Burke called it a behind-hand review when in his famous* pamphlet** he said that it is rare to find supporters of past failed tyrannies. When he spoke those words Burke was referring to the failed Establishment of his time, we are living in a time of another failed Establishment and that is why his words are so extant in our present times.
is very consistent with every advantage of present servility. This retrospective wisdom and historical patriotism are things of wonderful convenience, and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice. Many a stern republican, after gorging himself with a full feast of admiration of the Grecian commonwealths and of our true Saxon constitution, and discharging all the splendid bile of his virtuous indignation on King John and King James, sits down perfectly satisfied to the coarsest work and homeliest job of the day he lives in. I believe there was no professed admirer of Henry the Eighth among the instruments of the last King James; nor in the court of Henry the Eighth was there, I dare say, to be found a single advocate for the favourites of Richard the Second.
No complaisance to our Court, or to our age, can make me believe nature to be so changed but that public liberty will be among us, as among our ancestors, obnoxious to some person or other, and that opportunities will be furnished for attempting, at least, some alteration to the prejudice of our constitution. These attempts will naturally vary in their mode, according to times and circumstances. For ambition, though it has ever the same general views, has not at all times the same means, nor the same particular objects. A great deal of the furniture of ancient tyranny is worn to rags; the rest is entirely out of fashion. Besides, there are few statesmen so very clumsy and awkward in their business as to fall into the identical snare which has proved fatal to their predecessors. When an arbitrary imposition is attempted upon the subject, undoubtedly it will not bear on its forehead the name of Ship-money. There is no danger that an extension of the Forest laws should be the chosen mode of oppression in this age. And when we hear any instance of ministerial rapacity to the prejudice of the rights of private life, it will certainly not be the exaction of two hundred pullets, from a woman of fashion, for leave to lie with her own husband.
Every age has its own manners, and its politics dependent upon them; and the same attempts will not be made against a constitution fully formed and matured, that were used to destroy it in the cradle, or to resist its growth during its infancy.”
So in our own “Behind Hand Review” it is sufficient to take our reference frame of the Past fifty years, 1975-2025 plus or minus 5 years so 1970-2020 or 1980-2030.
( See time line in estulins Bilderbergers movie, Starts and Bilderberg 1972, prior to the “oil Crisis, and Nixon Shock and set out in the leaked minutes of the Stockholm meeting that year)
The video is a documentary about the Bilderberg Group, a secretive organization that brings together powerful individuals from finance, politics, and the media to discuss and potentially shape global agendas. The film explores the influence of this group in globalization, de-industrialization, and the control of key decision-makers. The journalist who made the film reveals that he has faced attempts to stop his investigations by the Bilderberg Group.
I. Introduction
A. Purpose of the Discussion
B. Overview of the Topic
II. Background of the Speaker
A. Introduction to Daniel Estulin
B. Experience and Expertise
C. Motivation for Sharing Information
III. The Bilderberg Group
A. Definition and Purpose
B. Historical Context
C. Key Participants and Topics Discussed
D. Secrecy and Media Coverage
IV. Influence and Power
A. Impact on Global Affairs
B. Relationship with Financial Institutions
C. Control Over Political and Economic Agendas
V. Globalization and Corporate Influence
A. Role of Mega Corporations
B. Impact on National Sovereignty
C. Manipulation of Public Perception
Detailed Summary for [Bilderberg - O Filme (Daniel Estulin)](
by [Monica](https://monica.im)
[00:00](
Daniel Estulin, an investigative journalist, shares his experience and motivation for exposing the secretive organization known as the Bilderberg Group.
- Daniel Estulin spent 12 years in military counterintelligence before becoming an investigative journalist.
- He decided to share the information he had accumulated over the years, with the Bilderberg Group being one of the subjects he found interesting.
- Estulin highlights the lack of verbatim quotations and press presence during the exchange of views at the Bilderberg meetings.
[07:48](
The Bilderberg meetings bring together influential individuals from various sectors to advance their agenda.
- The first meeting took place in the Netherlands in 1954, hosted by Prince Bernhardt.
- Attendees include presidents of international organizations, central banks, and key political figures.
- The meetings serve as a testing ground for political advancement and control over decision makers.
[15:42](
This section discusses a system that relies on covert means for expanding its influence and control.
- The system uses infiltration, subversion, and intimidation instead of invasion, elections, and free choice.
- It combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
- The system operates in secrecy, with no mistakes or dissenters being acknowledged.
[23:55](
The gradual process of de-industrialization, demand destruction, and zero growth is being used to control society and consolidate power in the hands of billionaires.
- The idea is to gradually dismantle different service industries and sectors of society.
- The concept of zero growth originated from a 1972 study by the Club of Rome, which claimed that resources were limited and man could not continue to develop.
- The bailout was a scam, transferring unpayable debt from private corporations to governments.
[31:24](
The section discusses the influence of Bilderberg-affiliated corporations on the United States security apparatus and the impending collapse of the financial system.
- Bilderberg-affiliated mega corporations like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and IBM are integral to the US security apparatus.
- The entire financial system is at a breaking point, with an impossible debt and speculative derivatives.
- The British Empire still exists through globalization, controlled by the oligarchy and the global financial system.
[39:17](
The section discusses the White House's ability to manipulate reality and control media reporting, as well as the purpose and attendees of the Bilderberg organization.
- The White House can create its own reality and change it as desired, influencing media reporting.
- The Bilderberg organization holds meetings once a year in various countries, with attendees from government, politics, academia, defense, and journalism.
- Journalists are allowed to attend the Bilderberg conference but are not allowed to write about it.
[55:00](
Immortality for humans means contributing to the development of humanity and the wealth of mankind.
- Einstein defined matter and anti-matter progress.
- Immortality is achieved by contributing to the betterment of humanity.
- There was an attempt to bribe the speaker to stop his activities, but he refused.
- The speaker believes he has reached a certain level of immortality by doing his part on Earth.
This is a long post, My initial question to myself was, Who lent the money to George Soros to “Break the Bank of England”, This post resulted and I am digesting the linkages and pondering the questions arising. Why is Mark Carney being afforded such a prominent position in our Public Discourse? What next for “The Money Power”?
THE ADMISSIONS OF 1924 The year 1924 will always be remembered by students of economic history as the year in which Reginald McKenna “blew the gaff” on the banking system in his now-famous admission to the shareholders of the Midland Bank, in January, 1924:
I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do create money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing and decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft, or bank sale destroys a deposit. AND THEY WHO CONTROL THE CREDIT OF A NATION, DIRECT THE POLICY OF GOVERNMENTS, AND HOLD IN THE HOLLOW OF THEIR HANDS THE DESTINY OF THE PEOPLE.
Lets get the Charges of Anti Semitism out of the way first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Butler Eric Dudley Butler (7 May 1916 – 7 June 2006) was an Australian political activist and journalist, who in 1946 founded the far-right Australian League of Rights, which he led until 1992. He was known as a staunch anti-communist and virulent anti-Semite. He died in Victoria in 2006, aged 90. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._Douglas
Death and legacy Douglas died in his home in Fearnan, Scotland. Douglas and his theories are referred to several times (unsympathetically) in Lewis Grassic Gibbon’s trilogy A Scots Quair. He is also mentioned, together with Karl Marx and Silvio Gesell, by John Maynard Keynes in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936, p. 32). Douglas’s theories permeate the poetry and economic writings of Ezra Pound. Robert Heinlein’s first novel For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs describes a near future United States operating
according to the principles of social credit.
The real fight was between the Money Power and Monarchy, with the victory of the Money Power in 1688 when James II was driven off the throne by his son-in-law, William III, who was brought to Britain at the behest of the financial interests. The Bank of England was formed six years later— 1694—and with it began the National Debt. The Bank was formed for the purpose of lending money to the crown and was modeled on the Bank of Amsterdam, founded in 1609, the first bank in Northern Europe. The part played by Jews in this formation of the modern banking system, together with the modern Stock Exchange, was considerable.
Calvanism is arguably by far the most telling influence on the course of British Political Economy. See Thierry Meyssan.
The desire for a ‘Jewish Homeland’ among the Jewish Diaspora is commonly understood to explain the origins of political Zionism in the mid-late 19th century; but that is only part of the story. This article is a brief introduction to the key role of the inheritors of Oliver Cromwell’s ‘Commonwealth’ in its realisation in the State of Israel by actively seeking to harness the Diaspora to their purposes.
Sir John Houblon (13 March 1632 – 10 January 1712) was the first Governor of the Bank of England from 1694 to 1697. The Houblon family were Huguenots from Lille and he later became an elder in the French Protestant Church of London in Threadneedle Street.[1] He married Mary Jurin in 1660, who came from a Flemish Protestant family and they had five sons and six daughters, but only two sons survived their father. They lived in a magnificent house just off Threadneedle Street on the site later occupied by the Bank of England and he also acquired a country house at High Ongar in Essex.[2] He became Sheriff of the City of London in 1689, an Alderman from 1689 to 1712, and Master of the Grocer’s Company from 1690 to 1691. He was Lord Mayor in 1695.
He was a Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty from 1694 to 1699. It was during this time, from 1694 until 1697, that he served as inaugural governor of the Bank of England.[3] He was again a Bank of England director from 1700, and a director of the New East India Company from 1700 to 1701.
He stood as a Parliamentary candidate for the City of London in 1701, but was defeated. Some sources state incorrectly that he was Member of Parliament for Bodmin.[4]
His younger brother, Abraham Houblon, was also Bank of England Governor, from 1703 to 1705. A daughter of Abraham Houblon, Anne, was married to Henry Temple, later Viscount Palmerston, in 1703. His older brother, James, an influential merchant and Member of Parliament for the City of London, was also a director of the Bank of England.[5] Four other of his brothers were prosperous merchants.[6]
The 1976 IMF Crisis was a balance of payments or currency crisis in the United Kingdom in 1976 which forced James Callaghan’s Labour Party government to borrow $3.9 billion ($17.5 billion in 2019)[1] from the International Monetary Fund (IMF),[2] at the time the largest loan ever to have been requested from the IMF.[3] History The IMF Crisis took place during James Callaghan’s term as Prime Minister,[4] and caused the Bank of England to withdraw temporarily from the foreign exchange market.[5] After the defeat of the public expenditure white paper in the House of Commons in March 1976 and the resignation of Harold Wilson, many investors became convinced the pound would soon lose value due to inflation. By June 1976, the pound had reached a record low against the dollar.[3]
Outcome Only half of the loan was actually drawn by the UK government and it was repaid by 4 May 1979.[6] Denis Healey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, went on to state that the main reason the loan had to be requested was that public sector borrowing requirement figures provided by the treasury were grossly overstated.[7] Despite this all terms required by the IMF were fully implemented.
The IMF loan meant that the United Kingdom’s economy could be stabilised whilst drastic budget cuts were implemented. Even with the loan’s security, the Labour Party had already begun unravelling into camps of social democrats and left-wing supporters, which caused bitter rows inside the party and with the unions. Many believe this may have contributed significantly to Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 Conservative victory.[8]
“The Prime Minister of Luxembourg was commissioned to produce a report on the subject, and he proposed that monetary union should be achieved by 1980. This was agreed by the six at a summit in Paris in 1972, and endorsed by Edward Heath’s pro-European Conservative Government, and a precursor to the ERM was set up, called the snake, by which members agreed to peg their currencies to each other, but the snake soon ran into trouble because of the instability of the dollar during the final stages of the Vietnam War and then the problems caused by the huge rise in oil prices which followed the Yom Kippur War in the Middle East in 1973, and the snake was abandoned in 1979. Now, we joined the snake in 1972, but remained in it for just eight weeks, before speculative pressures against the currency forced exit, and in the process, we lost $2.5 billion of foreign exchange reserves in six days, a precursor perhaps of what was to happen with the ERM, and upon leaving the snake, we reverted to a floating currency”.
The new policies did have some success, and the summer of 1975 proved a watershed as regards wage settlements. The TUC persuaded the unions to accept the Government’s guidelines for two years after 1975, and from then on, the annual rate of inflation fell to around 10%, though some argued it would have fallen anyway. But despite this, if 1975 was the year of fundamental change, 1976 was the year in which the wheels fell off the Government’s policies because the improvement in the economy did not prove sufficient to restore confidence in Sterling, nor in the underlying economic position. The oil-producing countries were now seeking to place their surplus funds in other financial centres besides Britain and many wanted to invest in property elsewhere in the world. There was a fear that, although the real economy was improving, there was a worry that Sterling would depreciate, and the trouble was that when a currency is felt to be weak and there seemed to be deep underlying economic problems, markets will put the worst construction on all news, and in particular, it was felt that this new economic policy of retrenchment did not have full Labour Party support, and that feeling was strengthened in February 1976, when Healey produced a public expenditure White Paper saying that there should be a further reduction in the share of resources taken by public expenditure and that resources should then be moved to the balance of payments. There was a vote on that in the House of Commons in March 1976 and enough Labour rebels abstained on the vital vote so that the Government was defeated, and the defeat had to be reversed by a vote of confidence the next day. Healey reacted to this speech with great anger. He had an ebullient rough manner and enjoyed being rude to people, which was not always appreciated by others. Gerald Barnett, his Chief Secretary of the Treasury, said at one meeting in the Treasury, Healey ended the meeting by saying, “Let me make sure that I have indeed insulted everyone around this table.” Healey shouted at the left-wing rebels in the Commons that they were “out of their tiny little Chinese minds”. The Chinese Embassy complained, and Healey had to make an apology… There was even worse: Healey and the left began swearing at each other in the House of Commons – it was not then televised, but in the full hearing of other Members, and Healey always said that
unemployed and pensioners, but all other programmes were to be fixed in cash terms, not in real terms. The third change was a reduction in public spending, and indeed a questioning of the belief, very strong in Labour circles up to that time, that a growth in public spending was necessarily a good thing – was it really as beneficial as had previously been thought? Now, according to Tony Benn’s Diaries, in Cabinet in 1975, Denis Healey was arguing that public expenditure cuts would not necessarily be unpopular. He said: “At the Labour Clubs, you will find there is an awful lot of support for the policy of cutting public expenditure. They will all tell you about Paddy Murphy up the street who has got 18 children, has not worked for years, lives on unemployment benefit, has a colour television, and goes to Majorca for his holidays.” Plus a change… So, there was a move towards reducing public spending and the size of the State. The fourth and final major change was the introduction of a voluntary incomes policy in July 1975, and this incomes policy accepted that in consequence of the oil prices, the standard of living would have to fall, and the voluntary incomes policy implied a cut in living standards of around 2.5% over the year. Now, none of this was popular, and in September 1975, Healey was voted off the Labour Party’s National Executive. Two leading left-wingers in the Party expressed their disappointment in their Diaries. Tony Benn said, “I despair of the Labour Government as a force for transformation.” Barbara Castle said, “I see no reason for the existence of a Labour Government.” But despite that, there were to be further cuts in public expenditure in November. So, all these fundamental changes, let me again emphasise, came before Margaret Thatcher in 1979, and before the IMF came in in 1976.t
hey had a very complex love lifei n the Labour Party. He said, in his Memoirs, he said feelings were at boiling point on both sides. “As I returned tot he Chamber from the voting lobby, one of the rebels used demotic language to cast aspersions on myp aternity, so I praised his virility in similar language, several times.”
