Just who are these ‘powers that be’ we’re trying to nail?

Who the hell are these people?

So many have come at this phenomenon from so many different angles:

# Paul Marks at Samizdata:

“Critical Theory” or “Political Correctness” (the Frankfurt School of Marxism) does NOT care about Gay people as such.

It does not care about women or blacks as such either – it really does not.

They are all just “cannon fodder” – for the war to destroy “capitalism”.

As soon as someone is not serving this role – they will be thrown under the bus.

# Vox Day touched on part of it, one of its manifestations:

Considering that in the UK alone, they’re willing to spend $75 million in what will be a futile attempt to counter it:

The UK government is to pay an advertising giant, which campaigned against Brexit, £60 million to fight so-called “far right” extremism online, including “going against people who read Breitbart”.

Government sources revealed the plans to The Times, explaining how the Home Office aims to counter “far-right and extreme right-wing narratives” by working with Saatchi and Saatchi.

# Robert Bork [Reagan’s nomination to SCOTUS, helping rein in the Judiciary – naturally the attempt failed] had this to say:

bork on the shift left

# Going way back in history, Paul, in Ephesians 6:12 nailed it:

ephesians 6:12

Even here, the revisionist ‘progressives’, in an attempt to deflect people from what this really says, have brought out Revised International Versions etc., all of which bowdlerize the KJV, not to mention the early Greek. The RIV was one of the early attempts to still teach the Bible but remove all references to the real enemy.

# Ann Barnhardt I think nails them – they are diabolical narcissists and she points to anyone at all seeking high office. I’d add that many do it as they see a chance to make a contribution in getting the power to run things ‘the way they should be run’ but in that very ambition lie the seeds of all sorts of pathologies – as people fall away before you, what does it do to your character?

It’s particularly pernicious with Labour people in this country. Otherwise condemned to live lives as shop stewards at the highest, here is a path to glory – Harman and Abbott are prime examples.

# Agatha Christie had a passage in N or M in which Inspector Grant explains why the German agent had done as he’d done:

Tommy and Tuppence stared.

“Incredible!” said the former.

Grant shook his head.

“You do not know the force of the German propaganda. It appeals to something in man, some desire or lust for power. 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 been the same. It is the Cult of Lucifer – Lucifer, Son of the Morning. Pride and a desire for personal glory!”

Germans, yes. A particular type of German of course. Ann Barnhardt, in her presentation, specifically mentions that the old term used was ‘megalomaniac’, now overtaken by other terms. But there it is, in the Christie quote. Ms Barnhardt also nails “haughtiness” as a key characteristic.

# Churchill referred to it in his famous tract which has been authenticated, despite constant attempts to debunk his authorship of it:

From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

# The bit I left out there, being pro-modern-Israel, as opposed to pro-Wahabi, pro-Hamas or pro-ISIS, was the bit about the Jews:

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.

He calls them ‘International Jews’, others call them Ashkenazi, others just point out the Rothschilds being escorted to the border by Nazis, not railroaded and incinerated, to the Frankfurt School which was teeming with the type – wizened, grizzled, bitter, hating humankind. There’s a definite type there but to write on it has you labelled anti-Semite.

If I don’t pursue this further now it’s that the post has to finish sometime and I’ve not researched this aspect properly yet but it’s in the pipeline. And it’s a definite and recognizable factor in world history. Seems to me that this lot, whoever we can nail them as, narrow it down as, have done immense damage to the Judaic right to live in peace but it’s so ancient – it goes right back to biblical times.

# Charles Lindbergh Snr referred to these people who ran things, as did Woodrow Wilson, as did Congressman Louis McFadden years later, as did Senator William Jenner in February, 1954, to the Senate. Their main concern was the financial power – in London and through the Fed.

Jenner:

We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state.

It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without suspecting that change is under way…. If I seem to be extremist, the reason is that this revolutionary clique cannot be understood, unless we accept the fact that they are extremist.

# In the late 1890s, Rockefeller adopted the most crazed educational philosophy he could find – Wundtian – and it became the common core of American education, through the Lincoln School [note the name, the overtones of goodness]. This is also part of this phenomenon – it’s very old. There are all sorts of references on the net, this is one.

# The Royal Society was specifically to enthrone Big Science and waylay the Enlightenment. Links are difficult – this one links to Pinterest, which then tries to make you sign up, I refuse. There are others which go completely left field. This one needs further exploration one day.

Not the least doubt of the influence – see our Big Science as God today. The bit on Pinterest I could get was:

royal society

We can’t see more because if you click, Pinterest tries to tie you up, fade out the text and all that guff [another post needed, just on these games].

# All the way, in every era, it was always global in aim, involved a small core of overlords and the rest – plebs to varying degrees. Orwell obviously touched on it.

# Throw in Masonry, the CIA, the corrupt Catholic church and the corruption in every other church which sports a synod, hierarchy and tiers, plus the huge mega-money-churches in the States.

