Hi Janet, thanks for your well-considered response. You cover a lot of ground, so I’m breaking this up, topic by topic.
Janet Eaton wrote:
Good to hear from you !!
Agree with you about decentralization in general given how power has played out in the EU – I think Yanis V harkens back though to hopes and aspirations of the early days of the EU when many did not foresee the puppeteers intentions behind the drama being played out. Once the European Commission took charge – the countries and their Parliaments seems to have been emasculated and democracy diminished if not stymied. And the Euro was so ill conceived with no thought to what would happen in a recession – and nothing to control the troika type arrangement from usurping power over countries like Greece – what a tragedy and travesty and mockery of governance. How they get away with austerity as a policy is beyond countenance.
That’s a very good sketch of the problems built into the EU. I was in France in the summer of ‘91, when the big push to adopt Maastricht was in full swing. Based on the omnipresent PR-savvy ads, and the deceptive editorial narrative in the press, I came to the preliminary conclusion that a coup was underway. Europe was being sold down the river to a centralized regime whose motives and intentions were not being revealed. This preliminary conclusion has been abundantly verified by subsequent events. As regards the various crises now being faced by the EU, which you accurately outline, I concur with this four-time President:
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
So the question we need to be considering – if we want to understand the dynamics of our situation – is: what Big Agenda is being served by the collection of dysfunctional policies that are being followed. What purpose was served by the collapse of 2008? Why is it necessary to create so many failed states? Why is it important to demonize Russia? etc. etc.
Today on Social Europe website which pumps out two or three analyses a day from fairly reputable economists including Yanis Varoufakis they were musing about possibility of a German exit and why it might be possible – I have not read it carefully but it would be a game changer I think if it ever happened. .
There are of course many scenarios one might imagine. We tend to be drawn to the ones that we find desirable, or perhaps to the ones that we fear. But if we want to identify likely scenarios, we need to have some understanding of the Big Agenda. Part of that Big Agenda, and I think you’d agree with me on this, is the undermining of the nation state and national sovereignty. The EU as-is serves this agenda very well. A Germany freed from the EU does not serve that agenda. So I think it’s a very unlikely outcome. More likely Germany will soon suffer the same fate as Greece. We need to keep in mind that Merkel was a political nobody until she was put forward at a Bilderberger meeting, and then propelled into the Chancellorship. Her loyalties are to the globalists, not the German state.
Also agree that Chomsky does not do the analysis of who’s behind the present leaders- which is too bad- I wonder if he stops where he does intentionally so as to be listened to assuming if he goes too far and is perceived as being too radical he might lose crucial audiences not to mention that traditional socialists don’t’ consider anything that wreaks of conspiracy theories.
That is the big question with Chomsky, is he sincere about where he draws the line on ‘what is possible’. The reason we care is that Chomsky has great prestige – he is seen by legions of liberals as a kind of hero, one who cogently and fearlessly repudiates mainstream lies. His dismissal of ‘conspiracy theories’ is very helpful in maintaining that same dismissive attitude among his followers. The net effect is that he is serving elite interests, by keeping his followers heads buried in the sand. This is why his detractors accuse him of being a ‘gatekeeper’ – one who uses his prestige to proclaim, “It’s OK to go this far, but beyond here lay dragons”.
I think it is important to the overall propaganda regime that this scenario continue. If Chomsky were to rock the boat he would no longer be tolerated as a public figure. There are many ways they can bring someone down and destroy their career and reputation.
My guess, however, is that the limitations in Chomsky’s perspective are simply a result of him being an academic. Academics tend to stake out a conceptual territory, with boundaries, and then commit the rest of their lives to defending that territory. It’s a very powerful phenomenon, and is the main reason why so many fields of science are stuck in cul de sacs of outdated assumptions. Evidently Chomsky has internalized a model of the political world, where actors follow understood patterns, and there’s no room in that model for certain kinds of intentional manipulation. Like any academic, he strives always to prove that his model is sufficient to explain whatever’s going on.
Like former Liberal Cabinet Minister under first Trudeau – Paul Hellyer – who does a powerful analysis of how monetary and fiscal policy has been manipulated by the private banks and BIS and talked about the Bilderbergers and powers behind the scenes from his earliest books and writings – but also tends to go on as well about UFOs with warnings and descriptions of what he saw as Defense Minister i.e what he was shown by the Pentagon or Dept of Defense- described in his latest book The Money Mafia if you haven’t seen it yet. -which has tended to limit his audience and perceived credibility.
In his case he gets little traction with anyone except a few followers who are campaigning in Canada for a return to the Bank of Canada suggesting it could spend money into the economy without inflation and without having to borrow from Private banks etc much like Positive Money movement in Britain is campaigning for- and he founded the Canadian Action Party which made a noble effort to warn against US policies in trade, finances, foreign policy etc. He was discredited because of his far out policy suggestion about banking from earliest days and later from his attempts to tell people what he had seen and heard about aliens.
Very interesting. Chomsky is tolerated because he stops short of the forbidden, while Hellyer, it seems, is tolerated because he links the forbidden with the crazy. Apart from the negligible few who continue to follow Hellyer, his net effect is to encourage people to dismiss ‘banker cabals’ as being in the same category as aliens, tin hats, and UFOs. Once again it seems that elite interests are being served.
Interesting because I just heard on the news something about Hilary opening up the files on UFO’s if she’s elected President. – this may be because of what Hellyer was warning about- that citizens need to know about. Hellyer says in Money Mafia that there is a separate high level almost quasi government group but independent from the government with ex- military and others who oversee this file and I think he was trying to get some oversight on this. Eisenhaur insisted on learning more about it e.g. Hellyer says he maintained communication with some of these people in know in the US whom he’d known since his days when he wa Minister of Defense. Many people say the reason the US supports and allows films on UFOs and aliens to go ahead is to prepare the American people-
OK, you bring up a whole new angle. Above, I was referring to UFOs as something most people consider crazy. Now you’re bringing in the possibility that this public perception is scheduled to be changed. I’ve seen a lot of material along those lines, from different viewpoints.
There are two main lines of thought, as regards the source of UFO technology – aliens and Tesla. Either can provide an explanation for UFOs, but only aliens could explain recovered bodies. However, recovered bodies we never get to see, unless you want to count Spielberg-type fantasies. I watched many hours of a prestigious Disclosure conference and all we got was hearsay – people who knew people who allegedly said they caught a glimpse of alien remains.
Personally I can’t see any sense behind a fleet of Star Trek vehicles buzzing around a planet like hot teenage hot-rodders, year after year, and not actually getting on with whatever mission brought them to the planet. I think the Tesla scenario is by far the more likely one. The Germans made significant progress during WW2, and the scientists that weren’t carted off to the Soviet Union were smuggled into the US. Since then we’ve had a total information blackout regarding the further development of that technology. Every other German technology, from missiles to tape recorders, has been eagerly pursued in the ensuing decades. Tesla’s technology was by far the most exciting and there is no way it would have been abandoned.
Is there going to be an official public disclosure event of some kind? I think you are right, that many signs indicate we are being prepared for one. If so, and if UFOs are products of terrestrial Tesla technology, then the disclosure will be hi-tech theater, and its purpose will be to advance the Big Agenda. That agenda is of course mainly about creating an elite-controlled world government – thus providing a platform for ongoing social and eugenic engineering, shades of Brave New World.
How could a fabricated disclosure event best contribute to such an agenda? We can be sure that the top creative skills of Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and CIA mind-control would be brought to bear in the production, hence the emphasis on best. One way or another, it will be about ‘bringing the world together’, the kind of energy portrayed in the film, Independence Day.
Unlike that film, however, I don’t think it would be about gathering the wagons against an external threat. More effective in the long run would be something positive, something that inspires a global identity rather than coercing it. A benevolent Galactic Federation could fit well in such a scenario. Just as the angels appeared to the shepherds, bringing them good tidings, audio-enhanced holographic images in the sky could ‘reveal to you Earthlings’ the eternal galactic truths. Something that inspires faith in some version of benevolent centralized authority.
Hope Paul Hellyer [now in his nineties] lives to see the day that the US files are opened to restore his credibility. – He’s still giving his money talks but at end feels he has to throw in the part about the aliens – based as i noted on things he was exposed to as Cdn Defense Minister.
Any way all to suggest that maybe Noam knows more than we think and feels he can get more people to listen if he doesn’t sound too conspiratorial but the time is coming when we are getting closer to such revelations I think. Hellyer in his book makes it sound as if in his aging years he just had to tell about what he knew and that it had to be known – because there is some kind of interplanetary quasi government system out there among other humanoid like beings from other planetary realms. .
Not sure what to make of it but it makes for interesting reading- And Paul Hellyer is not out to lunch -I have a close friend who knows him well.
If there is truth in it we now have another layer of control that people certainly wouldn’t be able to get their heads around- our government puppets, The puppeteers, and the interplanetary empires – don’t they say that science fiction presages realities.
LISTEN TO THIS RICHARD !!] One of the most insightful analysis of those behind the scenes- Financial and Military Industrial Complex- about 36 minutes- well worth it !
THE DARK CABAL. Full Disclosure Paul T Hellyer Former Canadian Minister of National
He says in end we have months not years to get it right-recorded March 2015
He even mentions the TPP
anyway good to hear from you.
Good to hear from you as well, and thanks for the additional observations. We seem to be pretty much in agreement on most things – so far.
p.s I’m helping to found a Transition town group here in my area in Nova Scotia for what its worth- At least it offers the chance to bring awareness about the realities.of climate chaos descending upon us and necessity of shifting immediately from the dominant fossil fuel fed economic paradigm and opportunity to decide what communities want to do in terms of survival long term !
