 |
Part 1. | Part 2. “Background Briefing” Step 10: “The Dilemma of Democracy” by Lord Hailsham (1978). Globalists, backed by the force of finance, have no worry about exposure. All effort against moral subversion (such as by Dr. Wertham with “Seduction of the Innocent”: which exposed comic books as conveying deformities into the child mind) is overcome by the people shapers by simply crushing the opposition under weight of words and use of their own ‘accredited’ authorities. Hailsham could be said to be a student of “Social Order", a person working in the system as a conventionally educated person seeing the looming catastrophe of a contrived ideology as an increasingly undemocratic democracy. He reveals manipulation before people shapers became known as exposed today and it is interesting to see in development. Two kinds of Democracy: Quote: “The genesis of this book lay in a desire to rethink my own political philosophy … I no longer believed that a simple defence of my own party or its philosophy matched the needs of our time. … As I wrote, it gradually became clear to me what was in my mind. Our troubles derive from the fact that we are halting between two inconsistent opinions about the nature of democracy, indeed about the nature and function of government, and between the two we are unable to make up our minds. Both opinions claim to be democratic. Both assert they are libertarian. Both claim to rest upon the interest of the people. Yet each is wholly inconsistent with the other. The politics of the next twenty-five years may well depend upon the encounter between the two, and more will depend on the outcome than the future of the British Islands. The two theories are the theory of centralised democracy, known to me as elective dictatorship and the theory of limited government, in my language the doctrine of freedom under law. Between the two theories there can ultimately be no compromise. Both may depend upon universal adult suffrage. But the one will assert the right of a bare majority in a single chamber assembly, possibly elected on a first past the post basis, to assert its will over a whole people whatever that will may be. It will end in a rigid economic plan, and, I believe, in a siege economy, a curbed and subservient judiciary, and a regulated press. It will impose uniformity on the whole nation in the interest of what it claims to be social justice. It will insist on equality. It will distrust all forms of eccentricity and distinction. It will crush local autonomy. It will dictate the structure, form, and content of education. It may tolerate, but will certainly do its best either to corrupt or destroy, [theist] religion. It will depend greatly on caucuses or cadres to exert its will. Some will be directly appointed by patronage as in the increasing number of 'Quangos'. Others will be elected by a tiny minority of dedicated activists and apparatchiks relying on the apathy of the rest as a passport to office. This is already happening in some unions and local authorities. It will worship material values, but not succeed in producing material plenty. When its policies fail, it will rely strongly on class divisiveness or scapegoats to distract attention from its failures. [Hailsham did well in sorting out the confusions of his times and today we see that elective dictatorship (communism) is the true nature of the democracy that developed under pressure of a dumbed down culture and Hegelian Dialectic manipulation.] Among the white races the present apostles of this type of democracy are mainly of the left. In Eastern Europe and in parts of Africa and Asia they have already succeeded in producing 'people's' democracies. In this country they still represent a small minority,(1978) though they include Privy Councillors amongst their number. My criticism of them may be resented … To such critics I will reply that their complacency is misplaced. Centralised democracy is not the prerogative of Socialism or of left-wing extremists. The reappearance of Fascism under the banner of the National Front should sound a warning, and, if history is any guide, such movements will not be sent away simply by abuse or attempts at suppression. The best modern exposition of centralised democracy so far may be 'The British Road to Socialism' issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain. But both Hitler and Mussolini and the various Quislings in Europe were apostles of the same creed. So was Sir Oswald Mosley in Britain. All were spawned from the loins of nineteenth century Liberalism, and although the progeny was manifestly illegitimate, it was none the less authentic. All these creeds are the natural offspring of two related humanist philosophies, utilitarianism and legal positivism. The belief of the first is that the common good is the only criterion of political action, and that talk of human rights and natural law or justice to borrow Bentham's luminous phrase, is no more than 'nonsense on stilts'. The exponents of centralised democracy on the left should pause to reflect that the mirror image of their political methods and ideals is presented by the National Front, and their main constitutional dogmas are supported ever more explicitly as time goes on by Mr Enoch Powell. Apartheid was illegal