Europe’s only other path was ‘toward Bolshevism’. There was a semblance of substance to Churchill’s fears. He had been ousted from the UK government in 1945 by Clement Attlee’s Labour Party elected on a socialist platform of wide-ranging social reform, from the creation of the National Health Service to the development of the welfare state. Churchill had even accused Atlee of attempting to install a ‘socialist dictatorship’ in Britain in the run-up to the election. Unfortunately for Churchill, this was a ‘socialist dictatorship’ that had a popular mandate. Churchill thus addressed the congress as someone threatened by the spread of socialism, and constructing ‘Europe’ as an entity opposed to ‘socialist dictatorship’. ‘Europe has only to arise and stand in her own majesty, faithfulness and virtue’, he said, ‘to confront all forms of tyranny, ancient or modern, Nazi or Communist’.
Today, ‘protecting democracy from itself’ is still at the heart of the human-rights movement. A 2017 report by Bright Blue, a conservative think-tank, identifies the Human Rights Act as a vital curb on the ‘totalitarian’ impulses of a ‘socialist’ government under Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, on the basis that the convention is deferential to private-property rights. A 2017 campaign by the left-leaning human-rights group, Rights Info, crowdfunded a film on how human rights can ‘stop the rise of the far right’. The crowdfunding invitation featured footage of Nazi parades and Jews in Auschwitz interspersed with modern footage of marches by the English Defence League and US white nationalists. The message of the film was that human rights in the present can prevent a repeat of the evils of the past, placing a curb on the apparent rise of the far right among the general population. This shows the extent to which the claim that democracy gives rise to tyranny has remained the central argument of supporters of human rights.
The fear of socialism motivated other human-rights institutions as well. Kirsten Sellars’ The Rise and Rise of Human Rights explores in forensic detail how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights arose from the West’s need to present a coherent self-image following the Second World War, explaining how human rights went from a fringe interest among a minority of academic lawyers to ‘formulating the language of late 20th-century international relations’ (4). The shambolic and inconclusive trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo against war criminals symbolised the lack of moral authority experienced by the Allies in the aftermath of war. The language of ‘human rights’ moved from a fringe obsession among international lawyers to a key tool in the armoury of political actors precisely because universalism and consensus were missing from the conduct of international relations. In Sellars’ words, ‘The iron fist of global power was thus wrapped in the velvet glove of international humanitarianism’.
For Sellars, the idea of human rights originated during the Enlightenment, ‘as reason began to triumph over religion and the new sensibility embraced ideals of individual freedom and social equality’. However, it was not until the early 1940s that the modern human-rights system began to influence global politics. It gained significant international momentum with the founding of the United Nations, at the San Francisco Conference in April 1945. The US had laid plans for a new ‘international organisation’ since before the war, one that would replace the precarious balance of power that had persisted during the first four decades of the 20th century. This new global conglomerate would be the most effective way of securing peace and stability in the postwar world. The heart and stomach of the organisation would be the provision of a veto to the major global powers: Russia, Britain, America, China and France, which would allow the largest countries to better manage the affairs of the smaller ones.
The idea of protecting democracy from itself is still at the heart of the human-rights movement
The language of human rights would provide a moral justification for this new world order, which would place stability and enduring peace as the highest priorities of international relations. The idea that human-rights laws could embody human dignity meant they could be made sacrosanct, and placed above the political concerns of the countries signing up to them. In other words, human-rights laws would be impervious to the views, wishes and demands of national populaces. But this utopian vision did not last long. Right from the beginning, disagreements about the provisions of the Universal Declaration illuminated the disparate and divergent political positions of the contributing nations. The attempt to craft an apolitical, democratically removed baseline for all the countries of the world, one situated in the primacy of human dignity, was immediately stalled by the social and political realities of the signatory states.
Again, the fear of bolstering socialism in Europe lay at the forefront of concerns for both the UK and the US. They both worked hard to squeeze out a ‘right of political rebellion’ from the early drafts of the Universal Declaration. Both countries had experienced widespread civil disobedience in the early parts of the 20th century, from an organised and increasingly militant working class, so the idea of bolstering these movements with human-rights protections was politically unpalatable. While the declaration included social and economic rights, what precisely these rights would entail was hotly disputed. The British defined social and economic rights narrowly, as providing for some sort of social insurance. Other countries, including Panama and Venezuela, conceived of social and economic rights as providing ‘social security from the cradle to the grave’. It was simply not possible to create a document that could allay the fears of socialism from one part of the globe and actively promote socialist principles from another.
Accordingly, the Universal Declaration was not a radical document. Rather, ‘it accurately reflected the conservative social mores and liberal economic values of the immediate postwar era’. Sellars notes that ‘it proclaimed trade-union rights and the rights to enter into and dissolve marriage freely, but also reaffirmed the family as the natural and fundamental unit in society’, and carefully reasserted the ‘right to own property’. Much like the drafters of the European Convention on Human Rights, the drafters of the declaration were driven by conservative principles and an overriding concern to ensure stability. Their determination to enshrine the right to private property reflected their concerns about the spread of socialism, a fear shared by the drafters of the European Convention on Human Rights. Above all, they feared the results of untrammeled democracy. Today, it is this fear of democracy that echoes in our arguments about human rights, a fear now shared by both the left and right.
