============================================================================ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:02:32 +1000 To: •••@••.••• From: <name withheld> Subject: hello Dear Richard, I read your 'escaping the matrix' article with much interest. I saw through the farce that passes for democracy after the Australian government and media conspired to crush Pauline Hanson in a blatant and brutal show of force. For nigh on 20 years Australians saw their country sold off to foreigners without so much as a by-your-leave. Changing governments achieved nothing, but so brainwashed are people they still didn't twig to what the problem was: namely that both 'sides' of politics pursued the same policies of what we here call 'economic rationalism'. This is the familar policy of privatisations, pursuit of 'flexibility' in the labour force (ie reducing wages and conditions), selling off public assets, exporting manufacturing jobs and replacing them with dead-end part-time work in the services 'industry' (ie minding the children and cleaning the toilets of the 'winners') - - I'm sure you get the picture. Anyway. purely by accident, an outspoken, uneducated woman who derided PC was elected as an independent in a landslide victory in what had been a safe Labor seat. Her victory overjoyed the people, and set the elites into action to discredit her. This they did by accusing her of 'racism'. It worked, and she's been politically neutralised BUT the genie is out of the bottle. The Australian electorate is now very volatile seeing as one million people have left the major party fold. It is terrifying the elites, and they've even slowed down the pace of 'reform' as they know they'll get savaged. Interesting times. But unfortunately, not many people have woken up to the game, though I do my best to enlighten them. A friend of mine who lectures around the place has come to the same conclusions as you that the US deliberately promotes trouble spots around the world to justify intervention, which invariably ended up with globalist (particularly American big business) control of national assets. He included it in his talk in Osaka recently. So it's good that some of us are awake. Regards A. Ps. I thought you might like to read the following. **************** Professor Quigley and the Democratic Sham Antonia Feitz, 22/10/99 The virtues of democracy are constantly preached to the nations of the world. Yet the elites who actually run the show have made no secret of their contempt for democracy itself, and especially for the people who believe in it. Far-fetched? Not at all. Consider what US Professor Caroll Quigley thought about political parties way back in 1966. He wrote: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.... [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies".  In other words, only simpletons believe that changing the government will change government policies. Under the party political system, democracy is a total sham. It has been so for many years, and the sham is intentional. But anybody who draws attention to that fact is labelled a conspiracy theorist by the media. Journalists in the mainstream media are either unutterably stupid, or else unutterably hypocritical. Take your pick. Actually, mainstream journalists are now being exposed for the fools and/or hypocrites they really are. After all, Quigley's anti-democratic system of government is now out in the open. It's chic. It's even got a name: they call it the Third Way. All the sophisticated people of the world think the Third Way is oh so progressive. It's nothing of the sort. It's an unholy marriage between socialism and capitalism and combines the worst features of both. The two sides have divvyed up the spoils. Under the Third Way, the socialists have been licensed to exercise tyranny over people's thoughts and actions, and the capitalists have been given free rein to be as rapacious as they like with no moral or social obligations. Consider Australia. Australia has compulsory voting. Yep, you even get fined if you don't vote without a good reason, such as dying. But Australia's electoral system has been so corrupted by the major parties that election results no longer even vaguely represent the will of the people. For instance, in the last federal election in 1998, with 8.4% of the primary vote, the One Nation Party failed to win a seat in the House of Representatives. But with 5.3% of the vote, the National Party won 14 seats. True. It's that bad. This travesty only happened because the government rushed through legislation specifically designed to achieve that result. Why? Fear of the One Nation Party, which was a genuine grassroots alternative party. So faced with a rising tide of voter dissatisfaction with the major parties, the Australian parliament actually legislated to deny people their legitimate political voice. That's democratic? Yes, according to elite opinion. Britain's Tony Blair is so impressed with Australia's anti-democratic preferential voting system, he's thinking of introducing it into Britain. If Blair succeeds, he won't have to put up with those irritating independents and minor party representatives that his own country's first-past-the-post system presently delivers. The Murdoch media empire is firmly behind the push. That's surely contempt for democracy. Now let's look at the contempt for democrats themselves. Unsurprisingly, the anti-democratic Professor Quigley admired people he called aristocrats - Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt was the example he gave - and those he called semi aristocrats - such as the Rockefellers and the Kennedys. Extolling the virtues of the aristocracy, this American scholar seriously claimed that they "placed no emphasis on display of material affluence" and were "more sincere ... and less hypocritical than the middle class."  Dear reader, it might even come in handy to remember that according to Dr Quigley, you can always tell people's class from the way they treat their servants. Yep, "... the lower classes treat these as equals, the middle classes treat them as inferiors, while aristocrats treat them as equals or even superiors". . But of course! Everybody knows how the lower classes treat their servants! And no doubt the Rockefellers and Kennedys treat their servants as their superiors. Why, I for one wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn that David Rockefeller brings his chauffeur breakfast in bed! In the light of this self-deluded foolishness, one can only wonder what planet Quigley was beamed down from. In contrast to the noblesse oblige of the American aristocrats, Quigley defines the middle class by their "decisiveness, selfishness, impersonality, ruthless energy, and insatiable ambition". How odd then, that those qualities more aptly describe the semi aristocratic Kennedys and Rockefellers than the likes of your local butcher, baker or candlestick-maker. But the majority of the middle class are what Quigley called the petty bourgeoisie. Note the Marxist language. He loathed them. Eerily, he described them in terms that are reminiscent of the media's abuse of One Nation supporters thirty years later, even down to the parallel with the Nazis. According to Quigley, the petty bourgeoisie - "clerks, shopkeepers, and vast numbers of office workers" - are "very insecure, envious, filled with hatreds, and are generally the chief recruits for any Radical Right, Fascist or hate campaigns against any group that is different or which refuses to conform to middle class values". They "live in an atmosphere of envy, pettiness, insecurity, and frustration. They form the major portion of the Republican Party's supporters in the towns of America, as they did for the Nazis in Germany thirty years ago". . From this diatribe, it's easy to see why the elites fear and loathe ordinary people. For a start, through bitter experience too many of them see through the political charade, and consequently will often support a genuine grassroots opposition party if one arises. They don't play the game. For that, they are a constant threat. Interestingly, Quigley's loathing is a classic case of psychological projection because it is the likes of him who hate, not the shop-keepers and the office workers. Far from hating people who don't "conform to middle class values", they simply want to be left alone to live their lives with as little government interference as possible. It's the likes of Quigley and his intellectual heirs who insist people conform to their politically correct worldview. They are the ones who intrude into everybody's lives, telling them what to think, and even how to rear their children. They are the ones who cannot live and let live, who are incapable of minding their own business. Why? because they see themselves as superior beings whose mission in life is to guide us lesser mortals to accept their enlightened views. And if we resist, we will be forced. The plethora of anti-discrimination tribunals and human rights commissions attests to the truth of that. After the One Nation Party's experience, Australians don't need dry academic tomes to know about the elites' hatred of ordinary people. According to the mainstream media, the Party's supporters were 'whingers', 'ugly', 'troglodytes', 'racist', 'hard-core bigots', 'losers', 'village idiots'. And 'a disorganised, ratbag, white supremacist, unarticulate and dumb mob of populists and opportunists'. . This venomous bile emanated from some of Australia's media elites. So much for the much-vaunted virtue of tolerance, let alone the possibility of genuine democracy. By now, the media worldwide is well-practised in this demonization of out-siders. It's a tried-and-true technique which works like a charm. In 1964, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater's campaign for the US presidency looked very strong. Goldwater's patriotic appeal to the Republican grassroots made him a threat to the Establishment. When his political opponents failed to stop him, the Establishment sooled the media onto him in exactly the same way they did to One Nation's leader, Pauline Hanson, thirty odd years later. His views on the issues of the day were lost in a barrage of hysterical media accusations that he was 'extremist', 'racist', etc. It's all so depressingly familiar: "... the press was so violently antagonistic to Goldwater that even if they had wanted to be honest about it, it was impossible for them to be honest because they were so busy looking for weaknesses... [T]he press ... performed the function of the opposition." . And it's still happening. All over the world, grassroots parties get the same treatment, smeared as 'populist', 'racist', extremist' etc. So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. While using - no, abusing - democracy for their own advantage in securing lap-dog governments at their beck and call, the elites privately despise it. The likes of David Rockefeller, Rupert Murdoch, and Henry Kissinger are not democrats any more than Professor Carroll Quigley was. The only reason he was so frank about his opinions was because he never expected his door-stop of a book would ever be picked-up by any member of the despised petty bourgeoisie. Silly him. Like all the elites, he suffered from hubris. ******************************** 1. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: a History of the World in our Time (New York : Macmillan, 1966), p.1248. 2. Ibid., p.1241 3. Ibid., p.1243 4. Ibid., p.1243-4 5. Scott Balson, Murder By Media: Death of Democracy in Australia (Queensland : Interactive Presentations, 1999), p.3 6. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist (Salt Lake City, The Author, 1970), p.101 ************* Propaganda, Hypocrisy and the Torture Trade Antonia Feitz 23/6/99 Together with its international stablemates, the Australian newspaper has been relentless in churning out NATO propaganda. A recent gem was an article about a Serbian 'torture chamber' by a London Times' reporter, reprinted in the Weekend Australian (19-20/6/99). The alleged torture chamber had been an accommodation centre for students until the Serbian Police took it over after NATO bombed their previous headquarters. That was one of very few facts in the article. I am not disputing that torture may have been employed in this Balkans war. Or even that it was employed in one particular building. But if it has, I would hazard a guess that the KLA is as guilty as the Serbian police. These people have a long history of ferocious and merciless conflict with one another as shown in the reprisals and acts of revenge currently taking place in Kosovo. But the Times' article was classic propaganda because it failed the first duty of journalism: to report verified facts. The article was big on atmosphere and impression, but very light on facts. For example, about a seatless chair the journalist wrote: "It may be innocent; but nothing is innocent here". Of course. A broken chair cannot simply be a broken chair. It must be made to hint at something sinister. Spotting a baby shoe in a pile of 'sodden clothing' he asked: "Is it possible that they tortured babies, too, in this hole?" Torturing babies? Why? - they can't supply information about KLA movements. Even if - as horrible as it is to even think such a thing - the Serbs tortured babies to extract information from their parents, the writer had no proof nor even any allegation that such barbarism ever happened. Instead he asked a rhetorical question to thoroughly demonise the Serbs. In doing so, he has prostituted responsible journalism to crude propaganda. Because of the presence of 'pornographic' magazines and packets of condoms in one room, he surmised that this was the scene of the 'mass rapes'. Such thoughtfulness on the part of the Serbian 'rapists' seems quite out of character if not completely bizarre. Safe sex rapists? After all, in the previous mass rape allegations in Bosnia - never proven, and never retracted by the Western press - the Bosnian women claimed to have been deliberately made pregnant so that Serbian blood would pollute their race. With no hard facts at hand he made do with fantasy: "The whole building has been trashed. But even ordinary office rooms tell a tale. In one room there is a chainsaw. It looks as if it has been used." On hapless Albanians is the implication, suggesting the Serbs were into chainsaw massacres. This is not journalism because the first rule of journalism, as it is in academic writing, is to verify and source your facts. This article is creative writing and a pretty poor example at that. If people were tortured in that building, that is terrible and must be condemned. But when a critical reader is still none the wiser about the alleged torture after reading the article, it's clear that it was propaganda, not responsible journalism. Torture is never a pretty subject. But the Balkans war has highlighted the hypocrisy of the governments of the NATO countries with regard to it. On the one hand they condemn it, and on the other, they profit from it. Europe and the US are the major manufacturers and exporters of torture equipment. The US particularly enjoys a brisk trade in torture technology. A chilling report for the European Parliament titled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control" (1998), lists the police torture exports licensed by the US Commerce Department 1991-1993. Interestingly Yugoslavia was one of the very few countries of the world that did not appear as a customer on the list of 110 countries. Every tin-pot dictatorship in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe was on the list, along with most of the more 'respectable' nations, including Australia. So much for humanitarian principles. US companies freely advertise thumbcuffs, thumbscrews, leg irons and shackles, whips, electroshock devices, suspension equipment, immobilisation guns, shock batons and even 'specially designed implements of torture'. And as noted, they don't care where they go. Business is business. But that's old fashioned stuff. Research in torture technology and crowd control is booming in US nuclear laboratories such as Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. Thanks to their research, the world's police forces already have available for 'crowd control' such devices as ultra-sound generators which cause disorientation, vomiting, involuntary defecation, and disturbance of the ear thus causing loss of balance. Apparently the system which uses two speakers can target individuals in a crowd. Handy to nab the ring-leaders. And that's just for starters. Among the exciting new toys for the world's police are human capture nets which can be laced with chemical irritants, or even electrified to pack an extra punch. There's a foam-spreading gun with the fun name of 'lick 'em and stick 'em technology' which glues people's hand and feet to the footpath. There are foams with pepper spray; there are blinding laser weapons; there are microwave and acoustic disabling systems. R & D in the US and Europe is directed towards developing more efficient 'mark-free' interrogation and torture techniques and technologies. These 'technologies' have been developed for crowd control, but Amnesty International is not alone in claiming they are being used for torture. In any case, nothing better illustrates the tyrannical nature of most governments than the fact they plan to use such crowd control systems on their own citizens. And they do. Under the guise of prison discipline, the US tortures its own citizens according to the previously mentioned report which documented the use of the Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) stunbelt on US prisoners. The belt can be activated from 300 feet away and inflicts a 50,000 volt shock for 8 seconds. The high-pulsed current enters the prisoner's left kidney and travels along the blood channels and nerve pathways. As targeted prisoners lose control of bladder and bowel functions, the makers proudly promote the belt for its "total psychological supremacy" of prisoners. Indeed. The prospect of being made to involuntarily defecate and urinate in public is not something most people would risk. There can be no doubt these US 'researchers' are the moral equivalents the Nazi scientists in WW2. As of 1996, sixteen US state correctional agencies had obtained these appalling and degrading devices. Stun Tech of Cleveland Ohio wants the belts introduced into the chain gangs of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana. Yes, Virginia, the 'humanitarian' US has re-introduced chain gangs too. There's not much in the mainstream media about that either. Because of its massive incarceration rate, the US increasingly 'warehouses' its prisoners in huge complexes. With the privatisation of prisons, cost constraints are paramount and simple control has increasingly replaced any idea of rehabilitation. Judge Thelton E. Henderson reported that prison officers at the huge Pelican Bay prison in California - with a population of 3,000 inmates - routinely assaulted prisoners in their cells with batons and high voltage taser guns. As well, they chained them in 'fetal restraints' - wrists bound to ankles - for 22 hours a day. This happened as recently as 1995. This brutality was even encouraged by the prison management as effective in maintaining discipline. US prisons also use drugs for immobilising inmates - and for testing. In the trade this is called 'liquid cosh'. The drugs range from tranquillisers and anti-depressants to powerful hypnotics and drugs which produce fear and pain which are used in 'aversion therapy' to induce behaviour modification. The report noted that US prisons are the "new laboratories for developing the next generation of drugs for social reprogramming". The pharmacology labs of the universities and the military produce "scores of new psychoactive drugs each year". The EU parliament has expressed concerns that with the increasing privatisation of prisons in Britain and Europe, such alien 'management' techniques will replace the Europeans' more benign approach. They fear that big US consortiums will take over the running of prisons worldwide, and that subsequently there will be very little government scrutiny of their operations. It's obvious that all the media talk about Serbian savagery is sanctimonious cant. Though no excuse, at least the Serbs fought, and maybe tortured in hot blood for a cause they believed in: the independence of their country. The merchants of torture are far greater savages, dealing as they do in the infliction of pain on unknown human beings for nothing more than profit. It's clear that the 'humanitarian' leaders of NATO and the dutiful mainstream media are absolute hypocrites. ============================================================================ Richard K Moore Wexford, Ireland Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance email: •••@••.••• CDR website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/ featured article: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Whole_Earth_Review/Escaping_the_Matrix.shtml A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .