A.B.C. of FREEDOM
HOME FORUM A.B.C. PART 2:I A.B.C PART 2:II A.B.C. PART 2:III REFERENCES
You have (like me - no exceptions exist) all your life been subjected too a barrage of misinformation from the vested interests of unbridled capitalism asserting that we are in a state of “progress”. This claim is reliant largely on the material evidence of scientific advances reflected in the technological goods which we have been given access to. But scientific and technological advancement is not on it’s own social progression, and nor is political correctness, which has always been with us changing it‘s form and dictates to suit the ends of those with political power. Time marches on inevitably, and events follow events in a progression naturally enough without greed's help but it could be said that greed is a kind of progress, a kind of perverted progress, progress without self-control, and self control is built on conscience and wisdom. Science on it’s own is not the instrument of global enlightenment, it must be used carefully and thoughtfully and openly in the hands of a cohesive system of checks controlled by the people, the law and parliament, and in turn the people, law and parliament must be free of the sinister controlling yoke of the unbridled capitalist system.
Winston Churchill warned in his ‘finest hour’ speech which he made in that same summer of 1940 when the Tots and Quots were publishing 'Science in War', that if (the absolutists of) the fascist states won the war then a new dark age would settle upon the world, “prolonged by the lights of perverted science". He said this not in idle rhetoric, Winston knew damn well the potential for abuse and control being fashioned and perfected behind the scenes, behind a wall of secrecy, not just by the power of the Nazi state but by all the great national powers of the early 20th century.
Solly Zuckerman, one of the foremost of those "lights of perverted science", fell out with some of his old comrades from the Tots and Quots after the second world war was won by the hero’s and heroines who were our grand and great-grand parents. After 1940 when their book ‘Science in war’ was published the members of the ‘dining club’ were kept busy with war work until 1945, in this period Zuckerman himself became Scientific Director of the British Bombing Survey Unit, and it was his suggestions that led to the bombing of rail lines and marshalling yards in the run up to the Normandy landings which later became known as “Zuckerman’s folly” for their lack of effect. After 1945 the group carried on meeting for a period of years into the fifties but political differences caused dispute amongst them, and Zuckerman himself attended fewer meetings, putting it down to his sky high career, which apparently won him some jealousy and resentment from other members of the clique, most notably (and hilariously; see below) Zuckerman’s fellow zoologist Lancelot Hogben.
Zuckerman was appointed Professor of anatomy at Birmingham University and appointed ‘Companion of the Order of the Bath’, and later awarded ‘Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath’, and wrote a book called ‘Scientists and War’. He was the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Ministry of defence (1960-66) and then was the very first Chief Scientific Advisor to Her Majesties Government(1964-71). He was awarded the ‘Order of Merit’, married an heiress called Lady Joan Rufus, daughter of the 2nd Marquess of reading, and then was appointed Baron Solly Zuckerman with a lifetime peerage.
On the 27th of August 2009 Solly Zuckerman’s MI5 file was declassified (under the 70 year rule, presumably). I, the author, hadn’t seen it until after this ABC of freedom was wrote, and thankfully I noticed the information recently just before publishing this on the internet, so this information on MI5‘s suspicions and the evidence it includes of the link between Zuckerman and Rothschild is an insert. I’d already made the connection between Zuckerman and Rothschild from a list of Zuckermans work and correspondence files (see references) which is registered in the National Archives and which shows that he was in regular and copious communication with various members of the Rothschild family throughout his career.
MI5 cleared Zuckerman of being a real communist, largely due to his ‘acquaintances’, and most notably Baron Rothschild’s intervention. A summery of his files appears on MI5’s website, which I’ll reproduce below. There were two files, MI5 claims the first was opened on Zuckerman because of his repeated applications for ‘monkeys’ to test the effects of bombing on, which is quite strange as the dissection and vivisection of animals doesn’t often gain the perpetrator the attention of MI5. It did cross my mind that the reference to ‘monkeys’ might imply something altogether more sinister to those in the know (?). His second file was opened when the Americans objected to Zuckerman being given access to nuclear secrets. It’s a matter of historic fact that nuclear secrets were leaked from Britain to the Soviet Union, but it’s the best guess of the author that the other Tots and Quots (for instance Crowther) are more likely to of supplied secrets straight to the communists in the Soviet Union because it does seem that Zuckerman was aligned, secretly - behind the other Tots and Quots backs -, with Rothschild’s vision of a brave new world order, that is to say a deferred version of internationalist communism, now known as 'communitarianism', as social control for the the globalised masses under the control and ownership of the powers of unbridled capitalism.
The Rothschilds also played a significant role in the creation of Israel, and Solly Zuckerman who was a South African born, internationally educated Jew corresponded with the Rothchilds on this matter and helped advise on the foundation of Israel.
MI5 Casefile: Solly Zuckerman
"The case of Solly Zuckerman was one which caused the Security Service considerable difficulty, as revealed in the first two personal files on him that are now released. He first came under serious attention in 1940 when concerns arose about the nature of the research work he was engaged in, given his openly avowed left-wing views. The file gives some detail of the work he was engaged in, it being his requirement of monkeys to experiment on during the war that first aroused suspicions. However, Zuckerman's personal acquaintances, including Lord Rothschild (e.g. at serial 21a), vouched for him and it was decided that the Service would not object to his involvement in secret work. There are many opinions as to his character in KV 2/3030, including that of the Lord President of the Council reported in 1949 at minute 53: "He had formed the opinion that Zuckerman was more interested in his career than anything else." Telephone and postal checks were mounted on Zuckerman's communications, and the output is on these files, but it contains little to support views that he might be a Communist. However, in 1949, a typewritten application to join the Communist Party in Zuckerman's name was intercepted. Submitting an open application in this way was thought to be so counter to Zuckerman's character, that it was assumed it must be a malicious false application. There is a pictorial comparative analysis of the application typewriting and a sample of Zuckerman's own typewriting at serial 50a, and an analysis of the possible explanations for the application at serial 52a.
Doubts about Zuckerman's reliability resurfaced in the 1950s (recorded on KV 2/3031) when the Americans queried his status with the Security Service. The Service re-examined the case, but decided that regardless of American concerns, there was no need to revise the assertion that he was not a security risk. Also on this file, a candidate emerges (serial 72a and following) as to who might have made the false application to join the Communist Party in Zuckerman's name – Professor Lancelot Hogben. The file includes a note of a drunken Hogben's intercepted phone call to Zuckerman where he made direct threats. Subsequent enquiries revealed flaws in Hogben's character that made it seem he might well have produced such a false application, and though no positive proof was uncovered, the Service was satisfied that he was the likely perpetrator."
Doubts about Zuckerman's reliability resurfaced in the 1950s (recorded on KV 2/3031) when the Americans queried his status with the Security Service. The Service re-examined the case, but decided that regardless of American concerns, there was no need to revise the assertion that he was not a security risk. Also on this file, a candidate emerges (serial 72a and following) as to who might have made the false application to join the Communist Party in Zuckerman's name – Professor Lancelot Hogben. The file includes a note of a drunken Hogben's intercepted phone call to Zuckerman where he made direct threats. Subsequent enquiries revealed flaws in Hogben's character that made it seem he might well have produced such a false application, and though no positive proof was uncovered, the Service was satisfied that he was the likely perpetrator."
When the Times wrote up the story of Zuckerman’s MI5 files being declassified they said of Lancelot Hogben, Zuckerman’s fellow Tot and Quot and zoologist “A covert inquiry discovered that a fellow scientist at the university, Professor Lancelot Hogben, may have planted the application. A 1952 note cited an unnamed source as saying: “Hogben still continues to make vicious and libellous charges concerning a number of his university colleagues. And still gives the impression of being a very embittered individual”.
Enter The Dragon
Solly Zuckerman maintained extensive correspondence with various members of the Rothschild family*. It’s fair game to guess that his disenchantment with world socialism and the global communist revolution might well of had something to do with his awareness and existential support of the realities of the global revolution of unbridled capitalism that was already taking place (as opposed to the pre-war imperial capitalism which as a socialist he presumably opposed). Although it’s shocking for the average person to consider it is nevertheless true that before the millennium if you spoke of such things as globalisation you were considered a conspiracy theorist, it is absolutely true that until circa 2001 globalisation was not publicly acknowledged as being real policy, as every wide awake member of this generation knows (but will soon forget as I will wager a pound to a penny no formal mainstream history books of the future will be allowed to contain such observations). But of course Zuckerman, the internationalist, nihilistic, experimental socialist, certainly was ‘in the loop’ so to speak and was ideally placed post 1945 to continue helping forward an internationalist agenda on behalf of the plutocrats of the unbridled capitalist system.
