Mercantilism is the use of the state to fulfill one’s personal objectives and self-interest. The use of the state, conflating private with public, allows the individual or small group to obtain clout that would otherwise not be feasible.
Mercantilism, the realizing of private goals for individuals or small groups through public means, has a long and ancient history, doubtless as long as humankind itself. From the beginning of the Neolithic period when humankind invented cities, humans sought mercantilist advantage.
Wherever there have been seats of power, there has been mercantilism, which eventually corrodes the process of the state and infuriates its citizens. The American exception was set up to counteract mercantilism by diffusing power in such a way that there would be no one place that a mercantilist entity could find a forceful enough lever of power to pull.
But over time the American system’s power has been concentrated, nonetheless. Individuals running for federal and even state office are now willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to gain access to concentrations of power.
Of course, America is not alone in its concentrations of power in the modern age. The European Union has concentrated power extensively at the top and so has China. Each of these modern states is in its own way an invitation to mercantilism. In fact, one could say that an energetic power elite, behind much of the organization of great Western states, has created these systems in this matter so as to enhance mercantilist convenience.
The most prominent modern mercantilist movement, of course, is the long-term effort by the power elite to utilize Western governments for any one of a number of global promotions. Perhaps the strongest of these is the central banking promotion itself, which combines every aspect of public power with private banking.
The power elite, the larger monetary elite and the public bureaucracy have all combined to create the central banking dominant social theme. The most powerful example of this theme or meme is the US Federal Reserve, which is in every way a mercantilist endeavor – conflating the public good with private interests.
Run by the elite, developed secretly by the elite, the Fed poses as a public benefit when in fact its decisions are made by a handful of private men and the money it prints out of thin air must necessarily benefit the “powers that be” that created the Fed in the first place. It may be that historians look back and declare that the 20th century and parts of the 21st are to be known as the “Mercantilist Era.”
The easiest way to define regulatory democracy is to look at what America has become. Initially, America was formed by its Constitution as a republic. This means, in part, that people did not have a direct vote as to who represented them. In the case of the Senate, state senators voted on representatives. Additionally, majority rule did not prevail when it came to electing presidents. Instead, an electoral college was created to determine the results of close elections and a candidate had to receive a majority of state delegates to the electoral college to win the presidency.
Over time this republican system has eroded. Most notably, Senators are now elected by majority rule in public votes and state senates have no say over the choice of federal senators. The balance of power in America has shifted, as well. Some of this has to do with the raw force of money power. Corporations are now recognized as humans by the Supreme Court and thus corporate money power has greatly perverted what was left of the republic. People are easily swayed by promotional messages (often delivered and reinforced by the mainstream media) and the transition to public schools has left government with a virtual monopoly over youth messaging, the theme of which is often globalist.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, if one looks closely at how the US system of governance has evolved, that the evolution of regulatory democracy was simply one of happenstance. The defining moment of the republic was the Civil War, when states tried to secede and were restrained. After this the various facets of regulatory democracy were erected with efficiency.
If we look at American regulatory democracy today – as it has evolved from a republican form of government – it is marked most notably by overwhelming federal force. In opposition to the core tenets of the US Constitution, federal power continually devolves to the executive branch of government and the shadowy elites that stand behind the executive branch. One could argue that a hallmark of regulatory democracy is the constant centralizing of power within the executive branch even as power is withdrawn elsewhere.
A second aspect of regulatory democracy is that regulations themselves are promulgated by a variety of extra-governmental entities over which voters have no direct control. Regulations offer the illusion of fairness and a level playing field but in actuality, the regulators suffer from regulatory capture in which the largest regulated entities essentially run the regulators at the expense of smaller players.
In a fully developed regulatory democracy, power has passed entirely from citizens into the hands of a shadowy elite that runs the country via mercantilism, by pulling the regulatory levers of government for its own benefit. The more regulations there are, the more actual control this elite has. Finally, citizens are entirely bound by regulation; their every action controlled by an unelected bureaucracy and their lives tightly ruled by what they can and cannot do. Their estates are stripped by taxes; their children come under the mind control of public schools; their sons and daughters, having matriculated, join the military for lack of better employment and are sent overseas to pursue foreign wars; their professional venues are controlled by the options offered to them by regulatory democracy – and these venues often reinforce the worst and most petty aspects of the degenerating society itself.
Every regulation, of course, is a price fix, and price fixes distort the economy and lower the quality of life for all. The more regulations there are the worse the quality of life becomes, the more unemployment rises and lawlessness and corruption rule the day. Regulation makes criminals out of honest individuals and encourages the schisming and fractioning of society into bitter, competitive groups. Regulation holds out the promise of better living by making society fairer and more lawful, but in actual fact, advanced regulatory democracies are among the most lawless, brutal and predatory societies. Republics are a viable form of government; regulatory democracies create a true Hell-on-earth.
The term “power elite” traces to the writings of C. Wright Mills, including his 1956 book, The Power Elite. The concept posits wealthy and/or well connected families and individuals who seek to expand their wealth by applying and promoting dominant social themes. Such themes may eventually develop into widely held archetypes or memes.
Often such themes seem to originate with the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization or other international bodies that are receptive to influence by the power elite. The themes then are picked up and rebroadcast by the mainstream media. Thus, what may seem to be the work of an independent institutional staff may actually be the brainchild of the power elite.
Concepts such as bird flu, Islamofascism and peak oil are so extensively promoted that much of the public unquestioningly accepts their fearful premises and demand action. Those with the wherewithal to provide solutions – products, services and corporate offerings via public markets – may earn vast profits as a consequence.
There is little contemporary scholarly analysis of the concept of the power elite, but it corresponds roughly to what once was called “the money power.”
There are a variety of theories as to the composition and character of the power elite. It sometimes is referred to ominously as the “Illuminati,” the “black church” or the “black nobility.” It is not necessary to confirm such characterizations to recognize that the action and influence of modern money power are pervasive.
In most conceptions, the core of the power elite coalesces around the European and American banking dynasties and some elite, titled families, or it may be characterized as a “sub-church” within the Roman Catholic, Jewish or other religion. Chief among these dynasties are likely the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.
In some conceptions, the power elite includes members who claim to trace their ancestry to ancient times, even to Babylon and beyond. This accords with the notion that members believe their pedigrees differentiate them from the “common herd.”
Signifiers of power elite activity include a disdain of free markets and the persistent and uncritical promotion of a theme or meme to the exclusion of contrary evidence or argument.
The primary function of a central bank is supposedly to monitor and control a nation’s money supply by either printing money, removing money or raising and lowering interest rates.
The modern central bank prints paper money divorced from an underlying asset, which means that the bank can print as much as it chooses. The first central bank was the Bank of Amsterdam, established in 1609. Almost 100 years later, the Bank of England was created by Scottish businessman William Paterson in the City of London at the request of the English government to help pay for war.
In the US, the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. By 1935, the only significant independent nation without a central bank was Brazil, which today has one. Central banks are thus prevalent around the world, including Asia and China. China has a central bank, though unlike some central banks, the People’s Bank of China is not considered independent of the State but is run by the Chinese Communist Party.
Whatever central banking was once, the idea is basically flawed. Human beings do not know how much money an economy needs. Only the free market can determine that.
Nonetheless, a host of socialist and quasi-socialist economists have glorified the role of central banks and obscured the real reason for their invention. Perhaps the most brilliant of these central bank apologists is John Maynard Keynes, himself a central banker, whose great economic tract, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, advocated the use of both fiscal and monetary stimuli to make economies prosper.
With Keynes’s help, government intervention through taxes and central bank policies became an accepted way of running economies.
In simplest terms, central banks inflate by creating money. The more money they create, the cheaper money becomes, and the less a government’s debt becomes. By cheapening money, the government deprives individual citizens of part of the value of that money. As the value is eroded, the citizen becomes poorer, even if he or she doesn’t notice it right away.
There are three often-mentioned ways for central banks to help stimulate or deflate the economy.
• One way is for the central bank to buy or sell Treasury IOUs.
• Another way, which was more popular in the 18th and 19th centuries, is to raise and lower the rates of the so-called discount window, the amount that the central bank charges to its member banks for short-term borrowing.
• The third way is to move short-term interest rates up or down.
The main manner in which central banks move the economy is by adding to or subtracting from the amount of money in circulation by buying or selling government bonds, as mentioned above.
Even raising short-term rates constitutes a kind of tax because when rates are raised, bonds can lose their value, and citizens holding onto bonds — especially longer bonds — can suddenly find themselves poorer by thousands of dollars as the market reacts to rate news.
While the manipulations of the central banking mechanism sound innocent enough, free-market economists fervently blame almost every economic disaster of the last 500 years, with the exception of Tulipomania, on government intervention in the money supply or the marketplace.
Today, thanks to the Internet, central banks are under attack as never before. Their franchise provides the great central banking families with the funding they need to try to move the world toward global governance. Nothing in the world is what it seems today because of central banking and the monetary distortions that it causes.
The boom-bust cyclicality of modern economies can be laid directly at the feet of central banking, with its monetary stimulation, which first expands an economy and then contracts it when the expansion has gone too far. Thus, central banking is responsible for the manifold disasters that have overtaken the Western world in the past century at least.
Wars, industrial collapse, recessions and depressions can all be laid at the feet of central banking and the great families that insist on its ongoing implementation. In the age of the Internet Reformation, however, more and more people understand how central banking really works and the devastation it causes.
The 21st century may see a real conflict between a power elite that insists on a central banking model for the economy and millions, if not billions, who begin to demand free markets and freer economies.
New World Order (NWO)
Many have postulated an Anglo-American elite that seeks one world governance – a kind of New World Order (also known as One World Order). Such speculation is commonly derided by the mainstream news establishment as “conspiracy theory.” Those who are involved in such speculation see various patterns at play within the larger sociopolitical environment at work in the world today. Their perspectives may be supported by various evidences that there is a conspiracy and that the conspirators are those who seek to saddle the world with such a New World Order.
Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill both apparently used the term “New World Order” after their respective world wars to describe the new nature of the world’s environment. The idea was that a host of internationalist, collective instrumentalities could be grafted onto nation-states without affecting nations’ rights to self-determination. The United Nations, NATO, WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements are just some of the overarching facilities that were created in the 20th century as a result.
The early and mid-20th century were a kind of heyday for these inter-global elements because of various socialist and progressive public movements that tilted sentiment toward globalist-oriented solutions. But in the 21st century with the ruin of these instrumentalities so evident and obvious, there is possibly a good deal less support. The support for the European Union, for instance, was very strong in the 20th century and for a few years into the 21st century. But now with the difficulties that the EU faces, it is probably likely that the populace of many countries would rethink their entrée if they could.
Whether one believes in a New World Order or not, there are plenty of prominent people who have commented on it, including various writers such as H. G. Wells. He defined the New World Order as a kind of technocracy where skilled people would plan the world scientifically. This is analogous to Plato’s suggestion for Utopia planned by “wise ones.” Today, the term technocracy has dropped from popularity but the ideas behind technocracy-oriented (Platonic) solutions remain.
The 1960s saw the rise of various right wing elements, including in the US the John Birch Society, that denounced the “insiders” – basically wealthy elitists – who ran the world, and claimed these individuals wanted to set up totalitarian communism. Gary Allen, in his 1971 famous book None Dare Call It Conspiracy became a main spokesman for the Birchers and their perspectives. The suspicions of those who research or read seriously about such theories were heightened when in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and US commencement of the Gulf War, George H. W. Bush gave a nationally broadcast speech on 9/11/1990 to Congress, explaining that the US should take advantage of the Gulf crisis as a “unique and extraordinary moment” out of which a “new world order can emerge.”
What was the reaction? Some likened it to an “electric shock” going through those groups and individuals who believed that there were elites running the world and aiming for a New World Order. Evangelist Pat Robertson soon wrote the book The New World Order, which became a bestseller. It strung together the various elements of supposed elite control, including, according to a Wikipedia summary, “Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission. [These] control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.”
Wikipedia itself takes a non-judgmental view toward conspiracy theory in general. But in fact, this is probably a little like taking a non-judgmental approach to mortality. One can debate whether or not death exists, but sooner or later one will know for sure it does. For anyone who uses today’s Internet to research “one-world order” conspiracies the facts will soon snap into place. There is a nascent New World Order. Intergenerational elites have worked patiently for its fulfillment for at least a century, perhaps much longer. To deny the overwhelming flood of websites devoted to one-world governance and the obvious patterns enunciated therein is certainly possible. But it is more difficult every day.
The Hegelian Dialectic is a philosophical approach that in principle explains how human beings progress toward a better and more egalitarian condition but in practice provides the power elite with a strategy for controlling society.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was among the most consequential philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. His was heavily influenced by Plato, whose social ideal was rule by an elite composed of philosopher-kings. Though Hegel may not have intended to provide a Platonic methodology for the modern-day control of the many by the few, that is how his insights have been used.
The Platonic influence on Hegel was reinforced by the age in which he worked. Hegel accepted that “enlightened” human beings are responsible for their own destiny, and that culture and history are a product of human development, which in turn is driven by reason. Hegel subscribed to the Rousseauian notion that humans are a blank slate, a tabula rasa. In fact, Hegel was a big fan of the French, including the authoritarian leader Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, a bloodbath he described as the realization of more perfect freedom.
Today most behavioral scientists see human beings not as purely rational or perfectly elastic but as complex creatures, many of whose behaviors are instinctual or biologically programmed. This has not hindered the practical application of Hegel’s conceptual tools, however, which have been used as an effective methodology of control for at least the past century.
It is necessary to examine the dialectic in a little more detail to understand this. Hegel postulated that each stage of human advance – and the course of history itself – was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument, at which point the process restarted. For Hegel, the dialectic could explain everything – art, culture, history, even nature.
From our more modern vantage point, Hegel’s dialectic may not seem so persuasive as an explanation of all things – and in fact, it probably is not. But for the elite of his day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society.
To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two.
Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two’s position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One’s original position. The “anti-C” argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable.
The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two.
Posted by Leviathanfighter on 01/03/12 03:42 PM
This is excellent. Control over information is the key to the battle. He who controls that controls reality.
Being a graduate student of history, I have had to witness the obsession with control of information of the elites over and over again. Of all the themes that historians may explore, I am most impressed by the “control of information.”
The reason? I guess it is because an elite or govenment cannot rule effectively, or at least to their satisfaction, without controlling the flow of information. Should alternative information enter the picture, the state perceives that as a “challenge,” and a “threat” to their power, and it is.
Although some things found on the Internet are kooky or cannot be verified, at least people have choices and can keep searching if they are not satisfied with the results of their search. In the past, that was almost impossible. The invention of printing improved things, but the elites still imposed formidable barriers to materials with alternative views for a long time.
In my opinion, ultimately, the power elite must shut down or radically control the Internet, or give up power. They cannot maintain their grip on power with so many people finding out about their lies and crimes.
Posted by DrBryant on 01/02/12 12:28 PM
This is certainly one of your best articles.
Why should we believe much of ANY history? The only sure truth is that the “victor” writes (their own) history.
A strong case can be made that any thought, other than that world wars were nothing more than mutual agreements, is completely naive.
The formation of the Bank of England would suggest that the American Revolution was a “manipulated success”. Certainly the bloodline is the same; a bloodline regularly intermingled with other State elites; a bloodline ever present with the most privileged throughout that questionable World history.
Americans have been regularly lied to for reasons of “national security”. The masses are simply too “simple” to handle the truth (/sarcasm). There is every reason to believe those methods are worldwide.
When it became necessary to steal (more) personal freedoms, the War on Terror was created. That “creation” is proven by the lies of the Oklahoma City bombing. The truth of that day, 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, etc. will likely never be fully known by the “simple” public.
Since the Gutenberg phenomenon, the elites were forced to be more careful in their planning and work harder in manipulating the truth. Their hold on the so-called “mainstream media” shows great effort and accomplishment. Surely CBS, NBC and ABC networks can be described as the world’s greatest liars through quantity alone and people like Michael Goetner can be credited with their beginning downfall.
However, one should be careful to think that the internet will be perfect Deliverance. Likely those first people able to read the Bible without being burned at the stake believed they were witnessing similar Deliverance.
All things manmade can be manipulated.
Ron Paul Has Already Won
Friday, December 30, 2011 – by Staff Report
What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa? … Paul seems to have a natural ceiling among GOP voters: A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul’s foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him. Indeed, the primary reason Paul has an opening to win in Iowa is that no consensus candidate has emerged among social conservatives, which dominate the GOP electorate here – a situation that allows Paul to potentially win with less than 30 percent of the vote. Still, a Paul win in Iowa would have significant ramifications. It would go a long way toward pushing his Libertarian views, long dismissed as outside of Republican mainstream, to the center of the conversation. The resultant media coverage would allow Paul to further spread his message – and potentially win a host of new supporters. And if Paul can do well in New Hampshire on January 10, where he is currently tied for second place with Gingrich, Paul could even move to shared front-runner status with Romney, who is now ahead by more than 20 points in New Hampshire. – CBSNews
Dominant Social Theme: Paul is a crank and will never light up the sky.
