January 31, 1997 Missy Kelly
(Concerning the Third Way)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a487891.htm
[Miss Kelly - If you ever see this posting, please contact me. I wish to give you proper credit for a profound article. I also wish to obtain your permission to post this article. I hope I have not offended you.
Forest Glen Durland]
[In his January 27th {1997 ?} article for the Wall Street Journal (click for ALEXANDER LEBED on RUSSIA ) ] Lebed laments that the "formation of a middle class the guarantor of stability and positive change everywhere has been postponed or even halted." There will be no middle class in the Third Way. The Middle class is what sustains and nourishes a democracy. The middle class is the "guarantor of stability and positive change everywhere," as Lebed says. Communism does not include a middle class, by philosophy. If we are to move to the Third Way in this country, the middle class will need to be destroyed.
Think about this idea in context with events in this country over the last 20 years. Has the lifestyle and opportunity of the middle class changed? The figures show that middle class incomes, adjusted for inflation, have stagnated since the late 1970's...that's my entire adult life.
The lifestyle I could afford as a newbie out of college is pretty much the lifestyle the I have now...my lot in life has been, sort of, the status quo. Of course, now I am trying to feed 5 mouths instead of 2, on the same amount of money, so actually by my particular circumstances, I have actually lowered my lifestyle. Further, with corporate downsizing, my experience has been the past 5 years has been NO raises at all, and every year we have had to pay a higher and higher share for our "benefits"...and this from a company which is the third largest in the nation in its field. In REAL terms, in the last 5 years, my family has experienced a more than 20% drop in REAL INCOME, while paying more of the disposable income towards "benefits" and taxes. In the end, the money left over to take with me to the grocery store has shrunk more than 25%. But that's just my personal experience. However, does this resonate with other middleclass Americans? Yes, it does.
We have not been able to sustain our standard of living beacuse the middle class is slowly being destroyed. How did we fight against this slow disolution of the middle class standards? We refused to give up our standard of living and sent our mothers into the work force to prop up our incomes. No longer can a family be supported on one wage earner, if we hope to retain our standard of living. And being a stubborn lot, who expect, and want and hope for more than the average Communist citizen has. We kick back at our changing fortunes by sending all parents into the workforce, leaving our children to be raised by others.
We hold onto our dreams of the middle class life, despite the odds and the evidence.
And it is this tenacity that that makes us harder to move across the bridge to the Third Way. As I said earlier, it is far easier to move Russia, than to move us. We will not give up our freedoms easily, no matter how slowly they take them away. The day will come when the line is crossed, and people will see and feel the shackles on their ankles. But it will be too late. The repressive forces will have already been put in place, and the uprising will be short. Bill Bennett and Sam Nunn recently were given money by the Carnegie Foundation to study the "disquiet" in America: their distrust of the government, their disgust with politics, and their disgust with the general decline in society. In my opinion this study was undertaken to gauge the pace...are we moving too fast towards the Third Way? Are the people getting suspicious? Just how angry are they? Should we worry? Should we slow down? Is the populace still clueless enough, compliant enough, that we can start making the larger changes? Like a teacher taking stock of her students before moving into the next chapter, I suspect this study was granted for the same purpose. Now, understand, the Carnegie Foundation, as well as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have been funding the slow, inexorable movement in the United States towards the Third Way for more than half a century. [see WSJ 10/25/96 for a brief, but excellent overview of their influence and how the wield it]. But back to Bennett and Nunn. The results of the study showed only 32% of the respondents had a 'great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the federal government. Conversely, 68 % do NOT have confidence in their government. 78% believe that "our leaders are more concerned with managing their images than with solving our nation's problems." Looking at it another way, you see 78% of the American people do NOT think their GOVERNMENT LEADERS are RESPONSIVE to their CONCERNS. Since that is the basis for a democracy..electing leaders who represent the citizens and their concerns, does this suggest to you that perhaps citizens feel their voice has been removed from the governing process? In an alleged republic/democracy this is stunning. Do these results mean that 78% are actually saying the republic doesn't exist? Not in so many words because the citizen is still clueless...they really don't know what to make of all this; they just know it isn't working the way it was designed to, the way it was supposed to. Foreign Arms dealers from enemy nations have a louder voice than an American citizen. Bankers, CEO's, multi-nationals, big business can get heard, but not the man in Topeka who calls his congressperson. We see but we don't see. We see it, but don't understand what is going on. Perhaps the single most important finding was this: The pessimism, the disaffection is NOT held mostly by the poor and minorities, but by the White Middle Class." Of course. The poor and minorities have increasingly been recipients of the social contracts of communism; the government "father figure" who gives all; while it is the middle class that is indeed under seige. They know it too. They pay and pay and pay but get nothing in return. Everybody seems to get something except the great masses of the middle class. They can't quite put their finger on it, but it resonates in the breastbones. They fight the lousy education system that keeps their children dumb; they fight the "takings" bureaucracy of Washington that dictates their land use; they fight the cultural garbage that spews out of their TV's at 8PM every night, and in graphicly violent movies; they battle the courts as they single handedly negate their votes on State iniatives; they battle the radical environmentalists who erode their property rights; they fret over our national security, the security of their children, as the voice of big business over-rides the voice of national security concerns. Over and over, in a relentless tide, a relentless onslaught, they see battlefronts at every turn. Every principle they hold dear is being attacked on an plethora of fronts. It is NOT coincidence that those who engage specifically in one of these battles... be they involved in educational issues, or land-takings, or culural decline, all say the same thing, irregardless of the battle they have engaged: "The results of THIS battle bode ILL FOR DEMOCRACY." Even though they are looking at only one battlefront, they are correct: what is being forced down out throats by fiat, and non-legislative bodies, DOES BODE ILL FOR DEMOCRACY. Now step back and look at ALL the battles being waged..they ALL bode ill for democracy. Because Democracy is Under Seige. Our nation is under seige. The battle to undermine our democracy so as to move us to embrace the Third Way is everywhere. And no, it is not a conspiracy. There are a precious few who understand the true goals. But there are minions who unwittingly do their bidding, not understanding how their actions fit into the total picture. The common factor here is the cultivation of myopic ideologues. Single issue persons who see the world defined only in terms of their ideology on a particular issue. For a true ideologue, the ends justifies the means, morality is fungible, facts don't matter. Playing outside the rules of civilized society is acceptable to them in their quest to impose their ideological viewpoint on others. Look at the fervent Anti-communists of our past. For them, there was no greater evil than the scourge of Communism, and the ends justified the means...even if the means were illegal, reprehensible, morally insupportable. I think of the Nugan Hand Bank failure in Australia as a classic example. There were extremely high ranking military men intimately involved in all aspects of this narco/money laundering/arms dealing/ banking operation. If you read their resumes, you would be stunned. By any definition one would have claimed they were great American patriots. How could they have been involved is such horrible business, that in the end only served to HARM the American people? For years I couldn't "get it". I do, now. They were ardent, "the ends-justify-the means" ideologues. Deal in drug trafficking to the United States? Well, not pretty but we need the money to get those nasty communists. So what if American kids get hooked on the stuff..the are just casualties of a larger war, dontcha' know, and besides, they were probably the weak sisters of society anyway. Did these ideologues realize what their actions were fostering? Did they contemplate the full ramifications of their actions? Rising drug use, and the associate crime brought down on our society? Did they even think that far? Probably not. And if they did, remember, they assuaged their consciences with "the ends justified the means," and "for the greater good."
So, the Third Way-ers, which I call Flagship, cultivate, groom, promote, finance, and insinuate these myopic ideologues, be they "corporate suprapragmetists" in search of the almighty dollar, " radical environmentalists", disarmament [both local and global], etc. And the ideologues take it from there, never really understanding, or quessing how their role chips away the old culture/government to ready it for the new Third way. And of course the supreme brilliance and yes, even irony of this situation is how Flagship can get very diverse groups to do their bidding: groups with philosphies diametrically opposed, not just to Flagship, but to each other. When one 'unwitting hand" of Flagship bites another "unwitting hand" of Flagship I can only chuckle. For example, when the environmentalists were barking recently at the World Bank! They don't even know they serve the same master, and the same agenda...and agenda that will in the end destroy their own "ideological agendas." It is too ironic that the radical environmentalists are fostering an agenda which will impose a form of Communism on us all. Who has the worst record on environmental isues in the world? Why, of course, Communist regimes. Won't they be surprised when the Third Way is complete, and they get this: Thanks for helping us devolve the United States of America through your work which undermined private property rights. Now, enough of you, the door is over there.... The same is true of the corporate suprapragmatist [CS] that Safire wrote about on October 21, 1996. I could write pages on this, but I will limit this to the bottomline. The influence of the CS over foreign policy, to the neglect of the interests of the American people, was set in motion in all seriousness nearly 80 years ago. The founders, and the ones who are the top dogs in this scheme are not believers in democracy, never lived their lives in concert with democratic ideals, nor conducted their business within this framework. On the contrary, they all had distain for democracy, and the 'middle class" and their values. They were appalled that common people would actually try to involve themselves in the governing of this nation...the great unwashed masses as it were. They were/are men with self-annointed "Gravitas". Gravitas is a difficult concept to describe. Author Kai Bird, in his biography of John J. McCloy wrote: "Certain men had it, that 'weight of judgement',' that ability of honest, objective appraissal. They need not be brilliant, and they must not be creatures of any ideological doctrine. Both brilliance and ideology got in the way of objectivity....These few men of gravitas were ENTITLED to the public trust for ONLY THEY were capable of dealing with the 'imponderables' of public policy." They believe that they have superior intellect, and therefore have the right, nay the responsibility, [their hubris knows no bounds] to decide the life decisions for the more "intellectually challenged."
As noted earlier, gravitas is not a concept supportive of democratic ideals nor the ideals set forth in our constitution [All men are created equal...]. Furthermore, if the crucial element of "gravitas" is non-ideology, just WHAT framework do they use to ejudicate decisions? When faced with a decision: A or B? : there has to be some framework applied to determine which is the better choice. Most people ejudicate based on a moral framework, formed from life experience and societal norms. Those of gravitas are not supposed to have an ideology, ie. a moral framework. So what are the determinents that they use to decide between choice A and B? Since they impugn a moral framework from which to make decisions, they must be operating under some other kind of framework: an amoral set of decision making factors. They ejudicate using a substitute framework: Money and Power. And the ends justify the means, because morality is not part of the ejudicating process.
I would submit to you that this is their greatest strength, and their greatest weakness. The strength, of course, is that they can commit heinous acts with no conscience. It also serves as great cover. For years I kept seeing events, and facts, all strung out like pearls on a necklace. I knew that the facts were true. But the WHY? continually escaped me. "I know they did this, and this is what happened, but why did they do it?" My problem was very simple: I kept looking at these scandals, searching for answers, from within my own moral framework. "Why would agents of our government knowingly assist in the importation of illegal narcotics into the United States of America?" My own morality blinded me to the answers.
But it is also a weakness. The weakness is, once one understands this, it makes it precious simple to predict their actions. When faced with a conundrum, I say to myself, now, drop your moral framework on the floor. Remember: the ends justify the means, and look at what their agenda is. If you were them what would you do? The answers are pretty obvious. And this is another reason why so many people think I have some sort of crsytal ball. On the contrary, I know how they think, what they hope to achieve, and therefore can predict with alarming accuracy what they will do.
But there may be even more to this crowd of CS movers and shakers. The most influential CS gentleman of this century, John J. McCloy, head of the Chase Manhattan Bank, Armand Hammer's lawyer, lawyer for the 7-Sisters oil companies, head of the World Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation and Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, undersecretary of War under Stimson [FDR], Member of the Warren Commission and one of LBJ's 'Wise Men', was accused by J. Edgar Hoover as being a Communist spy. Further, in a mole hunt of the same period, the FBI's information pointed strongly to yet another CS top dog: Averill Harriman. Eventually they realized it was Armand Hammer, but the FBI never trusted Harriman. To them the question was is he a card carrying communist, or just a communist sympathizer? When you look at this elite circle of CS from this time period, [and yes, even today], there was clearly, and consistently evidence that many were involved with communists, and sympathized with them, particularly in regards to keeping the rabble at bay. These CS all belonged to the same clubs, the same organizations. They exerted extraordinary influence of government policy, even though they were, mere citizens. Their careers moved fluently between multi-national corporations, government positions, and back again. They were wealthy and powerful.
The circle of clubs they belonged to were secretive and select. In the early 1970's some of these organizations made a move to expand their membership, and become less secretive as the spotlight started to glare on the extraordinary influence these ostensible "citizens" had on government. The ranks were filled with opinion makers. But it was a ruse. The truth is the secretive, and formative "few", while opening up the 'ranks" and appearring to be less secretive, in fact merely created "inner circles" within these organizations where the top dogs still reigned supremem, and called the shots. In the 1980's the CS who subscribe to Flagship, expanded even more. They decentralized. While most of the influential CS organizations had heretofore been located solely in NY and DC, like-minded organizations were spun off to California, Texas, and a few other cities. I must add, again, the bulk of the CS are not privy to the agenda of Flagship, but serve only as unwitting tools, blinded by their own ideological myopia: money and power.
The tools of influence are varied, and in some respects frightening simple. It's the dynamics of the 8th grade classroom. Want to be cool? Then you have to act like the cool group...think like they do, believe what they believe. It's the age old human business of "wannabes." Bob Bartley at the WSJ discussed this concept in his editorial: "Consensus: The Enemy of the News", and how these subtle but effective weapons of conformity, and a desire to fit in are subverted to the point that the free exchange of reporting is narrowed to speific viewpoints, and topics.
So people are "invited" into the "cool crowd" and their organizations, where they are told what the "cool crowd" thinks, and believes. And these unwitting wannabes go back to their desk jobs as undersecretary, or editor, publisher or corporate executive, and parrot the line. It could simply be defined as GROUP THINK, or more appropriately, perhaps, the lack of independent thought. It is the "inner council" of these groups who direct the flow, not the members. They are merely the recipients of these pysch-ops. Briefly, and certainly not fully, let me give you some examples. The foundations fund "professorship" chairs. The grants put like minded persons at colleges across the country, and generation after generation are taught the "aquired tastes" according Flagship. They fund "social-educational programs" and place their agenda into schools. Flagship identifies and trains "up and coming leaders", mentors them, guides their careers, assures they get publicity, and then uses their influence to place them in the government as "under secretary of this, or that". Remember Clinton's mentor, Carroll Quigley? His research involved the Rhodes-Milner group, as in Rhodes Scholars. Bill has many Rhodes scholars serving him as president. "The function of the Rhodes scholarships was to identify future leaders, INSTILL them with COMMON values at Oxford and send them back to their native colonies where they could SPREAD these ACQUIRED tastes," said writer Jim Martin, a Quigley fan. This is how the Third Way infiltrates and influences the movement towards the Third Way by subverting our nation from within. These men and women, and others groomed by other organizations, are "instilled' with the Third way, then sent out to spread these acquired tastes..as LEADERS. And if you don't think there is a hand that guides them into leadership positions, think again. A pool of "potentials" is formed, 'instilled' to a certain point of view. Those who accept the brainswashing, are winnowed out as the next crop of leaders whose careers will be carefully watched and managed. They will be promoted in the press. They will be invited into elite organizations and groomed. If John Y. Brown hadn't gone down in flames in a drug scandal in Kentucky a decade ago, for example, we would have had President Brown. But he did, so we got another horse from the stable: President Bill.
Here's a small example: Louis Freeh. Louis Freeh worked for the FBI for a couple of years in cases that were prosecuted by the US Attorney of Southern District of New York, Robert Fiske. [The DOJ's Southern District of New York [SDNY] is one of the most powerful breeding grounds for Flagship]. Then Freeh traveled to DC to work aside Sam Nunn, still as an FBI agent. Then Freeh became a DOJ lawyer with the Southern District of New York...then under Rudy Guiliani. In 1990, a very odd thing occurred in Freeh's life. Merely an assistant DOJ lawyer at the SDNY, he was tapped by President Bush's attorney general Thornburgh to be a special prosecutor in the high profile mail bombings in Alabama, known as Van-Pac. Freeh took his good buddy from the SDNY, Howard Shapiro with him. [You know Howard Shapiro? Freeh broke long-standing FBI tradtion by placing DOJ laywer Howard Shapiro as chief counsel to the FBI when Freeh took over...a job traditionally held by an FBI careerists.]
So Freeh went down, and VOILA! In a stunning stroke of brilliance he, he succeeded where others had failed: The FBI had fingered one guy, the ATF another. Freeh sided with the ATF and prosecuted the case, and won...not just the case, but a bit of prominence. A careful reading of the Van-Pac case leaves one feeling that justice wasn't really served. So it was of no surprise to me when FBI agent Whitehurst went public with accusations against the FBI crime lab for manufacturing evidence, and specifically targeting the Van-Pac case as one of the more heinous examples. The man who was incarcerated by Freeh on this tainted evidence won a new trial shortly after Whitehurst went public. As far as I know, it's still churning though the system. Was the evidence tampered with to provide a "profile WIN" for Louis Freeh? I would suggest to you very strongly that was, indeed, the case.
Suddenly, Freeh "jumped from an assistant US attorney to a judge and that's almost unheard of," said Rogers Abrahms. He was quoted in another bit of unbelieveable theater:
When Freeh as given this small court judgeship of no prominence, in a civil court, while Freeh's experience had been in criminal law [like Jamie Gorelick's appointment to the DOJ #2 slot] US News and World Report suddenly found this emminiently newsworthy and dedicated an entire page in their national magazine to Louis Freeh in an article on 10 new 'up and comers". To jump from asst. prosecutor to judgeship is pretty rare...to get a civil court judgeship when your experience is in criminal law, is pretty rare...to get national press, for a young lawyer, serving in a no- account court-room, in a national publication, smacks of something else. He was being groomed.
And in the end, when he was appointed Director of the FBI the same day that Vincent Foster was found dead at Fort Marcy Park, the press headlines screamed: "FBI-Man Louis Freeh takes helm at Battered Agency", and touted this as FBI-man Louis Freeh being given the top job. The only problem was this: Freeh wasn't FBI. He'd served the FBI for 6 years, in his early career. He came to the FBI after TWELVE years serving in the Department of Justice. Freeh, by then, was no "FBI- guy"; he was a DOJ guy. And when he got in, he placed all his old compatriots from his experience in the Southern District of New York [DOJ] into high ranking FBI positions, ousting career FBI folks. Was Freeh truly the best candidate for the job of heading the FBI? Or was he just one of the stable of possibles that Clinton was allowed to choose from? In the end, it was a silent coup by career DOJ employees taking over the FBI. And the corruption within the FBI is, unfortunatly, something we are witness to on a weekly basis. One could argue that the government has made great strides in turning our law enforcement agencies into repressive machines. The consolidation of national law enforcement since Clinton took office is stunning, and has never been fully reported by the press. I have researched it on my own, and it is alarming...in plain sight, but never told publicly.
The same "guiding hand" story could be told about former FDIC [FSLIC] chairman William Issacs, who imploded in the end, and is no longer a part of the cultivated and promoted "stable." There is much I could write here, but won't. Let's just say he was, by outward apperarances, a 'nobody" , who had short and limited experience in banking, whose name was suddenly on a short list for Carter to appoint a new head of the FSLIC in the late 1970's. Up against men of far greater experience, and for a thousand reasons an extraordinarily weak candidate, Issacs got the position anyway. And the S&L debacle seeds were planted at approximately the same time. James Ring Adams has written extensively on Issacs, and always with a favorable tone. But the facts of the case, as presented by Adams himself, indicate that Mr. Issacs was involved with some very bad people...people who are still very bad today, and still major players in global affairs. People who who spin right into Bill Clinton's intimate world, 20 years later.
I suspected a confluence of Hunag and Issacs as the Lippo story broke months ago, when I read "Huang worked for a bank in Kentucky during the 1970's". That's all there was. A bank in the 1970's in Kentucky.
But I said, I'll bet you it was First National Bank of Louisville.
Well, Yes, it WAS in fact FNBL!
How could I have possibly quessed that? Simple. I know my history, and as such can put events in context. As an engineer comfortable with statistics, I improve my chances of being correct dramatically precisely because I know my history, who the players are, how the system works, etc. The press see the news only in the context of "today's story", and have been either unwilling or unable to do the research so they could report on this in context. Knowing the story of William Issacs, I knew my chances, statistically speaking, were very high that I would be correct: that Huang had worked for FNBL. And he did. When Issacs was with the bank, too.
I sit here at my computer and the words flow from my fingers, and as such I find myself being lead from one thought to another, perhaps not filling in all the blanks for those who are trying to grasp what is happening to us as a nation. I could expand on any one of topics I have discussed here. There is so much more.
Consider as you read in the news each day, and the merits/demerits of what I have written.
Let's take a quick look at China. William Hawkins, a senior research analyst with the house of Representatives wrote: "The 1996 US Trade deficit with China was about $50 Billion. Beijing uses this flow of dollars to buy weapons, military technology and the services of froeign scientists. This is not s trivial sum, given that the procurement budget for the entire US armed forces is less than $44 billion. The Chinese military build-up is sending tremors throughout asia."
"Russia is a major supplier for China, which means the dollars get passed on again with more dangerous security implications for the United States. Radio Moscow has reported that, 'With money earned from the sale of military equipment to China, Russia will be able to fund the development for itself of the most up- to-date types of armaments." Henry Kissinger and George Bush [who both were, coincidentally, mentored by John J. McCloy] were the key persons responsible for creating this trade deficit with China. And now China takes the money and buys weapons, while planning war games where we, The United States, are defined as the enemy. The weapons they buy are from Russia...who take this US money to invest in state-of-the-art weaponry of their own. And certainly few would claim that Russia and the United States are bosom buddies.
Hawkins writes on: "In December, Rusian and Chinese officials meeting in Beijing reaffirmed the 'strategic partnership' that was proclaimed in Moscow in April. Russia and China are also sharing their knowledge with Iran. Thus, American importers - which include some of America's largest corporations - are funding the creation of overseas armies that could threaten US lives and interests."
"Yet, business doesn't care about this any more than abpout Human Rights. Business people are unlikely to lead a revolution against a regime from which they are making money. Instead they will defend it." This man knows his history. I could cite dozens of cases which support this statement. And as I have noted before, this is quite often where the CIA is employed to provide 'security' for the multi-nationals, even when it is at odds with the security interests of the American people at large.
"An example appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology just after the last 'most favored nation' vote. A four page advertisement placed by the China Business Congress (US firms promoting ties with beijing) contained the following statement: 'China continues to operate a socialist command model, but unlike the old Soviet model, this one works.' So much for reform."
So much for the China Business Congress, too, who must have been surprised yesterday to find out that the Chinese government is now demanding that every penny they spend be first given the OKAY by the Chinese government. The Ford Foundation, which has had offices in China for 20 years, will have to get approval, too. And of course, the China Business Congress overlooks Tienenneman Square and the hundreds murdered there, the thousands more incarcerated without trial for speaking against the government, and China slave labor used for manufacturing. But the money is flowing and we are making big bucks! Damn straight the Chinese model "works"! A non-ideological ejudication of events by those men with gravitas!
In closing he writes: "That is why it is the duty of the US government to restrict international economic relations in the National Interest. Private profit cannot be the basis for foreign policy." It is sad, but true, that US foreign policy has been the captive of Corporate Suprapragmetists, to the neglect of the needs of the common citizen. The "financial-politcal oligarchy" that rules Russia, is a powerful force in our own country. Both neglect the needs of the common citizen.
What I ponder most at this time is not "what lies beyond nation states" ala Gingrich, but rather about this alleged "balance of power" in this new Third Way. Without question, in my opinion, the two most formidable and powerful drivers behind the Third Way are the Communists [and I mean any and all communists...don't get bogged down differentiating between Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, Fabian Socialists, etc...] and the Corporate Suprpragmetists. It would appear that they "share" the power driving this engine. But this is a fool's game. Right now the CS have a place at the table because it is their money that is driving the move to the Third Way, subverting our culture, our middle class and our governmental processes. But let's look forward, and assume that we do finally reach this ostensible Third Way of governing. How will the balance of power be maintained: how will the best of communism coexist with the best of capitalism? Or more to the point:
How will the Capitalists, the CS, KEEP their POWER?
Once you have the "best of Communism" in place, are there really any checks to keep the "best of capitalism" sharing the power structure? Since the "best of Communism" includes the best of the law enforcement structure, and judiciary, I dare say, no. The "Capitalist" side of the equation only has power when it has some balance over the "best of communism". Once the raw power of supression is placed in the hands of the Communist side, [disarmed citizens, repressive law enforcement, corrupt jusiciary], what exactly DOES the capitalist side have to offer any more? Their money is no longer power, as the deed has been accomplished. Their campaign contributions to the "stable" of chosen candidates is no longer of any value. The stable is fixed in the Communist side of the camp. The foundations are no longer needed to insinuate the agenda into society...the cradle to grave influence of the communist side of the equation has that covered, too. Money for promotion of disarmament... unnecessary...the 'best of communism" has already solved that problem. We are disarmed. Subverting the judicial process..nope, the communist side has that under control, too. Law enforcement? That, too, falls under the "best of Communism." The repressive judiciary and law enforcement is already in place. As per agreement.
The Communist side won't need their money, nor their influence because the society will already be tightly controlled by the communist side. If they chose to nationalize all industry at this point, what could the "capitalists", or "corporate suprapragmatists" do to prevent them? Nothing. IMHO, the "corporate suprapragmatists" are being deluded in thinking they will end up at the top of the heap when all is said and done. On the contrary, in the end game, they will be told..Thanks so much for your assistance in creating these global oligopolies for us, and taken out and shot. It is the finest irony. Look at the recent barkings in Hong Kong. The freedoms will go out the window when China takes over.
You see, MIGHT wins...not capitalism. Without personal freedom there is NO capitalism; the suprapragmetists who have deluding themselves all these years are about to get rudely awakened.
The "best of communism" has all the cards...the weapons of repression, the system of repression, the entire social compact. And what will the corporate suprapragmetists have at his disposal to maintain his position at the top of the heap? Nothing.
A fool's game.
I know that what I write is radical. I also know that what I write is true. The future of this nation is the "cronysim between officialdom and capitalists" [what Safire said], the "financial-poltical corporations", "financial-political oligarchy" [what Lebed said]. I have dedicated three years of my life, and the last of my meager resources in an attempt to understand this entity I call Flagship. I understand that most of you will not know what to make of this, or me. You don't have the background information. And gloriously, with Americans exhausted from working and raising kids, frantically trying to dig-in against the relentless slide of their middle class standard of living, most of you don't have time to investigate all this. It is just another facet of the terrible beauty we behold. If we spend our lives running on the hamster wheel, we are simply too overwhelmed to pay attention. I fault no one who simply wants to live a quiet existance, being left alone. That is all I have ever wanted. But it works against me, and us all. By nature we just want to be left alone...to be free to do as we please without the government constantly in our face, and in our pocketbooks. But this desire to be left alone, and not have others impose their ideologies on us, is precisely why we often shrink from the battle. We don't want others telling us what to do, and equally, we don't feel comfortable telling other people what to do. So, we get walked over, and rail-roaded, and won't fight back with the same weapons...weapons that are philosophically anethemas to us...such as subterfuge, grabbing power by fiat. The mechanisms that are used against us are weapons we would never chose to use in our defense, because it would mean that WE would be COVERTLY imposing our views on others....the precise anthesis of what we believe.
You cannot win a battle unless you know there is a war going on.
Miss Kelly - If you ever see this posting, please contact me. I wish to give you proper credit for a profound article. I also wish to obtain your permission to post this article. I hope I have not offended you.
Forest Glen Durland
This article originally appeared on the Prodigy WW Bulletin Board, January 31, 1997.
Posted by: Rodger Schultz (pecksnif@erols.com) *
08/09/98 18:23:16 EDT
To: All
This, I believe, was the last major piece she did before going to work for various journalists as a researcher and analyst.
From: Rodger Schultz (pecksnif@erols.com) *
08/10/98 06:13:16 EDT
** uhuh ** The President said he is reducing taxes.
uhuh.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com