Baron Rothschild
The Rothschilds are a large extended family, but one which uses the inbreeding technique of marriage between first and second cousins to keep the wealth of the family securely centrealised. The particular member of Rothschild banking clan we are talking about, the one who 'cleared' Solly Zuckerman with MI5, was Baron Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild.
(‘Rothschild‘, sometimes taken literally to mean ‘Red-shield‘ from the legend of the beginnings of the first family of international banking which states that Mayer Amschel Bauer, the money-changer forefather of the Rothschild family, in the mid eighteenth century hung a red shield outside his business house in Frankfurt, the German word for red being "Roth", the German word for Shield at that time being "schild".
This legend lingers on and yet the route of the word shield through old English and old German is almost identical in both form and meaning to the word 'scale', or 'scaled', being something like this…
[‘Shield’ Etymology: Shield goes back to a prehistoric Germanic skelduz, which also produced German and Dutch schild, Swedish skold, and Danish skojoldr. This was probably derived from the Germanic base skel- ‘’divide, split, separate’ (source also of English scale, shell, etc), and hence denoted etymologically a ‘flat piece of wood produced by splitting a log, board’. Shelter is probably descended from a compound formed from shield. See also scale, shell, shelter.]
[‘Scale’ Etymology: English has three separate words ‘scale’. The oldest, ‘pan of a balance’ (13th c), was borrowed from old Norse skal ‘bowl, drinking cup’ (ancestor of Swedish skaal, from which English gets the toast skol (16th c)). This was descended from a Germanic base skal-, skel-, skul-, denoting ‘split, divide, peel’, which also produced English scalp, shell, shelter, shield, skill, probably skull, and also scale ‘external plates on reptiles, etc’ (14th c). This second scale was borrowed from old French escale, which itself was acquired from prehistoric Germanic skalo - another derivative of skal-. It’s modern german descendent, schale, is the probable source of English shale (18th c). The third scale, which originally meant ‘ladder’ (15th c), came Latin scala ‘ladder’, a descendant of the same base as Latin scandere ‘climb’, from which English gets ascend, decend, scan, and scandal. (In modern French scala has evolved to echelle, whose derivative echelon has given English schalon (18th c)). The modern meaning of the word, variations on the theme ‘system of graduations used for measuring’, are metaphorical extensions of original ‘ladder, steps’. It’s use as a verb, meaning ‘climb’ goes back to the medieval Latin derivative scalare. See also scalp, shell, shelter, shield, skill, skol, skull, shale, scan, scandal.]
A shield both materially and linguistically is the same thing as a scale, and the two words share a common northern European root derived from the word shell, and appear to of been interchangeable with each other at some point.
If the name fits wear it, for whatever reasons of synchronicity it seems “Red-scales” or “Red-scaled", implying dragon like qualities that include legendary avarice and accumulated wealth are the most appropriate and fitting descriptions for the owners of the greatest fortune ever amassed, as theirs is argued to be. This alternative etymology of ‘Rothschild' has never been published before, to the authors knowledge).
(‘Rothschild‘, sometimes taken literally to mean ‘Red-shield‘ from the legend of the beginnings of the first family of international banking which states that Mayer Amschel Bauer, the money-changer forefather of the Rothschild family, in the mid eighteenth century hung a red shield outside his business house in Frankfurt, the German word for red being "Roth", the German word for Shield at that time being "schild".
This legend lingers on and yet the route of the word shield through old English and old German is almost identical in both form and meaning to the word 'scale', or 'scaled', being something like this…
[‘Shield’ Etymology: Shield goes back to a prehistoric Germanic skelduz, which also produced German and Dutch schild, Swedish skold, and Danish skojoldr. This was probably derived from the Germanic base skel- ‘’divide, split, separate’ (source also of English scale, shell, etc), and hence denoted etymologically a ‘flat piece of wood produced by splitting a log, board’. Shelter is probably descended from a compound formed from shield. See also scale, shell, shelter.]
[‘Scale’ Etymology: English has three separate words ‘scale’. The oldest, ‘pan of a balance’ (13th c), was borrowed from old Norse skal ‘bowl, drinking cup’ (ancestor of Swedish skaal, from which English gets the toast skol (16th c)). This was descended from a Germanic base skal-, skel-, skul-, denoting ‘split, divide, peel’, which also produced English scalp, shell, shelter, shield, skill, probably skull, and also scale ‘external plates on reptiles, etc’ (14th c). This second scale was borrowed from old French escale, which itself was acquired from prehistoric Germanic skalo - another derivative of skal-. It’s modern german descendent, schale, is the probable source of English shale (18th c). The third scale, which originally meant ‘ladder’ (15th c), came Latin scala ‘ladder’, a descendant of the same base as Latin scandere ‘climb’, from which English gets ascend, decend, scan, and scandal. (In modern French scala has evolved to echelle, whose derivative echelon has given English schalon (18th c)). The modern meaning of the word, variations on the theme ‘system of graduations used for measuring’, are metaphorical extensions of original ‘ladder, steps’. It’s use as a verb, meaning ‘climb’ goes back to the medieval Latin derivative scalare. See also scalp, shell, shelter, shield, skill, skol, skull, shale, scan, scandal.]
A shield both materially and linguistically is the same thing as a scale, and the two words share a common northern European root derived from the word shell, and appear to of been interchangeable with each other at some point.
If the name fits wear it, for whatever reasons of synchronicity it seems “Red-scales” or “Red-scaled", implying dragon like qualities that include legendary avarice and accumulated wealth are the most appropriate and fitting descriptions for the owners of the greatest fortune ever amassed, as theirs is argued to be. This alternative etymology of ‘Rothschild' has never been published before, to the authors knowledge).
Nathaniel Rothschild was educated first at Harrow and then at Cambridge, the establishment which produced such men as J.G. Crowther, the Tots and Quots 'science journalist' who's latter efforts as head of the British Council are mentioned above as putting the science component in UNESCO (United Nations Educational Science Cultural Organisation). At Cambridge Rothschild was notable even amongst so many professional inheritors of wealth for his opulent ultra-rich playboy lifestyle, where he collected rare art and literature whilst deflowering the population of young locals.
At Cambridge Rothschild joined a secret society called 'The apostles' which was a known hard-core Marxist group, though perhaps pseudo-Marxist is a better description for Rothschild, as he and others in the group were utopians of the 'Brave New World' variety. It's interesting to note that despite being an 'Apostle' he is described as only being "mildly left-wing but never a Marxist". It was in this secret society that he met his friends, the (future) communist spies Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt. He went on to share his London flat with Burgess and Blunt.
Nataniel Rothschild inherited his untold fortune in 1937, aged just 26, which included a peerage and a seat in the house of Lords. During the Second world war he went into MI5, which explains how this man could of 'cleared' Solly Zuckerman of the suspicions hanging over him. Unfortunately the Cambridge spy ring of Philby, Blunt, Burgess, Maclean, the fifth man and the sixth man (both still unknown although a man called John Cairncross, also an 'Apostle' was fingered by the KGB as being one of the spies in 1990 when Soviet communism collapsed) hadn't been foiled at that time, if it had of been Rothschild and Zuckerman could both of been stopped in the early stages of their machinations and the world would be a safer, freer place today. In MI5 Rothschild specialised in disinformation and espionage.
It took until 1964 for the Cambridge spy ring to be uncovered, and of course Rothschild was questioned by special branch though nothing was ever publicly proven against him, though it was known that a mole had existed in MI5. As head of various corporations like Royal Dutch Shell (the largest energy company, the second biggest company in the world) and as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher and leader of the think tank on social science research (a continuation of his speciality in disinformation, propaganda and social control) he continued his machinations throughout the century until eventually taking his position as head of his banking clan full time.
By 1945 the power of science was unleashed not for the good of the people, though that is the pretext that gave it it's original validity, but as it turned out, for the good of the few (who own our debt, and those others whom for profit facilitate this situation). If it was the case that we could always trust implicitly the men of power then this would be just fine and dandy, unfortunately in the unbridled-capitalist semi-global state that encompasses all of the western world and a large number of other countries totalling a far greater area than the British Empire ever ruled it's the case that power and corruption go hand in hand. Science (which is power) is misused as a medium for controlling the people through study and propaganda amoungst other techniques, which include misrepresenting theory as fact. From political science we have the cultural wrecking ball of political correctness madly swinging too and fro, the correctness of which is not measured by either factual correctness nor moral correctness, the correctness of political correctness is measured in relationship to how beneficial it’s ultimatums prove to the ruling political reality,(I.e. fulfilling the expediencies of unbridled capitalism) we have theories taught as facts as a replacement for religion, culture and morality, the unmentionable paradox being that these 'absolutes' are constantly changing.
Many will think that in world war two with Britain under attack by willing state puppets in black uniforms it was fair game to use methods and tools of manipulation to bring us through to victory, and that if that was what it took then that is what should have been done. But when the fighting was over the tools should have been put back in the box. It is not fair game to continue using ‘Total War’ as a tool to serve the greed of Unbridled Capitalism. Fighting a war looses much of it’s point if to fight it you must adopt the policies and appearance of your enemy and then when the fighting is over and you stand bloodied but victorious you do not immediately drop the policies and appearance of your vanquished foe.
But yet the mimicry goes on. Absolutism is absolutism, Nazism was a brand of nationalistic absolutism, Communism was a brand of international absolutism and unbridled capitalism supports and maintains, through perverted science, an international neo-liberal veneered absolutism that is simply a suitably empty and nihilistic medium for the plutocrats to mould to their desire as expediency demands. The driving force of this expediency is greed together with the warped ideal that greed is good.
Professor Tolkien put it well in his foreword introduction to his masterpiece book “The Lord Of The Rings” which he had authored around the period of world war 2. In the foreword he says that the story he wrote is not an allegory of the events of the world war. Some people had wondered if the White City of Gondor represented London and the Riders of Rohan represented the Americans riding to Englands defence. Tolkien denies this (indeed with insight it possible to say that The Lord Of The Rings is drawn from much older tales, known long, long before WW2) but Professor Tolkien, wise fellow that he was, also adds to his denials of allegory to WW2 that if he had indeed of been writing an allegory of that war then the ring would certainly have been seized and used against Mordor, as many of the characters in his tale would have liked to do. Of course this is no victory, although by the rings power (desire) Mordor would have been crushed non who used the ring would have been able to put it down again, to use it’s power was to succumb to its’ power and be corrupted.
Desire is the power behind unbridled capitalism, as we shall see in Part 2. In a similar way the tools of control conceived before and applied during the second world war were never put back in the box by the victors after the war was over, they proved too profitable.
Alike to some divine comedy we went from world war straight into cold war. The cold war provided 45 years in which the tools of mass manipulation were enlarged, honed and brought to the current levels of subtlety and efficiency. By the 1990’s and the collapse of the Soviet Union these methods of political control had, after such a long period of time, become essential supports to maintaining the controlling interests and so just because all the old existential enemies were no longer threatening us this alone (to the warmongers of recent times) didn’t seem like a good enough reason to drop the systems of manipulation that had been born in war. In fact, in an unsurprising turn around it seems that maintaining these structures is justification enough to get the middlemen, the governments who are the middle management between the plutocrats and the people, to seek to cause wars.
The Cold War had proven that the you could have all the methods and manipulations of ‘total war’ without having to have (the bulk of) the actual, direct, physical warfare.
Dwight Eisenhower, like Winston Churchill another of the great figures of western history, who was supreme commander of the allied forces in world war 2 and whom later became president of the United States of America also gave a similar, but more detailed warning to the one made by Churchill, chillingly adding flesh to the bones of Winston’s warning in his 1940 “lights of perverted science” speech. It was at the end of his 2nd (and final) term as president when Eisenhower took the opportunity of his final public speech before retirement to disclose the fears that he, who had been intimately placed to observe the rising tide of global danger for at least twenty one years, had observed. It was 1961 when he spoke up and made his final, brave, address to his people. Eisenhower wisely understood that in facing the threat of internationalist communism the very tools used to fight communism themselves threatened to be an equal, or far more dreadful foe to the freedom of mankind. (God bless and keep his wise soul).
“ We face a hostile ideology, global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration.
…But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime,
…We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
…Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we, you and I, and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” (Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1.
…But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime,
…We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
…Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we, you and I, and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” (Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1.
In summary of chapter one we can make the following observations:
1. Freedom and (or through) democracy are not the ruling ideologies in the western world, unbridled capitalism is the supreme ruling Ideology. Ideologies like Democracy and Freedom are the expediencies (matters of immediate benefit, based on practical considerations of maximising output rather than principles of morality or culture) that are used to expedite the goals of the ruling reality (Unbridled Capitalism’s goal, greed) as 'conditions of output'.