Free-Market Analysis: The Internet Reformation is a process not an episode. US GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul shows us the accuracy of this statement. Ron Paul and his libertarian allies are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans by the millions. In fact, they have already won. More on this below.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that a substantial minority, if not a majority, of Republicans and Democrats are really libertarians of some sort. This gives Ron Paul a natural constituency that is far larger than the mainstream media admits.
There is apparently only one struggle in the world – and in the US. That is the seeming struggle between a handful of ancient, elite families who control hundreds of trillions via central banks around the world and want to move to world government (dominated by them) and the rest of us.
This Anglosphere power elite has used its unimaginable money base to seemingly pervert the workings of the entire world. It apparently uses dominant social themes – fear-based promotions disseminated by its bought-and-paid-for media, think tanks, universities and governments – to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to cleverly crafted globalist institutions. This is the internationalist government-in-waiting.
But a funny thing happened on the way to world government. The Internet. About a decade ago, we began to focus on the idea that the Internet was a modern-day Gutenberg Press and would have a similar impact.
The Gutenberg Press basically spawned the Renaissance, Reformation and contributed to counter-Reformation trends such as the Age of Enlightenment that was spawned by the elites themselves in an effort to counteract the power of the Gutenberg Press. The Age of Enlightenment postulated that man was perfectible and the agency of perfection was government.
Government is an absolute necessity for power elites. With the advent of the Gutenberg Press, however, something changed. The great families of Europe found it advisable to promote the fallacious idea of “democracy.” This idea, that people would “have a say” in their governments, allowed the power elite then and now to withdraw from the public scene and dominate from behind the scenes. This domination is called “mercantilism.”
Just as it is imperative these days for the power elite not to reveal itself, so it is imperative that the elites continue to have access to all levels of government in order to pass the laws necessary to its survival. Without the faux-system of civil society that the elites have erected in the past 150 years, there would be no prospect of a one-world order.
No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend one’s life building global government. It is an entirely false paradigm that this happens. People are coerced into believing that global government is inevitable and that their self-interest is better fulfilled by working with the powers-that-be than against them. This sense of INEVITABILITY is part of what drives the push toward the New World Order.
But it has long been our contention that those who predict the inevitability of the coming one-world order may not be entirely correct. It continues to be our contention – as we follow modern events – that the elites seeking global governance have been considerably set back by the Internet, as we have long predicted.
We know this to be true by the amount of violence the elite central banking families are turning to. Violence, insane legislative initiatives like SOPA, the erection of prison camps and the fomentation of wars around the world are all signs of the fear that has overtaken these elites. They do not want to be found out.
One needs only to study a little history to begin to understand the relevance of the paradigm we are suggesting. After the Gutenberg Press began to expose the power elite of the day and its manipulations, the first copyright laws were passed, the “isms” were suddenly developed, the Hegelian Dialectic was brought into play significantly and wars broke out throughout the West and lasted for decades.
There IS likely a playbook. There are surely manipulations that the elites pursue over and over in their loony quest for world government. One sees them put into play after the advent of the Gutenberg Press just as they are being put into play today. This is not an easy idea to accept, however, even for the alternative Internet Press. It is much easier and more psychologically satisfying to speak of ancient cabals, such as Jewish/Zionist penetration via vast Illuminati-Masonic plots.
But the truth TODAY is simpler than that, in our view. The world is being run by an intergenerational mafia of familial elites that USE religion and symbolism to affright people and impress on everyone the inevitability of what it is to come.
This is the reason, for instance, that Muammar Gaddafi’s execution was shown over and over for weeks. This was the reason his purported buggery was made available throughout the world though ordinarily the Western mainstream media is averse even to showing so much as a kiss to a general audience that includes children.
Gaddafi’s death was a warning. Just as the wars in Africa and the Middle East are cautionary ones. They have little or nothing to do with oil or the “great game” or other resources. When the Pentagon wanted to make a case for staying in Afghanistan it suddenly discovered a trillion-dollars’-worth of rare-earth minerals and other commodities. It is all so transparent.
The powers-that-be seek control. The stiff-necked Pashtuns and tricky Punjabis that are now 300 million strong and have dominated the navel of the earth for millennia must be conquered and pacified. This is the struggle taking place today.
And yet, we have predicted the Anglosphere may already have lost this war for global domination. The hidden influence of Money Power in our view peaked in the 20th century. The 21st century has offered them one disaster after another.
9/11 itself is still a questionable event. Attempts to impose the phony meme of global warming are also not going well. The war on terror is increasingly met by disbelief. Scarcity memes of all types have less power to upset, and are increasingly exposed on the Internet.
And then there is Ron Paul. Four years ago, libertarian politician Ron Paul was regarded by the mainstream media as a harmless, crazy crank. Today, according to a CBS article (see excerpt above), the only thing standing between Ron Paul and a sociopolitical consensus around his libertarian points of view is the view by many that he will “undermine” national security. Or so we are told.
But this meme, too, shall have its day – and be gone. That’s because the Internet is a process not an episode. The damage control that the elites practices in the 20th century doesn’t work anymore. They have turned to a more ancient playbook, in our view, but history shows THAT is not so effective, either.
People naturally lose perspective. But back in the 1990s a trio helped change the world. Dr. Ron Paul and economist Murray Rothbard were close friends. Lew Rockwell was the organizer and raised the money. Rothbard wrote prodigiously and Ron Paul kept delivering babies and running for office. Ron Paul is the most famous and successful libertarian politician of the past 100 years.
This trio built on what is good in what we today call civil society and eventually, as the Internet era began, were joined by popularizers like Matt Drudge, Alex Jones … and then more. And so once again the ideas of freedom and individual HUMAN action (versus Adam Smith’s Wealth of NATIONS) were propagated as they had been before. No one is perfect, but this aspiration is larger than personal agendas, and grounded in the logic of civil society built up over centuries by the greatest and most courageous of minds.
This is the story of civilization, in fact. It is a language and a conversation. It reoccurs. It cannot be extinguished because it may blaze anew in the hearts of the next generation. Sure, it may take a village, but it is one made up of INDIVIDUALS. And everyone is welcome. All who subscribe to the individual greatness of the human species are conveyances for what is worth carrying forward in human society. God damn those who do not.
History seems to us a series of cycles, struggles between historical elites and the rest. Such a struggle has been joined today. This is REAL history. We are lucky enough to live at a time when the old order is passing. Maybe what we are seeing is its death struggles.
The Internet is making it impossible for it to thrive in its current form. Central banks printing monopoly money-from-nothing, wars of aggression, the incarceration of millions … these are indefensible paradigms when one does not fully control the media anymore.
The Internet Reformation is like a wildfire, perhaps. It seems to be burning away the manifestations of the American Empire by incinerating the disingenuous moral buttresses that hold together this phony construct of the modern power elite. By the time the Internet Reformation has run its course, today’s authoritarian verities may have perished entirely. (They will of course emerge in another form.)
Right now, according to this CBS article, only the lie that the military-industrial complex “keeps America safe” stands between the fullness of Leviathan and its subsidence. But what happens, as will be inevitable, when Americans in larger numbers find out that this “safety” is non-existent?
What happens when Americans finally realize that the string of wars that have “defended” them were perhaps phony? What happens when the seeming manipulations that caused the phony Cold War fully penetrate popular consciousness? What happens when the truth about 9/11 – whatever it is – is finally revealed?
The last memes of the power elite that will tumble (as we have long predicted) are the fundaments of the state itself: the insanity of the current model of state justice (where the state itself and its controllers make the laws and then pay for the legislatures, courts and military and civilian police and penitentiary guards that enforce this phony “justice.”)
The corollary is the military-industrial complex itself and its myriad millions of intel operatives in London, Washington, DC and Tel Aviv. These individuals are already worried; their privacy invasions, incarcerations and tortures weigh heavily on them. It is occurring to them that they may be on the wrong side of history – real history.
George W. Bush is afraid to travel outside of the United States. David Rockefeller is approaching the century mark and is not his old persuasive self. The Rothschilds are regularly making appearances on business television to show they are merely struggling businessmen and bankers. The US Congress attempts to pass evermore Draconian laws to stop the Internet Reformation. Wars are fomented to take over the world. And yet the navel of the world remains unconquered.
Conclusion: The Internet, which was never supposed to happen, continues to inform people every day about the despicable nature of the elite’s 20th century directed history. The old paradigms are crumbling. A thousand, ten thousand, a million prison camps may not capture the truths echoing around the world. The Internet is a process not an episode.