Part 1: Letter from New Zealand
Part 2: The world is in good hands
Part 3: Sovereignty – who actually owns this nation
Part 4: Wheels within wheels
Part 5: The Venetians and the concept of oligarchy
Part 6: The assault on science and the great climate scam
Part 7: Atonalism and the assault on society
Part 8: Understanding is half the battle
Part 9: The resistance
Part 10: Who rules the world – further reading
Commenter Rossa said:
From what I have read about all this the only thing that could bring the whole edifice down would be a complete collapse of the monetary system. It is endemically corrupt and the papering over of the cracks will not stop the dam from bursting. It will have to go from the inside out like the USSR did. So those that think they are in control may not have as much control as they like to believe.
There’s much to say on this later on in these articles. There is more than enough evidence that such a collapse is actually being either induced, helped along or being allowed to occur, with a plethora of schemes abounding to take advantage of the new financial vacuum. Here’s an interesting comment, by the way, by Faustie:
“By taking charge of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012, Lord Mandelson – who cleverly kept his fingerprints off the plot – has quietly boosted his prospects of ousting Boris Johnson as London Mayor.”
Connections and interconnections
It’s perhaps fair to say that most of you, having read the first two parts of this series, might still be onboard and that raises the question of where one stops the research because, let’s face it, this thing can go deeper and deeper and deeper until most readers are left way behind.
Sackerson, for example and I hope I don’t misrepresent him here, knows there’s something going down and has some impressive analytical charts at his place to illustrate the financial aspects of it but where he draws the line is in there being any collusion or vast conspiratorial plan to jointly control the world – he puts it down to sheer greed and unconcern for the people who get hurt.
He’s not wrong, as far as that goes and the simplest argument in support of there being no slick organization is that the various parties are driven by greed and the profit motive, making them untrustworthy bedfellows – each wants the pre-eminence and the larger cut in the spoils of the next global moneymaking scheme. So they’re fellow trough feeders, rather than a dastardly conspiracy, in social terms.
And yet there very much is a quasi-religious element running through the upper echelons – it’s quite spiritual and is most manifest in the greens. It’s much closer to the surface and observable by the ordinary mortal, hence the blogosphere writing of the climate scam and the climate change religion.
In Passenger to Frankfurt, by Agatha Christie , possibly her most underrated and misunderstood work, she writes:
‘Whom are you talking about?’
‘I don’t know but there’s something somewhere and it’s running on the same lines. Pattern again you see. It’s so frightening, the same idea which always recurs. History repeating itself. The young Siegfried.
There’s a good deal of alarm and despondency about. More than usual. Something is brewing and the kind of people who will go anywhere, do anything, unfortunately believe anything and so long as they are promised a certain amount of pulling down, wrecking, throwing spanners in the works, then they think the cause must be a good one and that the world will be a different place.
They’re not creative, that’s the trouble, only destructive.
This Nietzschean concept of the world is the mad scramble at the top to be pre-eminent, to be the ones who make large contributions to the change for change’s sake and all the lower echelons of the hierarchy who rub shoulders with greatness drop names and show that they’re someone to be reckoned with. Do you know any blogger who publishes stat porn or lists the Top 200 influencers of opinion in the UK?
And even within the blogosphere, there are those who wish to be seen to be in association with the great, the movers and shakers, to swap a bit of repartee, to be seen, themselves, as someone of note. This is why one of them came over here and mouthed off about “practical politics”, meaning he was “in the know”, whereas lesser mortals, such as you or I, theorize to their hearts’ content.
In a more innocent way, everyone likes to be part of the action, wherever it’s going on. Christie in that book again:
There are forces at work always that give you certain things. But behind of each of them [transport, power, energy] there is someone who controls it. You’ve got to find who’s controlling the powers that are slowly gaining ascendancy in practically every country in Europe and further afield … you’ve got to get behind the things that are happening and find out the motive force that’s making them happen.
One thing that makes things happen is money.
There are big movements afoot. There has to be money behind them. We’ve got to find out where that money’s coming from. Who’s operating with it. Where do they get it from? Where are they sending it to?
Anyone have any idea who said this next one?
The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages will bear its burden without complaint.
Agatha Christie asks why certain things happen and keep re-happening:
‘It’s not a thing particular to any particular country. If it arises in one country, it will arise in other countries in less or more degrees. It’s a pattern, a pattern that arises and seems inevitable. You can recognize it where you find it.
There was a period when a yearning towards crusades swept countries. All over Europe, people embarked in ships, they went off to deliver the Holy Land. All quite clear, a perfectly good pattern of determined behaviour.
But WHY did they go? That’s the interest of history, you know. Seeing why these desires and patterns arise. It’s not always a materialistic answer either.
It led people to embrace emigration to other countries, to the formation of new religions very often as full of tyranny as the forms of religion they had left behind.
But in all this, if you look hard enough, if you make enough investigations, you can see what started the onset of these and many other – I’ll use the same word – patterns.’