Now, five days after this disaster, Harold Wilson resigned, and he had not told Healey that he would resign, although he had told James Callaghan, and of course Healey’s chances of the leadership, whatever they were, were not improved by this episode, and indeed, Callaghan became Prime Minister. With Callaghan as Prime Minister, there were further reductions in public spending, both in a budget in April and another budget in July, and,
in June 1976, the Government was forced to borrow to prevent a further depreciation of Sterling and loss of reserves. It gained
credits of $5.3 billion from the group of 10 industrial nations for three months
, with provision for renewal for just one three-month term after that, and the Government could not get borrowing on any other terms.
People did not believe in the progress of the British economy. This meant the loan would run out on 7th December 1976, and if, at that time, it could not be repaid,the Government would have to go to the IMF. The pound continued to fall, and on 28th September 1976, just as Labour’s Annual Conference was beginning, the pound suffered its largest one-day fall in value since Sterling had been floated in 1972. There had now beene ight budgets since Healey had become Chancellor in March 1974, and the pound had fallen from 2.30 to thed ollar, when Healey had become Chancellor, to 1.67, and since Callaghan had become Prime Minister in April, thep ound had fallen by nearly 20%, larger than the devaluations of 1949 and 1967. The selling of Sterling was reaching dangerous levels, and Healey was told of this news as he was going to
London Airport for a meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Hong Kong, to be followed by a meeting of the IMF at Manila, at which Britain’s application for a long-term loan from the IMF would be considered. Now, Healey decided not to travel to these meetings but to go back to London and then to talk to the Labour Party Conference which was then in session.
He told them he was applying to the IMF for a loan, and that was very unusual at that time for a developed country – it was mostly developing countries which applied for loans – and that the application was for $3.9 billion, at that time the largest sum ever requested at the IMF.
Healey told the Labour Party Conference, melodramatically, that he had come “from the battlefront”, that he would seek a loan from the IMF so he could continue with existing policies. He received a mixed reception from the Party Conference, as you can imagine.
https://bra.in/4j4w3G
The conventional view is that Britain joined both at the wrong time, namely on the verge of an impending recession, and at the wrong exchange rate, with the pound, by most estimates, deemed to have been around 10% overvalued. This, so it is argued, required onerously high levels of interest rates in order to keep sterling within its ERM bandwidths, severely exacerbated the effects of the recession, and ultimately undermined the credibility of the government’s commitment to the regime, leading to sterling’s ejection from it on ‘Black Wednesday’ in September 1992. In sum, for all its noble aims, membership of the ERM is emblazoned across Britain’s twentieth century experience as one of its most inglorious policy episodes. As Budd (2005: 15) explains: ‘The commonly held view is that our membership of the ERM was a disaster and was always doomed to fail’. Or, as Thompson (1995: 248), puts it, joining the ERM ‘brought no benefits to the UK at all. The story of policy-making on ERM is thus one of missed opportunities, chronic misperception by British policy-makers and huge welfare losses for the British economy….unequivocally a policy disaster’.
The Exchange Rate Mechanism was intended by its designers as a step towards European monetary union. Now, monetary union was not mentioned as an aim in the Treaty of Rome signed in 1957, which provided for the founding of the European Communities, as the European Union used to be called, but it was agreed by the original six founding members, which of course excluded Britain, at a summit meeting of heads of government at The Hague in 1969, four years before we joined, because the six founding members said exchange rate stability was necessary for the common price system of the Common Agricultural Policy, to encourage trade between member states, and above all, to give Europe more weight in a world economy dominated by the volatile American dollar. The Prime Minister of Luxembourg was commissioned to produce a report on the subject, and he proposed that monetary union should be achieved by 1980. This was agreed by the six at a summit in Paris in 1972, and endorsed by Edward Heath’s pro-European Conservative Government, and a precursor to the ERM was set up, called the snake, by which members agreed to peg their currencies to each other, but the snake soon ran into trouble because of the instability of the dollar during the final stages of the Vietnam War and then the problems caused by the huge rise in oil prices which followed the Yom Kippur War in the Middle East in 1973, and the snake was abandoned in 1979. Now,
we joined the snake in 1972, but remained in it for just eight weeks, before speculative pressures against the currency forced exit, and in the process, we lost $2.5 billion of foreign exchange reserves in six days, a precursor perhaps of what was to happen with the ERM, and upon leaving the snake, we reverted to a floating currency.
But if 1974 was, you might say, a year of unreality, 1975 proved a year of fundamental policy changes and there were no fewer than four absolutely fundamental policy changes which I think serve to divide the post-1974 period in post-War history from the pre-1975 period. The first fundamental change was an abandonment of the commitment to full employment, so as to give priority to the conquest of inflation. This change was announced in Healey’s 1975 Budget. He said that although unemployment was rising, “I do not believe that it would be wise to put unemployment as the central problem.” He said he could not increase demand anymore because he could no longer finance the balance of payments deficit by borrowing, so he decided to shift resources from domestic demand to the balance of payments, even if this meant a further rise in unemployment. That went against traditional Keynesian theory, which, when faced with rising unemployment, said there should be a fiscal stimulus to the economy. Healey was proposing the opposite. This fundamental change, it is worth emphasising, came about not under Margaret Thatcher or her Government from 1979, but under a Labour Government, with Healey as Chancellor, a Government of the left. Under Labour, unemployment reached a peak of 1.5 million, and it has not fallen below a million since – it has often been higher. This heralded a move to permanently higher levels of unemployment in the 1980s, which peaked in 1982 at 13% of the labour force. Since the 1970s, it has averaged 7%. Now, at a time of supposedly low unemployment, just over 5%, higher than at any time before the mid-1970s, so you can divide this period in terms of levels of unemployment. The second major change occurred in Healey’s second Budget of the year, in July, when he imposed cash limits to policy programmes. Previously, a programme had been agreed, and if inflation had made the made the programme more expensive, the money had been found, so the programmes had been effectively inflation proof. This was no longer to be the case, except for Social Security cash payments, where the Government obviously had to meet whatever was required for the sick, disabled,
“Our total position by Black Wednesday had to be worth almost $10 billion. We planned to sell more than that. In fact, when Norman Lamont [the British finance minister] said just before the devaluation that he would borrow nearly $15 billion to defend sterling, we were amused because that was about how much we wanted to sell.”
George Soros, 1992
As Europe slept, Soros borrowed and sold pounds from anyone that he could. The Quantum Fund’s position exceeded $10 billion shorting the pound. Other hedge funds got wind of the trade (and the report from the Bundesbank) and started following suit, also borrowing and selling pounds.
By the time London markets opened for business and British treasury officials started their day, tens of billions of pounds had been sold. The pound was dangerously close to trading below the levels mandated by the ERM.
The Bank of England was about to have a very shitty day.
British officials first responded by buying one billion pounds at 8:40 AM. The purchase had no effect on the price of the pound. The whole world was selling, and the British government didn’t have the buying power to fight it all off. It’s estimated that the British government spent £27 billion of its reserves buying up pounds to no avail.
By 9AM, finance minister Norman Lamont contacted Prime Minister John Major and told him they couldn’t possibly buy up enough pounds to keep the currency propped up. The only option left for the British government to keep their currency trading at the right level would be to increase interest rates dramatically and attract people to buy pounds. Major refused. Britain was in the midst of a recession, and increasing rates would further shrink the economy. It would be political suicide.
Blood was in the water. Global capital continued to bet against the pound. An hour and a half later, Lamont called the Prime Minister to re-plead his case. The Prime Minister relented. At 11AM, the British government announced they would increase interest rates 200 basis points, from 10% to 12%.
How did the value of the pound react to this enormous increase in interest rates? Nothing happened. The pound continued to plummet. Lamont headed to the Prime Minister’s residence to figure out how to salvage the situation, which led them to announce an interest rate increase of another 300 basis points, from 12% to 15%.
What was the effect of this rate increase on the sterling? Again, nothing. As Mallaby later documents in his book, Soros and the gang of speculators knew victory was near:
“At their desks on the other side of the Atlantic, Druckenmiller and Soros saw the rate hikes as an act of desperation by a dying man. They were a signal that the end was nigh–and that it was time for one last push to sell the life out of the British currency.”
The market expected that Britain would have to devalue its currency and that no amount of interest rate hikes or currency purchasing would change that. At this point, the sentiment that Britain would exit the ERM and devalue its currency was a self-fulfilling prophecy; if the speculators believed it enough to put their money behind it, it would eventually come true.
At 7:30 PM that night, Lamont held a news conference to announce that Britain would be exiting the ERM and floating its currency on the market. Soros and the speculators won.
QUESTION, Where and from Whom did Quantum Fund Borrow the 10 Billions stirling from?
QUESTION. 2.5 Billions Lost in 8 weeks membership of “The Snake” in 1972 , who knew this then, least of all who knew now?
Whig Junto From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search
Three members of the Junto: from left to right, Lords: Somers, Montagu/Halifax and Orford The Whig Junto is the name given to a group of leading Whigs who were seen to direct the management of the Whig Party and often the government, during the reigns of William III and Anne.[1] It was the inspiration for Benjamin Franklin’s Junto in 1727 Philadelphia upon his return from London.[2] The Whig Junto proper consisted of John Somers, later Baron Somers; Charles Montagu, later Earl of Halifax; Thomas Wharton, later Marquess of Wharton, and Edward Russell, later Earl of Orford.[3] They came to prominence due to the favour of Robert Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland[4] and during the reign of Queen Anne, Sunderland’s son, the 3rd Earl succeeded his father. Opponents gave them the nickname “the five tyrannising lords”. Other figures prominent around the edges of the Junto include Sir John Trenchard and Thomas Tollemache.
Somers, Wharton, Russell and Montagu were elected to the House of Commons in 1689[5] and were granted minor office. Their effectiveness in the Commons brought them Sunderland’s attention. The Junto began to dominate the ministry from the time of the resignation of the Tory Secretary of State Lord Nottingham in 1693,[6] communicating to the King and Sunderland through the Whig Secretary of State, the Duke of Shrewsbury. As the members of the Junto entered the Lords — Somers was made Lord Keeper in 1693[7] and was promoted to a barony four years later,[8] Wharton succeeded his father as Baron Wharton in 1696,[9] Russell was created Earl of Orford in 1697[10] and Montagu(e)[n 1] was created Baron Halifax in 1700 — their hold on the Commons weakened and by 1700 the Junto was largely out of power.[11] In 1701 Somers, Orford and Halifax were impeached but survived the attack[12] and late in the year the Junto seemed set to return to power in order to help the king rally support for the War of the Spanish Succession. However, King William’s death in March 1702 delayed their return: Queen Anne detested them and refused to include them in the ministry, which was instead dominated by High Tories, with whom her sympathies lay.[13] With the elder Sunderland dead, the Junto’s connection to his son — who was the son-in-law of the Queen’s favourite couple, the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough — proved useful, as did the Junto’s support of the war, which contrasted with Tory ambivalence to it.
In 1705 Somers’s protégé Lord Cowper was made Lord Keeper[14] and in 1706 Sunderland became a Secretary of State.[15] After the resignation of Harley in 1708, Marlborough and his ally the Lord Treasurer Godolphin became more and more dependent on the Junto, who returned to office with Somers as Lord President, Wharton as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Orford as First Lord of the Admiralty.[16]
The ministry’s increasing dependence on the Junto Whigs caused the Queen’s relationship with the Marlboroughs and Godolphin to sour. In 1710 Godolphin and the Junto Whigs were forced from power.[17] The Junto led opposition to the new ministry’s peace policy from the House of Lords, leading to the creation of new peers to prevent this opposition from voting down the peace treaty.[18]
The term “Junto” is derived from “Junta”, a Hispano-Portuguese term for a civil deliberative or administrative council, which in 18th-century English had not yet gained its present association with the governments of a military dictatorship.
The First Whig Junto controlled the government of England from 1694 to 1699 and was the first part of the Whig Junto, a cabal of people who controlled the most important political decisions.[n 1] The Junto was reappointed twice following the elections of 1695 and 1698. History The Whig elite rose to government ascendancy while Lord Danby held office through three shortly-spaced changes of Sovereign (dating to the Royal-dominated ministries of Charles II). The Junto established its dominance in 1694 with the appointment of Sir Charles Montagu as Chancellor of the Exchequer on 10 May.[1] Danby, who had been created Duke of Leeds on 4 May, remained in office, under a diminished role while still Lord President of the Council, but the Junto controlled the government of England from 1694 to 1699.
It was led by six prominent members: Montagu[n 2], Somers, Wharton, Romney, Orford, and Shrewsbury. Supporting these peers were two unofficial whips in the House of Lords: the Earls of Sunderland and Portland. Only one of these held at the time an office, albeit less senior, as Lord Chamberlain. The Whig Party held a majority in the House of Commons after the election in 1695, although not all Whig MPs were unswervingly loyal to the Junto.
The Junto oversaw the creation of the Bank of England in 1694, but by 1699 the Junto’s power had declined in the face of opposition by Robert Harley and the Tories.[1] Many members of the Junto would return to government from 1706 to 1710 as part of the Godolphin-Marlborough ministry.
THE FORMATION OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND The modern banking system did not exist in Britain until Cromwell’s regime. In his history of England, Macaulay says that banking had not started at the time of the Restoration (1660). Merchants had their strong-boxes and paid out honest coin on demand. A. E. Feaveryear, in The Pound Sterling (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931) fixes the origin of English banking as 1662. Goldsmiths started to give receipts for money held. These were passed about, and thus the cheque and banknote were born. The goldsmiths began to find that they could make more loans than they had cash. Macaulay quotes a pamphlet, published in 1695, as saying: “Indeed, no goldsmith had in his vaults guineas and crowns to the full value of his paper”. In other words, the goldsmiths were swindling their customers by lending, or pretending to lend, what they did not possess. William was finding that his war against France was not very popular. Money was hard to obtain. It was at that stage that William Paterson, a Scottish economist and financier, hit upon the brilliant idea of forming a Bank, to be called the Bank of England, for the purpose of lending the King money. Whatever the present supporters of the banking swindle may say, the man who was primarily responsible for the Bank of England frankly admitted what he was doing. In a plan for forming the bank which he drew up at that time, he said: “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” This Scot knew the real basis of banking, and, unlike his successors, did not bother to conceal it. The merchants of London were very keen on the idea, although the Government of the day was not very enthusiastic. In his History of His Own Times (1693), Bishop Burnet wrote: The fear of centralisation of the money power was indeed the grounds upon which the Tories and Commons fought so bitterly against the founding of the Bank of England, thinking that the bank would grow to be a monopoly. All the money in England would come into their hands, and they would, in a few years, become the masters of the stock and wealth of the nation. Needless to say, the majority of the Whigs favoured the establishment of the Bank. The first Governor was Sir John Doublon, a Dutchman. The formation of the Bank in 1694 was incredibly camouflaged in its authorisation by “The Tonnage Act.” As far as I am aware, there had been no attempt to have the Charter of the Bank revoked until August 13, 1940, when Mr. Stokes, Labour Member for Ipswich, asked the Prime Minister whether there would be time made available to discuss a motion to that end standing in his name. Mr. Attlee, replied, and said that no time for discussion was possible. Which indicates quite clearly that there is very little hope of financial reform from the British Labour Party. Mr. Stokes’s resolution read as follows: That this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government to revoke the Charter of the Bank of England, whereby the right to issue money was passed to private interest in the reign of William and Mary, and to repeal all Acts of Parliament passed in support thereof since its granting, so as to take back for the benefit of the people the power which rightly belongs to them. . . .
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s published diaries Table Talk. Table Talk. this from 27th April 1823.
The national debt has, in fact, made more men rich than have a right to be so, or, rather, any ultimate power, in case of a struggle, of actualizing their riches. It is, in effect, like an ordinary, where three hundred tickets have been distributed, but where there is, in truth, room only for one hundred. So long as you can amuse the company with any thing else, or make them come in successively, all is well, and the whole three hundred fancy themselves sure of a dinner; but if any suspicion of a hoax should arise, and they were all to rush into the room at once, there would be two hundred without a potato for their money; and the table would be occupied by the landholders, who live on the spot.
Roger Lewis Hi Ruby, Sadly I think that is true, the Oligarchy was firmly secured by the Bankers in the 2008 ´´Crash´´. The Petrodollar sword of Damocles has haunted every US president since Gerald Ford and it is clear from published documents and correspondence that the Monetary System and Banking have been elevated to an importance above democracy and Laws. President Trump would have had some idea of the generality of the question as many do but only those who put on the shoes of A president or World leader will be made aware of the full picture, the rest of us can only guess as to what exactly is causing the successive apparent loss of all humanity and reason when office is assumed ( I must confess I felt this more acutely when it happened to Obama) . I have been reading the Pearson and Brandt Commission reports the past few days following up on a reference to the Committee of Twenty in the 1973 Bilderberg Minutes.
An Atlantic-Japanese Energy Policy by Walter J. Levy
Page Count:30 pages Date:May 1973 Restriction:Confidential Originating Organization:Bilderberg Group
The prosperity and security of the whole Free World depend on sufficient availability of energy on satisfactory economic terms. Daring the next ten to twenty years, oil will provide the mainstay of the world’s energy supplies.
In practical terms, because of the size of known reserves and the lead time for finding and developing new oil and other energy resources, the world’s growing needs will be supplied predominantly by huge increases of oil imports from the Middle Eastern –mainly Persian Gulf area.
Directly connected with the anticipated large advances of oil imports, the consuming countries will face another set of problems. The cost of oil imports will rise tremendously with extraordinarily difficult implications for the balance of payments of many consuming countries.
There will also be serious problems caused by unprecedented foreign exchange accumulations and the international use of such funds in the case of some of the major oil producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.
Conflicting Expectations Concerning the Conference of Security and Cooperation in Europe by Thorvald Stoltenberg
Page Count:21 pages Date:May 1973 Restriction:Confidential Originating Organization:Bilderberg Group
Security questions are not isolated aspects of political affairs, involving certain parts of foreign policy only.
Security problems arise as the result of basic problems in national and world affairs, and as such embrace all foreign policy.
Foreign policy in its turn is no longer limited to its traditional task of regulating relations between states. Foreign policy is increasingly becoming a tool for the solutions of the most important problems confronting us today, including many of the internal problems of our separate countries.
Briefly these problems are:
Lack of political and even more of a democratic political of economic and technological development, both on the national and international level.
The Brandt Equation was written by this Guy James Quilligan http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/James_Quilligan Who´s work is fascinating and I will be reading more of his work. This paper of Quilligans is very good although the Language is too Jargony for it to truly blossom and gain traction ( in my opinion, at any rate, the style does not resonate with me)) in a wider readership, this is a shame. http://www.kosmosjournal.org/…/the-commons-and-integral…
The Pearson Commission on International Development investigated the effectiveness of the World Bank’s development assistance in the 20 years to 1968 and made recommendations for future operation of the organization.
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Malik (Indonesia), Haruki Mori (Japan), Joe Morris (Canada), Olof Palme (Sweden), Peter G. Peterson (USA), Edgard Pisani (France), Shridath Ramphal (Guyana), Layachi Yaker (Algeria). Ex – Officio Members: Jan Pronk (Netherlands), Goran Ohlin (Sweden), Dragoslav Avramovic (Yogoslavia).
AN OVERVIEW
The best selling book to date on International Development issues, the Brandt Report is a broad based analysis of the state of the world, with a necessary emphasis on the failure of the world economic system to provide social and economic equality for humanity. It highlights the economic trends that need to be reversed, and the solutions and strategies that urgently need to be implemented to resolve the income disparity between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, financial and economic instability, and the growing problem of global poverty.
With those time frames, we could for instance take Agenda 2020 or Agenda 2030 as the Establishment vision for our futures set out formally by the United Nations. Placing the United Nations in Context one should consider Bodies within the UN such as the World Health Organisation or the IPCC ( The International Panel on Climate Change), or Political Groupings Such as The European Union, The Brics, and The North American Federation and The African Coalition for Corporate Accountability (ACCA) .
Or other Financial Bodies, Such as G7, G20, BIS, IMF, and the Business groupings like the WEF, and other think Tanks. Then the Wealth Managers, Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Within those Organisations and Institutions, there are always factions and differing world views and perspectives, An integral analysis gives a tool by which to examine the underlying Logic and belief systems informing the policy narratives and actual objectives of the Limbs that make up the Corporate Body of The Establishment (Oligarchy).
One of the problems with Integral Theory is shown in the AQAL model. It is based on hierarchical stages of development - Tier 1, 2, and 3.
It requires judgment to determine the development stage of a given person. This raises an obvious question: Who can decide whether a person is Tier 1, 2, or 3?
The hierarchical nature of the AQAL model also clashes with the yogic view of life: “Don’t look up at anyone. Don’t look down on anyone.”
It should be apparent from those 3 diagrams that Things are not as they seem to other people as they might seem to ourselves often as we are simply looking from different perspectives. This is a classic NP-Hard problem.
“It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct; as rare to be right in their speculation upon the cause of it. I have constantly observed that the generality of people are fifty years, at least, behindhand in their politics. There are but very few who are capable of comparing and digesting what passes before their eyes at different times and occasions, so as to form the whole into a distinct system”.
Introduction, What Why and How, a note On SCADS and Conspiracies. In Setting Out these pages I am acutely aware that with each link, each map, and each Film, readers are on the edge of a Labyrinth of rabbit holes and may be nervous of the charge, if found furtively, browsing these pages of, "Conspiracy Theorist". Take heart, no conspiracies are required. What is, however, apparent is manipulation, especially of the psychological variety. Fear of the label Conspiracy Theorist is but one such of these psychological manipulations.
Let us start with History. In the electronic edition of the Collected Works and Correspondence of David Hume39, the word ‘conspiracy’ occurs 191 times (a), the word ‘conspiracies’, 45 times, the word ‘conspirators’, 70 times, ‘conspirator’, 12 times, ‘conspired’, twice, ‘conspire’, 11 times, ‘conspired’, 23 times, ‘conspird’ (a misspelling of ‘conspired’), twice, ‘conspiring’, 8 times, ‘plot’ 94 times, ‘plots’, 9 times, ‘plotted’ twice, and ‘ploter’ (a rather amusing variant of ‘plotter’), three times. Concentrating on the word ‘conspiracy’, about three come from editors or correspondents such as Lady Hervey, and about ten concern the crazy theory, hatched in the paranoid brain of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that ‘d’Alembert, Horace Walpole, and [Hume had] entered into a Conspiracy against him to lead him into England, and ruin him, by settling him in a most commodious and agreeable Manner, and by doubling his Income’40. There are four casual uses of ‘conspiracy’ in the Essays and The Natural History of Religion, in which Hume alludes to a historical conspiracy before going on to make some other historical, sociological or philosophical point. For example: ‘That bloody debauchee [the Emperor Commodus] being murdered by a conspiracy suddenly formed between his wench and her gallant, who happened at that time to be Praetorian Praefect; these immediately deliberated about choosing a master to human kind ….’ 41 There are several occurrences of ‘conspiracy’ in Hume’s letters to his fellow historian, William Robertson, in which he discusses (on the basis of state papers, intercepted correspondence and the like) the complicity of Mary, Queen of Scots in various conspiracies against her husband, Lord Darnley, her cousin, Elizabeth I and her son, James VI: ‘I am afraid, that you, as well as myself, have drawn Mary’s character with too great softenings. She was undoubtedly a violent woman at all times. You will see in Murden proofs of the utmost rancour against her innocent, good-natured, dutiful son. She certainly disinherited him. What think you of a conspiracy for kidnapping him, and delivering him a prisoner to the King of Spain, never to recover his liberty till he should turn Catholic?’ 42 However, the vast bulk of the uses of ‘conspiracy’ occur in Hume’s six volume History of England, long regarded as a standard work And in most of these uses Hume is simply recounting in a matter-of –fact way the conspiracies he finds in his sources: ‘A secret conspiracy was entered into to perpetrate in one day a general massacre of the Normans, like that which had formerly been executed upon the Danes..’ (History, vol. 1, p. 195); ‘A conspiracy of his [that is, William II’s] own barons, which was detected at this time, appeared a 40 Greig ed. (1932b) The Letters of David Hume, vol. 2, Letter 358 to Suard, p. 103. 41 Hume David (1985) Essays, Moral Political and Literary, ed. Eugene F. Miller, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, p. 483, ‘Of the Original Contract’. 42 Greig ed. (1932a) The Letters of David Hume, vol. 1, Letter 162 to Robertson, p. 229
So for negotiating this Labyrinth, I offer this rather long, although informative, Ball of String ( As Ariadne gave to Theseus), a Dialogue that was published in the early seventies of a disputation between Skousen and Quigley, Authors both of Two Books dealing with the same material as dealt with here on this site and by extension the Novel, "The Conquest of Dough" So take a good head of the Old Poem, The Elephant of Hindustan, and Read this dialogue,
This book contains the translations of one hundred and 150 letters written in Akkadian on clay tablets. The earliest date is from the time of King Sargon of Akkad (about 2334-2279 B.C), the latest from the period of Persian domination over Mesopotamia (beginning 539 B.C.). The tablets come either from Mesopotamia proper or from regions to the west, even from as far as Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Egypt. Oppenheim selected these letters from many thousands of published clay tablets of this type to provide a panoramic view of Mesopotamian civilization during this extended period. His purpose in making such an anthology is to convey a more intimate and varied image of this civilization than that offered by the readily available translations of Akkadian epic texts, royal inscriptions, and law codes. Although the selection is, ultimately, subjective, two guiding principles were adopted: he chose the atypical rather than the typical to reproduce, however inadequately, the kaleidoscopic diversity of life as mirrored in these documents; and he concentrated on letters that are reasonably well preserved and that do not urgently require comment and elucidation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967
Pp. xii + 217; 16 figures, 1 map
Out of Print
A. Leo Oppenheims two introductory essays to his translations of these letters are Sublime. They are a Tour de force on Political Economy, Human Nature, and The Foundations of the Thought Behind The Conquest of Dough. ( and also of the Integral analysis of our Present discontents.)
"If you are digging up history. You have to dig it all up. If they dig up 60 years, I will dig up 600. If we go back far enough in the history. Always, there will be some grievance, and I´ll fight on him, I´ll fight on you, I´ll fight on everyone. Where is the beginning? I cannot find it. Dig up all the problems and you will find they have a root cause in one place: Greed. Where there is greed, there is no satisfaction" Guru Guruji, Quoted from "Towards" Unity by Stuart Hastings. http://towardsunity.org:80/the-kumbh-mela/
Stuart’s Book Towards Unity was offered up by the digital gods whilst researching the timelines for the chronology of my Novel The Conquest of Dough. The Themes of Stuart’s Philosophy and inspirations go back to the same wonder of where all this leads from and where it might lead.
"GEORGE SOROS: "Markets are inherently unstable, or at least potentially unstable. An appropriate metaphor is the oil tankers. They are very big; and therefore, you have to put in compartments to prevent the sloshing around of oil from capsizing the boat. The design of the boat has to take that into account. And after the, uh, uh, Depression, regulations actually introduced these very ti-, watertight compartments. And deregulation has led to the end of co-, compartmentalization."
From “A Way of Life” Address given to Yale students, 1914 By Sir William Osler "The load of tomorrow, added to that of yesterday, carried today makes the strongest falter. To youth, we are told belongs the future, but the wretched tomorrow that so plagues some of us, has no certainty, except through today. Who can tell what a day may bring forth? Look heavenward, if you wish, but never to the horizon — that way danger lies. Truth is not there, happiness is not there, but the falsehoods, the frauds, the quackeries, the ignes fatui which have deceived each generation — all beckon from the horizon and lure the men not content to look for the truth and happiness that tumble out at their feet. Waste of energy, mental distress, nervous worries dog the steps of the man who is anxious about the future. Shut close, then, the great fore and aft bulkheads, and prepare to cultivate the habit of a life of day-tight compartments. Do not be discouraged — like every other habit, the acquisition takes time, and the way is one you must find for yourselves." http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/06/11/manvotional-the-happy-habit-of-living-for-the-day-only/
´´every living thing can become healthy, strong, and fruitful only within a horizon; if it is incapable of drawing a horizon around itself or, on the other hand, too selfish to restrict its vision to the limits of a horizon drawn by another, it will wither away feebly or overhastily to its early demise. Cheerfulness, clear conscience, the carefree deed, faith in the future, all this depends in the case of an individual as well as of a people, on there being a line which distinguishes what is clear and in full view from the dark and unilluminable; it depends on one's being able to forget at the right time as well as to remember at the right time; on discerning with strong instinctual feelings when there is need to experience historically and when unhistorically. Precisely this is the proposition the reader is invited to consider: the unhistorical and the historical are equally necessary for the health of an individual, a people, and a culture. " Friedrich Nietzsche: 1844-1900 ON THE ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF HISTORY FOR LIFE
To provide a context and timeline of the Establishment’s Trifecta of public policy,
( I place “climate change” in quotes to denote a skepticism of the orthodox narratives around the Climate Catastrophe narratives which are unsupported by empirical data, most of the “science” has been falsified.)ed.
Here is a summary of the Monetary Aspects as they apply to this Analysis.
Introduction.
The debate surrounding global warming has become highly charged, with fear-mongering and hype drowning out inconvenient facts. The blurring of terms like “climate change” and “global warming” has obscured the impact of carbon-starved soils on plant life. Our ignorance of soil science has led to a fixation on CO2 reduction as a substitute for addressing soil carbon depletion and land abuse. Land exploitation, driven by the need to satisfy debt bubbles, has historically shaped our relationship with the environment. From early Mesopotamia, debt has dominated monetary systems, leading to borrowing against the income of future generations. It's time to reevaluate our approach to “climate change” and recognize the interconnectedness of land use, soil health, and the economy. Preserving the usufruct of land for present and future generations should be a priority, rather than continuing to borrow against the resources of the earth.
In the modern world, money is often regarded as one of the most significant inventions inherited from ancient times, alongside agriculture, the wheel, and fire. The nation's founders recognized the importance of money as a "lubricant" for societal progress. They understood that money is a public utility designed for public use, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
The Mixt Money Case of 1604 established that the state has the power to create money and decide its substance. However, the significance of this case has been overshadowed by propaganda from those whose interests it does not serve. The current debt-dominant monetary system leads to unfair concentrations of wealth and power, causing social strife and other negative consequences.
The need for monetary reform is pressing, especially in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis( and since the 2019 Repo spike and response to Event 201). The American Monetary Act, embodied in the NEED Act, proposes fundamental changes to the monetary system. It draws from historical monetary concepts and aims to separate the function of money creation from lending and finance. This would allow for government-issued debt-free money to be spent into circulation for the general welfare.
The Act also introduces considerations of fairness, sustainability, sound environmental practice, and social cohesion into monetary decision-making. It seeks to ensure that the money supply is stable and monitored to be neither inflationary nor deflationary.
Proper monetary reform consists of three essential elements that must be enacted together: incorporating the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury for government creation of money, ending the fractional reserve system, and spending new money into circulation for infrastructure repair and job creation.
The NEED Act represents a remarkable legislative configuration that would have been appreciated by the nation's founding fathers. Its provisions for direct funding of infrastructure modernization and improvement align with the principles of promoting the general welfare.
In conclusion, the historical significance of money as a public utility designed for public use cannot be understated. The NEED Act presents a comprehensive approach to monetary reform that addresses the shortcomings of the current system and aims to create a fairer, more sustainable monetary framework for the future.
Title: The Impact of the Monetary System on “Climate Change”.
( I place “climate change” in quotes to denote a skepticism of the orthodox narratives around the Climate Catastrophe narratives which are unsupported by empirical data, most of the “science” has been falsified.)ed.
In the realm of monetary systems and their impact on society, it is crucial to acknowledge the historical manipulation and confusion perpetrated by the money power. Thomas Jefferson's astute observation about the nature of paper money and its holders' vested interests sheds light on the enduring influence of monetary systems on societal dynamics.
The correlation between monetary policies, land use, and climate change is a thought-provoking subject. The pursuit of high returns akin to a trifecta bet has historically driven mankind to engage in economically driven wars, leading to adverse land use policies and detrimental monetary practices. This historical pattern has perpetuated a cycle of destruction, ultimately contributing to “climate change”.
The extractive nature of the current monetary system, characterized by an imbalance between wealth claims and actual wealth, has led to the depletion of essential natural resources such as soil carbon and humus. This depletion further exacerbates “climate change”, as healthy soils play a pivotal role in carbon sequestration and maintaining ecological balance.
Moreover, the prevailing monetary system has influenced land use policies to prioritize economic demands over environmental sustainability, resulting in long-term repercussions for climate stability. The urgency to address climate change is intertwined with the imperative need for comprehensive monetary reform.
Monetary reform holds paramount importance in shaping societal progress. As emphasized by the nation's founders, money is a public utility designed for the common good. Consequently, reforming the monetary system precedes all other societal transformations.
The historical struggle between organized money power and unorganized democracy underscores the pervasive influence of financial interests in shaping societal trajectories. The need for monetary reform is no longer a matter for future consideration; it is an urgent imperative for addressing the interconnected challenges of “climate change”, environmental degradation, and socio-economic disparities.
Postscript.
I never questioned the official narrative at all. It was just an accident that I stumbled into the truth. So how can you reach people with facts and knowledge when they are controlled by their emotional beliefs? (My mind just went to Galileo) To date $79 billion has been spent on public indoctrination – color brochures, DVDs, TV ads and shows, media blitz – all presented in colorful imagery that manipulates the emotions. If you dare to question this, people assume you don't love the earth and they hate you for that. But we DO love the earth! That's how they captured and recruited us. They know we love the earth. Knowing this, and not having $79 billion at your disposal, how can you present your findings in such a way that people who love the earth will begin to doubt the official story or at least the official solutions?
In this insightful and thought-provoking conversation, Geraldine Perry’s friend Nikki Alexander shares her deep concerns about the emotional manipulation and financial interests behind the climate change narrative. She raises important questions about the influence of imagery and emotions in shaping public opinion, as well as the enormous financial stakes involved in the carbon emissions trading market. Nikki's astute observations shed light on the complex interplay between environmental concerns, monetary interests, and public perception. Her perspective challenges us to critically examine the underlying motives driving the climate change agenda and to consider the implications of centralized control over global resources. As we navigate through the intricate web of information and disinformation surrounding this issue, Nikki's words serve as a poignant reminder to approach the climate change discourse with a discerning eye and a willingness to question established narratives.
Communicating Climate Change The Rules.
The intertwining of monetary and environmental agendas further underscores the complexity of addressing climate change. The monetization of carbon footprints and the commodification of environmental resources exemplify the convergence of financial interests with environmental concerns.
In conclusion, the intricate interplay between monetary systems, land use policies, and climate change necessitates a holistic approach to address these interconnected challenges. Monetary reform emerges as a foundational step toward fostering sustainable societal progress and mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change. It is imperative to recognize the urgency of reforming the monetary system as a prerequisite for achieving comprehensive environmental and economic sustainability.
The compelling insights presented by Nikki Alexander serve as a poignant reminder of the multifaceted nature of addressing climate change and the formidable obstacles posed by entrenched narratives and vested financial interests. As we navigate this complex terrain, it is essential to foster informed discourse and critical engagement to pave the way for meaningful reform and sustainable progress.
TIME, TIDES AND THE NATURE OF THINGS. THE DOLLAR MOON
A planet to its Star must look The planet no less needs its moon. As the Sun is the store of energy, New. The moon drives and regulates currents, of the tides , time and the nature of things.
That Golden Orb gives all That silvery Moon regulates all Both work together even as the other Seemingly sleeps and yet currents of the tides, Time and the nature of things pass.
On the nature of Man made things On a standard of gold which Jennings would not be crucified upon , That cross Of Gold-alone hard food of Midas. No tides to complement the Orb
For Silver was its currency, the Silvery moon to that crosses Golden Sun which means of exchange fed the common man The Silver Moon drives and regulates Currencies of the tides, Time and the nature of things.
Time passed and Man forsakes the Golden Orb and its silvery moon. No credit he gave to drivers of Tides, Time and the nature of things Fiat of imperial rule enforces debts, new tides in political Economy.
FIAT dictates the new tides of Commerce. Ephors of debt above and astride the law. No silvery moon complementary to the Golden Orb. There are no tides by means of which the common man may be fed. Hard food of Midas alone- Starvation.
King Kanute Like those ephors wave bidding the advancing tide backwards Still they advance tides in a tsunami of debt Tides of a Dollar moon by fiat Hegemonic Tides of the Dollar Moon.
Göring the Organ-Grinder and Heidegger the Monkey. Jud Evans Cartoons Here.(see Golden Link) Jud Evans Cartoons here
This post is about rediscovering old sources, a thing called the Web Archive, I was delighted to have it recommended regarding a site that used to make me laugh, a satire site on Capitalism and the necessity for debt in modern political economy.
The EU as an example of a Technocratic Construct Appointed by the Establishment ( Oligarchy.)
Rodney Atkinson has been a successful linguist and linguistic theorist, was formerly a lecturer at the University of Mainz, Germany and a merchant banker in the City of London. He is the Founder of the Freenations website (visited by individuals and government institutions from over 100 countries) an occasional adviser to MPs and the proprietor of his own commercial property company.
He is the author of over 100 articles and policy papers three internationally praised books on political economy: Government against the People (1986), The Emancipated Society (1988), The Failure of the State (1989) and three on the European Union, Treason at Maastricht (with Norris McWhirter CBE, fourth edition 1998) Europe's Full Circle (third edition 1998 also published in Yugoslavia and Poland) and Fascist Europe Rising (2001 also published in Yugoslavia). For the extensive all-party and international praise of these books and other work see the websites www.rodneyatkinson. freeuk.com and www.freenations.freeuk.com/publications.html He was the Referendum Party candidate in North West Durham in the 1997 General Election (5.2% of the vote) and the lead UK Independence Party candidate for the North East Region in the 1999 European Elections (8.83% of the vote). He has been a contributor to radio and television programs on both sides of the Atlantic. He launched the cross-party British Declaration of Independence in 1999.
In this continuation of the discussion on the European Union and the Maastricht Treaty, it is important to highlight the significant implications of the 1992 treaty and the subsequent 1993 Act. The surrender of constitutional power, as warned in the "Kilmuir letter," has had far-reaching consequences. The censored nature of this warning for 30 years raises concerns about the transparency of such critical decisions.
The concept of acquis communautaire, or the "occupied field theory," further solidifies the control conceded in 1972, making it exceedingly difficult for any repatriation of powers to the United Kingdom. The European Court's role in furthering "integration" and promoting the "Occupied Field" perpetuates the challenge, as it guarantees the EC's authority in perpetuity once legislated in a new area.
The myth of "subsidiarity," as trumpeted by John Major, is contradicted by the acquis communautaire, as evident in the Maastricht Treaty. The European Commission's stance on this matter emphasizes that subsidiarity cannot challenge its right of initiative, thereby altering the balance established by the Treaties.
Moreover, the EU's view of social policy as part of economic and trade policy, as well as the relegation of free trade to just one of the aims of the EU in the Lisbon Treaty, presents challenges for opting out of social obligations. This is further complicated by the European Court's authority to rule on and the European Commission's ability to make laws in social fields already subject to the acquis communautaire.
The discussion also delves into the European Union's development and its potential impact on post-war Europe, touching on elements such as the Albanian KLA referring to NATO troops as "fascist armies" and the reformation of the Bosnian Nazi SS division in the 1990s.
In conclusion, the complexities and implications of EU treaties and agreements have significant implications for member states, particularly in terms of sovereignty and decision-making powers. The challenges posed by concepts such as acquis communautaire and subsidiarity underscore the need for a thorough understanding of these issues and their potential impact on national sovereignty and democratic rights.
It is imperative for nations to carefully consider their positions within such frameworks and to explore avenues that align with their national interests and values. This may involve reasserting their rights as sovereign nation-states and seeking alternative arrangements that foster cooperation while safeguarding their autonomy.
The complexities and implications discussed here underscore the need for a well-informed and thoughtful approach to matters of sovereignty and international cooperation.
From here we start our disentanglement with a new piece of EU regulation/Law-Making. Censorship by the back door, creation of a new Taten Folk, and furtherance of the Granfalloon of “Climate Change” worship
Incompatible with existing EU law: The E-Commerce Directive forbids general monitoring obligations, which even the European Parliament Research Service says Article 13 would establish. Other premises of Article 13 are also unsupported by existing law and jurisprudence, including the assertion that platforms “optimizing the presentation” of uploaded content become liable for infringements. [Sources: Study 1, Open letter, Study 2, Study 3, EPRS]
Incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights as interpreted by the ECJ: It violates the principle of a fair balance between competing fundamental rights laid out by the European Court of Justice in case law. [Open letter, Study]
Ambiguously worded and inconsistent: Even the official German translation contains differences that significantly alter the meaning of some provisions.
EXPERT OPINION
Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users. – 70 internet luminaries including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
This [law] will lead to excessive filtering and deletion of content and limit the freedom to impart information on the one hand, and the freedom to receive information on the other. – 57 signatories representing fundamental rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders
States and intergovernmental organizations should refrain from establishing laws or arrangements that would require the “proactive” monitoring or filtering of content, which is both inconsistent with the right to privacy and likely to amount to pre-publication censorship. – United Nations Human Rights Council report
Edward Snowden
@Snowden
In less than a month, the European Parliament will not only decide on a new #copyright law, but also on the future of the free and open #internet: If you are from the European Union, get active now, go to
MEET THE FUGGERS, BREXIT, THE EURO AND CLUELESS ELITES.
Meet the Fuggers or, its the Money Power stupid.
Brexit, The Euro and clueless Elites.
The Eastern Roman empire under Justinian saw the seeds of its final fall to The Ottomans when Abd El Melik started paying tribute in Gold coinage under his own Political Branding you might say.
With all the talk of Brexit being the removal of a final obstacle to the deeper federation of a European State transcending tiresome nationalism, perhaps a little review of History, particularly Monetary history, might not be such a bad thing.
In the review of European competences carried out as a consultation by the foreign office regarding Brexit and or reform requirements of the Eu, two of the papers need to be considered in the context of the Money power argument.
There are two things that the European Elites, in the Big Player countries at least, simply do not get. They are; Democratic Accountability and the importance of Economic Prosperity. If” it´s the economy stupid,” that comes first and people vote with their pocketbooks, there is then an option to dispense with one of these two mystery conceptions. Which one? of course, that would be Democracy.
The point which is quite clearly lost on the EU top Brass and their fundamental misunderstanding is this. To bake Austerity into the cake and to flout any pretence of democracy will not wash and has not been washing with people who are, or, at least believe themselves to be, free.
What makes this even more alarming and frankly plain stupid is that austerity is a political choice and not a Law of Nature. At this stage in the process where Democracy and Prosperity have been taken off the table and replaced with Authoritarian Austerity. We as Europeans and Citizens of our own Nations, Countries or communities can now look at both Democracy and prosperity and by understanding things better than the ´´ Experts, ´´ we will discover that we can demand and expect both Democracy and Prosperity.
What is the answer, how can we do this? quite simply by Democratising money.
1 «AND JESUS KNEW THEIR THOUGHTS, AND SAID UNTO THEM, EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF IS BROUGHT TO DESOLATION; AND EVERY CITY OR HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF SHALL NOT STAND.» (MATTHEW, 12:25).
28.11.2008 | Analytics, In English, Библиотека | ВП СССР
Bureaucratic despair in EUssr Neo-Liberal Collective and The global Neo-Con project “PEANAC”, engenders a fretful panic in Britain’s political Class as they ponder Britain’s place in the global crisis, and its place at thegrafter's Trough The key question to British and foreign bureaucracy is ” Can a Kingdom divided against itself…” «PEANAC» — a project of global deceit Why Blair, Macron, Trudeau, Mrs May, and not someone else?
The May Deal is a New Treaty of Versailles. The European Globalist Tax Farmers and their Uber Alpha Masters of Usury seek to impose the same noose around the necks of the people of these great British Isles that, they applied to the unfortunate peoples of Greece. The Greeks, who have had their own OXI ( No ) Vote betrayed by their political Class. and The Irish and what about so on and so forth ad nauseum.
Wikipedia has an excellent entry on The EU history of referendums, and I have placed them in a spreadsheet to calculate the Effective votes based upon turnout in the different referendums. Of interest are.
The Danish and Swedish Euro currency Referenda of 2000, AND 2003.
The Irish Republic referenda of 2001 on the treaty of Nice &
the 2008 Treaty of Lisbon referenda both of which were the subject of replays.
This after the events of 2005, where, a whole slew of referenda were planned but cancelled when the French and Dutch populations decided to take democracy into their own hands.
And FInaly the Events of the last 5 referenda starting with the Greek Austerity OXI vote.
REFERENDUMS RELATED TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
This is a list of referendums related to the European Union, or its predecessors, the European Communities. Since 1972, a total of 48 referendums have been held by EU member states, candidate states, and their territories, with several additional referendums held in countries outside of the EU. The referendums have been held most commonly on the subject of whether to become a member of European Union as part of the accession process, although the EU does not require any candidate country to hold a referendum to approve membership or as part of treaty ratification. Other EU-related referendums have been held on the adoption of the euro and on participation in other EU-related policies.
´´IF YOU LOVE SOMETHING, SET IT FREE; IF IT COMES BACKS IT’S YOURS, IF IT DOESN’T, IT NEVER WAS ´´.
Richard Bach.
The collective punishment dealt out to the German people after WW1 by the treaty of Versailles and the cororally of that strategy being naturally the second Act of WW1 being WW2 are events not taught as a piece but using the lenses given us by Professor Efimov
let’s take a closer look.
Disorganizing the whole economy ( Sabotage Creorder out of Chaos, Bilchler and Nitzen)
by J Nitzan · 2009 · Cited by 786 — And it articulates an innovative theory of. 'capital as power' and a new history of the 'capitalist mode of power'. Jonathan Nitzan teaches political economy at ...
The Repositioning of Territory in the Global Division of Functions
Perhaps less known than the African case is the fact that privatized land in the territories of the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia and Ukraine, is also becoming the object of much foreign acquisition. In 2008 alone, these acquisitions included the following: a Swedish company, Alpcot Agro, bought 128,000 hectares in Russia; South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries paid $6.5 million for a majority stake in Khorol Zerno, a company that owns 10,000 hectares in eastern Siberia; Morgan Stanley bought 40,000 hectares in Ukraine; Gulf investors are planning to acquire Pava, the first Russian grain processor to be floated on the financial markets to sell 40% of its landowning division, giving them access to 500,000 hectares. Also less noticed than the African case is that Pakistan is offering half a million hectares of land to Gulf investors with the promise of a security force of 100,000 to protect the land. These developments are part of a larger combination of trends. First, there is the immediate fact of how the global demand for food, partly fed by the half million strong new middle classes of Asia, has meant that there are profits to be had in food and land.15 We now have a global market for land and food controlled by large firms and some governments, and it has been a growth sector throughout the financial crisis. Under these conditions pricing is a controlled affair. Secondly, there is the ongoing demand for metals and minerals of all sorts and a whole new demand for metals and minerals hitherto not much exploited as their demand comes from the more recent developments in the electronics sector.
Sub-prime Mortgages: A New Global Frontier for Finance
The 1980s opened a new financial phase that became yet another disciplining mechanism.22 Here it was not structural adjustment programs but financial adjustment crises. Since the 1980s there have been several financial crises, some famous, such as the 1987 New York stock market crisis and the 1997 Asian crisis. And some obscure, such as the individual country financial crises that happened in over 70 countries in the 1980s and 1990s as they deregulated their financial systems, mostly under pressure from global regulators aiming at facilitating the globalizing of financial markets.
Conventional data show the post-1997 financial crisis period to be a fairly stable one, until the current crisis. One element in this picture is that after a country goes through an ‘adjustment’ crisis, ‘stability’ (and prosperity!) follow. This then produces a representation of considerable financial stability, except for a few major global crises, such as the dotcom crisis. A much mentioned fact regarding the current 2007 – 2008 crisis intended to show that the system is fine, is that in 2006 and 2007, 124 countries had a GDP growth rate of 4% a year or more, which is much higher than that of previous decades. The suggestion is then that the 2007 – 2008 crisis is precisely that—an acute momentary event, but that the system is fine. But behind this stability lies a savage sorting of winners and losers, and the fact that it is easier to track winners than to track the slow sinking into poverty of households, small firms, and government agencies (such as health and education) that are not part of the new glamour sectors (finance and trade). The miseries these adjustment crises brought to the middle sectors in each country and the destruction of often well-functioning economic sectors is largely an invisible history to the global eye.
What stands out in this phase that begins in the 1980s is that global and adjustment crises had the effect of securing the conditions for globally linked financial markets and the ascendance of a financial logic organizing larger and larger sectors of the economy in the global North. In this process large components of the non-financial economy in these countries were ruined.24 Against this background, the current financial crisis is yet another step in this trajectory. One question is whether it spells the exhaustion of this trajectory, or rather the beginning of its decay. In what follows I argue that the specific way of using the sub-prime mortgage in the 2001 – 2007 period makes it a dangerous instrument that is likely to be used worldwide over the next decade. It is a mistake to see this instrument as having to do with providing modest income households with housing. It has rather to do with a structural condition of high finance marked by the combination of a growing demand for asset-backed securities given extremely high levels of speculative investments. This structural condition is at the heart of the actual event that momentarily brought the system to a (partial) standstill—the credit-default swap crisis of September 2008— which in turn suggests an even keener interest in asset-backed securities, and hence in the speculative use of sub-prime mortgages. I see this as one of the new global frontiers for finance, specifically, the 2 billion modest-income households worldwide. The effect could be yet another brutal sorting, with expulsions from more traditional economies, not unlike the consequences of the structural adjustment crises in the global South discussed in the first half of this paper.
I begin with a quick comparison of the major global crises since the current phase began in the 1980s to underline the extent to which financial leveraging has caused the greater acuteness of the current crisis compared with the other 3 major global crises since the 1980s. Figure 2 shows that financial leveraging added another 20% to the underlying banking crisis, thereby bringing the current financial crisis up to an equivalent of 40% of global GDP, compared to earlier crises, which rarely went beyond 20%.
securities by investors, in a market where the outstanding value of derivatives was $630 trillion, or 14 times the value of global GDP. The total value of financial assets (which is a form of debt) in the US stood at almost five times (450%) the value of its GDP in 2006, before the crisis was evident. The UK, Japan, and the Netherlands, all had a similar ratio (McKinsey & Company, 2008, p. 11).25 From 2005 to 2006 the total value of the world’s financial assets grew by 17% (in nominal terms, 13% at constant exchange rates) reaching $167 trillion. This is not only an all-time high value; it also reflects a higher growth rate in 2006 than the annual average of 9.1% since 1980. This points to growing financial deepening. The total value of financial assets stood at $12 trillion in 1980, $94 trillion in 2000, and $142 trillion in 2005.
There is a profound irony in this crisis of confidence: the brilliance of those who make these financial instruments became the undoing of a large number of investors (besides the undoing of the modest-income families who had been sold these mortgages). The toxic link was that for these mortgages to work as assets for investors, vast numbers of mortgages were sold regardless of whether these home-buyers could pay their monthly fee. The faster these mortgages could be sold, the faster they could be bundled into investment instruments and sold off to investors. Overall, sub-prime mortgages more than tripled from 2000 to 2006, and accounted for 20% of all mortgages in the US in 2006. This premium on speed also secured the fees for the sub-prime mortgage sellers and reduced the effects of mortgage default on the profits of the sub-prime sellers. In fact, those sub-prime sellers that did not sell off these mortgages as part of investment instruments went bankrupt eventually, but not before having secured fees. In brief, the financial sector invented some of its most complicated financial instruments to extract the meager savings of modest households in order to produce an ‘asset’—the mortgage on a house. The complexity of the financial innovation was a series of products that de-linked sub-prime sellers and investors’ profits from the creditworthiness of consumer home mortgage-buyers. Whether the mortgage is paid matters less than securing a certain number of loans that can be bundled up into ‘investment products’. The crisis of home-buyers was not a crisis for financial investors, even though millions of middle and working class families now live in tents in the US. For finance it was a crisis of confidence. But it showed the importance of the systems of trust that make possible the speed and orders of magnitude of this financial system. The crisis of home-owners (valued at a few hundred billion dollars) was the little tail that dented the enormous dog of trust in the financial system. In other words, this type of financial system has more of the social in it than is suggested by the technical complexity of its instruments and electronic platforms (Sassen, 2008a, pp. 355– 365). The critical component that brought the financial system to a momentary standstill was more of an old-fashioned speculation gone wrong: the $62 trillion dollar credit-default swap crisis that exploded on the scene in September 2008, a full year after the sub-prime mortgage of August 2007 (see Figure 4). This was more than the combined domestic product of all countries in the world, $54 trillion. Figure 4 shows the extremely sharp growth over an extremely short period of time, from 2001 to 2007. While much attention has gone to sub-prime mortgages as causes of the financial crisis, the $60 trillion in swaps in mid-2008 is what really got the financial crisis going. Declining house prices, high foreclosure rates, declining global trade, rising unemployment, all alerted investors that something was not right. This, in turn, led those who had bought credit-default swaps as a sort of ‘insurance’ to want to cash in. But the sellers of these swaps had not expected this downturn or the demand to cash in from those whom they had sold these credit-swaps. They were not ready, and this catapulted much of the financial sector into crisis. Not everybody lost. Among the winners are also those who ‘shorted’ sub-prime mortgage securities: once again, Soros is the emblematic actor in this parallel circuit, making well over $3 billion on the sub-prime mortgage crisis, just as he did on the British pound’s fallout from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).
This shadow banking system has thrived on the recoding of instruments, which, at the limit, allowed illegal practices to thrive. For instance, it is now clear that credit-default swaps were sold as a type of insurance. But rather they were actually derivatives. If they would have been sold as insurance the law requires they be backed by capital reserves and be subject to considerable regulation. Making them into derivatives was a de facto deregulation and eliminated the capital reserves requirement. Credit-default swaps could not have grown so fast and reached such extreme values if they had been sold as insurance, which would have been the lawful way. None of the financial firms had the capital reserves they would have needed to back $60 trillion in insurance. Because they were recoded as derivatives, they could have an almost vertical growth curve beginning as recently as 2001.
A comparison of the value of all residential mortgage debt (from high to low-quality mortgages) as a ratio of national GDP across developed countries shows sharp variations.27 To some extent, the variation in this value is a function of timing. In the US, the UK and Australia, the housing market has long been private and, importantly, the financial system is highly developed on a broad range of fronts. Thus the incidence of mortgages is both high and widespread in terms of the variety of financial circuits it encompasses. Central to this story is the difference between the value of housing loans as a ratio to GDP and the growth rate of such loans. Thus, the former is very low in countries with young housing markets, such as India and China, where it stands at 10%.28 In contrast, in more mature markets in Asia, this value can be much higher—standing at 60% in Singapore, and 40% in Hong Kong and Taiwan—but the growth rate is much lower.
The next two tables (Tables 5 and 6) provide comparative data on the incidence of residential loans to total loans in several highly developed and so-called emerging market countries. These two tables also help situate the residential mortgage market in the rapidly growing and diversifying financial world of loans. Developed countries with multiple financial circuits, such as the US and the UK, clearly show that compared to other types of loans, mortgages are a relatively small share of all loans, even if most households have mortgages. It is important to note that the same low level of mortgage loans to total loans in economies marked by a small elite of super rich individuals has a different meaning in the US and UK: hence, Russia’s extremely low
the ratio of finance as a whole to US GDP is 450%, as it is for the UK. The other story, then, is the extent to which finance has found mechanisms for raising its revenue that have little direct connection to the material economy of countries. In this regard, the securitizing of residential mortgages can be seen as a powerful instrument for the further financial deepening of economies. Finally, yet another way of understanding the mortgage capital is its share in total loans. Tables 5 and 6 show this share for developed and emerging market economies. There is considerable variability within each group of countries. But the general fact is that there is much room for residential mortgage debt to grow in both. And some of this growth may well take the shape of sub-prime mortgages, with its attendant risks for modest-income households and the added leveraging it brings to the financial system.
Driven by Mortgages, U.S. Household Debt Hits New High
HOUSEHOLD DEBT
by Felix Richter,
Aug 26, 2021
U.S. household debt climbed to a record high of $15.0 trillion in the second quarter of 2021, as mortgage debt climbed to $10.4 billion amid a refinancing boom. According to the New York Fed’s latest Household Debt and Credit Report, mortgage debt increased by a whopping $282 billion between April and June.
The potential for global replication of the financial innovation that destroyed 15 million plus households in the US, therewith devastating whole neighborhoods is the systemic equivalent, albeit on a much smaller scale, of the global South countries devastated by an imposed debt and debt servicing regime which took priority over all other state expenditures. These are two manifestations of a systemic deepening of advanced capitalism, one marked by its potential to spread globally and the other marked by its full enactment in the global South.
I see the sub-prime mortgage as extending the domain for high finance but in a way that delinks the financial circuit from the actual material entity that is the house, and hence from the neighborhood, and from the people who got the mortgage.
It is akin to wanting only the horns of the rhino, and throwing away the rest of the animal, devaluing it, no matter its multiple utilities. Or using the human body to harvest some organs, and seeing no value in all the other organs, let alone the full human being—it can all be discarded. But unlike the clear realignments we see in vast stretches of the global South, it is not clear how these devastated urban spaces in the global North will be incorporated into the circuits of advanced capitalism. This systemic shift signals that the sharp increase in displaced peoples, in poverty, in deaths from curable illnesses, are part of this new phase. Key features of primitive accumulation are at work, but to see this it is critical to go beyond logics of extraction and to recognize the fact of systemic transformation, with its system-changing practices and projects—the expulsion of people that transforms space back to territory, with its diverse potentials.
What our trade and foreign policy should be (free trade, obviously) is out of the scope of this post: let us focus, instead, on our internal political settlement.
central government departments administer some of the policies centrally;
central government actually offloads the vast bulk of the administration of these centrally dictated policies to local authorities;
most of the time, policies that the government thinks are going to be hugely unpopular are handed off to QUANGOs;
which, in turn, offload the administration of these policies to local authorities;
crucially, local authorities have very little policy-making and minuscule tax-raising power;
and local authorities must then spend their money on enforcers to ensure that cigarettes are suitably hidden behind shutters rather than doing what voters expect them to do, i.e. collect the bins once a week;
This whole structure is, frankly, crap. Some of the reasons that it doesn’t work:
central government makes homogenous policies with little to no consideration of operations (or prices) at a local level;
with central government often divorced from local pressures, government becomes even crappier than it might be;
local authorities have almost no power: which means that local people do not engage with local politics. One side-effect of this is that those elected tend to be even more shit than national politicians but, most importantly, people feel disenfranchised from politics entirely;
central politicians generally like this, as political disengagement means that the electorate are disinterested in examining the myriad ways in which politicians line their own pockets and, frankly, fuck things up through their sheer incompetence;
civil servants love it, because no one knows or cares just how much they, too, are filling their boots and avoiding scrutiny;
crucially, with central government making most policy decisions, there is almost no scope for competition—except, of course, between countries (and this is being constrained, as we will see);
In short, this is a recipe for unbelievably rubbish politics in the short term, and political disaster in the longer term. But, of course, it just gets worse…
Everything is a remix (of sockpuppetry)
The corruption of local politics was a central reason for the ever-increasing centralisation of government—especially under the Conservatives in the ‘80s. Further, for Thatcher’s government—fighting wars on multiple fronts e.g. the unions) whilst requiring swift, radical change (to bring the economy back from ruin)—centralising power meant that reforms could be made faster and with less local oversight (but I repeat myself).
However, for governments with an internationalist agenda, these reforms also proved fortuitous in other ways.
In we take account of structures outside of the UK, the world works rather more like this:
In this model:
supranational organisations—such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Health Organisation (WHO), and others—make worldwide policies, which are passed down to national governments or other supra-national organisations (such as the EU);
these supra-national organisations are paid for by national governments, which often lobby these same supra-national organisations to “force” national governments to do things which their populations do not want. As an example, the UK is the biggest funder of the WHO (£168m in 2017) and of their Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (3.5m in 2017)and has advocated some of the strictest anti-smoking measures within those fora—the policies of which filtered down into the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive (which, amongst other things, introduced stricter advertising, banned the sale of ten packs and, shortly, menthol cigarettes). The plain packaging was, of course, our own government taking its cue from Australia’s failed experiment. If you don’t remember voting for any of this, you’d be right—you didn’t. And if you asked the government… well… it’s out of their hands, innit;
at the behest of member states, supra-national organisations aim to “harmonise” as much of life as possible (state-speak for “remove choice from common people”): if you have got the impression that there is essentially no difference between the political parties, this is why. And you wouldn’t be alone—witness the election results favouring “populist parties” (state-speak for “parties representing the concerns of the ignorant, dirty common people”), in the last few years, in USA, Italy, Brazil, etc.;
so, supra-national organisations hand down (lobbied for) policies to national governments, who pass some legislation (“terribly sorry, old chap: you may not have voted for it, but it’s out of our hands.” [snigger]), and then (usually) pass enforcement down to the local authorities;
local authorities must then spend their money on enforcers to ensure that cigarettes are suitably hidden behind shutters rather than doing what voters expect them to do, i.e. collect the bins once a week;
finally, do remember that all of the funding for these supra-national organisations comes, ultimately, from member states’ taxpayers. If you thought that the UK’s central government was unresponsive to people’s local needs, just how responsive do you think the rarified policy-makers of the Geneva-based WHO are, eh?
I want to break free
In (attempting to) leave the European Union, we are getting rid of one level of supra-national government—and one of the worst. For whilst the policies of the WTO, WHO, etc. depend on countries agreeing to abide by them—and countries can, to an extent, opt out of certain policies—the EU tends to enact those same policies into legal instruments that member statesmustlegally abide by.
And one must acknowledge that these supra-national organisations do have their uses: the WTO tries to standardise rules for trade, and push for more free trade by lowering both tariff and non-tariff barriers.
But the problem is that, sooner or later, such bodiesalwaysbecome corrupted. The WHO, for instance, has moved from its drive to eliminate real diseases such as smallpox (which it was successful in), to attempting to“eliminate non-communicable diseases by 2030”(state-speak for”anything that might kill you that isn’t a disease”or, in this case,”eliminating death”!): this latter mission means regulating the day-to-day lifestyles of ordinary people which is, and I cannot emphasise this strongly enough, )not the proper business of government.
Central dictatorship
These organisations love a centralised government because it makes it far easier for them to implement their increasingly deranged policies—with a centralised modern government there is, as it were, one throat to throttle.
And in the UK, central government essentially hasallof the power—local people do not really have any representation at all, except for a sham General Election every five years or so. They do not even have the kind of multi-tiered representative structure of states in the USA.
This needs to change—and change soon. My next blog post will examine, at high level, what this change should look like and the systemic implications of doing so. By Devil's Kitchen at March 04, 2019
( I have no idea why my comment was removed, this blog was part of the Pete North federation of Bloggers so it may have something to do with the following?)
what do you make of North Here, I have read all his EU books but I do think he is wrong about WTO rules, whats his stich do you think he is very poor on Money none of his books tackle it which I noted in my own Technical Brexit series. Meet the Fuggers, EU Enlargement and Their Lordships and Article 50.
lets try and start a fight with Richard North also we need to get UKIP and Brexit PArty supporters to engage with the same issue IBS and EU Military. All talking head Politiicans silent on it.
12:46https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/19/last-brexiteers-standing-will-now-do-everything-stop-sell-out/#comments comments still racking up on this John its a very good piece. How is David Davis doing I think he was blind sided with a Control File issue and under a lot of coercion riight now. Baker is a Loyall WIng man for Davis and probably fairly clean, ideal target for a honey Trap I guess he is smart enough to avoid the Sppon though I think? Can we get some sort of message to Davis and see if we can help with whatever hios embarrasment might be?
Q172 Chair: Okay. Is there anything you want to add, Mr North? Before you get going, I know that you were due to come before another Committee earlier this year that, for reasons I will not go into, at the very last minute told you were not required. You then said: “[The Committee] has no credibility outside its own circle and is just another symptom of the decay of Parliament as a meaningful institution.” You then carried on that you wanted to place on record “this cowardly behaviour by a committee of MPs who obviously lack both manners and the courage to address me personally, and skulk behind their staff, getting them to do their dirty work. It is a measure of these loathsome creatures, however, that they don’t even have the self-awareness to be ashamed of their own behaviour.” I only wanted to put that on the record to say you are very welcome to give evidence to this Committee and we are looking forward to hearing what you have to say. This issue, or whatever it was, for the purposes of this hearing we should set aside completely.
Dr Richard North: Thank you. That is appreciated. May I register my thanks that you are prepared to listen? I hope that it will be worth your while. First of all, the WTO agreement is a treaty. It is an international treaty, and therefore it is subject to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. There is nothing the EU or any other party can do to exclude the United Kingdom from full membership of the WTO. That is not on the agenda. Furthermore, within that framework as it stands, the requirement within the European Union is that we agree a common position on WTO matters right across the board and that variously different member states—usually the Presidency—will represent us or represent the common position. Therefore, once we leave we will once again return to the point where we speak for ourselves and are able to vote for ourselves. That is a clear advantage.
Brexiter Richard North: WTO “a complete non-starter.” https://t.co/Z6JABb98Wj via @YouTube Is North Nato controlled opposition? Oceana (NATO) Eurasia (EU MILITARY) The Bankers Man , (how to invade Poland without Tanks)?
Brexiter Richard North: WTO “a complete non-starter.” https://t.co/Z6JABb98Wj via @YouTube Is North Nato controlled opposition? Oceana (NATO) Eurasia (EU MILITARY) The Bankers Man , (how to invade Poland without Tanks)?
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) June 26, 2019
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) June 26, 2019
Their Lordships on Article 50.“Bring then above all ignorance, to which add confidence, audacity, and effrontery; as for diffidence, equity, moderation, and shame, you will please leave them at home; they are not merely needless, the… https://t.co/SymXN4VpSH
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) June 26, 2019
Article 50, Globalisation and the real seat of power.
The Top Table, The Trump Card & The Elephant in the Room.
A brief look at the hysteria in Liberal and Progressive chattering circles and it is hard not to feel concern for the anguish obviously felt by those afflicted by the idea, That Brexit, as Mrs May has kept telling us does indeed mean Brexit.
Having watched the treasury committee meeting today we are now seeing a lot of the debates we should have had prior to the referendum and it really shows just how shallow the debate was. I have been saying it was more complex than complex. Well, it’s more complex than that. Really refreshing to hear genuine expertise about trade from new faces, adding another dimension to the arguments.
The general impression from the whole panel is what we said from the outset. CETA and WTO options are completely out there. For the birds. And though the expertise we heard today was extremely valuable in adding to our understanding we still see a deformation professionelle at work as our trade experts tend only to look at it from a trade perspective, neglecting to take into account, defence, cooperation programmes, aviation and the rest of the EU institutions.
We can say that the meeting was wholly inconclusive. All we can hope for at the moment is terrain mapping, giving politicians an idea of scale and disabusing them of some of their more surreal ideas.
“That, however, is a political decision, not a technocratic one. I think when it becomes clear that there are more than just trade considerations we will see sense prevail”.
“What is clear now is that this is very much the domain of technocrats who are now stuck with trying to get the best deal for Britain while also making way for some of the political demands, some of which are wholly irrational and do us no favours”.
North has collaborated with the journalist Christopher Booker on climate change, public health and other issues.[3] He has co-written a number of books with Booker, as well as collaborating on Booker’s journalism.
He began collaborating with the journalist Christopher Booker in the early 1990s, co-publishing on a range of issues, including the European Union. Their works advance a popular though academically disputed historiography of the UK’s membership of the European Union. Their first book, The Mad Officials: How The Bureaucrats Are Strangling Britain (1994), focused on EU regulation in the UK, and was followed by The Castle of Lies: Why Britain Must get Out of Europe (1996) and The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? (2005). In 2004, he published a Bruges Group paper on the European Union’s Galileo satellite navigation system.[11]
North’s blog, eureferendum.com, reached third place on the Technorati list of most influential blogs in the UK for 2006.[12]
In a post on his eureferendum.com blog, in May 2015, North called on supporters of the UK withdrawing from the EU to contact him with the aim of forming a volunteer unit to “monitor, add, and edit” Wikipediacontent to be more favourable to their views.[13] Furthermore, he claimed that Wikipedia’s “wrong” coverage of climate change, of which North is a notable sceptic, proved the need for such endeavors.[13]
North is the original author and main proponent of Flexcit (standing for “Flexible Continuous Exit”), a policy suggestion involving gradual British disengagement from the European Union.[14] It has been claimed by Andrew Orlowski of The Register that Flexcit became a point of reference for civil servants.[15]
Flexcit argues that exit from the EU is “a process rather than an event”, so advocating a phased repatriation of powers,[16] which has been described as “Brexit lite”.[17] The document proposes that Britain should retain membership of the European Economic Area by rejoining the European Free Trade Association, often called the Norway option.[18] Under the proposal, Britain would initially adopt the community acquis of the European Union, the accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body of European Union law. North argues that under this approach to EU exit there would be very little visible consequence of Britain’s change in status, either for the better or the worse. Further renegotiation of trade and governance would become a longer term option.[19]
North was one of seventeen shortlisted entrants invited to submit a full submission to the Institute of Economic Affairs‘s 2013 Brexit Prize competition. Entrants were asked to imagine an “out” vote in a proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union and asked to compose a blueprint for the process of withdrawal, taking account of Britain’s relationship to global governance and trade systems.[20] His proposal reached the shortlist for the final. It became the official policy of Arron Banks‘ Leave.EU campaign that vied unsuccessfully for official recognition as the official Leave campaign.[21]
The EU politics writer and blogger J. Clive Matthews has argued that North is guilty of “pandering to his audience’s preconceptions and prejudices”.[22] A European Commission official and academic has argued that North and Booker are best seen as “latter-day pamphleteers”, who “exaggerate their case”, advancing an “all-embracing, Kafkaesque conspiracy, the “System”, consisting of an evil partnership between Brussels and Whitehall”.[23] A review of North’s co-authored book The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? (2005), in the academic journal The Historian described his “skewed portrayal” of European integration “against the will of a bamboozled European public”, as “not so much false as ludicrous”, noting “the book loses whatever credibility it accrues in its better chapters by its persistently exaggerated language”.[24] Princeton University’s Andrew Moravcsik, whose research is cited in the book, has accused the authors of “misconstruing” his work as supporting their narrative and failing to demonstrate that there were any viable alternatives to European Union membership, with Booker and North’s economics being “even dodgier than their history”.[25] He further argues that their “Eurosceptic dogma” of an “”undemocratic” scheme of centralised regulation” is undermined by their own examples; that it is largely “British officials exercising their own discretion” and juggling the fate of special interest groups against the wider economy.[25]
Responding to a question on “Flexcit” by a supporter of North during a live Q&A on Reddit, the Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law at the University of Liverpool, Michael Dougan, noted that North’s “academic work on EU law” was not known to him as it was not published in the mainstream international peer-reviewed journals for the field of European legal studies. Dougan suggested further that it does not meet the “internationally recognised” standards for the discipline.[26]
Reading through the Report over the past two days, I extracted these highlights which I think make the basis of a good thesis for the reality that Brexit need not be the disaster that the Hard of Thinking would urge those, the still Asleep, to believe it will be, or indeed that a ´Hard Brexit´is even a thing. That is not to say that Brexit is beyond cocking up, politicians of all stripes are always more than capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
At the end of my thesis of a Monetary Creation aspect to this question, I append the Passages and diagrams extracted from the Flexcit book which I found most relevant to the thesis that ´´Its the money creation, not the money´´, that identifies the Sultan. The sultan, is of course, the Financial Oligarchy.
So that’s the Thesis and here are the extracts from Flexcit which are cogent to the money as debt aspects of Global Finance and Global Governance In Flexcit there are 30 mentions of money non about creation only 2 related to control mechanism but not of who creates it?!!!!!.WTF?
Probably the biggest drawback of the Amero system is there is little enthusiasm for a common currency among voters in any of the three countries. Distaste for a common currency has grown with the well-known problems of the Euro, which have markedly increased unemployment and reduced capital formation in the weakest economic partners in the European Union.
There is also a widespread belief among Americans in American Exceptionalism—a populist credo holding that among nations the U.S. is unique. But the Amero would require Americans to abandon the dollar in favor of a common currency, give up its right to conduct independent trade negotiations and require adherence to rules and regulations decided by a controlling body other than the U.S. Congress. Even among Europeans, this last requirement has proved onerous. In Great Britain, resentment over this last requirement has culminated in a move in early 2016 to exit the European Union entirely.
Further Problems
The economies of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are arguably even less alike than the majority of economies among members of the European Union. The United States Dollar is the primary reserve currency of the world, while the Mexican peso is seen as the currency of an emerging market. The diversity of these economies makes an Amero implausible.
Does an Amero Exist?
The article does not tackle the key question If the Amero does not presently exist are there proposals for a North American Union Currency?
A long while back I read an article or saw a video talking about the unification of Mexico/USA/Canada to create a ‘North American union’ as part of the elite plan to create the NWO where national borders are rationalised. The new currency for this new state was to be called the AMERO.
Did you know of this plan ……. is what I saw/read real or a wind-up?
Yes, Mike, I know about the North American Union and also the 4 planned Unions The Amero was indeed part of that Plan, This one seems similar but if you read the linked article its very off message if its the Globalist Amero being stealthily launched here.
Thats 449billion available which is bigger than the Whole Crypto space Market Cap.
So the Big question is this Trumps Big Andrew Jackson Moment Challenging the Fed with a debt-free issuance of DIgital Greenbacks as the Original Article in Brad Reddersons Tweet Suggests. Or is this Trump the Globalist Lining Up the North American Union by Monetary Means?
IMPLEMENTATION WOULD INVOLVE THE THREE COUNTRIES GIVING UP THEIR CURRENT CURRENCY UNITS (THE U.S. DOLLAR, THE CANADIAN DOLLAR, AND THE MEXICAN PESO) AND ADOPTING A NEW ONE, CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE (SOME VERSIONS OF THE THEORY ASSUME ONLY THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA WOULD BE INCLUDED). THE HYPOTHETICAL CURRENCY FOR THE UNION IS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE AMERO.[1][2] THE CONCEPT IS MODELED ON THE COMMON EUROPEAN UNION CURRENCY (THE EURO).
In August 2007, rumors and conspiracy theories began circulating across the Internet regarding alleged United States Treasury-issued amero coins.
The inspiration behind these rumors may have been the posting of images of medallions created by coin designer Daniel Carr.[1] Carr, who designed the New York and Rhode Island 2001 statehood quarters, sells medals and tokens of his own design on his commercial website, “Designs Computed” (also known as “DC Coin”).[1] Among his designs are a series of gold, silver and copper fantasy issues of amero coins ranging in denomination from one to one thousand.[1] The medallions have the legend “Union of North America” on the back with his company’s logo, a stylized “DC”,[11] in small type.[12] Concerning his amero designs, he mentions on his website:
My goal with these coins is not to endorse a Union of North America or a common Amero currency. I fully support the United States Constitution, and I would not welcome (in any form) a diminishment of its provisions. I expect that these coins will help make more people aware of the issue and the possible ramifications. I leave it up to others to decide if they are in favor of, or against a North American Union. And I encourage citizens to voice their approval or disapproval of government plans that impact them.[13]
Unauthorized postings of images taken from his website have been reposted widely across the Internet, often being used as supposed “proof” of the amero coinage. Notably, white nationalist and former Internet radiotalk show host Hal Turner ran a full article on his website about the “amero coin”, claiming to have arranged for a United States Government minted “amero” to be smuggled out of the United States Department of the Treasury by an employee of that organization.[14]
Following Turner’s assertions of federal minting of ameros, a web site marketing the curio coins released a statement debunking Turner’s claims of a government cover up regarding Daniel Carr’s amero products.[15] The urban legend investigating Web site Snopes also ran a further counter to Turner’s claims, stating “neither the U.S. Mint nor the U.S. Treasury has a hand in creating these ‘Ameros’. These coins are merely collectibles offered to the buying public by a private company in the business of manufacturing such curiosities.”[16]
Hal Turner claimed that Carr’s website had been created in haste in a matter of days expressly to discredit his claim about the coinage.[17]
However, Carr’s designs have been available through his website since 2005,[18] and according to a WHOIS search at Network Solutions, the domain “dc-coin.com” was registered by Daniel Carr on September 27, 2005.[19]
In October 2008, Hal Turner released a video showing an apparent 20 amero coin, with claims that shipments of the currency had been sent to China.[20] Yet the coin in Hal Turner’s video is identical to a medallion on Daniel Carr’s “dc-coin” website, listed as “UNA 2007 20 Ameros, Copper, Satin Finish”.[21]
In April 2018, the new digital currency or cryptocurrency Amero was announced by the North America Procurement Council (NAPC).[22][23]. It was inspired by the original concept of the Amero but follows a very different approach. It is designed, as its creators note, as a medium of exchange in commerce between government and business and business-to-business. It has already published a preliminary directory of vendors which have agreed to accept the Amero as payment for goods and services. Further information about the ‘new’ Amero is available on its own website.[24]
So Which is it, An audacious attempt to DIgitalise the Debt Based Federal Reserve Dollar or a Break from The Old Debt Based Money Model?
AMERO DIGITAL CURRENCY NOW LIVE
ON 06/18/2018 AT 18:34 PM
Early in the morning on June 18th, AMERO digital currency was quietly added to over 400 participating vendor accounts.
Some accounts are still being authenticated and will receive their AMERO in coming days.
AMERO participants will be able to start redeeming and accepting AMERO on Thursday, June 21st, which happens to also be Summer Solstice and the first day of Summer.
Initially, transactions will be processed manually to ensure that transactions are legitimate, done smoothly and all questions and issues are addressed.
The AMERO is a new people’s digital currency with an initial 500 billion coins created. At least 90% will be given as AMERO grants to government agencies, non-profit organizations and for important R&D.
Unlike other cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, the AMERO is centrally managed and designed to be secure, stable and sustainable. It is not suitable for money laundering or other criminal activity. Nor does AMERO have to mined and consume vast amounts of electricity.
Nearly 500 companies have signed up to accept AMERO in its pre-launch phase.
The Essence of Debt as the ultimate means of Social Control.
(with Christopher Booker), The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive?, Continuum Publishing, 2005 (EU Referendum Edition was published by Bloomsbury Publishing PLC in April 2016)
(with Christopher Booker), Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth, Continuum Publishing, 2007
Ministry of Defeat 2003–2009: The British in Iraq 2003–2009, Continuum Publishing, 2009
The Many Not the Few: The Stolen History of the Battle of Britain, Continuum Publishing, 2012
Globalization, considered by many to be the inevitable wave of the future, is frequently confused with internationalization, but is in fact something totally different. Internationalization refers to the increasing importance of international trade, international relations, treaties, alliances, etc. Inter-national, of course, means between or among nations.
It’s truly a disgrace John. This lecture by a Russian Spook from 2003 is rather good. The Neo-Liberal Looting of the Russian Federation after the Fall of the Wall with a Complicit Yeltsin showed clearly how The Post Free Market Capitalism world would use Weaponised financialisation and liberalisation to bring back feudalism. The Political Class are all at this stage by definition various species of Elitists. With nothing but scorn for the Ordinary Citizenry.
“Scotch people are of happier constitution and do not fatten like the larger breed of animals”
Leave really must mean leave, the EU design for the people of our islands would make even the Duchess of Sutherland Blush.
EGREGORE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a “thoughtform” or “collective group mind”, an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.
The first author to adapt “egregore” in a modern language seems to be the French poet Victor Hugo, in La Légende des siècles (“The Legend of the Ages”), First Series, 1859, where he uses the word “égrégore” first as an adjective, then as a noun, while leaving the meaning obscure.[1] The author seems to have needed a word rhyming with words ending in the sound “or”. It would not be the only example of word creation by Victor Hugo. However, the word is the normal form that the Greek word ἑγρήγορος (Watcher) would take in French. This was the term used in the Book of Enoch for great angel-like spirits.
Eliphas Lévi, in Le Grand Arcane (“The Great Mystery”, 1868) identifies “egregors” with the tradition concerning the “Watchers“, the fathers of the nephilim, describing them as “terrible beings” that “crush us without pity because they are unaware of our existence.”[2]
In the analytical note, there are cited several significant mass media publications regarding the reaction of Muslim countries on the speech made by Pope Benedict XVI on September 12, 2006. In that speech, he told about the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos’s opinion on Islam and Muhammad. The discords between the historically formed Judaism, Christianity and Islam in sociology, in the organisation of the life of society, in economics and theological questions, are shown. It is noted, that those discords of the historically formed confessions follows from and thus express people’s fictions, the self-interest of ruling “elites” and their backstage supervisors. With it, if one considers the conscience to be God’s voice addressed directly to man’s soul, then taking religious traditions as an indisputable truth, free from perversions and mistakes, suppresses the voice of conscience and makes an individual deaf to the call of God.
This peculiarity of the traditional confessions together with their discords in sociological and theological-dogmatic questions poses a threat! It is so since within the conditions of globalization the rousing of such excitement around a return to traditions and adherence to them appears to be the way to a new World War. And the new war is necessary for the “world backstage” as a mean for discrediting Islam and Koran and finishing the biblical project of enslaving mankind.
Is the conscience-free within the traditional confessions?
God is the best of planners…
Conjecture will not avail aught against the truth…
Why are hierarchs of churches against the Rightness-Truth?
The task is to prevent from unleashing the new world war on the basis of interconfessional enmity.
“THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF AMERICAN POLICY SHOULD BE BENIGN AND VISIONARY: TO SHAPE A TRULY COOPERATIVE GLOBAL COMMUNITY, IN KEEPING WITH LONG-RANGE TRENDS AND WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS OF HUMANKIND. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT NO EURASIAN CHALLENGER EMERGES, CAPABLE OF DOMINATING EURASIA AND THUS ALSO OF CHALLENGING AMERICA. THE FORMULATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED EURASIANGEOSTRATEGY IS THEREFORE THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK” (ITALICIZED BY Z. BRZEZINSKI) («THE GRAND CHESSBOARD», P.12, DATED: APRIL 1997).
BLAIR “ADVICE” TO THE EU FINGERED BY BRUSSELS SOURCE
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Welcome to life as a vassal captive of the European Union. Acording to The Times this morning, the European Council will veto the spineless British demand for an Article 50 extension unless we agree either to a Second Referendum or an even worse Withdrawal Agreement than the one we’ve got. (Which was, until 24 hours ago, a closed and sacred book which must not be opened otherwise a plague of anthrax-riddled scorpions would surely emerge). It is an entirely predictable bullies’ power grab that vindicates every last British vote to Leave this coven of witches.
The video to the left is an excerpt of Margaret Thatcher’s New World Order speech given on November 11, 1989 but it wasn’t in the abstract. The New World Order she talked about was “climate change” and we’ve been falling into the depths of hell ever since.
1990 – Moscow Forum for Spiritual & Parliamentary Leaders
While the name "superclass" comes from Kissinger Associates managing director David Rothkopf, ISGP's "Superclass Index" is completely independent of Rothkopf's "Superclass List". ISGP's list strictly deals with the amount of NGOs a person has been involved with during his or her lifetime.
#DNOTICES #EUMILITARYUNIFICATION #GRUBSTREETJOURNAL VISITS THE DEVILS KITCHEN. SO SHOULD YOU! #WIKI_BALLOT @WIKI_BALLOT #JESUSWASABREXITEER #JESUSWASASMOKER
Nifty Diagrams the Truth and it will make you want to light up a cigarette.
Whilst all of politics seems to be devoted to Brexit at the moment, your humble Devil has stated repeatedly (both before and after the vote) that the political and economic landscape of the UK needs massive structural reform.
OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
Most cursory students of government will understand our current structures rather similar to this diagram:
In the current model:
However, for governments with an internationalist agenda, these reforms also proved fortuitous in other ways.In we take account of structures outside of the UK, the world works rather more like this:
In this model:
June 3, 2017
MAGIC MONEY TREE, ENTS, GROOTS MARVEL AT THE SIMPLICITY OF THE MAGIC MONEY TREE A TREE SHEPHERD ODDYSEY #8THWAYTOTHINK
Explication of the Magic Money tree is my simple aim. I have written Longer poems on political economy and about energy-based calibrations of the unit of account and value Usury hells Fuel Man’s oppressor, Tides of the Dollar Moon, Bourgoise resolution, and Globalisation unentangled all explore these areas. I have also written a Novel #ConquestofDough.
Globalisation Un-Entangled. (Work in Progress, Danger Poet at Work)
shadows cast from secret whispers, taps on streams of digital Imprints what oppressor does not despise what oppression will not censor and misdirect Secretive cabals of liberal political correctness
Self-censored fearing the exile of dissentGchq Nsa Kvd , hacking whos democracyWhat democracy, sings with the voice of explosions
Tripartate accords of old, a Gold Standard. As Piggs Shit Brics and Lutherean Shards profer Gaping anuses and Calvanist certainties Divine providence and eminent domain
Democracy perverted. Union now as then in ´38, current quarrelsMr Striets Union and Mr Orwells NiggersNot counting Niggers, the other´s not like ussix hundred million disenfranchised, is it more today?
I was delighted to find HG wells Grappling with the same Regardeur tableaux space in Title: Men Like Gods (1923) Author: H.G. Wells
´´Mr. Barnstaple felt the ground slipping from under his feet. “But I _hear_ you speaking English,” he said.
“Nevertheless we do not speak it,” said Urthred.
He smiled still more broadly. “We don’t–for ordinary purposes–speak anything.”
Mr. Barnstaple, with his brain resigning its functions, maintained his pose of deferential attention.
“Ages ago,” Urthred continued,we certainly used to speak LANGUAGES. WE MADE SOUNDS AND WE HEARD SOUNDS. PEOPLE USED TO THINK, AND THEN CHOSE AND ARRANGED WORDS AND UTTERED THEM. THE HEARER HEARD, NOTED, AND RETRANSLATED THE SOUNDS INTO IDEAS. THEN, IN SOME MANNER WHICH WE STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY, PEOPLE BEGAN TO GET_ THE IDEA BEFORE IT WAS CLOTHED IN WORDS AND UTTERED IN SOUNDS. THEY BEGAN TO HEAR IN THEIR MINDS, AS SOON AS THE SPEAKER HAD ARRANGED HIS IDEAS AND BEFORE HE PUT THEM INTO WORD SYMBOLS EVEN IN HIS OWN MIND. THEY KNEW WHAT HE WAS GOING TO SAY BEFORE HE SAID IT. THIS DIRECT TRANSMISSION PRESENTLY BECAME COMMON; IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT WITH A LITTLE EFFORT MOST PEOPLE COULD GET OVER TO EACH OTHER IN THIS FASHION TO SOME EXTENT, AND THE NEW MODE OF COMMUNICATION WAS DEVELOPED SYSTEMATICALLY.
“That is what we do now habitually in this world. We think directly to each other. We determine to convey the thought and it is conveyed at once–provided the distance is not too great. We use sounds in this world now only for poetry and pleasure and in moments of emotion or to shout at a distance, or with animals, not for the transmission of ideas from human mind to kindred human mind any more. When I think to you, the thought, so far as it finds corresponding ideas and suitable words in your mind, is reflected in your mind. My thought clothes itself in words in your mind, which words you seem to hear–and naturally enough in your own language and your own habitual phrases. Very probably the members of your party are hearing what I am saying to you, each with his own individual difference of vocabulary and phrasing.” http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200221.txt
I READ THIS THE OTHER DAY, IT FORMS A STANZA IN MY LATEST POEM.
space: “But thou art dead, Leonidas. Why hate the Persians even in death?” And, according to the legend, back came the stirring reply: “The passion for freedom dieth not.”
Al Smith’s passion for freedom did not die with him. It is ours to nurture today. May we all be true to that great legacy.”
A strong theme emerges from the 1928, the 1960 and the 1992 elections as they do form the stages of the US republic along with the 3 catastrophic US Wars. Governments rule by consent and ignore the plight of the people at their peril. Now is one of those times.
I have struggled with this Broad sweep of historical Narrative, usually when sconfronted with so many interlocking and symbiotic themes , (each of which deserves much study in its own right), I write a Poem in the epic tradition. Time does not allow for such a poem to be wirtten ahead of the US Election so I offer up this inadequate smorgs board of half complete ideas hopefully some coherence will emerge in the minds of readers who can add their own colour and probably better grasp of all the historical facts.
November 5, 2016
THE GIANT SUCKING SOUND , A SHARP INTAKE OF BREATH, A DUEL TO THE DEATH THE NEW UNITED STATES REPUBLIC 1776-2016.
The Giant Sucking Sound , A Sharp intake of Breath, A duel to the death. The New United States Republic 1776-2016.
In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”
a modest enquiry,
”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
This leads us to the following general Considerations.”
This statement serves as my introduction, When the British Banned Colonial Scrip the first Giant Sucking Sound of the prosperity of the United States Colony being appropriated by the British Ruling Class and the Money Interests, amongst other complaints lead to the Formation of the first United States republic.
Set against the British the new Americans Found an Ally in King Louis XVI of France who Started sending Supplies in 1775, We find Benjamin Franklin in France December 1776 to rally support, the rest is history suffice to say The events of the formation of the First French republic are not un-connected to the large expense of funding foriegn wars.
The first French Republic was founded on 22 September 1792, the evolution of the factions into the Dissolution into the First Empire of 1804 under Napoleon is another story. An apocryphal parallel in the US to the factions vieing for representation and power in the french Republic is perhaps seen in a Duel Fought between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Van Buren . On July 11, 1804, the enemies met outside Weehawken, New Jersey, at the same spot where Hamilton’s son had died. Both men fired, and Hamilton was mortally wounded by a shot just above the hip.[50]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr
Aaron Burr was Jeffersons Vice President and Hamilton a Federalist lets look at what they both stood for.
Major Outlines of the First Two American Parties
Federalists
(Democratic) Republicans
Adams/Hamilton/Marshall
Jefferson/Madison
Well-born leaders
Talented leaders; meritocracy
Conservative/monarchy
Liberal/democratic-republican
Pro-British
Pro-French
Strong federal government
States’ rights/limited federal power
Strong judiciary
Strong legislature; weak courts
Permanent debt financed by wealthy
Elimination of national debt
Support merchants/manufacturing
Support farmers, artisans
Property qualifications to vote
Open vote
Evolved into Whigs in the Jackson years, then Republicans in 1854.
Evolved into the Democratic Party under Jackson in 1828.
Important Early Political Figures
WASHINGTON: Tried to stay “above politics”; was generally sympathetic to Federalists—sided with Hamilton over Jefferson. Probably could be called a Federalist.
HAMILTON: Had a noted business-financial bias; believed in original sin—the natural depravity of human beings, therefore strong controls called for; he had authoritarian inclinations and an entrepreneurial spirit.
ADAMS: Adams had an agricultural bias but otherwise thought much like Hamilton. He was a true republican, though accused of monarchical sympathies. Deserved a second term as president.
JEFFERSON: He had an agricultural bias; he also believed in human perfectibility and was wedded to ideas of reason and science; he therefore mistrusted government because of his belief in human goodness.
MADISON: Began as Federalist but after the Constitution was adopted he turned more toward Jeffersonian ideals and became Jefferson’s disciple and successor as president. Many historians, myself included, believe that Madison was the most brilliant political thinker of the age.
John MARSHALL: He was a strong Federalist who carried out much of the Federalist agenda as chief justice—well into the Madison-Monroe-Jackson years, served as chief justice from 1801 to 1835.
Hamilton was also notable as the ”Father of American Capitalism.
”Hamilton can truly be called the father of American capitalism. Whether ones approves of the capitalist system or not, it was still a great achievement by that most controversial of the founding fathers. His achievement as first Secretary of the Treasury was to create a stable and sound federal financial system, without which the economic development of America would have been severaly hampered.”
The Developments in France over the next Half Century lead us to the momentousevents of European PoliticalEconomy in 1848, where there were many revolutions. The events in France are analysed by Karl Marx in this Essay. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Written: December 1851-March 1852;
The preface tothe 1869 edition tells us all we need for our purposes here.
”From the above facts it will be seen that the present work took shape under the immediate pressure of events and its historical material does not extend beyond the month of February, 1852. Its republication now is due in part to the demand of the book trade, in part to the urgent requests of my friends in Germany. Of the writings dealing with the same subject at approximately the same time as mine, only two deserve notice: Victor Hugo‘s Napoleon le Petit and Proudhon‘s Coup d‘Etat. Victor Hugo confines himself to bitter and witty invective against the responsible producer of the coup d‘etat. The event itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees in it only the violent act of a single individual. He does not notice that he makes this individual great instead of little by ascribing to him a personal power of initiative unparalleled in world history. Proudhon, for his part, seeks to represent the coup d‘etat as the result of an antecedent historical development. Inadvertently, however, his historical construction of the coup d‘etat becomes a historical apologia for its hero. Thus he falls into the error of our so-called objective historians. I, on the contrary, demonstrate how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero‘s part. A revision of the present work would have robbed it of its particular coloring. Accordingly, I have confined myself to mere correction of printer‘s errors and to striking out allusions now no longer intelligible. The concluding words of my work: ―But when the imperial mantle finally falls on the shoulders of Louis Bonaparte, the bronze statue of Napoleon will come crashing down from the top of the Vendome Column,‖ have already been fulfilled. Colonel Charras opened the attack on the Napoleon cult in his work on the campaign of 1815. Subsequently, and especially in the past few years, French literature has made an end of the Napoleon legend with the weapons of historical research, criticism, satire, and wit. Outside France, this violent breach with the traditional popular belief, this tremendous mental revolution, has been little noticed and still less understood. Lastly, I hope that my work will contribute toward eliminating the school-taught phrase now current, particularly in Germany, of so-called Caesarism. In this superficial historical analogy the main point is forgotten, namely, that in ancient Rome the class struggle took place only within a privileged minority, between the free rich and the free poor, while the great productive mass of the population, the slaves, formed the purely passive pedestal for these combatants. People forget Sismondi‘s significant saying: The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat. With so complete a difference between the material, economic conditions of the ancient and the modern class struggles, the political figures produced by them can likewise have no more in common with one another than the Archbishop of Canterbury has with the High Priest Samuel.Karl Marx, London, June 25, 1869 (My Italics at the end).
The US fought a Civil War from 1861-1865 with sojourns into the 1st and second world wars and the nixon shock we might find at these points in US history the analogues to the numbered french Republics.
If we fast Forward to the 2016 Presidential Debate and the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. What we see is a GOP candidate who does not represent the GOP Establishment and Democratic Party candidate who does represent both the GOP and Democratic Party Establishment both having become Federalist, in the old sense of the original two party contextualising of what the Republic was to be . There are two striking factoids about the Al Smith Memorial Dinner and those are that 1948 and 1992 are the only two years in its 67 year history that the respective candidates for president did not address the dinner those years are 1948 and 1992. In 1948 A democratic Candidate Truman, was on the ticket that had been installed by the establishment against the popular choice Henry A Wallace had lost out to Truman for Vice president in 1944 and in 1948 ran as an independent.
The 1992 Election had the third candidate Ross Perot and also Bill Clinton came from out of the blue to secure the Democratic Nomination and topple the incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush for the presidency.
The other notable year is 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon. Kennedy’s address to the Dinner in 1960 is instructive in its reference to the 1928 Election when Smith Lost to the Republicans
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A copy of the text of this speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
”Actually the first Presidential candidate to conduct a nation-wide campaign was General Winfield Scott in 1852. But, although he made many speeches, he insisted that his only motive was to find a suitable site for a military hospital. “I do not come here to solicit your votes,” he said, “I come on a mission of great public charity.” I am sure tonight that Mr. DeSapio and the other political leaders gathered here know that I would not dream of coming to solicit their votes – I also come on a mission of great public charity – to aid the Alfred E. Smith Wing of St. Vincent’s Hospital. That great institution has truly been what Cardinal Spellman declared it always would be: “A house of healing wherein the sick and suffering, be they rich or poor, Negro or white, Protestant, Jew or Catholic, may find comfort, cure and refuge from pain and sickness.” No other cause is more worthy of our support.
But we are also here tonight to pay tribute to a great American, Al Smith. I never knew Al Smith. I can claim no association with his career. And so it is difficult for me to know just how to speak of him tonight – what memories to recall to those of you who knew him well – what qualities to bring back for their present day values.
It would not do, I am convinced, to speak of Al Smith only as a Democrat. To be sure, we in the Democratic Party are proud to claim him. And to be sure, he was attacked by his partisan adversaries in the past. But a different generation honors him now. – and he belongs to them as well. The presence here tonight of so many distinguished Republicans reminds us that Al Smith holds a place of affection in their hearts equal to the one he holds in the hearts of the party he served so long and so well – as Assemblyman, Sheriff, President of the Board of Aldermen, Governor of New York and Presidential nominee.
Neither would it be enough, I am convinced, to speak of Al Smith only as a New Yorker. To do only that would also devalue his worth. He was indeed, as his enemies claimed, up from the sidewalks of New York – the Fulton fish Market – and Tammany Hall. He was indeed rejects as strange and alien by many who lived in other parts of the country – who feared or sneered at the New York ways of Al and his Katie – declaring “They’re not our kind of folks.” But a different generation knows better. It knows that he made this state of New York a social laboratory, in which were developed for all America the laws of light which hurled back the dark age of industrial revolution.
Finally, I am convinced that it is not enough to speak tonight of Al Smith only as a Catholic. To be sure, that was his creed, his faith and his strength – and some say his political weakness. And that is how most political columnists refer to him and his campaign today. But to emphasize only this aspect of his life is to ignore the vast range of Al Smith’s intellectual horizons –his uncompromising devotion to America and its Constitutional values – his passionate belief in religious liberty and religious equality – his untiring efforts on behalf of the public schools – and his deep-felt dedication on other issues (including his party, and Prohibition) which were equally responsible for his defeat in 1928. It overlooks the kind of man whose speech to a group of intellectuals at Cambridge, Massachusetts held them fascinated for over an hour – one professor observing later: “How Aristotle would have liked that address!”
Yes – the party, the city and the Church he loved are all important parts of Al Smith’s life. But what is most important for us to recall tonight, it seems to me, is another quality that best sums up Al Smith’s career – and that was his passion for the hard, unvarnished facts, his sometimes brutal and sometimes humorous candor, his insistence throughout the years that the American people just “look at the record.” He was, at all times, a realist, a hard-headed, tough-minded fighter from Oliver Street and the Fulton Fish Market. He knew how to put the facts before the people, how to strip an issue of all pretense and how to unmask hypocrisy, double-talk and visionary schemes for what they really were. Using a phrase picked up from Fulton Sheen, he often said that “the world would be better off if there was more blarney and less baloney.” He could hand out the blarney with the best of them – the dialect jokes, the Irish songs, the stories and the praise – but he had no stomach for political “baloney.”
When farm income fell in the 20’s he criticized those who “promised relief – and gave nothing but three cheers.” When Prohibition became a farce and an evil, he spoke out with contempt for those who dodged this politically hot issue by calling it a “noble experiment.” When religious and racial intolerance was a whispering issue in the National Convention of his party, even before he was its standard-bearer, he brought that issue out into the open. “The Catholics of the country,” he said, “can stand it. The Jews can stand it. But the United States of America cannot stand it.”
Al Smith lived up to the principle first set forth by Carlyle: that the essence of true heroism is true sincerity. In vetoing those bills which rode a crest of popular anti-Socialist hysteria after the First World War, he denounced those who had built this “red scare” up out of all proportion, forgetting, as he said, “the traditional abhorrence of a free people of all kinds of spies and secret police.” When as an Assemblyman in the New York State Legislature, he was asked by the fish canners for an exception under his bill providing for a six-day work-week, he told them: “I have read carefully the commandment, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy’; but I am unable to find any language in it that says, ‘except for the fish canners’.” And he laid another opponent low with the retort: “If bunk were electricity, that man would be a powerhouse.”
It was perhaps his greatest quality, the old New York Sun said – “his scorn of pompous pretense.” When the managers of his gubernatorial campaign asked him to wear his hat straighter – and less on the back of his head – he told them: “The people of this state don’t care how the outside of my skull looks. They want to know what’s inside it. If I’ve got to change the way I wear my hat, you can get yourselves another candidate.” When he started out on his tour of the nation in 1928, his council of strategy reportedly voted unanimously against his even wearing the brown derby – but he alone voted “aye” – and the brown derby stayed.
When his opponents in that campaign prophesied that the election of Smith would end prosperity to such an extent that grass would grow in the streets, Al replied that he could use a putting-green in Times Square. And earlier, when an engineer whom he wanted to head the Department of Roads said he knew nothing about politics, Governor Smith told him: “That’s one of the reasons I want to appoint you. We have had a good many political superintendents of highways – and now we want one who knows how to build roads.”
He was, in short, truly the “Happy Warrior” – able to ridicule adversity, pomposity, hypocrisy and falsehood – but nevertheless determined to fight them all the way. And Al Smith was a happy warrior because, more perhaps than any other leader of his time, he lived up to these words of Pericles burying the Athenian dead. “The secret of happiness, said Pericles, “is freedom – and the secret of freedom is a brave heart.” Al Smith had a brave heart – and we need more such brave hearts and more such happy warriors today.
For the hour at which we are arrived in American life today is strangely similar to the one in which Al Smith emerged ready to do battle – against sloth and drift and decay, against hypocrisy and pomposity and prejudice. In a surface view, perhaps, life in our time – as in Al Smith’s time – is gay and careless, prosperous and contented. People come and go, more concerned with the good life than with the good society. They live by themselves, with themselves and for themselves alone, with no concern for the hard, rough road that lies ahead.
Pleasure is our goal – leisure is our ideal. Obligations, standards, old-fashioned devotion to “duty, honor and country” – these are all passé, neglected, forgotten. The slow corrosion of luxury – the slow erosion of our courage – are already beginning to show. Our profits may be up – our standard of living may be up – but so is our crime rate. So is the rate of divorce and juvenile delinquency and mental illness. So are the sales of tranquilizers and the number of children dropping out of school.
Nearly one out of every two American young men is rejected by Selective Service today as mentally, physically or morally unfit for any kind of military service. Nearly one out of every three American prisoners of war in Korea was guilty of collaborating with the enemy, in either a major of minor way. Nearly one in seven engaged in major offenses, such as broadcasting propaganda or spying on his fellow prisoners. For the first time in history, not one American prisoner escaped. And 38 per cent of our men died in captivity, the highest rate in all our history. And yet, on the other hand, among Turkish and Colombian soldiers taken prisoner – many of them injured and many of them poorly educated – not a single one died – not a single one collaborated in any significant way – and the whole group maintained a remarkable sense of discipline.
And that is why I say today we need Al Smith’s candor and courage, his sense of reality and responsibility. For in his day, also, the nation had seemed to lose perspective and drive. As F.D.R. said in nominating Al Smith in ’28: “The soul of our country, lulled by material prosperity, has passed through eight gray years.” The nation was fat contented to hold on to what it had – to keep out new immigrants and new ideas. It had lost its vision of far horizons. Its outlook was petty and nearsighted, following the words of Omar Khayyam: “Take the cash and let the credit go – nor heed the rumble of a distant drum.”
And then Al Smith emerged to lead the charge, in the best of all wars. It was the war of thought against matter, of reason against slogans, of the public good against private appetites, of responsible leadership against aimless drift, of moral accountability against moral indifference. It was the war to unmask the imposters, to replace the false with the true, to throw the money-changers out of the temple, to raise the inert mass of men to the dignity of an alert, choosing people, consciously and gladly assuming the burdens of advancing mankind.
“A great nation,” said Woodrow Wilson “is not led by a man who simply repeats the talk of the street-corners or the opinions of the newspapers. A (great) nation is led by a man who speaks a new principle for a new age; a man (to whom) the voices of the nation … unite in a single meaning and reveal to him in a single vision, so that he can speak what no (one) else know, the common meaning of the common voice. Such is the man who leads a great, free, democratic nation.”
And such a man was Al Smith – not personally victorious in the end – but a great leader – an unusual man – an outstanding man. As Robert Moses reminded us in a perceptive article last year: “Fate tried to conceal him by calling him Smith; but as the brown derby brushed the stars, the anvils of a thousand Smiths rang out, and a great shout arose ‘Emanuel!’.”
We need that kind of leadership today. We need Al Smith’s kind of candor today – that willingness to tell the people the hard facts that face us. We need to be told that the next decade is not all peace, prosperity and progress – that we cannot take for granted our security, our liberty or even our future. We need his ability to ridicule the diplomatic pomposity that passes as wisdom. We need to recall – when sweet, seductive voices tell us to relax, that the Cold War is ending that no sacrifice is needed, that the future is going to be easier and more secure – that Al Smith would have said: “yes – but let’s look at the record.”
We need to wake up the young men who are born old, cowering in their ruts, afraid of the unknown worlds that lie beyond the map. We need to cut through the shibboleths of contentment and reassurance, and recognize, in John Boyle O’Reilly’s words, that:
“The world is large when its weary leagues two loving hears divide; But the world is small when your enemy is loose on the other side.”
Al Smith himself warned: “In the height and glory of every nation, men are prone to forget their responsibilities.
We dare no longer forget our responsibilities – to our nation and its heritage, to all the free word, to all the generations yet unborn. We dare no longer neglect the fact, as Charles Malik has put it, that “Communism cannot be met by a mere nay; it requires a mighty yea.” We dare no longer ignore the fact that the world is changing – our cities, our maps, our frontiers and even our adversaries – all are changing. And in this era of change and challenge, we need the hard, tough leadership and the frank, fresh call of Alfred Emanuel Smith.
For legend has it that after the bloody battle of Thermopylae, the victor Xerxes prepared to spread a purple cloak over the body of his vanquished enemy Leonidas, out of admiration for his valor. But as he was about to lower the cloak, a strange voice out of nowhere called out: “No. Take that cloak from me. I will accept no favor from the Persians.” And Xerxes knew that it was Leonidas, speaking to him from the other world. And he called out into space: “But thou art dead, Leonidas. Why hate the Persians even in death?” And, according to the legend, back came the stirring reply: “The passion for freedom dieth not.”
Al Smith’s passion for freedom did not die with him. It is ours to nurture today. May we all be true to that great legacy.”
A strong theme emerges from the 1928, the 1960 and the 1992 elections as they do form the stages of the US republic along with the 3 catastrophic US Wars. Governments rule by consent and ignore the plight of the people at their peril. Now is one of those times.
I have struggled with this Broad sweep of historical Narrative, usually when sconfronted with so many interlocking and symbiotic themes , (each of which deserves much study in its own right), I write a Poem in the epic tradition. Time does not allow for such a poem to be wirtten ahead of the US Election so I offer up this inadequate smorgs board of half complete ideas hopefully some coherence will emerge in the minds of readers who can add their own colour and probably better grasp of all the historical facts.
Here are My Notes compiled over the past fortnight which will all go into my final work of poetry. Contected events are cyclical and history acts as a pendulum. A pendulum overcomes momentum at the extreme of its travel and gravity provides action in the opposite direction, has the pedulum swung to its summit and how far and fast events fall to the equilibreum on its travel to the other extreme remains to be seen. We do have the historical record of the ebbs and flows of the US story and the french Stories since the first republics were formed to provide us with some lessons.
