I'm arguing that opposition to the people that we disagree with politically should be of secondary importance if we really want to change anything,
because one of the root problems with our system is that the parties do not represent the people in the way that the people think they do.
The Democrats actively work against civil rights, and the Republicans actively support larger and more intrusive government.
To the best of my 54-yr old knowledge, Democrats SUPPORT civil rights,
and Republicans want to LIMIT the federal government.
Yes this is bad, however can you imagine how much worse it would be under McCain or Romney?
You should listen to that speech, pure craziness.
Also, is Scahill the guy that wrote that book about "the Family"? Now that is scariness there.
Why is that relevant? Those guys lost, they are out of the picture. It seems more productive to focus on what is actually happening now than what could have happened in an alternate reality.
The CFR's Study No. 7, published November 25, 1959, openly declared its true purpose: "...building a New International Order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, [and] for social and economic change...an international order [code for world government]...including states labeling themselves as 'Socialist.'" One could safely say that a nutshell descriptor of the CFR is "to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and relations and through international economic interdependence."
The CFR is a serpentine network of international revolutionaries and fascist ideologues whose goal is to end American sovereignty and bring about a global, Marxist paradise. House, a socialist, wrote in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." He told of a "conspiracy" which would gain control of both political parties, and use them as instruments in the creation of a socialist world government. (John McManus, The Insiders, pg. 7.)
Many of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward writes "The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.". This high ranking military officer went on to explain their procedures for influencing policy,
Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are “nothing organizations.” When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt.
Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.
What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for U.N.E.S.C.O., and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government under the UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.
Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.
The Club of Rome, a globalist front group created in 1968, immediately began calling for population reduction under the guise of environmentalism. Other fronts like the World Wildlife Fund, managed by the aforementioned Prince Philip, vocally push for population control while seizing large swaths of land for "Mother Earth." Other pet projects such as the Kyoto Protocol, which would give the UN total control of energy resources, have floundered.
Past WWF board members have included Bilderberg founder Prince Bernhard, Hollinger media gopher and Bilderberg member Conrad Black, Shell chairman John Loudon, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prince Henrik of Denmark, and accused drug dealer Henry Keswick.
Chomsky is one of the many re-direct agents who use the real environmental pollution problems to push for a fascist takeover by a world government. Much like the ideas discussed in the Report From Iron Mountain, he uses the threat of global warming to justify totalitarian control:
You view it as all of our responsibility as human beings to stand up, even when someone is in power, especially when someone is in power, who you may have voted for, or who you like, or who you think is the lesser of two evils. That’s when your principles are tested. You know, a society’s values are not defined—our values are not defined by how we treat the rich and the powerful and the popular. It’s defined by how we treat the least of our people, how we treat the poorest.
I can not think of a way to effectively reassume control of our nation.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
I can not think of a way to effectively reassume control of our nation.
Do what Germany did.
Make electronic voting illegal.
They declared electronic voting a crime against humanity.
Add "voting" to your list of things that TPTB controls.
Originally posted by wildtimes
I just ordered the book and also "Blackwater" (revised and updated).
Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by wildtimes
the GOP has tried to demonize the ideas, because, well, that's what they do.
Statements like this are a signal to me that a person has bought into the common political propaganda to a significant extent, regardless of who they are directed at. If someone made the same statement about democrats it would be the same red flag. There is no dirty tactic or immoral approach imaginable that only one party is guilty of committing. The democrats demonize ideas as well, and implying that the demonization of ideas is limited to one party is to ignore the same behavior on the other side.
Blind allegiance to party is why Bush was able to do his terrible things, and why Obama is able to do the same now. I have yet to see a sea of protest signs that say "Obama lied, people died", but that phrase was ubiquitous during Bush's term.
I wish people would spend less time criticizing the opposing party and more time criticizing their own party. I identify more closely with republican beliefs than democrats. I could complain all day about democrat policy and actions, but I would rather think critically about what the republicans are doing wrong because they are supposed to be representing me if I voted for them.
Allegiance to a party should not be given unconditionally, nor should opposition. I tend to vote more for republicans but have voted for democrats as well. I'm not loyal to republicans, nor am I opposed to democrats. They are both capable of producing good and bad. I hold the people who I voted for to a much higher standard than the ones I voted against.