And I just realised
that describing the United Nations as powerful makes no sense.

Obviously the UN has staff etc, which aren't employed by any of the individual governments that make it up.

But the decision-making, such as it is, is entirely done by representatives of the respective governments.

It's like saying that the World Cup has a great soccer team.

No law passed in Britain was passed by Labor or the Conservatives: they were all passed by Parliament. You could conclude from that that there's a permanent government which operates whether Labor or the Conservatives are in. But most people wouldn't, because they realise that 'Parliament' isn't a seperate force to political parties, it's the means by which one party or the other pass laws.

Ditto the UN. It, considered as an entity seperate to the national governments that make it up, has never done anything.

In fact most criticism of it is based around the fact that the larger powers can veto anything in defiance of the rest of the world ie it's criticised for *not* being a world government.
(apeloverage committed the vile act of onanism on, Tue 7 Oct 2008, 19:47, 3 replies)

And
I just realised that this little fellow has been sadly overlooked.


(Bazongaloid, Tue 7 Oct 2008, 20:06, closed)

I answered this post above
providing you don't radically re-edit it again

;)
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 10:34, closed)

Aaaah
it's the cheeky wink at the end that just screams "i'm a fucking wanker who needs to socially interact with more human beings"
(Bazongaloid, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 11:25, closed)

pffft
wild presumptions and wishful thinking

kind of sums up your posts

and from the guy that craves popularity on an internet message board
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 12:12, closed)

and again
with the extra editing. This is turning into a circular argument.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 12:18, closed)

ah f*ck it
you're not worth it -

unless you're debating the post - I seriously have better things to do than trade insults with some internet mouse fart still wet from his mother's tit
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 12:22, closed)

Oh no!
The Goat is upset with me, i'm really really sorry if I hurt your feelings.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 12:25, closed)

let's not forget...
the fact that no government, armed force or police can act without the express consent of it's populace. Any country which is under totalitarian rule is only that way because it chooses to be. Even in places like Iraq, or similar, there are many more members of the public than there are police, politicians or monarchs. It is only the will of the populace to be governed that keeps any regime in place - elected or not.

Think about this - if the economic crisis went on to the point of total economic collapse, what would happen? Would we all starve and live in boxes, or would people say "bollocks to your tax, your bills and your interest rates"? One or two people might lose a house or get arrested, but if it continues, then what? Could the police control 60-odd Million people? No. Could the army? No - they might kill a thousand here or there, but at that point anyone in uniform would be torn apart by the mob. No - regardless of what the cranks think, anyone at the top of the heap is there because those below them let them stay there.

If the UK populace has enough of funding the rest of Europe via the EEC and wants to withdraw, the beurocrats will say "we can't do that, or we'll be sued for billions". By who? The European Court? If we refuse to recognise it's authority, then what? There's no EEC Army to invade us and if France, or Germany, tried, well, we've been there before and it didn't work for them then, either.

I love a good conspiracy - from Men In Black, to Area 51, to Project Blue Book to David Icke's Pan-dimensional Lizard Beings, but I appreciate that, at best, they are an amusingly diverting fiction. At worst they are the product of a diseased mind.

Oh, and there was a *huge* support base for Eugenics in the early 20th century to combat the perceived failings of moral standards and rise of bolshevism (which tended to start with ill-educated peasants and work up the chain). Given that Hitler was also voted Time man of the year in 1934 for his work on turning Germany's failing economy around, and the US was already sterilising single mothers (of low moral fibre, i.e the pram-faces of their day), lunatics and repeat criminals in order to try and prevent a decline in society. Given that Genetics and Evolution was still a relatively new concept and you can understand how such notions might be misguided.

However, the fact is that we could argue that we are in a worse position now because we have gone so far the other way that we aren't allowed to be proud of our National Identity without being branded fascistic and we have a billion thieving chavs breeding like rats and turning our streets into a warzone. We now have a governmental system too scared of its populace to actually govern, so it is reduced to micromanaging via Health and Safety and spends the rest of its time lining it's coffers.