One can go a few steps further – there are people. One person, ten persons, a few hundred persons who are capable of setting in motion a cause. So, it is not the end process one has to look at. It is the first people who set the cause in motion. You have your crusaders, you have your religious enthusiasts, you have your desires for liberty, you have all the other patterns but you’ve got to go back even further still.
Further back to a hinterland. Visions, dreams. The prophet Joel knew it when he said:
Your old men shall dream dreams. Your young men shall see visions.
And of those two, which are the more powerful? Dreams are not destructive. But visions can open new worlds to you – and visions can also destroy the worlds that already exist.’
Now, for me, the lady was uncanny in her perception. She identified that there seems to spring from the same places, the same sources, all the troubles, all the major movements in the European theatre, then extending to the colonies and nowadays into every country outside the original sphere of influence, e.g. Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan.
She identifies the hazy source but also the carriers of the viral ideas, the new world religion of which 1880s Marxism was only one manifestation. The carriers, the vanguards of the causes, are not the principals [for those, see Ephesians 6:12] but those blinded by the ideological vision and who see themselves as a major part, personally, in the new order they’re fighting for.
They’re most charismatic and have that turn of phrase and the ability to move people, immensely useful to the source of the trouble. Again:
‘I was carried away too. I mean, his ideas were wonderful. They inflamed you. I mean, you just felt there was no other way of thinking, that a whole new world would happen if only one followed him. Oh, I can’t explain properly.
I started to write down what he said. This is frightening. There wasn’t anything to write down at all. I didn’t seem to be able to remember a single stimulating or exciting sentence. They were just … meaningless. I don’t understand.’
Can we, you and I, be taken in by rhetoric and emotion?
Watch that youtube, particularly the chanting of the name around 0:15. Does that not frighten you, that people can be such sheep? Christie profiled this apparatchik of the new order, in N or M :
His manner was now definitely appealing — “My dear woman — I know just what you feel about it all, but do believe me when I say I really do admire both you and your husband immensely. You’ve got grit and pluck. It’s people like you who will be needed in the new State — the State that will arise in this country, when your present imbecile Government is vanquished. We want to turn some of our enemies into friends — those that are worth while.
If I have to give the order that ends your husband’s life, I shall do it — it’s my duty — but I shall feel really badly about having to do it! He’s a fine fellow — quiet, unassuming and clever.
Let me impress upon you what so few people in this country seem to understand. Our Leader does not intend to conquer this country in the sense that you all think. He aims at creating a new Britain — a Britain strong in its own power — ruled over, not by Germans, but by Englishmen. And the best type of Englishmen — Englishmen with brains and breeding and courage. A brave new world, as Shakespeare puts it.”
Pure Common Purpose. Pure Julia Middleton. And on this type of person who sees her key role in the Great Work of Ages, the Middletons of the world, Agatha Christie wrote:
These people were ready to betray their country not for money; but in a kind of megalomaniacal pride in what they – they themselves – were going to achieve for that country. In every land it has always been the same. It is the Cult of Lucifer — Lucifer, Son of the Morning. Pride and a desire for personal glory.
She addressed the major social effects of any of these “great” ideological movements, the part they never tell you about, the part everyone forgets in his history and is nonplussed when it occurs:
‘Against their mode of government [democracy], against their parental customs, against the religions in which they were brought up. There is the insidious cult of permissiveness, there is the insidious cult of violence. Violence, not as a means of gaining money but violence for the love of violence. That particularly is stressed and the reasons for it are, to the people concerned, one of the most important things and of the utmost significance.’
‘What about drugs?’
‘The cult of drugs has been deliberately advanced and fomented. Vast sums of money have been made that way but it is not, or so we think, entirely activated for the money motive. It looks that way. People are being arrested and brought to justice. Pushers of drugs will be followed up. But there is more than just the drug racket behind all this. The drug racket is a means and an evil means, of making money. But there is more to it than that.”
This is not me talking – it’s Agatha Christie. What I do though is give it a name. It is evil. It promises illumination, enlightenment and people’s logic says yes, yes, it is the way to go but they completely forget the social trauma suffered in getting there.
Exactly the same today with Cameron’s austerity, Merkel’s and Sarkozy’s austerity. Why? Over an artificial debt figure.
Why TF are we to bear the brunt of the banksters who were bailed out with our money, to support the obscenely salaried in the City, in the quangos and all over the nation? Why are the least able to be the ones to make all the sacrifices? How do a handful of people at the top determine that we are the ones to pickup their pieces?
Why would you support such people? Christie goes on:
‘That’s a very ancient one, the one that everybody understands and appreciates. Something in it for you. That’s your line. You haven’t been appreciated in the past but all he stands for will hold out the hope of reward to you. Because you give him all the inside dope he wants about your own country, he will promise you places of power in that country in the good times to come.
It’s a world movement all right. They come up from nowhere and destroy everything. They haven’t got knowledge and they haven’t got experience but they’ve got vision and vitality and they’re backed by money. Rivers and rivers of money pouring in. But it’s based on hate, it can’t get anywhere. It can’t move off the ground.
She outlines the mechanism:
Key to Wagner’s Ring:
A = armaments
D = drugs
S = science
J = agents provocateur
F = finance