under the entrenched clauses of the old South African constitution. One nationalist measure after another depriving the coloured community of its rights was struck down by the Supreme Court. Unhappily, there was one gap. The Senate was first packed and thereafter the Supreme Court was by-passed. The doctrine of centralised power had secured another triumph. If they reflect upon these sinister examples from the right, left-wingers will, I hope, consider my presentation of the alternative as something better than Tory special pleading. [Centralizing power secretly translated capitalism into communism without change of name, and that is how it stands today. See later books.] But what is the alternative? I do not present it as a new thing invented by myself, but it may be that it is novel in this context. It is the old doctrine inherent from the very first, that is, from the time of Bracton onwards, in English Law, that those in a position of political authority may not rule absolutely, that, being human, even kings may not place themselves above the law, and may not make laws which affront the instructed conscience of the commonalty. This is the theory of limited government. Hitherto I have called it the doctrine of freedom under law, and, in some ways, and in other contexts, it may be the better name. But it is, I believe, the traditional doctrine of Western Christendom, indeed also of pre-Christian Western philosophers, running like a golden thread through the thinking of European writers from Plato onwards. It reached its peak I believe, in England in the time of Burke before Bentham’s Utilitarianism, the belief in the greatest happiness of the greatest number, married the legal positivism of his friend Austin, whose creed was that the command of the ruler was all that there was to be said to define the now law. From this union sprang all the various political ideologies which have sought to find intellectual justification in the unlimited authority of the state combined with a benevolent intention described as the common good. [As intellectual ability declined the concept of limited government became a muddy street.] The reason for the growth of centralised democracy is largely historical. For at least three centuries the question of politics revolved around the relationship between privileged rulers and the unrepresented ruled. During this period Parliament came to be regarded as the guardian of liberty, and the executive as the representative of lawful authority. But the conflict came to an end with the total victory of Parliament at the time of the Act of Settlement. (Thenceforward Parliament controlled the executive by way of Cabinet government.) If only Parliament could be made to represent the whole adult population, it was argued, abuses would be remedied, injustices expunged, inequalities abolished. So, at each stage, a proposed extension of the franchise moved hand in hand with the demand for progress. [As we now see, electoral franchise does not and cannot, create democracy: only public control of candidates gives democracy!] Since 1925 the demand has been to put into practice the benefits already available in theory. The emphasis has been on welfare and social reform, and, despite recession and world war, much has been achieved, so much indeed that it seemed at first that nothing was amiss. But gradually people have come to realise that all is not well. Our society is not stable. Whole geographical units show signs of wishing to opt out. Organised minorities clamour to be heard, and, what they cannot win by the ballot box, seek to extract by violence or by depriving the population of their rightful needs. In a world of universal franchise, loyalty is at a discount. Self-discipline is a dirty word. Law and order have become objects of ridicule. Every restraint must be removed, and the anarchic total described as liberation, permissiveness, or even humanism. Worst of all, society is divided as never before. It is only now that men and women are beginning to realise that representative institutions are not necessarily guardians of freedom, but can themselves become engines of tyranny. They can be manipulated by minorities, taken over by extremists, motivated by the self-interest of organised millions. We need to be protected from our representatives no less than from our former masters. … “The alternative is the theory of limited government, familiar enough when men could recognise the distinction between government and governed because they were in different hands, but long obscured by anonymous majorities and rising standards of life. The theory of limited government offers precisely what the dominant theory denies. In place of uniformity it offers diversity. In place of equality it offers justice. In place of the common good, it protects the rights of minorities and the individual. As an alternative to regulation it propounds the rule of law. It does not seek to overthrow governments or institutions, or abolish universal franchise or popular rule. But it prescribes limits beyond which governments and Parliaments must not go, and it suggests means by which they can be compelled to observe those limits. In place of concentrating, it diffuses power. It confers rights of self-government on previously