On the first, Rob, of The Broadsheet Rag, draws attention to Brown's dumbness with this quote:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said the current global financial crisis has "laid bare the weaknesses of unbridled free markets".
... coupled with:
The ethic of fairness means we reward hard work, thrift, enterprise, effort and responsible risk taking, but refuse to condone or reward irresponsible or excessive risk taking...
I suggested to Andrew that "private [or free] enterprise" sounds better than "capitalism" and to Rob, that it was not so much dumb as the next stage in the ongoing agenda. These people stick to neo-Hegelianism like limpets, don't they? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Or in political terms:
1. Create a crisis or let one be created by inaction and deliberate ineptitude;
2. Reap the worldwind of people's approbation, shrug the shoulders and suggest that under your current powers, you can do very little;
3. Step in with a "solution', a giving to the people of what they are crying out for, along with all the elements of what you originally wanted to achieve.
Are there still people out there who seriously believe there is no agenda? No matter, the next year should address this.
Calling a spade a spade, we are headed for a new era where the covert structure now being laid in place becomes increasingly transparent, in line with the level of personal security these bstds feel and it is state socialism on the menu, with capitalistic running mates, just as the NEP men of the 20s operated.
It is not just governments who are inimical to free enterprise - it is the monopolies too. Brown's "unbridled free markets" is not in the least directed at the oligopoly. It is aimed squarely at the small investor, the small businessman. The person trying to make a living by his own risk taking and hard work.
The notion of Brown suddenly coming out with a solution which will "save the world", given his persona, is so Yes Minister, especially the point where Hacker becomes PM. A "success" is engineered for him and the new-Churchill rides a temporary wave of applause.
It all makes me sick because it was predicted long ago. Here is Svali, in the year 2000:
There will be continued conflict in the Middle East, with a severe threat of nuclear war being the culmination of these hostilities. An economic collapse that will devastate the economy of the US and Europe, much like the great depression. One reason that our economy continues limping along is the artificial support that the Federal Reserve had given it, manipulating interest rates, etc.
But one day, this won't work (or this leverage will be withdrawn on purpose) and the next great depression will hit. The government will call in its bonds and loans, and credit card debts will be called in. There will be massive bankruptcies nationwide. Europe will stabilize first and then Germany, France and England will have the strongest economies, and will institute, through the UN, an international currency. Japan will also pull out, although their economy will be weakened.
Peacekeeping forces will be sent out by the UN and local bases to prevent riots. The leaders will reveal themselves, and people will be asked to make a pledge of loyalty during a time of chaos and financial devastation.
Since 2001, I've watched world events unfold, occasionally dropping back into this quote above to check progress. What about this one?
1933 - "The Shape of Things to Come" by H. G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute.
After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in "criminally infected" areas. The plan for the "Modern World State" would succeed on its third attempt, and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq.
The book also states: "Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition anywhere."
... or this one:
Feb. 9, 1950 - The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which begins: "Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution."
The resolution is introduced by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho), who later states: "We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves."
... or this one:
April 12, 1952 - CFR member John Foster Dulles [who later became Secretary of State], in speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, says: "Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President.
They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
Lisbon Treaty? Treaty of Rome? How about this one?
Feb. 23, 1954 - Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people.
We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it 'democratic centralism.'
The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.
This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like 'democracy' in place of 'representative government.' "
... or this one:
October 24, 1975 - In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign "A Declaration of Interdependence," which states that "we must join with others to bring forth a new world order... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation."
Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying: "It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people."
You might to look at the state of global economics, as of 1994. And finally - look at the current march of Obama towards the Presidency.
The quislings are everywhere, fundamental changes to society are now being spoken of openly and mentioned in the blogosphere to an extent unknown before 2008 and a rattled populace are open to Messianic ideas of a material nature. Those ideas will be the redistribution of wealth, such as it is into the hands of the non-enterprising fat cats and a meted out handout to the rest of the nanny state.
There is a stage in the socialistic movement which could be termed "the compassionate society", suggesting that to believe in hanging onto what you've worked to achieve is somehow wrong and that, out of a "spirit of love ", it should be redistributed to those with no intention of working for what they have. Correctly interpreted, it could be called The Politics of Envy.
There is just as much "compassion" in giving people opportunities, removing barriers to ideas and so on than in enforced "compassion". it is more sustainable. It says, "I'll give you the chance to get back on your feet and you can choose to either take that chance during your window of opportunity, not take it or else fail to take it." During this time, the onus is on the individual to climb out of the mire.
To me, that is practical love, practical compassion. Why do the politically correct assume that the go-getter can't feel pity or is indifferent to suffering? It's not so. Yet there has to be the possibility to do that. There has to be a free enterprise mentality to the country which supports initiative taking and offers incentives to do this.
That's why people committed to freedom of association, worship, speech, private enterprise and private property need to dig in now, to silently and not so silently resist the dead hand with every fibre of their being. We have our differences, often personal but these are as nothing compared to resisting the inexorable tide of state socialism now sweeping over the stone walls and threatening to swamp the land beyond and all who reside in it.