Just read part of book on line – Green Capitalism – The God that Failed.
and read through a very good on line blog called Radio Eco Shock which stays pretty up to date- will post something on both soon. .
Ah, lovely Nova Scotia. I’ll never forget the tour I got back in ’98, graciously hosted by Jan Slakov (aka rebel jan). I got to meet you, Bruna Nota, and others who were leading lights the anti-globalization movement. That marked the beginning of my own search for a viable transformational paradigm. It’s interesting that we now have Transition Towns, but not much in the way of Transition Cities. It’s cities that most need a transition plan, mainly in the direction of dismantling themselves and seeking ways to de-urbanize, to return to the land, to repopulate the countryside in an eco-balanced way.
You bring up climate change. Concern over climate change has become the existential issue for activists and citizens all over the world. The level of concern, the desperation, is very much like the feelings we had during the Cold War, when we believed we were always just a radar-blip away from nuclear extinction.
I suppose the beginning of the widespread concern began with Al Gore’s film, An Unpleasant Truth. From there the concern has been fed by countless nature documentaries, and by frequent media reports of rising sea levels, desperate polar bears, hottest days on record, and heartless oil companies. What’s there to talk about, the science is settled. Either you’re concerned about climate change, or you’re a head-in-the-sand climate denier, or you don’t believe in science, or else you’re in the pay of the oil companies. End of story. But as they say in my favorite song from Porgy and Bess, “It Ain’t necessarily so”.
Does it not raise suspicion when what seems to be an anti-establishment message is trumpeted from so many bullhorns? Is this a grassroots movement or is it being led from above? If it’s really anti-establishment then why isn’t the media propaganda being better managed, as it is in every other area of our lives, from foreign policy to chemtrails to vaccines? Why aren’t climate-change worriers being labeled by pundits as delusional, along with chemtrail activists and vaccine refuseniks? What’s wrong with this picture? Why are we being inundated with sentiments that seem to oppose the established regime and the profits of the supposedly all-powerful corporations?
Again, rather than speculating randomly, it makes sense to refer to the Big Agenda, i.e. a technocratic world government. Climate hysteria has succeeded in channeling all concerns about the environment into a single priority – the reduction of carbon combustion, which implies the reduction of energy consumption generally. In other words, whether people realize it or not, they are campaigning for energy rationing. What better way to micromanage the affairs of the world? In the interests of the Earth, you are allowed one lukewarm shower per week, to be monitored by your smart meter. Technocracy – the centralized management and distribution of resources, based on the ’the greatest good for the greatest number’, as determined by ‘the experts’, and even more by those who pay their salaries. One should never forget the maxim, “Be careful what you wish for”.
As for the so-called science, it’s all bogus. In Gore’s film, for example, he shifted the graph, so that it showed CO2 increasing prior to temperature increases. In fact, temperature increases precede CO2 increases, in the long-term record. I carried out my own climate study, based not on what anyone claimed, but on the actual historical temperature data, going back many thousands of years. It turns out that CO2 has no noticeable effect on climate, as you would expect from a trace gas. We had 200 years of warming, and that was expected, based on the long-term pattern. It has now turned around, and we’re in for 200 years of equally-rapid cooling. That’s why the folks at East Anglia were caught trying to “hide the decline”. Here are two articles I published on the subject:
The fascinating thing, from a mind-control perspective, is how such a Big Lie, presumably based on science, can be turned into a mass consensus. Obviously there cannot be any grand conspiracy that includes all scientists. So how does it work? As regards the general public, they’re a piece of cake; they respond to Gore, and they respond to the constant media propaganda. As usual, they believe whatever they’re told repeatedly. As regards scientists, the story is a bit more interesting.
As we all know, scientists divide themselves into specialties. There are very few who actually specialize in climate science. The rest look to the few for judgments about climate, just as they look to geneticists for judgments about genetics. Most scientists have no more understanding of climate than the public has. So it’s only necessary to get control over certain research centers, and over the editorial policies of certain journals. From that base of operations emerged the famous ‘climate models’, which are based on the false assumption that temperature rises in line with CO2 concentration. Meanwhile, CO2 levels are in fact increasing.
Once the models were given official blessing by the corrupt IPPC, as regards climate truth, then the funding floodgates opened. A scientist could get a grant for his research, as long as the title was of the form, “The effect of climate change on X”. The pseudo models, plus the fact of rising CO2, transforms such a meaningless piece of research into ‘yet another alarm bell’. It is no surprise that activists would rally in response to the apparent dangers.
This has been going on long enough now that we’ve passed a certain mind-control threshold. Besides being politically incorrect, it has now become a sign of mental imbalance, or retardation, to be a ‘denier’. It’s scary how easy it is to control the minds of populations.