I despair at times!
(Chad, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 13:16, closed)

good reply, cheers
"Think about this - if the economic crisis went on to the point of total economic collapse, what would happen? Would we all starve and live in boxes, or would people say "bollocks to your tax, your bills and your interest rates"? One or two people might lose a house "or get arrested, but if it continues, then what? Could the police control 60-odd Million people? No. Could the army? No - they might kill a thousand here or there, but at that point anyone in uniform would be torn apart by the mob. No - regardless of what the cranks think, anyone at the top of the heap is there because those below them let them stay there."


a very good method of controlling the population is through basic needs and necessities, like food for example - remember the panic buying during the fuel crisis? few people realise how much this society is hanging by a fragile thread and how dependant we are on the system - unless you have your own power generator, means to grow your own food and a water hole you can be controlled easily

also the recent Dept of Defence document predicts 30 years of riots in this country so they have certainly planned for it - traffic wardens taking on police duties , extending police powers, id cards for greater control etc
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 13:27, closed)

I think you're missing the point...
It doesn't matter whether it's the MoD, MI5, The Illuminati, The Queen, or God - if 95% of the populace are starving, there is no authority figure in existence (be it legitimate, elected, or a shadow conspiracy) that will prevent the pack mentality taking over.

Communism is a nice idea for governments - it subjugates the individual rights and freedoms in deference to the good of the "state", but even Marx himself said this was an unrealisitc ideal. The fact is that if you put two workers in a field and tell them to dig, on the promise of an equal share of food for all, one will work hard, the other will bunk off for a smoke and, after a couple of weeks the hard-worker will get resentful of the fact the slacker also gets his meal provided when he's done less work.

The fact is that we are nothing but monkeys with ideas above our station and anyone taking the piss, or acting too far outside the group consensus (either at the top or the bottom of the hierarchy) will get it's head bashed in, or poo thrown at it. Or, in humans, a bloody revolution/ousted at the next election/total refusal to co-operate and recognise the authority being claimed.

At that point, unless you are strong enough to take on the entire populace in single combat and win, I can guarantee the general consensus will win. After all, if we all say "sod the banks, we're keeping our homes and you can whistle for the mortgage after the way you bankers have screwed us all over", who exactly is going to enforce the law? The police? Nope - the fact is that whilst there might be 60,000 policemen, they are outnumbered 10,000 to 1 and, at the end of the day, unless they honestly believe in what they are doing, they won't enforce it. Not only that, but any government only has authority as long as we, the people, endorse it. Same for the economic system - what I want in return for my time at work is food, shelter and goods. Money is a myth that acts as a promissory note. I could, under UK law, cessate from the government, the laws and the authority of the crown and live as a free man if the United Kingdom. I wouldn't pay taxe, be liable for any law other than theft assualt or murder and I'd be alloted my choice of land on which to live and farm without charge. There is nothing the legal system, the state or the civil service can do about this, as it is part of the Magna Carta and to deny me this right would be to admit that they do not value the fundamental tenets of law and order - the sole things keeping them in power.

The fact is that traffic wardens becoming police officers is still pissing in the wind if society breaks down. All it is there to do is fill the cracks if we have no power for a week (I believe it was proved that modern society breaks down to survival of the fittest in something like 72 hours without power and running water, given the experiences suffered in New york in the 1970s, etc).

You are attributing far too much power to these bodies - the fact is that very quickly Armies would mutiny, police would disappear and there would be no "society" outside of extended family groups, as we all fight for our territory, food and resources. You only have to look at Africa, where after the stabilising effect of a colonial ruler is removed, countries rapidly breakdown into lawlessness and tribal conflict based on large extended family groups trying to grab the best of the spoils.
(Chad, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 15:24, closed)

thats great
but here's the rub

try convincing a fractured I'm-all-right-jack-society to co ordinate themsleves and work together in the way you describe

and there will be large groups who are either submissive to authority aswell as others who stay on the sidelines hoping they can ride the problem so long as they don't get involved hoping others will sort it out for them

the sad fact is most people in this system don't lift a finger until things affect them personally - as Bertrand Russell predicted with his educational models, to come back to my original post

it's why they needed to attack the family to fracture society as this is the basic tribe they needed to destroy - with an egocentric population the government can impose itself most effectively - as they tend not to cluster together in cohesive groups looking out for each other when individual members are attacked

alot of the counter culture stuff used to create tension and divison between the generations to break the family unit were from above - not the grass roots - Timothy Leary, was CIA funded, like Gloria Steinem and her radical 60s feminist magazine
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 15:46, closed)

not only that..
but the person/people at the top are more reliant on those at the bottom of the heap than vice versa.

Your feudal lord/billionaire/king cannot farm all the land, run all the factories, etc, themselves, whereas the general populace has the ability to fend for itself. Left to their own devices, people will work with their skills and trade goods and services (I'll scratch your back...", etc) - whereas a king can only rule and is thus useless without people to rule.

In fact, until the 20th century, most wars were between armed professional armies that could die without leaving the farms untended, the cattle unmilked, etc.
(Chad, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 15:30, closed)

no doubt they still need us - but not in the numbers as before with the rise of automation and technology - however they still need a percentage (500 million is the number quoted in some circles as the amount the population needs to be reduced to)- hence the need for tighter controls and mechanisms to punish us should we step out of line - do you really believe ID cards are for our own safety? (the safety line has been used through the ages to hoodwink the population into accepting greater liberty restrictions)

ex politician and film producer Aaron Russo famously reported a converstion he had with a member of these foundations Nick Rockefeller, whom he was freinds with at the time - and was told by him that the end goal is to get everyone chipped - all credits and id on this chip - so if anyone protests or disagrees they threaten to switch the chip off
why take my word for it? - here/'s the link fo him saying it.......
LINK

incidentally Quigley stated that you could achieve more radical changes in society with 5 years of war than through 50 years of peacetime - after the 1st WW they tried to draft in the League fo Nations for a unified Europe which they have succeeded in doing - with North American Union next (2012) after their econmic war Jaques Atalli wrote about 15 years ago - all pushed by the foundations I mention above

.
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 16:02, closed)

No ID cards aren't for our own good...
nor are speed cameras, or half the other ludicrous stealth taxes and laws. We live in a society where the PC hairy-armit brigade are calling the shots and, of course, they have de-valued education and made University the presever of the rich idiot, as opposed to the gifted intellectual, so they can declare open war on the middle class and then say "we won't listen to you, you're a criminal because you have a speeding ticket and we're much cleverer than you, because we went to public school and Oxford" to 90% of the populace. It doesn't get past the fact that such policies would not have gotten anywhere if we hadn't had a lazy selfish underclass of scum breeding like rabbits that are happy to live like parasites. If we had a working class that worked, as opposed to the chavs we are lumbered with, then maybe we might have some pride in ourselves and we might also have avoided the rampant over-borrowing made by those who could never afford to pay it back, thus leading to the financial quagmire we are now in.

Instead we have a country where you'll live a better lifestyle if you scrounge off the state, as you'll be housed, fed and given money, your kids will be clothed and you have zero responsibility, whereas if you work hard, own your own home and try to live decently, you'll be taxed into the next millenium by a government which has still not escaped it's class-war socialist roots and which does it's best to bolster the benefit culture at the expense of Middle England. Why? Because those on benefits tended in the past to vote Labour as it meant more dole cheques and no requirement to go to work.

However, the rampant mis-management of the Economy, the disastrous home and foreign policies and the grass roots hatred of the thought-control Health and Safety culture, that Labour loves so dearly, have all conspired to ensure that the odds on Labour staying in power are equivalent to Elvis being found alive on Mars.

Yes, there is always a non-elected permanent Civil Service, but calling that a "Shadow Government" is ridiculous - with them, you wouldn't have your bins emptied, roads repaired, schools run, etc - the Civil Service takes charge of the pragmatic things required to run a country - collection of taxes, running of infrastructure, etc. The elected government controls policy, but you wouldn't expect the Prime Minister to go around collecting VAT, etc.

Look, if you go to Public School (Eton, Harrow, etc), on to Oxford or Cambrige and in to business or the Civil Service, you will always look favourably on those of a similar nature - you're similar people, so you know you can work together in accord. Having said that, it's no different to saying that a White Christian would struggle to find work in a Halal butcher's shop if there were Asian Muslims applying for the job, too - most business decisions are made by a relatively small number of people, all of whom tend to know one another. If you're a decent barrister, the odds are you went to Oxford, if you are a senior civil servant, you'd have been Public School educated and the reason for this is simply because that education grooms a person to fit those roles well. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply a case of like-minded people tending to have a similar viewpoint.

After all, can you imagine how far in the shit we'd be if John Prescott, not Blair or Brown, had been PM for 10 years? Or if, when you rang the council to complain about your bins not being collected, the person at the other end of the line told you to "fuck off before I blade you for disrespecting me, innit, blud"?

Morons don't get made into CEOs or government ministers. There are very few top class educational establishments, so those at the top, by default, tend to know each other, or of each other, or at least move in the same circles. It's like saying it's a conspiracy because most technology/computer/software breakthroughs come out of Silicon Valley, whereas it was more a case of being a good location for those types of businesses and then more springing up as the talent migrated to where the work was.

Your behaviour is *always* your choice, regardless of who is in power, or what is on TV, etc. To blame the woes of society on a secret society is just another way of saying "it's not our fault we screwed up/letc the kids get obese/can't read/prefer to live on the dole than work" - another course of action would be to take the Daily Mail tack and blame all our woes on immigrants, but the truth is that if you are an adult of sound mind, any action you take is directly, 100%, your responsibility.
(Chad, Thu 9 Oct 2008, 11:52, closed)

I'd agree with most of that
but its like someone said earlier about teh financial crisis being caused by city wide boys and not some 'shadowy elite'

the fact the RIFR works behind the scenes to get things done is something not said by the likes of me - but official historians for the org like Quigley

yep, the city wide boys caused the financial troubles but bacause they operated in an unregulated arena created by those above them - despite the seeming chaos - along with the social elitism you mention - it all still exists within a created system at the higher level - despite the seemingly random and free movement which exists within the convines of it

do you think its odd the likes of Jacques Attalli, presidential adviser, talked of the tanking of the US economy 15 years ago (book: Millenium: winners and losers )as a step toward the formation of the North American Union in 2012 - and the rise of China?

there are those that steer the ship , and there's those that live on deck - despite the freedom of choosing deckchairs, lounging around and all the other randomness - they still exist on a ship streerd by a smaller group

these are the foundations I'm talking about , as others have talked about

for example look at the private families that own the fed reserve and look into the cause of the 30s depression - you will see how precisely ochestrated and contrived it was to consolidate greater ownership of property and greater wealth into fewer hands (the crucial timings of the calling of the loans, the release of currency to devalue it, the run on th ebanks, gold act etc - all detailed ion an excellent book by G Edward Griffin called Creature From Jekyll Island uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKlz2Z4Nlo )

you only realise the narrow confines of how created and contrived this system is (with all teh activity operating within it you mention above) once you deconstruct it - and realise it's one big business plan

they create the conditions for the chaos to occur in - with their 'solution' waiting in the wings

we will have hyper-inflation next year (a consequence of all the money they are pumping into the system right now) followed by their 'proposed solution' - wait for it



edit: did you watch the link? I think it's only about 3 mins long
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Thu 9 Oct 2008, 12:08, closed)