ignored communities. It offers protection against the oppressiveness of unions and corporations. Above all it corresponds with the general conscience of mankind. While the dominant theory propounds that a bare majority may pass what laws it wills, the doctrine of limited government asserts that individuals and minorities have rights against constituted authority, even when this is elected by universal franchise. Agamemnon was wrong to sacrifice Iphigenia to give a fair wind to the fleet. He would not have done right had he been authorised to do so by popular acclamation, as no doubt he was. Caiaphas spoke falsehood when he asserted it was expedient that one man should die for the people. He would not have spoken truth even had he a unanimous vote of the Senhedrin, or the full approval of the majority, as perhaps he did when the crowd yelled for the release of the Barabbas and the crucifixion of the innocent Christ.” End Quotes. E. A. Elected dictatorship has been in refinement for centuries. We should be aware that no law or constitution can protect us if our representatives are chosen by others. The first step to democratic freedom is the termination of the party political system. The second step is that the people be represented by their own 'chosen and elected' representative, however now that the electorate is so "dumbed down" this would seem to need an extraordinary awakening. The safety of limited government can only come when people accept responsibility for choosing their own representatives. It is not a big step but many fear the unknown! However logic offers no alternative. These things should be well known but our dumbing down leaves us fearful of our judgment. As it has been said: “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.” We have had our chances but lessons ignored are unlearned. The danger has been visible and Hailsham saw that centralized power quickly became manipulated dictatorship! In particular, since the second ‘gulf war’ the ‘great’ democracies have introduced shaded legislation to give governments power of any despised dictatorship and power will, without fanfare, be used as it suits! We can never trust dishonest governments and fools in parliament have no foresight! The outcome (if we allow it) will be drastic reduction of world populations for elitist benefit?
Step 11. Since becoming indoctrinated to humanist ideas we have become pretenders to justice and compassion while becoming realists to accepting ever-growing crime, cruelty and contempt for human values – and, yes, we do still claim to be civilized. Note: Matthew 4:5-7 The devil: “..throw yourself down; for scripture says, ‘He will put his angels in charge of you, and they will support you in their arms, for fear you should strike your foot against a stone.”’ Jesus: “Scripture says again, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.”’ We are given intelligence to use; if we do not use our gifts then the consequences are our own. So many follow Satan’s tempting – yet these still expect God to clean up their mess? Philosophy, Ideology, Religion, three words of meaning so alike they may be considered the same. These, “structures of belief”, are exclusive to humans. They are important to our life attitudes. Common animals have no access to such concepts. It is fortunate perhaps, that there have been many philosophies, religions and ideologies and in the normal way of life we take on a mixture. We, in part, adapt our “nurture” (the way we are raised) to our “human” natures so that we can, to some important degree, gain balance with our human nature and make progress. However, people of excessive greed and arrogance are ‘animalist’ orientated and when in power promote “animal” nature. These introduce philosophies in their favour! As a result our nurture turns more in support of our animal bodies and human intelligence becomes increasingly directed in service to animalist behaviour. Atrocious! Worse! Leaders have learned that the quickest way to subdue and reshape culture is to destroy its moral base. When this is done they insert a plausible alternative. That is the crime of Humanist arrogance. The master planners know that human nature is developed by experience and, if deprived of humanizing experience or deceived about it, then humanity can be deformed, retarded and enslaved. To this end Globalists created a pretend philosophy and called it “humanism” to convince the indoctrinated that human was being beneficially understood. But the human thus created is artificial and the corrupted intellect turns to stagnant dogma. The suffering now expanding around the world is the result of these inset delusions deforming the behaviour of those who have them and these, then creating misery for those who do not want them. Everything from health to humanity; from sex to sanity; from politics to pastimes; all has been redefined and deformed to fit the plans of people who think of themselves as Gods but are too egocentric to see that they are fools. They have redesigned, by cancer of deformity, the behaviour of millions of young people more lovely than the cutest of animals but by reducing their behaviour options, have robbed them of their potential to develop in the fullness of human life. As we have seen from Chapter 1, the information on which this sabotage is based is well know. The selfish god sect: In this cause they develop a fetish for word manipulation. They relate language to that of their victims to take words in common use and deform common meanings. They teach the young, that authoritarianism is bad – they claim it a degrading Christian failing, then claim Christians are “judgmental” because they can discriminate between good and bad behaviour. Authoritarianism and judgmental are two interesting words as, in use, they easily become self-damning. When someone is said to be ‘judgmental’ or ‘authoritarian’ the speaker is clearly making a judgment and projecting a personal authority. Humanist ideology claims there is no social truth but, at the same time humanists claim that what they say is true: i.e. that creation is/was a chance event; there is no creative intellect and no social truth. But, as their philosophy is based on "emotion" rather than "reason", they cannot see their self-contradictions as self-contradictions. On the other hand Christians claim belief in truth but may not see that this also becomes contradictory when related “selectively” to the dogma of the religion they favor. Many are now bound to a humanist ideology, inserted within a claimed Christianity. They do not see that if their Creator represents the truth of the creation then, if they do not seek to live within the progress of living truth, they are in denial of their Creator. To be honest to truth we must take our guidelines seriously and see that truth is universal to life eternal – that life grows in truth for life's advancement. Truth cannot be alive in development after turned into dogma. As Jesus told us: "I am the way; I am truth and I am life!" And as we are also told: Our God is God of the living not of the dead! So a statement on behalf of truth honestly sought is not a statement of desire but of honesty! The authority of it is not of personal arrogant desire but acknowledgement of creation's reality. There is a big gap between arrogance and honesty! Those who reveal human nature free of personal preference are not being judgmental or pushing personal authority. However, those of Humanist religion, unable to claim the backing of a truth whose existence they deny, must base every statement or claim on their own desire, authority or emotion: and can never be other than authoritarian or judgmental. The crime of the “people shapers” is that they manipulate forces beyond their understanding, and deceive themselves. As Jesus said of those who abuse children – better to be tied to a stone and tossed into the ocean. We need to understand that this crime against humanity is atrocious Alexander Solzhenitsyn (USSR) W. Bowen (USA) 1984. Quote: “Globalists wield almost limitless power because of their wealth and position. They are convinced that what they are doing is for the eventual salvation of mankind and the planet earth. The greatest strength they possess is that the general public … does not even know they exist.” End quote. Do Globalists think that what they do is for the eventual salvation of mankind? Only if we accept that Globalists see themselves as Gods! Those who teach their deceits: their so called, “useful idiots”, must first be deceived. Humanists sabotage human development by promoting confidence in "survival of the fittest and constructing a plausible belief system around it. At core of it:
Step 12: Even though operant conditioning carries such accurately derogatory labels as 'mind-bending' and 'brain washing' you will find this technique being implemented with great speed in many of the schools of our land. Operant conditioning is such a highly controversial psychological technique that its ethical, and other ramifications, of scientifically controlling human behaviour, has long been debated. The rationale under which sex education has been introduced into the schools may be found in the following statements. According to Sigmund Freud (Social Medicine and Hygiene, 1907) "I should prefer that parents NOT concern themselves at all with any explanations regarding matters of sexuality. Above all, schools should not evade the task of mentioning sexual matters. Schools should present lessons about the animal kingdom, which should include the great facts of reproduction. These facts should be given their due significance and emphasis should be laid on the fact that man shares with the higher animals EVERYTHING essential to his own organization." And "In those countries which leave the education of children either wholly or in part in the hands of religions the above method urged, would of course, NOT be practicable. For NO religion will ever admit the IDENTITY in NATURE of MAN and BEAST, since to the religious person the IMMORTALITY of the soul is an absolute foundation for MORAL training, which they cannot forego." [Note: It should be clear to those of free mind that man does NOT share “everything essential to his own organization” with animals. Man has an intellect that is entirely beyond that of common animals despite all effort to train animals in human behaviour. We also see that Humanism itself is a religion without creative logic. Ed.] Freud cites as the authority for these views the writings of the self-avowed atheistic Dutch dramatist ‘Multatuli’ who separated from his family, led a Bohemian life in Amsterdam, Brussels and elsewhere, finally settling in Germany. Multatuli particularly opposed the influence of church, and religion, on individual freedom of thought. … The simple fact is family life-sex education courses are vehicles of this philosophy, for they expound absolute permissiveness, designed to encourage atavistic behaviour; the films invigorate the labile fantasies of even the dullest, not-yet-self-controlled child, and no child, so titillated, can learn the basics of education which properly should be the only material presented in a classroom setting. This can only be defined as an absolute usurpation of the child's right to be properly educated. [i.e., The child’s right to be human. Ed.] Sensitivity training, a technique employing 'psychological uppers and downers,' is a slough of Esalen, and National Training Laboratories (NTL) of the National Education Association (NEA). Initially, sensitivity training was eulogized as a promoter of "good interpersonal relations" and group cohesiveness. However, trainers insist that each individual must submerge his own integrity to that of the group, leaving the participant subject to the machinations of the trainer and/or the group. It is as Dr. Charlotte Crabtree recently enthused to those attending a Social Studies Symposium in Portland, Oregon, ‘You are pioneers; you are right out on the frontier when you teach this very dangerous material. To date, NO analyses of our programs are possible . . . analyses are still very primitive but we HOPE for some changes when Taxonomy is committed to PPBS (Planning Programming, Budgeting System data processing procedures)." From variously designed sensitivity training sessions, most resembling nothing more than a witches' Sabbath, 'newly trained trainers' are spewed forth to spread their heresies, and to effect various forms of behavioural and attitudinal changes throughout the land and especially throughout the whole educational system of America, for in the words of Lester Kirkendall, "We have too many youth indoctrinated with the parochial attitudes of their families." (Basic Issues in Sex Education, California School Health, Vol. 3, No. 1, January, 1967). And from NEA's Issues in Training comes this word, "Training, even though it has NOT reached professional status, and ill-defined as it is, has had good acceptance in many organizations. (Notably in the field of education.) [Note: although examples given may represent the worst of it, nevertheless we see seduction of young minds is so easy as to need no professional training or scientific understanding. This assault on innocent minds has now been operating, world wide, at different levels, for a few generations so it cannot be denied that many parents are 'dumbed down' to it.] Through the mediums of education in sexuality, of sensitivity training, and of operant conditioning, trainers have learned that it is all too easy to manipulate a child by denigrating parents. By extolling amorality, they have also learned how to preclude the formation of individual conscience and individual integrity in a child, and how to effectively alienate a child from his parents through the changing of moral norms. When sufficient downgrading of parental values has occurred a child will not identify with the appropriate, or like-sex parent. An ongoing study of child-parent identification has revealed fairly serious to severe maladjustment in 92% of those children not making proper identification with his or her parent(s). This is a frightening statistic. Professor George Odiorne of the University of Michigan summed up the whole problem when he stated “Many trainers are ‘amateur head shrinkers’ that lack the proper psychological training, psychiatric damage may result.”... End Quotes. Emphasis added. That is from the “Foreword” by M. Royer, M.S. In the book proper (P93-7) we find side-by-side comparison between the 1939 National Socialist (NAZI) Sex Education Experiment, and the 1969 Anaheim High School District (AUHSD) Sex Education Experiment. They are the same, any detail difference probably occurred in translation. Sensitivity training is better described as “sensitivity deprivation instillation”. It is designed to de-sensitise children so as to allow comfort for primate responses. As we see from the responses of parents and activists, it is very successful for, were parents not already ‘dumbed down’ they would see the enormity of what is being done and fight to the death to defend their children from mental defornity. A ‘niggle’ with the above is use of the word EXPERIMENT. De-humanizing is the ‘experiment’ used by Communists to destroy and replace existing cultures. By ‘text book’ it may be experimental but, in practical terms, it is as scientific as time and tide. It is basic to logic and tested on whole cultures. It is reliable for use world-wide without need of further research and so basic as to need no formal training. Humanity is learned! Deceit is imposed! De-humanizing needs no professionals’ only substitute human development. Any parrot will do; in fact may do it better, the parrot brain has no human capacity for moral concern or for question of what it is doing. An important reminder; in a culture where violent disposal of dissidents is impractical it does take a few generations for complete indoctrination. We have already had a few generations; has it been enough to prevent reversal or rebellion? It seems those behind this program believe this war is won and massive depopulation can begin. Justice to John Steinbacher’s book would need a very long review and is not needed here, hence my quoting from the foreword. If you need more to awaken your human concerns try second-hand bookshops. It is important we see how easy it is to trick parents into allowing extreme child abuse, but note: this could not be done without control of mass media and political compliance; and that would not have been possible without historic time, arrogance, access to high finance and, most important of all, the use of ideology to sway emotion.
Step 13: Neither gold nor truth will raise itself but truth is light to carry! If they hide that, what else do they hide? And WHY? And to what lengths will they go? So many questions never publicised or answered! Freedom will only be gained when we, the people, accept our responsibilities. The way to freedom is still an open road, but here is a chilly comment by Professor John McMurtry that shows, I think, just how little of this road remains. The McMurtry article is copyright. Permission to reproduce is granted if accompanied by: Copyright (c) 2000 COMER Publications. The quotes are from “A Manifesto of Corporate Totalitarianism" by John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, ON. CA. [Canada]. He here comments on British PM Tony Blair speaking about Corporate Globalization. First: words of Blair. Quote: "These forces of change driving the future do not stop at national boundaries. Don't respect tradition. They wait for no one and no nation. They are universal." End Blair quote. John McMurtry comments; quote: One might think that Blair's statement is a rhetorical conceit. But is it, in truth, the missing key to every act of his office? What act in his record is inconsistent with any part of it? When has Blair, or Chretien or Clinton, ever not acted in conformity to this belief in inevitable corporate globalization – "waiting for no one and no nation,” trampling all who do not jump into line with its omnipotent advance. " They are not, in fact, national leaders, but obedient expressions of these forces of corporate globalization. Once we understand that, we see into the directive logic of current historical events ... We can identify the defining features of this new order's authority by diagnosis of Blair's own words. (1) The forces of corporate global restructuring are without meaning or value in their direction. For they are external "forces" not what we care about intrinsically, and they "drive the future" as the forces of ... gravity move the tides. They are to be submitted to, not because they confer meaning or give us a moral direction, but because they are all-powerful and we cannot resist them. (2) The forces of corporate global restructuring are lawless. They "don't stop at national boundaries," as all lawful agents are obliged to do. The first principle of domestic and international law, to respect the boundaries of others, is overridden by these forces as the destiny of the world's future. (3) The forces of corporate global restructuring are unaccountable. There is no electorate or standard of behaviour or anything else that they answer to or have to answer to for their domination because "they wait for no-one and no nation" and "drive the future. " (4) The forces of corporate global restructuring are nihilist. For they "respect no tradition" ethical, Legal, or cultural- and there is no exception. ... What "democratic" political or legal leadership yet seeks to make accountable, or hedge in by enforced law, or raise any other power above, or in any way morally question the transnational corporate agenda which these forces express? The sad fact is that our leaders demand that we accept what they themselves describe as lawless and unaccountable... " End quote. We, who follow in some depth the political scene know that the above is true. This cultural poison is spread worldwide. The United Nations has, for years pressed downgrading borders; confusing what is ethical, legal and cultural; undermining human morality; mixing and confusing race to no rational or demonstrated humane purpose; destroying tradition and human discipline; instilling unnatural and unhealthy standards of behaviour; allowing confidence trickery as financial practice; promoting belief that some crimes have no victims and misrepresenting democracy. All in the interests of creating confusion and installing division, this in turn clearing the way for a "lawless and unaccountable" corporate take over called Globalisation. 