# The Frankfurt mentally ill – Alinsky, Benjamin, Marcuse, later Leary, Phillips, Zappa in the 60s, Zeppelin, all of those up to and including today’s West and Swift – ripping the quality from music and replacing it with atonal dystopia, sheer blandness and social propaganda. Ditto in art. I’ve a few posts on this, it’s one of my main concerns, aesthetics:

http://www.nourishingobscurity.com/2014/01/12atonalism-and-that-agenda/

# Coleman’s reference to the Committee of 300 is supported by Milner’s Circle of Helpers, Rhodes was part of all that. Throw in Chatham House and various so-called thinktanks, e.g. Tavistock, Demos, the CFR, TLC across the pond – it’s all about exactly the same thing and has core tenets summed up by Weishaupt in 1776. Those goals have never changed, though the names and players have.

# The psychology field, exposed by Colin Ross, who then either went mad or was portrayed as such – that nailed the CIA in part. One monster was Ewen Cameron and they nearly had him nailed in court, it at least broke open MK Ultra and Monarch programming.

http://www.nourishingobscurity.com/2014/08/g-h-estabrooks-onwards-2/

# The left itself gets part of it correct by nailing the banksters but then followers go off on tangents which undercut any good they were doing. Andrew Jackson pointed to the banksters in his fight with Nicholas Biddle. Told the people to go ask Biddle why things were as they were. And they did, had him holed up in his house.

# This judge in Seattle is part of it – how did he suddenly spring up? He’s one of the Betas, following the Alpha line, as is detailed in the next section.

# Obviously Bohemian Grove, the paedo scandals of Dolphin Square and elsewhere, even the turning of the blind eye to the Rotherham 1400 – all part of the same push. The Belgian paedo network involving royalty and the aristocracy.

# It was present, this power, when Bush met Fox and Martin in March 2005 to set up the SPPNA, under the auspices of the CFR-appointed NAAC – they try every which way, a new scheme every couple of months – the UN’s Agenda 21 is one of those, Codex Alimentarius.

# There’s no end to it. The climate change bullsh is another aspect.

Give it a name

We can’t, mainly because none of us agree on all points. For example, a Catholic, Ann Barnhardt, calls it Diabolical Narcissism, most call it leftism or liberalism, I called it Them when I started blogging, many call it the PTB. SJW’s are part of and victims of it.

Ms Barnhardt asks:

Why is no one saying anything? Why is no one doing anything?

I’d put part of that down to few people looking in that direction, everyone preoccupied with some other aspect, thinking a different way, having a life to lead, bread to earn.

Also, most don’t want to know, it all seems so far-fetched, despite the overwhelming evidence of late which the alt-right has pointed to. I’m not alt-right but there is much they say which is on the button.

Many are too frightened to speak out, for fear of being ridiculed, as I promptly will be here. Or else ignored.

Ms Barnhardt puts another type – those under patronage – and mentions that the power of appointment and the gong [not her word] or patronage from above is alluring, tempting, even self-confirming – one admires the demi-god above whom you respect, the one who now deigns to look your way – that is just the human condition, it always happens that way.

But taken too far, it produces an Alpha-Beta paradigm.

Unfortunately, it works on all sides – Corey L’s and many Deplorables’ adoration of Donald does go overboard but as he’s been positive so far of the country and cut off the ultimate PTB desctruction they had planned for the next eight years, it has not yet become a major negative yet in the eyes of the 52%.

But coming back to this Beta attaching to an Alpha above – someone is appointed, he is flattered, he is loyal, he adopts many of the thought patterns and ways of the one above, e.g. Hillary Clinton and other monsters.

When the underling knows something is wrong, he will not speak up for fear of the end to advancement, non-inclusion at in-parties and jollies, losing the easy acknowledgement of those above as part of one’s circle, meaning he really is Someone.

Conscience takes a back seat but then something else happens – through such close proximity to the bad overlord, many of the thinking patterns – all of which are designed to present the monster as a regular, good person, misunderstood – seep into the underling’s brain and as Ms Barnhardt points out – that person develops a fierce loyalty which will brook no attack, which refuses to rationalize any criticism from outside.

Yes, I know many are thinking of Kellyanne Conway as a prime case but it’s everywhere, in every little government department, in every firm, in every club. Someone above raises you up, you become a Beta to their Alpha.

I had it in the early years of blogging. These days, you have to go through some clicks at my site to get to the awards I received. Why do I not display them upfront, in the sidebar? Because I am in thrall to no mortal, I reserve the right to hit anyone, on any side. It’s what it’s all about.

A specific issue

All the above applies on any issue you care to name – feminism, socialism, the Church, the judiciary, ruined education, twisted sexuality – it goes on and on and on.

