We live in a managed society. It is a society which operates on a corporate model where a consortium of powerful interests implement their plans for the future through an elaborate structure of subordinate organizations. Like all other corporate systems, the goal is further consolidation of power while at the same time subverting traditional power structures which continue to operate outside The System. The Ruling Elite operates on a variety of levels, and the most visible areas of operation would be Political, Economic, Cultural, and Religious. In each of these areas there is overwhelming evidence indicating the progression towards a unified or Monolithic Model of organization. The most obvious is the establishment of a monolithic “Pop Culture” which has flooded the world, assimilating or destroying all indigenous cultures in its path. Similarly, the enormously successful plans for global economic consolidation clearly indicate the eventual emergence of a unified, Global economic system, which will be accompanied by a World Government. The task of undermining/unifying the world’s significant religions has proven to be just as complicated as the other goals, yet it is a project which is nonetheless developing with equal success. In order to disguise the mechanism of this last project, The Elite has carefully constructed a series of religious “conspiracies” to divert Opposition forces and marginalize the efforts of those whose investigations have been revealing the truth about the New World Order. In no order of importance, we have the conspiracy of the “Christian Right,” which maintains that crazed Bible-beaters have overtaken the government and are steering the country into a religious war with the other religious “conspiracy:” the International Muslim Terrorist Conspiracy. Thirdly, there is the perennial “World Jewish Conspiracy” which appears in a variety of colors and flavors. These are all Establishment conspiracies which promote the idea that these religious groups have each consolidated their power and are now threatening the stability of the World. This ploy disguises the Elite’s operative plan of weakening and destroying established belief systems with the intent of replacing them with some form of state religion aligned with the goals of political/economic/cultural consolidation–specifically, a “World Religion” which will not really be a religion at all, but a system of belief in the New World Order itself. For decades now, the Catholic Church has been a major target of theirs, and there have been rumors of how certain elements have been aggressively working to facilitate its downfall. The seminal moment of this project was Vatican II. While these changes were implemented under the ostensible purposes of “liberalizing” The Catholic Church, closer scrutiny reveals more sinister intentions.
by Daniel L. Abrahamson <DLAmedia@yahoo.com>
Link to Educate-yourself.org
Originally posted to E-Y September 26, 2005
Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.
He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.
However as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960′s, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.
His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame “America” and “corporations” while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.
I. For Lords and Lamas
Along with the blood drenched landscape of religious conflict there is the experience of inner peace and solace that every religion promises, none more so than Buddhism. Standing in marked contrast to the intolerant savagery of other religions, Buddhism is neither fanatical nor dogmatic–so say its adherents. For many of them Buddhism is less a theology and more a meditative and investigative discipline intended to promote an inner harmony and enlightenment while directing us to a path of right living. Generally, the spiritual focus is not only on oneself but on the welfare of others. One tries to put aside egoistic pursuits and gain a deeper understanding of one’s connection to all people and things. “Socially engaged Buddhism” tries to blend individual liberation with responsible social action in order to build an enlightened society.
A glance at history, however, reveals that not all the many and widely varying forms of Buddhism have been free of doctrinal fanaticism, nor free of the violent and exploitative pursuits so characteristic of other religions. In Sri Lanka there is a legendary and almost sacred recorded history about the triumphant battles waged by Buddhist kings of yore. During the twentieth century, Buddhists clashed violently with each other and with non-Buddhists in Thailand, Burma, Korea, Japan, India, and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, armed battles between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils have taken many lives on both sides. In 1998 the U.S. State Department listed thirty of the world’s most violent and dangerous extremist groups. Over half of them were religious, specifically Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist. 1
Sixty-four years ago this month, six million Americans became unwitting subjects in an experiment in psychological warfare.
It was the night before Halloween, 1938. At 8 p.m. CST, the Mercury Radio on the Air began broadcasting Orson Welles’ radio adaptation of H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. As is now well known, the story was presented as if it were breaking news, with bulletins so realistic that an estimated one million people believed the world was actually under attack by Martians. Of that number, thousands succumbed to outright panic, not waiting to hear Welles’ explanation at the end of the program that it had all been a Halloween prank, but fleeing into the night to escape the alien invaders.
Later, psychologist Hadley Cantril conducted a study of the effects of the broadcast and published his findings in a book, The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic. This study explored the power of broadcast media, particularly as it relates to the suggestibility of human beings under the influence of fear. Cantril was affiliated with Princeton University’s Radio Research Project, which was funded in 1937 by the Rockefeller Foundation. Also affiliated with the Project was Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) executive Frank Stanton, whose network had broadcast the program. Stanton would later go on to head the news division of CBS, and in time would become president of the network, as well as chairman of the board of the RAND Corporation, the influential think tank which has done groundbreaking research on, among other things, mass brainwashing.
In February, 2008, Eric McDavid was sentenced to 235 months for “conspiracy to damage or destroy government property by means of fire or explosives.” He was the leader of a “terrorist cell.” Or was he? This article from the Sacramento News & Review describes the details of the FBI’s surveillance efforts and the manner in which FBI operatives are able to organize, mobilize, and direct these somewhat confused “Anarchist” kids. The time-tested technique of using attractive, twenty-something female agent provocateurs is just as popular as ever, although the article cites one instance where this agent’s overt aggressiveness in trying to undermine a peaceful demonstration was noticed at once by the group’s organizer. The bottom line is that these “Anarchist” groups are not only thoroughly infiltrated by government agents, but in the absence of any definable “terrorist” activity, it is very easy to steer the membership in a direction where the very broad Conspiracy Laws are able to prove sufficient “intent” to commit such a crime. –IB
Conspiracy of Dunces
Three would-be eco-terrorists were arrested in Auburn last January for plotting acts of sabotage for the Earth Liberation Front. But would there have been a conspiracy without the prodding of FBI infiltrator Anna?
by Brandon J. Snider
by Brandon J. Snider
“I have already alluded to the difference hitherto existing between regiments of men associated for purposes of violence, and for purposes of manufacture; in that the former appear capable of self-sacrifice – the latter, not.”
~ John Ruskin, Unto This Last, 1862
This was the view of one of the 19th century’s most prominent and influential leftists. Ruskin goes on to say that “the soldier’s trade, verily and essentially, is not slaying, but being slain.” It isn’t the natural danger of being killed in battle that has Ruskin mesmerized. One can be killed doing almost anything. It is the fact that the soldier “holds his life at the service of the State.” Service. This is Ruskin’s euphemism for being a hired killer.
There are techniques that police and security experts use to help tell if someone is lying. This knowledge might also be useful to managers and employers, but it’s more important for you — the average person — to help prevent falling victim to frauds, scams, and other deceptions.
Be warned, however. Sometimes it’s better not to know these things. Once you become a good lie detector, you may be offended when it is painfully obvious that someone is lying to your face.
Ten years after a scandal over neo-Nazis in the armed forces, extremists are once again worming their way into a recruit-starved military.
by David Holthouse
July 7, 2006 — Before the U.S. military made Matt Buschbacher a Navy SEAL, he made himself a soldier of the Fourth Reich.
Before Forrest Fogarty attended Military Police counter-insurgency training school, he attended Nazi skinhead festivals as lead singer for the hate rock band Attack.
And before Army engineer Jon Fain joined the invasion of Iraq to fight the War on Terror, the neo-Nazi National Alliance member fantasized about fighting a war on Jews.
“Ever since my youth — when I watched WWII footage and saw how well-disciplined and sharply dressed the German forces were — I have wanted to be a soldier,” Fain said in a Winter 2004 interview with the National Alliance magazine Resistance. “Joining the American military was as close as I could get.”
Written by Katin for IPCRESS Blog
I prefer the terms, “Establishment” and “Opposition” to the old, Marxist-flavored, “Bourgeoisie” and “Proletariat.” It’s not necessary to read Marx to know that we live under Elite Rule and many of the Marxist categories pertaining to these terms are of little relevance these days. “Establishment” refers not only to The Elite and their system of mass control, but also the loose ideology which accompanies The Establishment. This ideology is much more complicated and involved than Marx can explain, and by limiting ourselves to discussions of Capitalism, much of the character of the modern Establishment is lost. This Establishment ideology is far-reaching and has a profound connection with everyone in our society. Any effective understanding adopted by Opposition elements must first clearly disassociate itself from any Establishment influence.
It’s not that The Establishment simply dictates to a compliant society, but The Establishment fashions certain tools and models with which the people can interpret their world. In this way, whatever understanding is adopted by the citizens will always work to the benefit of The Establishment. This mechanism is apparent in any serious ideological attempt at creating an Opposition consensus. The Establishment succeeds in hiding behind these apparent contradictions, idealistic platitudes, and political sophistries, and so eludes serious critical analysis while at the same time splitting Opposition elements which are unable to agree on any popular understanding. In other words, why dictate policy if you can control the debate which determines policy?