2. The degree to which freedom and democracy are applied in various geographical areas under the domination of Unbridled Capitalism is dependant entirely upon the expediencies of achieving the ruling realities goal (greed). Thus the relationship betweens the state and the people is established, and similarly the relationship between nations is established, between for example a European and an African nation, or a North American and South American country, or the relationship between the countries of the E.U. in coming together to create the E.U.
These situations do not come about as a consiquence of democracy or freedom, they are entirely a consequence of the ruling reality - unbridled capitalism.
3. It is interesting to note that precisely the opposite perception of this relationship between the ruling reality and the expedient ideologies is portrayed to the public. It is widely misconceived that freedom through democracy rules (or is a ruling reality), and is facilitated by a system of bridled capitalism which is portrayed as an expedient ideology, this is completely the opposite of the actual situation which dictates the conditions of our lives, and this myth is constantly reinforced through the networks (media etc) owned or otherwise controlled by the few beneficiaries of the unbridled capitalist system (I.e. the few who own our debt and those whom for profit and power knowingly facilitate this situation - the middlemen like Tony Blair), giving the impression of a bridled rather than unbridled capitalist system, and of powerful ruling forces that support (for some reason?) ruling realities of personal freedom.
4. The unbridled capitalist system is perfectly capable of stripping away and denying your implied rights, as it does exceedingly well in the second and third world countries. You do not own those rights, they are lent to you, ostensibly by those who govern our state, but in actuality by those who own our debt.
5. When we hear that “most scientists say” this or that we must remember that ‘most scientists’ are ideological scientists, whether they know it or not or agree or not is immaterial. Ideological bias has ruled the educational system since at least 1950. We’d might as well base our political beliefs on what “most journalists say” if we are going to base our material beliefs on what most scientists say publicly. Anyone who was around in the 70’s and early 80’s will remember how at the time the myth about the integrity and trustworthiness of journalists was as prevalent as the currently assumed myth of the integrity and nobility of scientists. These myths do not withstand even cursory investigation. Competing ideologies fought for ideological control of science during the twentieth century… unbridled capitalism won - not freedom (a mere condition of output) or democracy (a manipulated sham in most western countries, like the U.K. and U.S. organised, paid for and controlled by the patrons of unbridled capitalism).
END OF CHAPTER 1
PAGE 1 p2 p3 p4 REFERENCES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 1 p2 p3 p4 REFERENCES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just the begining. We have defined the system that grants the plutocrats their worldly power. In the second part we look at the underlying nature of the system, and how it thrives on desire. We also look at the globalist cult of state granted liberty. (Available Now! Click Here to Read - "ANTI-VIRTUES - DESIRE & THE CULT OF LIBERTY" )
When we follow that with a look at the realities of global control, money creation and debt. What we reveal there is a unique understanding. Which I'll brush up and publish soon.
Doing this is hard graft. It costs a little money and a lot of time. If you want to pay me for doing this hard graft you can do that by either sending me cash, gold, silver, credit card details, diamonds, luxury goods, paid vacations, and/or a Christmas hamper tied up with a pretty bow. Or instead of doing that you can tell all your friends and family about what you've learned. You should know enough now to be able to see through the hype and interprit what's going on, it should be common sense once it's been pointed out, so help others. It's a cheaper option than the hamper you owe me if all I've done is entertained you for a couple of hours.
(lol btw. i woz being ironic)
When we follow that with a look at the realities of global control, money creation and debt. What we reveal there is a unique understanding. Which I'll brush up and publish soon.
Doing this is hard graft. It costs a little money and a lot of time. If you want to pay me for doing this hard graft you can do that by either sending me cash, gold, silver, credit card details, diamonds, luxury goods, paid vacations, and/or a Christmas hamper tied up with a pretty bow. Or instead of doing that you can tell all your friends and family about what you've learned. You should know enough now to be able to see through the hype and interprit what's going on, it should be common sense once it's been pointed out, so help others. It's a cheaper option than the hamper you owe me if all I've done is entertained you for a couple of hours.
(lol btw. i woz being ironic)
Paul J.C. Ropper: 30th April 2011: