nourishing obscurity

As Ian Parker-Joseph pointed out yesterday:

This is what has already come out DURING the morning session of the Chilcott enquiry gentle chat with Blair.

NHS Waiting times

Britain downgraded by Credit Agency Standard & Poor

Witterings reports:

The European Commission will this year pay €6.7 million in subsidies to 58 think-tanks and NGOs which have “an openly pro-integration position”, reports EUobserver.

I left a comment at Tom Paine‘s recently [the issue was speculation over the death of David Kelly, which Tom doesn't buy]:

I have resisted speculating about the death of Dr David Kelly. Largely because I am generally a sceptic when it comes to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracies exist, Tom. It is no kudos to blindly reject all assertions [not that you personally do] on nefarious activities because it is in the nature of nefarious people to collude, cover-up and keep secret that which they would not like to see the light of day. Nixon was a perfect example of this.

Therefore, it is an untenable position to auto-label everything conspiracy theory – that’s as bad as believing everything one reads. In the case of Kelly, there are distinct anomalies + Mandelson. That alone should give cause for suspicion. The 70 year sealing just compounds the suspicion which already exists.

This is classic “elephant in the room”.

How does one define Them?  It’s a bit like electricity and also a bit like political lobby groups.  Firstly, electricity – you can see the effects but you can’t quite see it itself.  If it touches you, you know it’s there.  Where the analogy with electricity breaks down though is that electricity is useful.

The analogy of the political lobby group is more to the point.  As  the comments in the previous post indicated, people can be agreed that Blair is a liar and was wrong to go into Iraq but they’ll agree for different reasons and those reasons could well put them on opposite sides of the political fence.

How They appear to be, in my eyes

Using this latter analogy again and taking, say, the Albion Alliance as an example, we have a number of people from different walks of life coming together because they agree with a political policy, e.g. the need for a referendum on the EU in the UK but then people will start to drop off when we make the policy actually getting out of the EU.

Further people will drop away the further we stray from that central issue.  Is the AA a nefarious organization or is it a few people coming together [colluding?] because of their likemindedness on certain issues and having a similar mindset on many other issues?  Isn’t this what a political party is like as well?

Though the effects of Them are devastating – the breakdown of marriage, concept of the nation state, the gradual takeover by the State in so many inefficient and opinion-resistant ways, inevitably leading people, via a number of paths, to penury and servitude to debt, the contraction of liberty etc. – though the effects are debilitating, nevertheless, as they would say, as Davignon would say, they’re just people with a certain world view and they do what they can to spread that world view around.

What Davignon does not say is that whereas a movement such as the Albion Alliance faces a fragmented people pulling in all different directions, every man and woman with a personal opinion, either loosely or more accurately based on a thorough understanding of all the issues, Them is highly organized, with obscene amounts of drug, prostitution and legal, if not legit money behind them – the Committee of 300, the Lodges, CFR, TLC, SPPNA, Bilderbergers, BIS etc.

As William Jenner said, in 1954, in the Senate:

The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.

This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like ‘democracy’ in place of ‘representative government.’ “

… or the oft-quoted Quigley, in 1966:

In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.  I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.

[I]n general, my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

Churchill, in his 1920 treatise, referred to:

[N]ow at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads.

Referring to the Bolsheviks and to the way people such as Trotsky were assisted – he was spirited into Russia largely untroubled by the heightened security of wartime and when he did meet resistance, was eased through from above – Churchill was touching on a point still not conceded by the only lightly researched political thinking adopted by most people – namely that Them have no conscience.

They take a concept such as free enterprise and then twist it into something evil – just observe the shenanigans in New York at the current time, the obscene payouts by those in control of the FOMC, the reappointment of Bernanke who has been shown, by stern ecopundits, to have dissembled and as to applying the epithet “evil” – yes it is evil in the way the people were tempted and induced to embrace an unsustainable system of credit based on fraud and ultimate implosion and then when the little people get the inevitable consequences of their naively aspirational actions, they go down but Them are bailed out by their mates in the private enterprise government.

It’s evil to blame “capitalism” for this, meaning “free enterprise”, the right of a little man to open a corner store and if he does well, to open a second store on the fruits of his vision, his labour and the labour of those he employs at an agreed rate.  It’s evil to compare that to the Chinese sweat shops and the lack of any moral conscience in the treatment of workers and it’s a far cry from the ancient corruption which has for so many centuries been behind the leading figures in the elite’s swindle of billions of currency and the placing of the burden of all that around the necks of the ordinary people, in order to line their own pockets.

It’s far more than that.

In any political movement, there is the rank and file, then the visible movers and shakers but in the case of Them, there is also an ancient evil coming through – not to put too fine a point on it, it is a spiritual bankruptcy.  Where your local shopkeeper is in it for his family and often for his extended family – someone in the family who makes the money, very much a Russian concept as well when I was there – he could well be a devout Muslim or Christian or just a man into his work, his family and life.

However, in the case of the elite of Europe, you only have to look at your wider history to know that there is a meeting of people coming from different directions but all united in the one quest of making enough money.  The ancient usurers coming out of Venice moved into post-Crusades Europe and the financial system evolved from those days.

Those people haven’t died away, the ancient families are still there, the people who enabled Hitler by judicious funding are still there – the Bruderheist, the Club of Rome are still there, the conscienceless usurers are still in London, Paris and Zurich – they and their families haven’t gone anywhere.  They weren’t wiped out because they weren’t known for what they do and so they just continued, generation after generation.

There may have been films like the Brotherhood of the Wolf and Quantum of Solace but these were complete fiction, weren’t they?  Well, weren’t they? Hmmmmm.  What was that old saying – power corrupts but absolute power dot dot dot?

So we get someone in the City who is into investment banking or playing the markets or whatever and he learns to love the game.  He’s still a human being at this stage but he inevitably rubs up against the other type, the old money and I’m not referring to royalty or aristocracy here – I mean the old usurers.  I’ve met them in Frankfurt – cultured in some cases, well dressed, well spoken, men of the world.  I had no way to separate the chalk from the chaff because the front is so benign, so reasonable, so businesslike.

JC said the only way to tell them apart is at the harvest – you’ll know them then by their fruits.

After those come the wannabees and this is where the Faustian bargain faces all who find themselves with a certain amount of the folding stuff, as I once had.  Swanning around Europe and other countries was very nice, it was clean, elegant, people were polite to you and even warm, depending on your shoes and how important you seemed.  That it’s material and inevitably empty virtually invites in a certain “consciencelessness ” in the spirit which will brook no interference and creates its own arguments and justifications as it goes along.

It’s the perma-challenge of how far one can ignore the vestiges of conscience which still prick on occasions and allow yourself to be subsumed by the banal, grey-suited world of the unit of currency.  My novel addresses certain of such men [and women] who saw the light, saw the consequences of the effect on themselves and had the strength of character to withdraw from all this, often at great risk to themselves.  I know a few of these people.

Conspiracy?

Among a small percentage – Svali estimated 2% – is this complete surrender to the Empire, as with Anakin Skywalker to Palpatin, then there are the infighting and backstabbing ranks of wannabees, the middle-management of the Empire who claim association with the inner circle – Mandelson is one of these, almost one of the former but still knocking on the door and then there are finally the envious little people – the hardtalking, hardminded, glinty-eyed “boy done well”s who give all for Mammon and theirs is the politics of envy, making them difficult to distinguish from the socialist prisoners of envy.  Give a dog a bone.

So, is there conspiracy?   Not in the sense of these people having weekly meetings with colleagues in the dastardly SPECTRE HQ, the leader with a cat on his knee. But in the unseemly scramble for preeminence, selling one’s grandmother if necessary, there are most certainly likeminded people.  There is a definite push to centralize, to create a federal model at the inner core – this is the globalism, to dress it in its modern livery – but the problem is that the disparate elements, e.g. the French and German leaderships, are at loggerheads and they wish to be the ones in charge.  Just look at the board of the oft-crashing Airbus.

So yes, they’re bound together by a common purpose but at odds among themselves and in this lies the only hope for the ordinary people – to exploit these differences but to do that, people of conscience must appear to be as Them is in appearance and appear to play Their game – good people can also utilize the tools of the enemy to advantage.

It’s a silent and ongoing game and to this point, Them have had almost all the victories.

Filed under: Politics & economics, Society & human issues