One which Ms Barnhardt covers, not covered in great depth across the net, is:

effeminacy

She quotes a saint, a woman, who was told to develop virility and I’m glad that Ann, a woman, can see this for what it is. Effeminacy has to be the major weapon of any enemy over your people, whether you think that is Putin or the devil. A commenter observed that it is a sign of societies in their death throes.

Plus the demoralization mentioned by Yuri Bezmenov, where he pointed out that they cannot even reason any more in a way which will save them.  You might think this over-reaches and I’d not argue nor agree with you – it is indicative of something wrong though, is it not? Give it whatever label you want:

effeminacy traits

So, instead of a woman strong in her own femininity – a completely different word – and instead of men who are men in the moral sense – not in the macho fighter sense – there is this unisex creature who is neither man nor woman. And so many, especially the new Woman, wants this so much, as it eliminates the threat of the strong male.

………..

I’ve written copiously on these topics over the years – for example here:

http://www.nourishingobscurity.com/2016/07/the-war-for-the-soul-of-the-west/

My three main themes are ‘feminism and the destruction of women’, ‘aesthetics’ and now this later one – ‘effeminization’.

You no doubt have your own core beefs about things, you see the ills of the world in your own particular way. I’d wager ours are two intersecting sets though and there is much common ground about whom these blighters are who continue to bring us down.

………..

Aside from Ms Barnhardt, there are the contributors at N.O. to thank for material for parts of this post.

3 comments for “Just who are these ‘powers that be’ we’re trying to nail?

  1. Errol
    February 9, 2017 at 11:50 pm

    “…diabolical narcissists…” is a nonsense phrase that has no meaning, neither bibilical or psychological it is simply a ‘boo!’ word so beloved of the Left.

    Please, stop using such daft terms. Don’t twist language to suit your narrative. That’s what the Left do.

    • February 10, 2017 at 9:30 am

      What we have here, finally, is what Ms Barnhardt referred to in the clip. She spent considerable time at the start on why the word “diabolical” does come into it.

      At this point, it’s worth looking at the OoL readership. It’s largely secular but not all and of the Christian readership, I’d say about half would be Catholic.

      One of the core figures in the secular drive to deny any metaphysical at all was, of course, Freud, on whom there is a guestpost at my place later by Ken Craggs, who is as secular as you. Yet he opens by saying that these two [including daughter Anna] have much to answer for.

      They do. As was pointed out by so many critics, including Popper, Freud’s theories are, not entirely but largely, unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be categorically dismissed as Errol has done the other way, Errol being steeped in this psyche claptrap, as I am at liberty to call it, again my own comment being unfalsifiable and unprovable.

      What I do know from my ed psychology decades is that the Piaget and Bloom we had shoved down our throats is so much speculative claptrap. There are many critiques out there of both those figures but the bottom line is that this debate simply comes back to the same thing:

      Is there the humanist/Freud notion that there is no metaphysical … or is there very much one?

      And that then determines how you view the evil that does go on, what its source is. But it’s unprofitable to fall out over that because we all know, secular and otherwise, that this thing you can give whatever name you want to – this thing which we call evil does exist and in large measure, it’s so visible around the world today in the actions of the PTB and by trickle down effect, the underlings.

      And there it is. One person’s “it’s all in the human mind”, without any attempt to address “soul” and many other curious things within the human is just as silly as a blind faither’s “it’s all God” without offering evidence, of which there is much, but of course no final proof.

      I did not enter Mike’s discussion earlier for that reason – it is futile. There is a similar situation to that in politics right now – the two sides are so polarized, so hardbitten by now that the twain shall never meet. At least they can’t meet, except by the agency of One whom the other side does not accept.

      Were Errol [with most of the readership] and I to fall out over that, then what is really lost are the things we DO agree about – and they are many in the political sphere. Therefore, my blogging is not religious, except in quoting or showcasing someone who has things to say, e.g. Barnhardt.

      OoL is a largely secular, “Deplorable” type libertarian site and I’d be out of order to change that – it has a character of its own and I’m damned if I wish to change it, even if I could.

      And what’s more, I thank Errol, sincerely, and wouldn’t have it any other way but that he puts his view robustly. That goes for all readers here – to me, that’s vastly more valuable than attempting to win some unwinnable fight over something from the mists of time.

      My final thought is that this post opened with a comment at Samizdata by Paul Marks on Critical Theory. Ah, now there is something I’ll very much go into bat to combat – Critical Theory. And throughout the post, Ms Barnhardt was just one contributor to the overall position that all those others also contributed to. It’s observable, this PTB, and needs combating.

  2. February 10, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Ken Craggs comments a few moments ago, at the other place:

    Your chance to analyse Sigmund Freud:
    The US Library of Congress has created and published online (1 Feb 2017) an archive of 20,000 personal documents belonging to Sigmund Freud.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04s3hkf
    https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-17-005/?loclr=fbloc
    Via https://twitter.com/FreudMusLondon

Comments are closed.