'Politically correct' enslavement of humanity and genocide of human life all promoted under the cloak of 'humanism'. Among leaders of state, church, law, education, entertainment or mass media how few in ‘democratic’ leadership, has raised a persuasive voice in response to community complaint of corruption or atrocity? Or made any serious effort to resist or explain the globalist invasion? How few have raised a finger; or lent an ear? Or tried to expose the lack of substance in ideology – fought against law that protects corporate crime – explained the democracy sham, or money scam, or warned of the corruption of community morals by trickery? Let us remember again the words of Professor Hayek “The Road to Serfdom” 1944; quote: ... many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of Nazism and sincerely hate all its manifestations, work at the same time for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny." EQ. We are so close to the unthinkable; a despotic, arrogant, all-powerful world government that obeys no law, governs by its own decree and denies humanity to the commonalty. But is there a sign the Globalists are worried? Why do they come, even a little into the open to have us told that globalism is irresistible and inevitable; that it cannot and should not be fought? But there is something else that stands out: these international forces of corporate and commercial greed cannot be truly secret! Why do we not hear? Because those who see part of the problem do not unite to expose enough of this huge inequity to make its horror credible – because our ego is promoted and we want to protect our little insight and even by copyright make it profitable to ourselves. Note: the only restriction on this site is that you tell people where you found information so that others can access it without deformity. No social movement, especially one without human morals, is either irresistible or inevitable; every caring human has no moral choice other than to oppose this insanity. The basic principles we are now being induced to live by are totally false – a dictatorial World Government is human suicide! As a WAR this IS genocide; will we surrender humanity to death of the mind as prelude to death's totality? Others come out! They're moving production to places, such as Honduras, where they pay women absolute starvation wages, working 13 hours a day, up to seven days a week – no environmental standards, no health care. If they get pregnant they get fired. If they get sick they get fired. This erases 100 years of the legislation which gave workers fights, such as holidays with pay and pensions and protection against injury and so on – and the benefits of unionisation. Well, the process has reached the point where Lewis Lapham, editor Harpers Magazine, says the U.S. has two governments: the permanent and the provisional. The permanent government consists of the Fortune 500 magazine’s largest companies, also the largest law firms and public relations firms in Washington that work for those companies, and the top bureaucrats, both civil and military and they’re the permanent government. Then there is what they call an election every once in a while and they elect the provisional government and they elect actors that come on stage and read the script written by the permanent government.” E.Q. Honourable Paul Hellyer at the "Save Canada Conference" held in Ottawa August 20 and 21, 1999. Sound familiar? Remember Quigley? He said, 1966, that in the US every four years the people – meaning the rabble, the hoi polloi (that's us) could vent their spleen by 'kicking the rascals out' without really having any effect on policy direction. All parties serve the same masters. Sadly, modern reformers give explanations that show they have not investigated as thoroughly as they could. It seems safe now to say that ALL international commerce is controlled by the Globalist mafia families. Nevertheless reformers should be congratulated for going as far as they have. Are people waking up or has our will for freedom already drained away? The evidence of mind manipulation is enormous but meaningful only to those who see that truth is the essence of useful decision-making. These are humans with the courage and self-discipline to suppress pride, arrogance, selfishness and/or prejudice to achieve a basically unbiased viewpoint from which to defend and benefit human life. We can awaken our humanity and we can save ourselves. Some will never accept learning: example the Crucifixion: Pilate found no case against Jesus but the crowd shouted – crucify. To better understand why a large number of people would want to crucify those who try to help them, we refer to a philosopher from ancient Greece. Plato explained that if people are bound so as to see only shadows on a wall they will, in time, come to believe that the shadows are the reality. If then, you tell them that the shadows are only shadows, they will laugh at you; should you persist to force them to see the truth they will turn on you and try to kill you. Ego rules the animal within and we now live in a world of TV generated shadows. People have been seduced to excessive pride and deceived about the need for truth: we are mentally bound to belief in shadows. We see ourselves as the beliefs we live by; this is personal – to accept correction means accepting that our lives were based on delusions; when behaviour is based on instinct rather than on logic we instinctively evade truth! Will we gamble stagnant animal selfishness against human truth and progress? One last quote; source unknown, "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad". Let us not surrender too soon; let's look, to the source of our madness before we leap. |
