A Journal of the Democratic Resistance -Runnymede Gazette

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
A Journal of the Democratic Resistance -Runnymede Gazette
« on: February 28, 2016, 10:11:50 AM »

A Journal of the Democratic Resistance







Graham Vanbergen; True Publica; Global Research 


Joe Martino; Collective Evolution; via Critical Thinking


True Activist; We Are Anonymous via Critical Thinking


Kevin Carson; Libertarian Alliance Blog


Lionel Anet; via Critical Thinking


Edward Spalton; via Sonya Porter


Jon Rappoport; via Peter Challen; Global Table


Cathy Fox Blog; via Critical Thinking


F. William Engdahl; New Eastern Outlook; Global Research 


Liz Watson; via Victims Unite.


Liz Watson


Ian Fraser; Shredded


Ellen Brown; Web of Debt; Global Research


Mac Slavo; Activist Post


Larry Summers; FT;  via Dave Dewhurst


John Vibes; Activist Post 




        Editorship can sometimes be paved with good intentions! A note in the last edition presaged further material on Europe and related issues, such as whether we want a world of mega-states, 'free trade', and global supranational governance, and connected issues of cultural, national and ethnic identity, mass migration and so forth. I had hoped to include at least one item on Coudenhove-Kalergi. That said, perhaps such a mere statement offers an invitation to readers to look up Kalergi and start forming their own impressions.

        As it is more evidence of massive systemic fraud in the global financial system, and of a further phase in the collapse of that system, intervened.

        So there was room for only one further item on Europe. But this is an important item, and a further brick in the wall of the overall picture.

        It shows the advent of the EU as a project of the CIA and American corporations. Dave Barnby's concise, well researched and revealing tract 'The EU: A Corporatist

Racket' is strongly recommended.  It demonstrates the close involvement of Alan Dulles, the long serving head of the CIA, and his brother John Foster Dulles ... the former spook who became Eisenhower's Secretary of State … together with some even shadier characters … in the European movement during the 1950's. This is available from   'www.books2buybooks2write.co.uk'. Barnby also recommends a reading of Clarence K. Streit's book: 'Union Now'.


        I pick out Lionel Anet's item because 'competition' is such a ubiquitous theme. I would probably go more than halfway, with him, but not much further. Competition can be a dynamic and creative force. But only if harnessed in judicious moderation. 

        In the rubric of neo-liberal globalisation, it has become an all-controlling and determining factor … an all-consuming Molloch.  A world where we are all scratching each others' eyes out as to whether an electric toaster has on it three bells and whistles or four, is unlikely to be a very happy place.

          The issue of 'competition' ties in closely with the question as to whether humankind is seen as an individuals or social animal. In turn, this connects with a cultural predisposition towards either/or thinking rather than both/and thinking. 

        In fact we are both 'social' and 'individual' simultaneously.

        Tribal societies naturally tend to a point of reasonable balance between these opposites. Saxon England was such a tribal society. With its moots, councils, hundreds and witans was a much more level and democratic society than anything we have had since. A look at Saxon law is much recommended.

        Finding a reasonable point of balance between competition and co-operation is one of the most vexed issues in all politics. Probably such a resolution will be best  realised when political and economic institutions are highly devolved and localised.

Frank Taylor


Graham Vanbergen; True Publica; Global Research 

        For anyone who still has doubts, the European Union was not really motivated by the twin desires of ending warfare on the continent of Europe and promoting economic growth by making it easier for European countries to trade with each other. This was the story you were spoon-fed. It was actually the creation of America. Read on.

        Post second world war, America saw the opportunity to transform a war torn continent. It wanted Europe to be complimentary to American policy, viewing American federalism an an ideal political model. It wanted to assimilate Europe and implemented various covert operations to undermine staunch resistance to federalist ideas, especially by the British Labour government. The opportunity was a puppet run super-state filled with attendant yes men for trade and the manipulation of strategic global markets and, just as importantly a defensive buffer zone against it’s new foe – the Reds from Russia and China.

        Diplomatic historians have unearthed evidence of US backed covert operations designed to undermine communist influences in Europe. US officials worked on a plan in 1950 to lead to a United States of Europe. It is here we see the emergence of the Bilderberg Group and The Action Committee for a United States of Europe.  Winston Churchill was one of the five presidents of the Council of Europe, a disparate organisation urging rapid European unification.

        Interestingly, these particular documents were not found in the archives in America or Britain, but in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union.

        In addition, Washington feared emerging markets and anything remotely resembling an eastern alliance such as Russia and China, which has since morphed into the BRICS economic group of nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. At the end of last year the IMF even added the yuan to its basket of reserve currencies, an international stamp of approval of the strides China has made integrating into a global economic system dominated for decades by the U.S., Europe and Japan.

        BRICS was originally coined in 2003 by Goldman Sachs, which speculated that by 2050 these economies will be the most dominant in the world. In the last thirty years America has seen evidence of the advancement of emerging nations by the huge decline in production and export of it’s own goods and services. International trade has diminished 30% in just three decades and halved since the second world war. America knew its economic dominance would be under threat back in the late 1940’s and wanted a United States of Europe to provide a huge cushion to such eventualities.

        In 2000, declassified American government administration documents show that the US intelligence service started to run a large scale campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It also funded and fully directed the European federalist movement, something which many EU members states resisted with many eventually capitulating – “you’re either with us or against us”.

        The documents show that the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) financed the operations of the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, it provided more than half of the movement’s funds.

        These operations were managed by the CIA but as documents show it took its orders from the US State Department. Operations included funding political groups allied to American values and/or policy, undermining trade unions and influencing cultural and intellectual trends in Europe. It went further with operations deliberately provoking dissonance in non compliant states and created ‘stay-behind’ or GLADIO networks designed to train special forces, spy networks and disruption teams to stem any potential for Soviet incursion or even business activity into western Europe.

        The leaders of the European Movement – Jozef Retinger, Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. ACUE’s covert funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government and the CIA.

        Its been a step by step process, but very much a planned one. It started with the Brussels Treaty 1948, from there to the Paris Treaty 1952. Then the process continued in the guise of the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1955 and then on to the Treaty of Rome 1958. This all then led to a Merger of Treaties in 1967  that was called the Common Market but ended up as the European Economic Community (EEC).

        Many British citizens and MP’s were uncertain and deeply suspicious of the intentions of this new club. The Conservatives pushed entry through in 1973 without reference to the electorate. In opposition, Labour ran a manifesto on the run-up to the 1975 election based upon renegotiating the terms and conditions of entry, won, and a referendum took place in June 1975. The Labour party itself voted overwhelmingly to leave the EEC prior to the referendum but the public voted 65% in favour.

        The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 laid the real foundation stones of the European Union which, was enhanced further by the Amsterdam Treaty 1997. The Nice Treaty of 2003 was next and then finally The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty), an agreement which amended the two treaties to form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009, which remains in force today.

        At this point it is fundamental to note that the European Union has no constitution. Some say it doesn’t need one as all the treaties combined constitute one. Previous attempts have failed and the EU is still not a federal state as a result.

        Originally, the EU, characterized by solidarity and mutual trust between European citizens have

seen these foundation stones dramatically eroded. Ironically, it’s America that is causing so much damage to a union it wants merely for its geopolitical and monetary purposes. Involvement in unpopular wars, psychotic American banking, parasitic hedge funds preying on susceptible nations such as Greece, Spain and Portugal, disruption to international relations, particularly with Russia and some of its own nations, spying, mass surveillance, currency devaluations and much more leads many Europeans to despising the EU itself and US involvement.

        The EU and US are the biggest economic and military powers in the world, despite the lack of a common EU defense policy. They dominate global trade, they play the leading roles in international political relations, and what one says matters a great deal to much of the rest of the world.

        They have similar populations, almost identical religious composition and both have $18 trillion (GDP) economies – but America still wants domination.

        A memo from the US State Department dated June 11, 1965, advised the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. It recommended suppressing debate until the point at which “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”. The vision of American economic dominance is now within sight with the secretive and soon to be enforced trade deal known as TTIP.

        This agreement represents a massive attack on the sovereignty of democratically elected governments and clearly shows American intentions right from the beginning in 1950. The US wants to harmonise standards between the EU and the US, seen by opponents as hitting hard-won protections on food and chemical safety (eg in cosmetics, insecticides and pesticides), the environment and workers’ rights. US agribusiness is pressing hard for Europe to import currently illegal GM products (which the EU authorised imports of in April 2015), and meat that does not conform to EU standards, such as cattle raised with growth hormones (this ban continues but only with an agreement to buy an additional 48,000 tonnes annually of American beef without growth hormones).

        Fracking and the privatisation of the NHS are all in sight of American corporations, both of which are aggressively promoted by a Conservative neocon right-wing government whose profit driven ideology will turn Britain into a western outpost vassal state of the USA if it is allowed to continue.

        The reason the TTIP negotiations are so secretive is that the Americans recommended, as stated previously, “suppressing debate until which point adoption was inescapable”.

        The reason for the American initiated and secretive Bilderberg Group, defined as an ultra-select bunch of elite lobbyists made up of politicians, US corporate chiefs, EU officials, captains of industry, heads of intelligence agencies and European royals – is that all major business/finance lobbyists for the TTIP will be under the same roof. It is not hard for the informed to understand what the real agenda is.

        What you are witnessing is a corporate coups d’état of Europe by America …. as planned.


Joe Martino; Collective Evolution; via Critical Thinking

        Did you know about the peaceful Icelandic revolution that took place over the last 5 years? If you didn’t, it is likely because it was never televised or talked about very much at all on mainstream news. One would have to be part of the right websites or Facebook pages to even find out that this has been going on. Why is this the case? Why keep something so monumental hidden from the public?

        First let’s discuss what took place with this revolution, then it will become much more clear as to why this was never televised.

        It was during a time of a lot of financial turmoil around the world and stories were popping up all over the news of how banks around the world had been crushing or minimizing rebellions by receiving massive bailouts to keep them alive. The Iceland story is different because there was no crushing or ending the rebellion, instead, the people rose up. This is why this was not seen on TV anywhere. If the rest of the world knew that the people won, it may give them some ideas.

        During the financial turmoil of 2008 and 2009, the people of Iceland forced their government and banks to resign. How did they do this? Peacefully. The following is a summation of what steps they took

over a process of several years, and it all began with each one of them realizing this couldn’t continue.

2008 – The main bank of Iceland is nationalized. The Krona, the currency of Iceland devalues and the stock market halts. The country is in bankruptcy.

2008 – Citizens rise up at Parliament and succeed in forcing the resignation of both the prime minister and the effective government. New elections are held. Yet, the country remains in a bad economic situation. A Parliament act is passed to pay back 3,500 million Euros to Great Britain and Holland by the people of Iceland monthly during the next 15 years, with 5.5% interest.

2010 – The people of Iceland again take to the streets to demand a referendum. In January of 2010, the President of Iceland denies approval, instead announcing a popular vote on the matter by the people. In March, a referendum and denial of payment is approved by popular vote of 93%. Meanwhile, government officials initiate an investigation to bring to justice those responsible for the crisis. Many high level executives and bankers are arrested. Interpol dictates an order to force all implicated parties to leave Iceland.

        An assembly is elected to write a new constitution (based on that of Denmark) to avoid entrapments of debt based currency foreign loans. 25 citizens are chosen — with no political affiliation — out of the 522 candidates. The only qualifications for candidacy are adulthood and the support of 30 people. The constitutional assembly started in February of 2011. It continues to present ‘carta magna’ from recommendations provided by various assemblies throughout the country. Ultimately, it must be approved by both the current Parliament and the one created through the next legislative election.

        It’s quite a story isn’t it? You can most definitely see at this point why this was not covered in newspapers, on radio networks and on television. Imagine seeing this story on TV several times each day wherever you live in the world; do you think the people would start to get ideas? Maybe try the same thing? Most definitely. There is always a constant push of fear, murders, anger, government success, health fallacies and false information, but never do we hear of stories that could be a threat to the system.

        Another key factor of this revolution that we have to look at is that it did not come from a place of violence, bloodshed or anger. No guns or fighting! It was simply people getting together peacefully and working things out. This is something this entire world is capable of but believes is impossible. Humanity has been so programmed to give itself little credit in this department. We always hear about how we need to be governed, there are too many crazy people out there, we need a big brother keeping control. The truth is, without the confines and certain rules the system employs, we would be a much more peaceful people mainly because we are no longer acting in survival mode. Now I am not here to say that the system is the only issue because it isn’t, our programming is also very strong in what we have been taught and believe about ourselves. I am simply here to say, this programming can be broken and our consciousness can and is changing.

        I also thought it was a big step to see Iceland employ a new means of choosing it’s leaders. Someone who is an adult and has 30 people supporting them can run. This is great as the only reason why we have educated politicians today is because the elite needs to know that these people are programmed to repeat this system. Generally they also have to have corporate affiliations as well so they know they can be controlled by money.

        Now Iceland is proceeding to actually prosecute some of their formerly most powerful bankers and the Icelandic special prosecutor has stated that it very well may indict some 90 people. Meanwhile, over 200 people, including the former chief executives of Iceland’s three biggest banks, face criminal charges for their activities. While I don’t agree with the judgment factor being used here, I understand that this is the step they feel right in taking.

        Hopefully more countries around the world begin to follow suit!

“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.”




Kevin Carson; Libertarian Alliance Blog

        At the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Perry (“Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing… into higher income groups,” Dec. 17) justifies the shrinking middle class and growing economic inequality by citing the finding of a recent Pew Institute study that of the 11% shrinkage in the American middle class, 7% have gone to the top and only 4% to the bottom.

        First, movement between strata doesn’t legitimize stratification if the structure itself is illegitimate. Meritocracy is a legitimizing myth created to distract people from the question of whether the system of power those meritocratic functionaries serve is just. As Chris Dillow, an unorthodox British Marxist economist, observed (“Beyond social mobility,” Stumbling and Mumbling, Dec. 19):

“Imagine a dictator were to imprison his people, but offer guard jobs to those who passed exams, and well-paid sinecures to those who did especially well. We’d have social mobility — even meritocracy and equality of opportunity. But we wouldn’t have justice, freedom or a good society. They all require that the prisons be torn down.”

        Also note that what’s called the “upper class” in the study includes not only the super-rich rentier classes and people in the C-Suites with million-dollar salaries, but also most of the larger managerial stratum. There’s a good reason this stratum has expanded from 14% to 21% of the general population. As David Gordon argued in Fat and Mean, it was the neoliberal decision in the ’70s to cap real hourly wages and shift a greater share of income upwards to rentiers and cowboy CEOs that resulted in increasing internal authoritarianism in the corporation and a need for a larger class of overseers to monitor the (understandably) increasingly disgruntled work force.

        And despite the increased income of the managerial classes, the great bulk of them are still salaried employees whose income depends on the ongoing approval of their superiors. That 14-21% of the population is more or less what Orwell, in 1984, called the “middle” stratum (represented in the story by the Inner Party to which Winston and Julia belonged). Here’s how Orwell described the same general type in the corporate England of his day in another novel, Coming Up for Air: “in every one of those little stucco boxes there’s some poor bastard who’s never free except when he’s fast asleep…”

        Not only do these people continue to collect their managerial salary at the good pleasure of the senior oligarchs of the corporate hierarchy, but to even have a shot at that management pay in the first place they’ve got to put themselves in a position of student debt peonage that will likely eat up a major part of that increased income for years (along with a mortgage that means they’ll really be renting their house from the bank into old age). Add to that the long hours middle management types have to work coupled with the endless bureaucratic toadyism and sycophancy required of them, and the ongoing precarity of their position.

        Getting back to the issue of legitimacy, there’s also the fact that the functions exercised by most of these managerial types are illegitimate and would be unnecessary absent an exploitative class society. They are, in anarchist anthropologist David Graeber’s famous phrase, “b***s*** jobs.” They exist because the state, in league with corporate capital, has cartelized the economy under the control of bureaucratic hierarchies many times larger than the point of declining returns in efficiency, and because the authoritarian nature of those hierarchies and the rent-seeking nature of their management creates a conflict of interest that necessitates intensified surveillance and control.

        The late Joe Bageant aptly described the nature of the work these people perform: “The empire needs… about 20-25% of its population… to administrate and perpetuate itself — through lawyers, insurance managers, financial managers, college teachers, media managers, scientists, bureaucrats, managers of all types and many other professions and semi-professions.”

        When workers own the firm and manage their own work, as in the recuperated enterprises of

Argentina, not only can workers be trusted to use their own superior knowledge of the work process but what little coordinating costs remain are a small fraction of U.S. corporate administrative costs. In fact eliminating all those management salaries solved the unit costs problem at one stroke.

        The upper quintile is growing in size and income because all the value created by actual productive workers in the lower quintiles gets extracted by those at the top. When the top classes rob everybody else, they need a lot more guard labor to keep their stolen loot secure.

        And whether or not there’s been an increase in the real income of the lower four strata, production workers’ loss of control over the work force and increased precarity is even worse than that of those middle managers in the top 21%. Whether for production workers or middle management, stress correlates directly with powerlessness.

        We don’t need meritocracy. We need justice.


Lionel Anet; via Critical Thinking

        “Paradoxically, man has never been so much in danger as he is now, at the peak of his power. Mesmerized by our own power, we do what we can do, not what we ought to do.”  Aurelio Peccei*- 1908- 1984 (A founding member of the Club of Rome)

        January 11, 2016 "Information Clearing House" -  Why do we do that? Competition has created civilisation it’s in control and dominates everyone; we aren’t free, competition forces us to do what we do. We must replace competition with cooperation as a way of life to survive. 

        I evaluate competition v cooperation

Civilisation is a competitive hierarchy  to dominate and suppress, its results are- Communal life is cooperative and being part of the common its results are-

Conflicts are finally resolve in battles Conflicts are resolved by agreement

Interests are privatised through competition

most loose and one winner Interests are basically common. Peoples can't lose as they're part of the common.

Competition is always unfair because the

starting base is different for each individual, it

also increases unfairness Cooperation needs be fair to be cooperative and must act for a common good, which leads to more fairness.

Competition produces stratification of power in

societies. So, competition creates unfair

relations in societies Cooperation equalises power in societies. Therefore cooperation tends to automatically increase fair relations.

The more competitive society is the more

deceitful its people have to be to survive. The more cooperative society is the more honest people must be to be accepted.

The more competitive the economy is the less

people will be able to discern their role in

nature and social interactions. The more we cooperate the more we know and understand social interactions and our role in nature.

Competition must have a growing economy,

even if it overwhelms nature. Cooperative economy purpose is to have the best life nature can sustain.

Capitalism is emotionally powered by

competition, which grows the economy until it A cooperative based system is organised to maximise wellbeing for all people and nature.

consumes all. Without satisfying anyone's natural needs. Can functions within the planet ability to supply people's needs.

Competitive growth has limits on a finite planet.

It's a malignant cancer on nature. It will kill its

host (life).   Cooperative thinking aids us to realize we are a non-essential part of nature, but other lives are essential for us.

The more we disconnect ourselves from people

and nature the more miserable and endangered

life becomes. The more we live as a part of life and our genetic makeup the more pleasant and secure life becomes.

 Competition is expressed in its most intense

form as total war and at its calmest it's never

peaceful. Life avoids competition if possible as

it's a waste The state of peace is a natural condition for social life, its logical for us as we lived in that state for over 95% of our human existence.

         All forms of civilisation are aberration of social life

        There's no question about it. A new epoch—the Anthropocene— the human bean — has begun. So many scientist say. It’s a misnomer it should be called by a more accurate name that describes global capitalism. The new epoch is more like - the fatal epoch. I don’t know how scientist would name that, nor I’m interested in scientific names, but the name as is, is dishonest depiction of the epoch. Modern humans have lived for near 200,000 years and if the new era appeared since 1950s- 60s? (Still vague) it coincides with the start of global capitalism. That’s world trade, container ship, ore carriers, and the use of oil engines instead of steam, private transport, jet liners, and the green revolution, plus a population explosion. All of it is only a tiny bit of human existence. It’s dishonest to name it the Anthropocene as it’s laying the blame on people instead of the system, civilisation is competitive and capitalism is its extreme version, it therefore is synthetic that is, it’s not natural as the more social life is, so it must be more cooperative and less competitive. But we sacrifice people and maybe most if not all life to save a system without life.

        The synthetic nature of civilisation particularly capitalism is due to its contradictions, being social and competitive; it’s an unstable state that’s always and must be controlled but can never be stable, let alone fair and honest. Due to that unstable state cause by its diverse and competing interest of the world’s powerful few, it leaves most small business and its workers venerable to the unknown outcome of the competing interest of the 1%. In the last forty odd years of neoliberalist capitalism growth compulsion has damaged the ability of the planet’s and its life to maintain its self especially with the expected 9 billion people by the middle of the century. This is well beyond government controlled by capitalism to save anyone from its demise.

        That globalised society is controlled by dominant people using weapons, religion, and in capitalism its fiat money, which has no limits therefore give the illusion of invincibility. The influence that manufacturers have in producing weapons of real mass destruction to disrupt international relations is part of its “wealth creation”.

        Our problem now isn’t the unfairness, the thievery, the brutality, as that’s civilisation, it’s what we lived with for thousands of years, people and nature can cope with that. What nature can’t cope with is fossil fuelled powered capitalism as that system has no controls except that it must grow to be viable. Physically that’s impossible, however, capitalist economists aren’t bound by earthly constraints, but we and maybe all life are at stake due to global warming and the devastation we made on land and seas in the wake of capitalist economic growth. We can’t live that way for much longer so we must stop the now impossibility of growing the economy and fix the damage we have done to survive.

        To reduce our output and consumption is easy, whilst to increase it is much harder at the best of times and this is the worst of times to maintain growth, which now will be fatal if continued, but

only for all children. Life’s most important need is to procreate and ensure its ability to thrive.

* Aurelio Peccei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelio Peccei Aurelio Peccei was an Italian scholar and industrialist, best known as the founder and first president of the Club of Rome 

Lionel Anet is a member of Sydney U3A University of the Third Age, of 20 years standing and now a life member


Edward Spalton; via Sonya Porter

        Some people are said to have, or believe they have, the gift or office - or perhaps delusion - of
immutable infallibility – rather like the law of the Medes and the Persians which altereth not (and where are the Medes and Persians today?).

        Those of us who are not so gifted have to look at situations as they arise and, although it can be very strenuous and painful indeed , to change our minds when the facts change or when previously unknown or unconsidered facts come to light. 

        When the independence movement was a scorned, small minority, it was very sustaining to know that we were right, everybody else was wrong and also acting “illegally”. With the arrival of the Great Day of liberation from the European project, there would be a glorious, instantaneous deliverance, our chains would fall away and the world would watch in dread amaze, as Britannia waived the rules and all became sweetness and light. Noble Lords and faithful Commons would well and truly serve their Sovereign freed from Political Correctness and alien law, our yeomen till the soil and our ships plough the sea whilst our factories would hum with renewed prosperity. In face of the shoddy reality of economic decline, utter scorn and derision from the powerful, sparsely attended meetings in comfortless, draughty halls and occasional infighting of an astonishing viciousness, it was a noble enough myth and aspiration to sustain many of us through long days of dispiriting, unrewarded toil. Like all good myths there was plenty of truth in it.

        But as the prospect of actually leaving the EU moved from pure imagination into the realm of political possibility, it became clear that the world was a far more complicated place than this myth allowed – this myth which did not look beyond the entirely internal - our own abused constitution.

        We live by trade. Global trade depends on global regulation of specifications and standards of which the EU is but a small part. We are plugged into this global circuit through our membership of the EU, as we have been for forty years of increasingly complex agreements. Simply to denounce these treaties, which were freely entered into by our own elected governments and parliaments, would not only create enormous, quite unnecessary economic uncertainty and chaos but would be a return to the diplomatic ultimatum style of Mussolini and Hitler which so blighted the last century – not very British really! We don't have the excuse of a Versailles Treaty imposed upon us. The EU has taken nothing which has not been freely surrendered by the Parliaments which we ourselves elected under no discernible duress, albeit with a great deal of deceit by our political class.

        Another analogy to the thinking of the “Repeal the European Communities Act and tell 'em to sod off” brigade would be with the sly manipulation of the terrible toddler in a tantrum, throwing all his toys out of the pram with the expectation that the kind grown-ups would rush to calm him and bring them back. “They sell more to us than we do to them, so they'd have to, wouldn't they?” To take such a risk with the economy of a nation that all would simply “be all right on the night” is the height of reckless folly. Anger at the constitutional betrayal by our political class is understandable but a bad counsellor for strategy and tactics.

        When arrangements already exist which could ensure the transit to independence without a single day's disruption of trade, no wonder some businessmen and their employees are wary of this John Bullish attitude within the independence movement – unwittingly one of the Europhiles' more useful recruiting sergeants amongst those who have been conditioned to assume  that their continued prosperity depends upon subjection to the EU.  So we need to move from contemplation of the grand

vista of the noble myth to the more prosaic detail of the situation as it really is. To remain shackled to a simplistic narrative, when the forthcoming referendum demands that we engage with the concerns of our fellow countrymen and women of all sorts and the realities of the global market from which they earn their livings, can only lead to defeat – and a well deserved defeat too. 

The effects of the effluxion of time 

        There is a parallel in our history of another persistent dissident movement. There were plenty of Englishmen, Scots and Irish too who did not take kindly to the usurpation (as they saw it) of an alien king who mounted a coup d'etat and placed London under martial law with his foreign troops because English troops could not be trusted. I am referring, of course, to William III . Those who did not take kindly to him nor to his German successors regarded the Glorious Revolution, the Act of Settlement and all that as every bit as “illegal” and “unconstitutional” as any keen independence activist might regard the European Communities Act 1972 or Maastricht treaty today. The victors write the history of course, so this may be an unfamiliar thought but it was a widely held sentiment at the time. 

        Long after after the Act of Settlement (1701) which preceded his birth, Dr. Samuel Johnson made his views known in a heated discussion on a visit to Derby where, in 1745 Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, and his highland army had been received in not unfriendly way. The mayor and corporation had attended divine service in All Saints Church (now Derby Cathedral) in the presence of the Prince and heard the parson say the state prayers for King James. But the steam had gone out of it. The campaign fizzled out to its inglorious bloody end at Culloden.

        The decisive factor was the lack of active support from local gentry. Gentlemen whose grandfathers and great grandfathers had fought each other as Roundheads and Cavaliers, had settled down under the new dispensation and become Whigs and Tories. They had known relative domestic peace and security all their lives. With very few exceptions, those with something to lose opted for the status quo. Public opinion had moved on, as it inevitably has today since 1972.

        In his Life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell describes the argument thus “he had this evening ….a violent argument with Dr. Taylor, as to the inclinations of the people of England at this time to the royal family of Stuart. He grew so outrageous as to say “that if England were fairly polled, the present King would be sent away tonight and his adherents hanged tomorrow”. Taylor, who was as violent a Whig as Johnson was a Tory, was roused by this to bellowing. He denied loudly what Johnson said: and maintained there was an abhorrence against the Stuart family though he admitted that the people were not much attached to the present King. JOHNSON “Sir, the state of the country is this: the people knowing it to be agreed upon all hands that this King has not the hereditary right to the crown, and there being no hope that he who has it can be restored have grown cold and indifferent upon the subject of loyalty....” There are some  parallels with today's public opinion here. 

        Dr. Johnson had the last word in his dictionary. A Tory, he wrote was “One who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state, and the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England”. A Whig was merely “the name of a faction”. He also defined a pension as “An allowance made to anyone without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country”.

       Long serving independence campaigners will recognise elements from many fierce arguments about sovereignty, legitimacy and public opinion -  the heat of the exchange and parts of the terminology - particularly the allegation of treason. 

        In the event, Jacobitism dwindled to a private cult with its own rituals and observances, drinking the health to the “rightful king over the water” and so on. There are some adherents still today. 

        Unless they change their tack and engage with the realities of today, the extreme, purist, noisy, unilateralist “out and outers” of the independence movement will go the same way – not dishonourable but politically impotent and eventually a mere antiquarian curiosity. The fear is that, by association, they may drag the realistic independence movement down to needless defeat with them in the forthcoming referendum - the nearest thing to being“fairly polled” that we are ever likely to get.

“We all know that Prime Ministers are wedded to the truth, but like other married couples they sometimes live apart . “

Saki  (H.H.Munro) . 


True Activist; We Are Anonymous; via Critical Thinking

        As Oxfam warns that global wealth inequality is spiraling out of control, we ask why the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are missing from the business magazine’s definitive annual guide…with some startling revelations.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.“

        This is a House of Rothschilds maxim, widely attributed to banking tycoon Mayer Amschel Rothschild in 1838 and said to be a founding principle for the highly corrupt banking and political system we have today.  Along with the Rockefellers, the Rothschild dynasty is estimated to be worth well over a trillion dollars. How are these powerful families linked to the ongoing crisis of global wealth inequality, why are so many people unaware of their existence, and why doesn’t Forbes ever mention them in their annual list of the world’s wealthiest people?

Global wealth inequality is out of control, and it’s no accident

        In January 2014, Oxfam announced that the richest 85 people on the planet share a combined wealth of $110 trillion. The figure was based on Forbes’s rich list 2013, and it equates to 65 times the total wealth of the entire bottom half (3.5 billion) of the world’s population. While some deluded commentators welcomed this as “fantastic news,” the rest of us were disgusted. Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam’s executive director, said at the time: “It is staggering that in the 21st Century, half of the world’s population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all fit comfortably on a double-decker bus.”

        Two months later, following Oxfam’s calculation and having published the new 2014 rich list, Forbes journalist Kasia Morena did some fact-checking. She found that the number of billionaires owning the same as the poorest 3.5 billion had dropped from 85 to 67: which demonstrates an enormous widening of the global inequality gap in just one year.

        Fast-forward to 2015, and another Oxfam investigation. The anti-poverty charity warned in January that if nothing is done to tackle global wealth inequality- by forcing corporations to pay their taxes and closing off-shore tax havens, for example- the richest 1% will own more than everybody else in the world combined by 2016. In a paper called Wealth: Having it all and wanting more, Oxfam outlined how the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, and will likely surpass 50% in 2016. Winnie Byanyima again warned that the explosion in inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when one in nine people do not have enough to eat, and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day.

        The organization also outlined how 20 percent of billionaires around the world have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group that saw their cash wealth increase by 11 percent in the last 12 months. Billionaires listed as having interests in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors saw their collective net worth increase by 47 percent, and the industry spent more than $500 million lobbying policy makers in Washington and Brussels in 2013 alone. “Do we really want to live in a world where the one percent own more than the rest of us combined?” Byanyima asked. “The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering, and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”

Meet the people who own 50% (and counting) of the world’s wealth

        66 billionaires (officially) own half of all global assets, and will soon own more than the rest of Earth’s seven billion population combined. They range from CEOs of large corporations to oil and gas tycoons and Silicon valley entrepreneurs. The list details name, net worth, percentage change since the 2015 results, their age, industry and nationality. Bill Gates is ranked first at $469 billion, and James

Simons at #66 with the $14 billion he made from hedge funds.

       But where are the world’s Royal families? And more to the point, where are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers? These two families have an unimaginable amount of wealth that surpasses the trillion mark- they are the only trillionaires in the world, and yet they are missing from Forbes’s list every single year, along with the handful of other men commonly believed to own ourpoliticians, our media, our corporations, our scientists, and even our money supply.

        While the truth of the post title cannot be verified, we do know that five of the most powerful and wealthiest men in the world belong to the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties. How much power do they hold, and why do we hear so little of them?

The Rothschild and Rockefeller Dynasties: With great power comes great secrecy

        Forbes’s rich list doesn’t include members of Royal families or dictators who hold their wealth through a position of power, or who control the riches of their country. In this way, the real people pulling the strings are able to work in absolute secrecy without any media attention at all (unless it is carefully-constructed positive propaganda, like this article on the philanthropy of the Rothschilds, of course). Forbes’s policy to exclude heads of state from the rich list explains why the Queen of England is absent, although nobody has the slightest idea of her wealth in any case: her shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. As the Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002: ‘The reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments…Her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike [British politicians and Lords], the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests…’

        The same can be said for the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers, whose European forebears were richer than any Royal family at the time. The families are believed to have set up and own the Federal Reserve (G Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island and this research by journalist Dean Henderson are recommended reading if you want to get deeper into this topic). Could this be why the families, whose power in manipulating global affairs for the past few hundred years cannot be underestimated, are protected by Forbes’s ‘don’t even go there’ policy? Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite, was apparently told in 1998 that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family was approx $11 trillion and the Rothschilds $100 trillion…what might that figure have reached 17 years later? One can hardly begin to imagine, but maybe money isn’t the most important thing to your average trillionaire, anyway…

        “The only problem with wealth is, what do you do with it?” was a rhetorical question posed by none other than John D. Rockefeller. Well, if Aaron Russo’s testimony is to be believed, all the Rockefeller riches in the world certainly won’t be used to benefit the human race…

Russo’s Rockefeller revelations: False flags, power grabs, and an enslaved population

        Russo, a film-maker and activist who directed America: From Freedom to Fascism, claimed that Nick Rockefeller told him about ‘an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq’ some eleven months before 9/11, and foretold the fact that the ‘War on Terror’ would be a hoax wherein soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existent enemies. In the interview, Russo claims that he first met lawyer Nick Rockefeller after being introduced by a mutual attorney friend. The two men hit it off, and later down the line Rockefeller apparently confided in Russo privately what his family had planned for the world: never-ending war, global population reduction, economic collapse, widespread chaos and disorder on such a scale that people would actually welcome the ultimate ‘solution’: a one-world government. He was speaking in October 2000, and most of his predictions have now come to pass- including 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror.

        Russo claimed that Rockefeller asked him to be on the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR), but the man who spent his career fighting for freedom and exposing the Fed Reserve supposedly told Rockefeller that he couldn’t possibly go along with these sinister plans for mankind. “As much as I like you Nick, I don’t believe in enslaving people. We’re on opposite sides of the fence,” Russo told Nick. To which Rockefeller apparently replied: “Why do you care about those people? Take care of your own life; do the best you can for you and your family.” Russo concludes: “There was just a lack of caring; it was just cold.”

        He goes on, “I used to say what the point, Nick? You have all the money in the world, you have all the power in the world, whats the end goal?” Rockefeller is said to have responded bluntly: “To get everyone chipped.” According to this theory, the families who own the banking system are bored of their wealth, it is no longer enough. To control society itself is the ultimate end-game. According to Russo,

Rockefeller told him that a global government would slowly phase out paper money from circulation, with its eventual aim being to microchip the population, turning us all into slaves of the NWO.

        These are wild claims indeed, and from a journalistic point of view, they cannot be verified one way or the other. But it’s worth noting that just before Russo died in August 2007, he filmed a moving message to all Americans. In it, he talked about how vital it is for people to continue to resist national ID cards and microchips, and fight for their individual freedoms against those who would enslave us. It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not only activists like Russo and scare-mongering patriots like Alex Jones who have tried to ‘out’ the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. The problem is, all those who do so are silenced.

        Ashley Mote, a member of the European Parliament serving British independence party UKIP, asked the following question in Brussels, and retribution was swift: “Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild. This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services. I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union’s own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply. To that question I now add another: what are the European Union’s connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions?”

        This is exactly the kind of question the European public would like an answer to. Yet Mote did not receive one. Instead, the 79 year old politician was sacked from his own party, and later arrested and sent to jail for allegedly claiming false expenses during his time as an MEP. Mote claimed throughout his trial that he was ‘targeted for being anti-Europe’, and said the money he claimed was used to pay third-party whistleblowers in a quest to uncover corruption and fight for democracy and transparency in European politics.

        Like everything else relating to the people who really run the show, the truth is out there…but it’s almost impossible to pin down.


Jon Rappoport; via Peter Challen; Global Table

        What follows are notes I made prior to putting together my second collection, Exit From The Matrix.  The whole point of that collection was to provide numerous exercises a person could do on a daily basis---exercises which would reveal and expand his latent power to create reality.     

       "Reality is invented.  It isn't just 'there'."     

        "There is the study of the past; then there is the obsession with the past; and finally, the blithe acceptance of the past as that thing which molds the individual and makes him what he is.  The third preoccupation is by far the most injurious.  The sting of its injection is never felt.  The fluid enters the bloodstream and paralyzes the mind one gradual degree at a time.  The result is an addict who considers himself highly sensible and realistic and comfortable." 

        "As long as the concept of The Individual lasts in society, before it disappears under a bulbous landfill of psychological spin and academic garbage, the official approach is placing him, the individual, in a context, a tradition, a historical time line, in order to make sure he believes he is reacting to the forces around him and the history prior to him.  In this way, the individual is never seen to invent anything; he is at best responding to 'the problems of his time."   

        "Even when the idea of magic is somehow connected to individual freedom and power, we are referred to older studies and systems of magic, as if the past is the only place we can visit to understand what the individual is capable of.  This is absolute nonsense."   

        "Rejecting 'the individual as an artifact of history and tradition' is like stepping off a speeding train and floating upward, where one can view, below, a giant machine spooling out the insanity known as social sciences.  The machine concocts reports of tribes, clans, nations, religions, customs, rules, dogmas, which supposedly describe thousands of years of human experience.  Floating free, one can see these trillions of data are tinged with the attitude that the individual has

never been vitally important.  The machine is making that argument."

        "Here is a proposition for you: 'If magic, in any interpretation of that word, exists, a person must find it in the past.'  This is like saying a person must move around in a wheelchair, in order to understand his power."

        "What the individual invents and creates makes history, makes new space and time.  This isn't just magic; it is THE magic."

        "When you listen to a symphony, you experience a different space and time continuum.  You see it, feel it, inhabit it.  It's easy to say that continuum isn't real, but it is.  If it were somehow removed from your experience, the symphony would come across to you in an entirely different way.  A shrunken dilapidated way."

        "The study of symbology conveniently forgets that all symbols are, originally, inventions.  They don't intrinsically mean anything.  Every symbol and its meaning was first invented by an individual, not a group."   

        "The individual isn't the end-point of time.  He creates time.  But this statement is true at a level most people don't want to explore.  They prefer to believe they are fitting into a system that has already been prepared for them.  This is like believing all meals just show up at the table, rather than considering the possibility of cooking meals in the kitchen one's self."


Cathy Fox Blog; via Critical Thinking

(Some of the effects of hypnosis have been demonstrated on air, as entertainment, by Derren Brown. The assassination of Stephen Fry was an especially alarming demonstration of how a person can be hypnotically induced to commit murder ... well worth watching. The work of Selgiman on 'learned helplessness' is also worthy of further study - Ed)

The CIA’s mind control program in Australia: brought to our shores by The University of Sydney, Leonard Huxley and the Chairman of the Australian Psychological Society*.

        In August of 1960, at The University of Sydney, MKULTRA psychiatrist Martin Theodore Orne, performed an experiment titled ‘Antisocial Behavior and Hypnosis’. This experiment was financed by the Human Ecology Fund, (A CIA cutout for financing MKULTRA activities) and the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Orne’s visit to Sydney University was made possible by the United States Educational Foundation in Australia (USEFA), which was the Australian body of the Fulbright Scholarship and Lectureship Program. The experiment was given permission to be performed in the facilities belonging to the Faculty of Psychology by Alfred Gordon Hammer, the head of the department, who was also the Chairman of the Australian Branch of the British Psychological Society in 1960 (later the Australian Psychological Society*). Hammer would spend two sabbaticals in Orne’s laboratories in the United States during the 60’s and 70’s.

        G.H. Estabrooks, the father of the Manchurian Candidate was once quoted as saying, “The key to creating an effective spy or assassin rests in splitting a man’s personality, or creating multipersonality, with the aid of hypnotism…. This is not science fiction. …I have done it.” In April of 1960, four months before Orne was in Sydney, G.H. Estabrooks invited Orne to speak at a symposium at Colgate College. The paper presented by Orne at this symposium was later titled ‘Antisocial Behavior and Hypnosis’.

        The goal of this CIA mind-control experiment was to see if hypnotised subjects would carry out dangerous and harmful acts that they wouldn’t carry out in their normal state.

        Frederick J. Evans, a student at the University of Sydney, assisted Orne in the 1960 experiment. Both Evans and Orne would go on to positions at the University of Pennsylvania. Prof. Peter W. Sheehan and Campbell W. Perry, psychology students at Sydney during Orne’s visit, would la

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk