nourishing obscurity

The Trilateral Commission and the EU – Part 2

Posted on March 15th, 2010 by James Higham

In the first part, it was argued that there are many groups about, many thinktanks and all have a view of the world which they’d like to see implemented. In the end, it comes down to traction – how much notice is taken of them. As you saw, the TLC has an awful lot of traction.

Traction is one thing – convincing the government or opposition of the day of your views – but it’s another thing getting them presented and passed in the legislature. For a start, there are other agendas about – the CFR, for example, presented this paper which resulted in this summit, at which the principles were agreed by the elected heads of the US, Canada and Mexico. That’s also serious traction, considering that this was brought on by an organization who claim that they are just an advisory thinktank.

Then you have to consider that your people are probably also members of many other groups as well. The good thing is that if you can influence the World Bank and foreign policy via your membership, it helps in Congress or in Brussels. In the end though, you still have to get it through the legislature and there are mechanisms there. Not all members are corrupt and some are even idealistic.

Then there is the problem of the majority needed to get your legislature through. Here are four ways to do it in the US:

No prizes for guessing which one the TLC concentrates on and what has characterized their legislation pushes has been the desire to go swiftly and get it signed and sealed before anyone wakes up. The TPA is currently in hiatus because people woke up to it but it was immensely useful in shoving through new precedents. Here is how it was used:

Even that was interesting. Nixon was crooked, they did a number on him and who gets to be Prez? Why an unelected Ford of course. Who does he bring in as VP? Rockefeller. They do all they can before they’re thrown out and who comes in after that?

James Earl Carter [see Part 1]. In other words, they control both sides. It’s not the top echelon who get things in place either. The elected reps are under some constraint but those one echelon below, unelected, can do as they please and they do. Have you heard of Carla A. Hills? Neither had I. And yet, take a look at her record:

… and a different Resume/CV. Well, isn’t that a great surprise? But, you say, she’s CFR, not TLC. Think again:

So, what’s the big deal about her? Look at this photo:

What is she doing? Signing NAFTA into existence. This means major legislation. Who’s that behind her? George Bush, who happens to be President of the nation. So why isn’t he signing it into existence? How can he? The Senate hasn’t approved it at this stage so he’s not allowed to.

Exit Bush and who does come in and officially sign it into existence? Why Bill Lewinsky and Mr. Zedillo who has miraculously become President of Mexico:

Here’s another pic of Ernesto Zedillo:

You might like to note the tagline across the lectern there. He was succeeded by Fox who was at the March 23rd, 2005 meeting where the North American Union was given the nod. But remember, there is absolutely no conspiracy here because pundits who don’t do their homework have told us there’s no collusion in any way ["I just don't believe it"] and thus it must be as they say.

The European Union

Part 3 draws the threads together.

H/T Xxxl via Patrick Wood, August Review dot com

No Comments »
Filed under: Life issues & people, Politics & economics

Harriet Harman – moron extraordinaire

Posted on March 15th, 2010 by James Higham

Here are some men

You wouldn’t know it to look at me now but I have been gym training for some years and after the dental horror, it’s back to the gym tomorrow.

The first difference between Russia and here is that there is an incremental range of weights over there but over here, there is government regulation. Therefore, you may use dumbbells up to 9kg and one bar of 30kg but nothing above or below that. If you attempt to go from 2 x 9 = 18kg straight to 30kg, you will do your spine in and risk other injury as well. The law, under Elfansafetee, says you have no choice but to injure yourself, to protect you from injury, of course. They cut out the intermediate weights to “protect” you, thereby inducing spinal injury. A trainer is not permitted to stop you doing this as that would be “giving advice”.

Trainers here are only allowed to give you certain advice by law. In Russia, any trainer assesses your level of fitness, overall strength and your heart rate, especially if older and advises you accordingly. If you don’t have a personal trainer over there, then the regular trainer still keeps an eye on you because the reputation of the gym depends on customer satisfaction.

Here, the government tries to interfere with that. Harriet Harman, that professional weight trainer, has decided [H/T Angus]:

“A general stereotype about men and women is that in terms of physique, most men are stronger than most women. Nevertheless it is likely to be unlawful sex discrimination for a gym to test every woman’s strength but not every man’s before allowing them access to weightlifting facilities.”

The code makes clear that it will not be seen as an excuse if the motive of the gym staff is to help a woman or save her from injury.

“It does not matter what the service provider’s intentions are or whether the service provider’s less favourable treatment of the person is conscious or unconscious.”

What is the stage just short of apoplectic? As a result of PC, misandrist morons in power like Harman and her feminazi ilk, once more women are sold short, only this time, women are placed in direct danger by the effing government, on the grounds of ideology.

“A general stereotype”? What effing drugs are these birdbrains on? How TF is that woman in charge of anything to do with human beings in this former-nation of ours? And so as not to be accused of sexual discrimination or racism – Hain is just as moronic, the utter prat. I simply have no more words on this. F— me, excuse my French!

Don’t get the idea that I’m angry or anything though.

Here are some women

3 Comments »
Filed under: Life issues & people, Politics & economics

The Trilateral Commission and the EU – Part 1

Posted on March 15th, 2010 by James Higham

Let this series of three posts walk you through one thread in what the hell is going on right now and why people are suffering. As each new screenshot goes up, the question is, “So what?” Be patient because it is leading somewhere.

There are so many organizations out there – the WB, TLC, CFR, BIS, CBs, IMF and so on and so on. Let’s take just one of these for now, the Trilateral Commission:

The last line was what they have written into their mandate. Immediately, we get the first question – there are so many focus groups and think tanks out there that it can be bewildering. As the deputy leader of LPUK and Norman Tebbit said recently – it’s a matter of “traction”, i.e. how influential are you?

Anyone can come out with policies, even written up in important words and professionally presented but unless they’re heeded by the mechanisms of state, they’re nowhere. this is where marginalization comes in, as Guido found some time back when he tried to get some traction on the corruption in parliament.

You can judge for yourself, in this series of screenshots, how much traction the TLC has. Richard N. Gardner, former US Ambassador to Spain and Italy and law professor, founding member of the TLC, wrote, shortly after the setting up of the TLC:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, founder member of the TLC, wrote Between Two Ages, in which he supplied the ideas for the TLC whilst Rockefeller supplied the money. Brzezinski had already concluded, by 1972, that the:

Governments never go it alone – they set up commissions [not the TLC], inquiries, they have permanent heads of departments and they refer to the leading thinktanks for their policy. Leading thinktanks means those with the traction, i.e. money and influence, to be taken seriously. Members of governments themselves are usually concerned only with the getting of and maintenance of power, e.g. David Cameron, for without the power, you get nowhere. many of these are former lawyers or other professionals and bring that into the mix as well.

Brzezinski would be no more than a mad professor … unless he was listened to by someone in power. One such person was a peanut farmer named James Earl Carter:

Thus the TLC found their initial traction. Here is part of a list of members they got in:

So, we’re not talking any minor league players here, any regional office heads but TLC people at the very reins of policy making. And in case you are still in doubt about their stated policies, not as a conspiracy theory but in their own words, Barry Goldwater wrote:

They then expanded. Take a look at this list of World Bank Presidents:

… and have a considered guess as to how many are TLC members. OK, here they are in red:

Not a bad percentage, eh? Pure fluke? Sheer luck? Here is a list of US Trade Representatives [with the President of the time on the right] and TLC members in red:

Traction? Here are some more members and remember that the wife of the last one was a fully-fledged member in her own right:

So we’re probably talking serious traction here for the ideas expressed by the TLC. All right, even if we establish that the TLC largely influences government policy, it still has to pass Congress and the Senate, doesn’t it? It’s a simple fact that any treaties negotiated by the Senate require a 2/3 vote for. Now this is a hell of a lot of people and not all those are going to be TLC members.

So how do the TLC attempt to get legislation through? That fascinating process is in Part 2.