Conclusion
The ascendency of human rights in the aftermath of the Second World War was part, then, of an attempt by European elites to manage mass democracy. They were seeking to defend themselves against the spread of socialism, and re-establish the position of European Christian values, which they perceived to be threatened by democracy. Internationally, the human-rights framework was to provide a powerful moral justification for transnational institutions like the UN and European Union.
Today, leftists and liberals imagine that human-rights laws are a guarantor of freedom. They have bought into the founding myth of the human-rights project: that judges are better guardians of freedom than the people. That’s why the first step towards developing a freer society would be to debunk this myth. Human rights have done little to protect our freedom; rather, by managing and limiting democracy, they have presided over its collapse."
Here is the full text. Bold is my emphasis. Source and my brief comments at the end:
"In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, many Remainers were keen to emphasise that leaving the European Union (EU) did not mean leaving the remit of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). As they saw it, retaining the human-rights regime was a means to retain some vestige of what they perceived to be the progressive European project. It was as though they felt, in the aftermath of Brexit, that all was not lost as long as they could hold on to human-rights laws. Hence, human-rights proponents were keen to highlight the fact that the Human Rights Act was passed into English law by the UK parliament and did not represent a law ‘imposed by Brussels’ – a retort they find useful when the human-rights regime is called ‘undemocratic’.
Aspects of this narrative are technically true. The EU and the ECHR are legally separate institutions. The UK did not join what was to become the EU, namely the European Economic Community, until 1973, whereas the European Convention on Human Rights came into force in 1953 and Britain granted individuals the right to petition the ECHR in 1966. The convention itself is now a part of English law through the 1998 Human Rights Act, which was passed by parliament under prime minister Tony Blair’s Labour administration. The presence of the human-rights regime in UK law cannot be attributed, therefore, to any foreign body, nor is there anything to say that leaving the EU entails leaving the ECHR.
However, it is also right to see the EU and the ECHR as politically and historically aligned. Both developed out of the emerging European movement following the Second World War. This movement was motivated by conservative ruling elites’ need to manage democracy in the face of political threats, in particular the perceived threat of the spread of socialism from Eastern Europe (1). The existence of a human-rights framework owes everything to the attempts of postwar elites to centralise economic and political control over the European continent and to manage the democratic will of European peoples.
Until recently, the anti-democratic motivations of the ECHR’s founders have been hidden by an appeal to humanitarian sentiments. It has become commonly accepted that the creation of the ECHR, and related human-rights institutions, was designed to prevent a repeat of the atrocities that marked the first half of the 20th century. However, it is more accurate to say that these atrocities, and their political precursors, especially Nazism, were used to discredit democracy as a means of protecting individual rights.
Marco Duranti’s The Conservative Human Rights Revolution provides an insight into the anti-democratic foundation of the European human-rights movement. According to Duranti, the ‘surprisingly small group of individuals [who] shaped the basic contours of the European human-rights system yearned for the mythical Christian Europe of a bygone age’ (2). These were individuals like David Maxwell Fyfe, a staunch free-market conservative. He, like Churchill, saw a serious threat in the apparently social-democratic direction taken by Britain following the election of Labour and Clement Attlee as prime minister. Socialist and Communist parties contributed to the drafting of the European Convention and there could be little doubt that the Convention had a ‘social-democratic orientation’, but the primary role of the human-rights framework was to provide an alternative moral framework to that offered by socialism.
The European human-rights movement began in 1948. It was the year the Soviet Union had blockaded West Berlin in response to the Western allies introducing the Deutsche Mark, and countries in both east and west Europe began receiving $13 billion in aid from America under the Marshall Plan, which many saw as an attempt at suppressing Communist influence in western Europe (3). Perhaps most significantly, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, backed by the Soviet Union, staged the ‘Victorious February’ coup d’etat. This represented the first overthrow of a democratically elected government by Soviet-backed forces since the conclusion of the war. These events all helped to fuel the overwhelming fear of Communism among Europe’s elites.
The existence of a human-rights framework owes everything to postwar elites’ attempt to exert economic and political control over the heads of European peoples
It was against this background that The Hague Congress, or the Congress of Europe, seen as the birth of the European project, took place. So it was, in the Hall of Knights, that a network of politicians, journalists, philosophers, artists and thinkers, from 17 countries, gathered to discuss the future of Europe. In the hall’s palatial banqueting space, the congress was set up as an alternative parliament for a divided continent. Eight-hundred contributors attended at the invitation of the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity, an organisation that brought together the various campaigns for a federal Europe that had emerged during the first half of the 20th century.
The purpose of the congress, as one account has it, was to ‘demonstrate the existence, in all free countries of Europe, of a body of public opinion in support of European unity, to discuss the challenges posed by European unity and propose practical solutions to governments’. By the end of the congress, the delegates had formulated a ‘message to Europeans’, promising the development of a new ‘human-rights court’ and the establishment of a united Europe, within which ‘the free movement of persons, ideas and goods is restored’.
The reference to ‘free’ countries was highly significant. First, because it defined those attending the congress in opposition to the unfree countries of Eastern Europe, which the West wanted to portray as beholden to Moscow. And secondly, because it showed how the congress was defining a ‘free’ country in postwar Europe, as being free from Communism. Right from its inception, the European movement attempted to take ownership of the meaning of freedom as part of its attempt to define itself against the evils of the Soviet Union. Human-rights laws would come to be fundamental to the European movement’s attempt to define freedom in its own image.
The men who arrived in The Hague intent on crafting a new future for Europe were, in Duranti’s words, ‘united in their belief that a democracy in which tyranny of the majority held sway was little better than a dictatorship’. Duranti notes that ‘while their socialist opponents called them anti-democratic, conservatives saw their aim at The Hague Congress as protecting democracy from itself’. Throughout the congress, the spectre of Nazism and the threat of Communism were presented as possible outcomes of untrammelled democracy.
Winston Churchill opened proceedings at The Hague by proclaiming that the congress could ‘fairly claim to be the voice of Europe’. These few words were telling. For this ‘voice of Europe’ belonged to attendees who were, in the main, not there on any democratic mandate. It was predominantly attended by people who had either recently been rejected by their voting public, including Churchill, or who had never won a vote in their lives. Even those delegations which did include elected members of parliament tended to be dominated by Catholic conservatives over liberals and socialists. The claim in the congress’s mission statement — that it wished to ‘demonstrate the existence, in all free countries of Europe, of a body of public opinion in support of European unity’ — suggested that the performative display of unity was more important than its political substance.
Churchill argued that a nation-state-based democracy had been responsible for the rise of Hitler. He spoke of ‘the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty [as opposed to national sovereignty] which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions, all of which under totalitarian systems, whether Nazi, Fascist, or Communist, would certainly be blotted out for ever’. Throughout the congress, totalitarianism was held up as a possible outcome of nation-state democracy in Europe. Attendees talked of the need ‘to modify the traditional nation-state pattern’ and ‘establish political jurisdiction broad enough to satisfy the political and economic needs’ of the time. A speech given by one leader showed how human rights were always conceived of as part of broader efforts towards European federalism. She proclaimed that given Europe’s ‘future is a federalist future, we believe that the defence of human rights is impossible in international terms except in a federalist framework’.
Throughout The Hague Congress in 1948, the spectre of Nazism and the threat of Communism were presented as possible outcomes of untrammelled democracy
The threat of Communism was uppermost among Churchill’s concerns. He had written to Anthony Eden, the Conservative deputy leader, in 1942 to say that his ‘thoughts rest[ed] primarily in […] the revival and glory of Europe’, and he feared that Europe’s only other path was ‘toward Bolshevism’. There was a semblance of substance to Churchill’s fears. He had been ousted from the UK government in 1945 by Clement Attlee’s Labour Party elected on a socialist platform of wide-ranging social reform, from the creation of the National Health Service to the development of the welfare state. Churchill had even accused Atlee of attempting to install a ‘socialist dictatorship’ in Britain in the run-up to the election. Unfortunately for Churchill, this was a ‘socialist dictatorship’ that had a popular mandate. Churchill thus addressed the congress as someone threatened by the spread of socialism, and constructing ‘Europe’ as an entity opposed to ‘socialist dictatorship’. ‘Europe has only to arise and stand in her own majesty, faithfulness and virtue’, he said, ‘to confront all forms of tyranny, ancient or modern, Nazi or Communist’.
Today, ‘protecting democracy from itself’ is still at the heart of the human-rights movement. A 2017 report by Bright Blue, a conservative think-tank, identifies the Human Rights Act as a vital curb on the ‘totalitarian’ impulses of a ‘socialist’ government under Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, on the basis that the convention is deferential to private-property rights. A 2017 campaign by the left-leaning human-rights group, Rights Info, crowdfunded a film on how human rights can ‘stop the rise of the far right’. The crowdfunding invitation featured footage of Nazi parades and Jews in Auschwitz interspersed with modern footage of marches by the English Defence League and US white nationalists. The message of the film was that human rights in the present can prevent a repeat of the evils of the past, placing a curb on the apparent rise of the far right among the general population. This shows the extent to which the claim that democracy gives rise to tyranny has remained the central argument of supporters of human rights.
The fear of socialism motivated other human-rights institutions as well. Kirsten Sellars’ The Rise and Rise of Human Rights explores in forensic detail how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights arose from the West’s need to present a coherent self-image following the Second World War, explaining how human rights went from a fringe interest among a minority of academic lawyers to ‘formulating the language of late 20th-century international relations’ (4). The shambolic and inconclusive trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo against war criminals symbolised the lack of moral authority experienced by the Allies in the aftermath of war. The language of ‘human rights’ moved from a fringe obsession among international lawyers to a key tool in the armoury of political actors precisely because universalism and consensus were missing from the conduct of international relations. In Sellars’ words, ‘The iron fist of global power was thus wrapped in the velvet glove of international humanitarianism’.
For Sellars, the idea of human rights originated during the Enlightenment, ‘as reason began to triumph over religion and the new sensibility embraced ideals of individual freedom and social equality’. However, it was not until the early 1940s that the modern human-rights system began to influence global politics. It gained significant international momentum with the founding of the United Nations, at the San Francisco Conference in April 1945. The US had laid plans for a new ‘international organisation’ since before the war, one that would replace the precarious balance of power that had persisted during the first four decades of the 20th century. This new global conglomerate would be the most effective way of securing peace and stability in the postwar world. The heart and stomach of the organisation would be the provision of a veto to the major global powers: Russia, Britain, America, China and France, which would allow the largest countries to better manage the affairs of the smaller ones.
The idea of protecting democracy from itself is still at the heart of the human-rights movement
The language of human rights would provide a moral justification for this new world order, which would place stability and enduring peace as the highest priorities of international relations. The idea that human-rights laws could embody human dignity meant they could be made sacrosanct, and placed above the political concerns of the countries signing up to them. In other words, human-rights laws would be impervious to the views, wishes and demands of national populaces. But this utopian vision did not last long. Right from the beginning, disagreements about the provisions of the Universal Declaration illuminated the disparate and divergent political positions of the contributing nations. The attempt to craft an apolitical, democratically removed baseline for all the countries of the world, one situated in the primacy of human dignity, was immediately stalled by the social and political realities of the signatory states.
Again, the fear of bolstering socialism in Europe lay at the forefront of concerns for both the UK and the US. They both worked hard to squeeze out a ‘right of political rebellion’ from the early drafts of the Universal Declaration. Both countries had experienced widespread civil disobedience in the early parts of the 20th century, from an organised and increasingly militant working class, so the idea of bolstering these movements with human-rights protections was politically unpalatable. While the declaration included social and economic rights, what precisely these rights would entail was hotly disputed. The British defined social and economic rights narrowly, as providing for some sort of social insurance. Other countries, including Panama and Venezuela, conceived of social and economic rights as providing ‘social security from the cradle to the grave’. It was simply not possible to create a document that could allay the fears of socialism from one part of the globe and actively promote socialist principles from another.
Accordingly, the Universal Declaration was not a radical document. Rather, ‘it accurately reflected the conservative social mores and liberal economic values of the immediate postwar era’. Sellars notes that ‘it proclaimed trade-union rights and the rights to enter into and dissolve marriage freely, but also reaffirmed the family as the natural and fundamental unit in society’, and carefully reasserted the ‘right to own property’. Much like the drafters of the European Convention on Human Rights, the drafters of the declaration were driven by conservative principles and an overriding concern to ensure stability. Their determination to enshrine the right to private property reflected their concerns about the spread of socialism, a fear shared by the drafters of the European Convention on Human Rights. Above all, they feared the results of untrammeled democracy. Today, it is this fear of democracy that echoes in our arguments about human rights, a fear now shared by both the left and right.
Conclusion
The ascendency of human rights in the aftermath of the Second World War was part, then, of an attempt by European elites to manage mass democracy. They were seeking to defend themselves against the spread of socialism, and re-establish the position of European Christian values, which they perceived to be threatened by democracy. Internationally, the human-rights framework was to provide a powerful moral justification for transnational institutions like the UN and European Union.
Today, leftists and liberals imagine that human-rights laws are a guarantor of freedom. They have bought into the founding myth of the human-rights project: that judges are better guardians of freedom than the people. That’s why the first step towards developing a freer society would be to debunk this myth. Human rights have done little to protect our freedom; rather, by managing and limiting democracy, they have presided over its collapse."
Source:
I've known that "Human Rights" are a scam for some time. My understanding of that was not based on the very interesting history that Gittos reveals in this article.
My understanding was based on the fact that "Human Rights" are not actually granted to human beings! Yes you read that correctly. Because all these so called "Rights" are granted to your Strawman, your legal person, and not to you the human being. If you don't understand the difference then read one of my earliest blogs:
The key point here is that your Strawman, your legal personality, is not you the human. Your Strawman has no flesh and blood, it is a dead legal definition only. It only exists on paper and not in reality.
So if you haven't got a legal personality, for whatever reason, then, you have got no such "Rights". You are a non person. This is explicit in all the legislation, starting with the UN, but with all other legal bodies too.
This Legalism con just about the most fundamental con that we suffer as humans. It is closely followed by the money scam.
They are a pair of twin imposters, rather like those evil twins Nazism and Zionism are, only infinitely more insidious and harmful........
Monday 18 February 2019
From Chattel Slavery To Capitalism
Capitalism is modern day slavery
But most people don't realise that they are slaves.....
Read this from Anthony, my brief comments at the end:
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
How about you, do you realise how enslaved that you really are?
Source:
But most people don't realise that they are slaves.....
Read this from Anthony, my brief comments at the end:
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
A cliché, and yet so pertinent. So many people think that the struggle against the New World Order is about preventing becoming their slaves.
But we ARE their slaves!
The essence of Slavery is that someone else controls the value of our production.
Under Capitalism, people depending on a wage (the 90/99%), typically consume only about 10% of the value of their own production. The entire System is geared to sucking up our production with unearned income: Usury, Landlordism, Speculation, high prices of Monopoly.
In Capitalism, this was achieved by first driving the common people off their ancestral lands by systematically destroying the abundant money systems of the medieval era by forcing Gold Standards everywhere.
This caused a deflation that first savaged the country side.
In this way, the People lost their means of independence, and were forced to work for others for a living, in the cities. Instead of being independent farmers and craftsmen, they were demoted to wage slavery.
By giving him a wage, immediately a large chunk of the value of the worker’s production is taken by the shareholder. The value of the worker’s production is always much higher than his wage.
With Multinationals, profits and shareholder dividends are typically higher than cost for labor. Meaning that more than half of the workers’ production is taken by the owners of the company.
The reason that they get away with this, is because Capital is kept artificially scarce, both through Cartels and through the artificial scarcity of money. In this way, Labor is oppressed, forcing them into low wages and humiliating conditions.
The worker receives his wage, and the remaining value of his production is next sucked up with scientific precision.
A wage slave making $2000 per month has a budget something like this:
$300 for the State
$700 for the Landlord
$100 for Energy
$200 for ‘health’ ‘care’
$150 for Transportation
$50 for Telecom
Total: $1500
$300 for the State
$700 for the Landlord
$100 for Energy
$200 for ‘health’ ‘care’
$150 for Transportation
$50 for Telecom
Total: $1500
What remains, $500, about a quarter, is to eat and try live a life. A fraction of what 40 hours work produced, at least $4000 worth.
The beauty of the System is, that when wages rise, prices, debts (and associated usurious cost), rents, rise along, sucking up the extra purchasing power.
Residual wealth that the Middle Class retains during booms, is disowned a little later with the inevitably following crunch, forcing them into liquidation at depressed prices.
Free Markets, Right?! Supply and demand!
All good and dandy, we think. Fair enough. We use stuff, so we pay.
All good and dandy, we think. Fair enough. We use stuff, so we pay.
But when we take a closer look at where all this money ends up, it transpires that all supply chains we depend on (energy, automotive industry, telecom, ‘health’ ‘care’) are dominated by massive International Cartels.
Cartels keep supply low, and prices high, so a lot of their profits are unearned income, not really related to their production, but to their market power. They use this to keep competitors out, and the Capitalist’s core value is ‘Competition is Sin’ (John D. Rockefeller).
What is more, a great many people are enslaved by Landlordism, which is a vicious Tyranny, first established by the Sword, later overtaken by mortgages, the Money Power’s method of disowning the Landed Aristocracy. Landlordism is pure parasitism, and all the Land is owned by a really very small group of mostly very old families. For instance: all the homeowners in Britain combined own only 6% of the Land. All the rest is in the hands of a minute percentage of the population. Many of the main Land holders go back all the way to William the Conqueror.
Usury massively raises all these prices. As we know, Usury is about 40% of prices we pay for all goods and services: cost for capital passed on by the supplier.
This include the land we live on, and on which we are utterly dependent. In fact, Usury actually QUADRUPLES Landlordism´s rents.
But this is not the only way International Finance profits from everything: they also have a decisive stake in most of the Transnationals that dominate the supply chains we are completely dependent upon. Only 20% of Transnationals (there are about 40,000 of them) are independently owned.
Conclusion
In the past, people enslaved in the mines and the sweatshops, say late 19th century Britain, they were even forced by their employers to do their groceries in factory owned shops that charged outrageous prices.
In the past, people enslaved in the mines and the sweatshops, say late 19th century Britain, they were even forced by their employers to do their groceries in factory owned shops that charged outrageous prices.
We think we have outgrown this. It’s really time to think again: all that has happened is that Capital (Finance) has upped their game. Local shops on factory compounds are now international supermarket chains. But they are owned by the same people, and serve the exact same purpose: reclaiming Capital’s losses to wages, usurping our production.
People even go so far as to say ‘Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty’! What is so insane about this, is that a man, in 1694, worked about 15 weeks per year on his own farm. Then with the ascent of Capitalism, two centuries later, he worked 80 hours per week in some soul crushing ‘job’, and it was still not enough: his wife and his kids had to work too, just to pay for the rent and some potatoes.
Even today, we work at least twice as much as three centuries ago.
The most galling of it all is that people claim ‘freedom’, because once every four years they get to give away what remains of their power to some Kleptocrat insider with ‘democratic elections’.
This is the reality of Capitalism, which is centered around International Finance and its Usury (Banking).
No solution to all this is thinkable, without the end of Usury by interest free credit for the People."
How about you, do you realise how enslaved that you really are?
Source:
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2019/02/18/the-slavery-of-capitalism/
If you read the first few short comments at the end of the piece then, you will see some key related issues, relevant to all Brits and to all of humanity in fact. The largely unknown history, in the 1600's, of Oliver Cromwell, his Dutch/Jewish financiers, and the British landed gentry, is touched upon. I will briefly elaborate here.
The British aristocrats prior plunder of the Catholic churches wealth, followed by their control of the British Crown, via William of Orange, was used to set up their usurious Bank of England in 1694, only five years after William of Orange was crowned. William was actually chosen by the British oligarchs to be the king! There was no credible "succession" at all. They even admit that in Wikipedia, figuring that it is meaningless to most of their readers I guess.
It was an absolutely key period in British history. These fabulously wealthy, oligarchs and their Dutch based Jewish money men, followed by their descendants, have ruled over us ever since, make no mistake. They used/controlled the City of London and they went on to create the British Empire that plundered the rest of the world using the first international private corporations. Corporations like the British East India Company, which ran the sub-continent, ostensibly on behalf of the British State, but in reality on behalf of the private wealthy owners who actually owned the East India Company. It was a massive cash cow for the super rich of the time. In fact it was only disbanded in the 1800's by which time they effectively owned the British State lock stock and barrel.
The current oligarchs on-the-payroll historians of academia call the accession of William of Orange and the subsequent events "reforming" the Parliament, "the Glorious Revolution". It was glorious for the oligarchs certainly. Not so glorious for everybody else.
Their Bank of England was the worlds very first central bank of course. The "British" oligarchs owned it privately until 1946!! For 252 years!! They still control it today of course, even though they claim that it has been owned by the state since 1946. A claim that has never been properly proven of course because the public never sees the bank's audited accounts. They are only viewed privately, by insiders. So there is no real, demonstrable, democratic accountability at all. Wiki says "The Bank became an independent public organisation in 1998, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, but with independence in setting monetary policy." Yeah, sure.......
Pretty well very single country in the world now has a British [Rothschild] type of central bank. The worlds other key central bank is the Federal Reserve in the US. It is still privately owned, largely by the Rothschilds and their agents. China and Russia have Rothschild style central banks too, very telling wouldn't you say. In fact the only states now without a Rothschild style central bank are: North Korea, Cuba and Iran, I think, no others. Countries that recently had independent money systems but are now firmly in their usurious central banking grip are: Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
If you are even slightly awake then, you should see a clear pattern here. A pattern that resonates with the recent history of the Anglo-Zionist Empire [US, UK, Israel] and it's war machine
Btw, the very first thing that the so called "rebels" [in reality they were CIA controlled terrorists] who ousted Gaddaffi from Libya did was set up a Rothschild style central bank! Before the coup was even completed! The first thing that the Anglo-Zionist Empire did in Libya was secure all the gold. There was a lot of it too because Gaddaffi was going to set up an African gold based currency, independent from the bad guys central banks. You can bet your life that the gold is not in Libya any more. His currency plans probably sealed his fate, the oil was very handy for the oligarchs too.
I'm not exactly sure about Syria but I think they are now in this world system as well. That conflict is certainly not what it seems. There are deep currents that are not visible there.
You will also read in those few early comments that socialism is not the answer to this fundamental Usury/Capitalism/Finance problem that effects 90+% of all humanity. This is correct I think because the ALL socialist political systems that have EVER existed have been co-opted by the same oligarchs, who are usually hidden in the background.
Yes that includes Cuba too............... See my posts of September '17 and December '16 for my fuller explanations of why I think that.
And yes that includes the UK "Labour Party" as well.......... See the bios of the founders for starters. The sons and daughters of wealthy industrialists, financiers and the landed class. When did such people ever betray their own class? [Fidel was from great wealth too :-))] For further research on Labour then look at the Fabian Society and it's house university, the LSE in London. Every single Labour Prime Minister has been a Fabian. That says it all for me so I will stop there. Do your own research for proof of what I say, you won't need to try too hard.
The modern day oligarchs are the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Du Ponts, and their ilk, some of them being completely unknown to us all, probably how can we know? These are the $trillionaires. They ALWAYS lurk behind socialist, and communist, political systems. They fund them and they promote them using their media, they own ALL the media.
Why would they do that, you may say, why nurture socialists who want all of them gone? Simples, they love the centralised control that such systems bring. And they love to set one state against the other, the age old divide and rule. Such conflict usually leads to change. Change that, out of sight, they often steer in the direction that they pre-decided. Usually, but not always, ending up where they want. Centralised socialist/communist states are so much easier to control than democracies and republics too. They control all democracies as well of course............
But it seems that the centralised State is the oligarchs main desire. They call their dream scenario the "New World Order". A unified centralised World State under their control and probably, maybe, socialist. It's for the common good. That's what they want you to think anyway.............
The problem for us all, the 90+% that is, is that this is not a dream any more. It is fast becoming a reality. For example their UN, their NAU [North American Union ie. US, Canada & Mexico], their EU, their other regional superstates, their BIS, IMF, World Bank etc etc are all in place. All these numerous institutions are beholden to their fascistic money power. They were all set up by, and for, the fascist oligarchs, don't believe anyone who tells you different. Nothing that is so fundamental happens without their approval, nothing...................
At the $trillionaire level then, ALL the worlds states are under their control, yes including China and Russia too. Putin is a mere billionaire. Some think that he is some sort of saviour. Not me. They own all of the pols, all of them, without exception.
At some point, soon probably, they will unify their five key money systems [£, $, €, Yen and Renminbi/Yuan] into one world-wide electronic currency. There will be no cash that you can hide under your mattress then, none. There will be no private money at all in fact, money will only exist in their banksters computers.
When that happens then, you could be financially terminated at the flick of a screen. They have already introduced a "social credit" system in China. Which means any dissent leads to a low "social credit" score and such dissent could be punished by the restriction of your freedoms. Your fundamental freedoms like: association with others, travel, work, money, use of social media ie. "free" speech, etc etc. All could all be withdrawn by the State. See the Corbett Report if you don't believe me.
With a one-world electronic currency then it will definitely be game over for the 90+%. The fascists will have full control then. Universal social credit will be an inevitability after that, maybe even before.
Hopefully I will have shuffled off my mortal coil before that happens. I hope to live a good few years yet and, if I do then, I expect to see when that NWO day dawns. But I certainly expect that my children and grandchildren will live in such a world.
I guess that these dystopian thoughts bring me right back to the opening quote:
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Maybe, when their New World Order is fully implemented then, it will be better to take the blue pill, and stay in the Matrix? To live the best way that you can and ignore all this, pretend that it never happened...........
When this is the best option then, Orwell's 1984 aphorism will be real:
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
If you read the first few short comments at the end of the piece then, you will see some key related issues, relevant to all Brits and to all of humanity in fact. The largely unknown history, in the 1600's, of Oliver Cromwell, his Dutch/Jewish financiers, and the British landed gentry, is touched upon. I will briefly elaborate here.
The British aristocrats prior plunder of the Catholic churches wealth, followed by their control of the British Crown, via William of Orange, was used to set up their usurious Bank of England in 1694, only five years after William of Orange was crowned. William was actually chosen by the British oligarchs to be the king! There was no credible "succession" at all. They even admit that in Wikipedia, figuring that it is meaningless to most of their readers I guess.
It was an absolutely key period in British history. These fabulously wealthy, oligarchs and their Dutch based Jewish money men, followed by their descendants, have ruled over us ever since, make no mistake. They used/controlled the City of London and they went on to create the British Empire that plundered the rest of the world using the first international private corporations. Corporations like the British East India Company, which ran the sub-continent, ostensibly on behalf of the British State, but in reality on behalf of the private wealthy owners who actually owned the East India Company. It was a massive cash cow for the super rich of the time. In fact it was only disbanded in the 1800's by which time they effectively owned the British State lock stock and barrel.
The current oligarchs on-the-payroll historians of academia call the accession of William of Orange and the subsequent events "reforming" the Parliament, "the Glorious Revolution". It was glorious for the oligarchs certainly. Not so glorious for everybody else.
Their Bank of England was the worlds very first central bank of course. The "British" oligarchs owned it privately until 1946!! For 252 years!! They still control it today of course, even though they claim that it has been owned by the state since 1946. A claim that has never been properly proven of course because the public never sees the bank's audited accounts. They are only viewed privately, by insiders. So there is no real, demonstrable, democratic accountability at all. Wiki says "The Bank became an independent public organisation in 1998, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, but with independence in setting monetary policy." Yeah, sure.......
Pretty well very single country in the world now has a British [Rothschild] type of central bank. The worlds other key central bank is the Federal Reserve in the US. It is still privately owned, largely by the Rothschilds and their agents. China and Russia have Rothschild style central banks too, very telling wouldn't you say. In fact the only states now without a Rothschild style central bank are: North Korea, Cuba and Iran, I think, no others. Countries that recently had independent money systems but are now firmly in their usurious central banking grip are: Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
If you are even slightly awake then, you should see a clear pattern here. A pattern that resonates with the recent history of the Anglo-Zionist Empire [US, UK, Israel] and it's war machine
Btw, the very first thing that the so called "rebels" [in reality they were CIA controlled terrorists] who ousted Gaddaffi from Libya did was set up a Rothschild style central bank! Before the coup was even completed! The first thing that the Anglo-Zionist Empire did in Libya was secure all the gold. There was a lot of it too because Gaddaffi was going to set up an African gold based currency, independent from the bad guys central banks. You can bet your life that the gold is not in Libya any more. His currency plans probably sealed his fate, the oil was very handy for the oligarchs too.
I'm not exactly sure about Syria but I think they are now in this world system as well. That conflict is certainly not what it seems. There are deep currents that are not visible there.
You will also read in those few early comments that socialism is not the answer to this fundamental Usury/Capitalism/Finance problem that effects 90+% of all humanity. This is correct I think because the ALL socialist political systems that have EVER existed have been co-opted by the same oligarchs, who are usually hidden in the background.
Yes that includes Cuba too............... See my posts of September '17 and December '16 for my fuller explanations of why I think that.
And yes that includes the UK "Labour Party" as well.......... See the bios of the founders for starters. The sons and daughters of wealthy industrialists, financiers and the landed class. When did such people ever betray their own class? [Fidel was from great wealth too :-))] For further research on Labour then look at the Fabian Society and it's house university, the LSE in London. Every single Labour Prime Minister has been a Fabian. That says it all for me so I will stop there. Do your own research for proof of what I say, you won't need to try too hard.
The modern day oligarchs are the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Du Ponts, and their ilk, some of them being completely unknown to us all, probably how can we know? These are the $trillionaires. They ALWAYS lurk behind socialist, and communist, political systems. They fund them and they promote them using their media, they own ALL the media.
Why would they do that, you may say, why nurture socialists who want all of them gone? Simples, they love the centralised control that such systems bring. And they love to set one state against the other, the age old divide and rule. Such conflict usually leads to change. Change that, out of sight, they often steer in the direction that they pre-decided. Usually, but not always, ending up where they want. Centralised socialist/communist states are so much easier to control than democracies and republics too. They control all democracies as well of course............
But it seems that the centralised State is the oligarchs main desire. They call their dream scenario the "New World Order". A unified centralised World State under their control and probably, maybe, socialist. It's for the common good. That's what they want you to think anyway.............
The problem for us all, the 90+% that is, is that this is not a dream any more. It is fast becoming a reality. For example their UN, their NAU [North American Union ie. US, Canada & Mexico], their EU, their other regional superstates, their BIS, IMF, World Bank etc etc are all in place. All these numerous institutions are beholden to their fascistic money power. They were all set up by, and for, the fascist oligarchs, don't believe anyone who tells you different. Nothing that is so fundamental happens without their approval, nothing...................
At the $trillionaire level then, ALL the worlds states are under their control, yes including China and Russia too. Putin is a mere billionaire. Some think that he is some sort of saviour. Not me. They own all of the pols, all of them, without exception.
At some point, soon probably, they will unify their five key money systems [£, $, €, Yen and Renminbi/Yuan] into one world-wide electronic currency. There will be no cash that you can hide under your mattress then, none. There will be no private money at all in fact, money will only exist in their banksters computers.
When that happens then, you could be financially terminated at the flick of a screen. They have already introduced a "social credit" system in China. Which means any dissent leads to a low "social credit" score and such dissent could be punished by the restriction of your freedoms. Your fundamental freedoms like: association with others, travel, work, money, use of social media ie. "free" speech, etc etc. All could all be withdrawn by the State. See the Corbett Report if you don't believe me.
With a one-world electronic currency then it will definitely be game over for the 90+%. The fascists will have full control then. Universal social credit will be an inevitability after that, maybe even before.
Hopefully I will have shuffled off my mortal coil before that happens. I hope to live a good few years yet and, if I do then, I expect to see when that NWO day dawns. But I certainly expect that my children and grandchildren will live in such a world.
I guess that these dystopian thoughts bring me right back to the opening quote:
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Maybe, when their New World Order is fully implemented then, it will be better to take the blue pill, and stay in the Matrix? To live the best way that you can and ignore all this, pretend that it never happened...........
When this is the best option then, Orwell's 1984 aphorism will be real:
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
Friday 11 January 2019
5G telecoms must be stopped
Or we are all fucked
I just signed this appeal as a graduate Physicist (Bsc Honours, Nottingham, England, 1971)
It is devastating:
I found it here:
No other source is necessary tbh. The Global Research link says it all. Including the acute danger to kids. Numerous scientific papers are linked.
In my opinion this is the most urgent topic that we all need to address. Fracking has been defeated in England because of community activism at the drill sites. The motherfrackers have been defeated. The proposed fracking in Northern England has failed because of the health threat to the local communities who would not accept the risk. (They did not propose to frack in the rich South. They call us the "Desolate North". Quelle surprise)
However, the global Telecoms industry is another matter altogether. A far, far, tougher nut to crack. The plans are global as you will see if you read the links. These globalist corporations and their lacky local politicians are a threat to us all.
But the same resistance must happen for 5G, or we are all fucked. This info needs to be spread far and wide.
Don't take my word for it; read for yourself
Updates to follow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)