Take Ironies Too’s Sherman Act post, wanting to extend the anti-trust legislation to the G20 and the EU. It would be a neat solution but it ain’t gonna happen, to employ the vernacular, simply because the move to do so must come, under our current system, from the elite.
There is an oligarchical push which has little to do with left and right and yes, there is a left and right and they do come at it from different angles. One is for peace and love and fairness to the oppressed and disadvantaged. The other is also for that but in priority order. The former is for getting it to happen, no matter how. The latter says don’t allow the state to legislate this in because it will legislate away your freedoms as well as impoverishing the very sector which enriches the society.
Fairness versus freedom – which will win?
The former says it should never come down to that. The latter agrees – no it shouldn’t but it does come down to that because a 3rd force makes it so. The 3rd force plays the former against the latter. We, the 98%, are divided down ideological lines or rather, as said, coming at it from different angles.
Take WTC7. There was clearly something wrong and NIST did get caught in more than one lie. That’s the bottom line below which one cannot go. There were explosions, it simply does not ring true that they happened miraculously, there were fragments in the dust, independents came to the conclusion that it was controlled implosion long before truthers or birthers or any other “er”s came about.
There was something wrong and that alone needs looking into – let’s not go any further at this point..
A section of the rationalist world which can’t accept even what the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was all about – namely that there exist cartels and conspiracies to achieve nefarious aims – predictably comes in and dismisses out of hand that “the government” had any hand in WTC7. Quite so, if you define “government” narrowly. But the 3rd force very much used it to implement its aims – the Patriot Act and all the other transfers to the state of things which were hitherto unregulated and should still be unregulated. When presidents and other people up top have occasionally broken ranks and stated quite clearly, quite explicitly, that this 3rd force does exist, then why would people turn away from that and not note it?
This is the thing which really puzzles me. Just how people can be so deliberately obtuse.
The answer is perhaps that people are tribal. Thus you’d expect me, a conservative libertarian, to support various positions which traditionally go with conservatism and libertarianism. Ditto with the left. There comes to be a way of thinking, a way of talking, a way of employing our own tribal rhetoric, such that there’s a natural barrier before we even get started.
Even within our own ranks too. There’s a type of conservative/libertarian rationalist who thinks he’s on top of how it ticks, thinks he has all the threads in his mind, he blogs about that and yes, he’s usually alpha male, with that gruff “I know all I need to and you get short shrift” manner. He doesn’t “do” conspiracy theories. He reads this now, sighs, looks at the ceiling, clicks out and then goes and does exactly what he’s always done – writes that he doesn’t “do” conspiracy theories, as if “conspiracy theories” is one homogenous entity. And of course, it’s that pig-ignorant blindness, that unwillingness to take on board anything it hasn’t personally discovered, which can’t think outside its tribalism, which is the problem – whether that type is with the right, the left, with the rationalist, even with the metaphysically inclined.
It’s a type which prevents real progress.
I’m arguing for a position which does not go along with its tribalism, which will take every new piece of evidence on its merits, no matter who came out with it. Thus the Occupy charter can be accepted in its original conception because Them must be stopped. From Monsanto to the EU to the World Core Curriculum to ASH to DEFRA to ACORN to state mentoring, to Common Purpose, to all of it – they must be stopped.
But how can that happen when we are a house divided? The left is most vociferous about this, ascribing opposition to Occupy as entrenched interests. No, no, no – it is not entrenched interests in most cases. It is that we see how Occupy, just as with the Tea Party, was hijacked.
I can see the thought forming in the mind of certain readers right now: “Yes, well perhaps if you concentrated less on highlighting our divisions and more on our points of common cause, we’d be better off.”
If those differences were but technicalities, then yes but what if they were fundamental, critical differences of direction? Much as we might abhor fundamental differences, they do exist. I do not wish to see free enterprise eliminated, just because a bunch of Them are raping the planet, of which banksters are a part, just because multinational heads are eliminating competition.
There is testimony to this 3rd force all over the place, if people would but look. It’s very “clubby”. In fact, it’s not averse to calling itself a club – Club of Rome, Club of Paris or an Institute or Society, e.g. Tavistock. It has many smokescreens, e.g. communism, usury, rationalism, Royal Society, Ecology, Global Warming, Science as opposed to science – and the endless array bamboozles people. The real scientist sees Science as so close to his position that when the Church attacks it, we suddenly have people inventing Creationism and Fundamentalism and then there is Islam as well, which then necessitates lumping everything under one heading and opposing Religion, in line with orthodox Marxist rhetoric, despite Religion being a collective noun for disparate and opposed philosophies. Why not oppose the rational philosophers too?
How do you view Eustace Mullins and/or G. Edward Griffin? Do you view Senator McFadden, Lindburgh Snr and the first two as anti-free enterprise commies or do you see them as rightwingnuts? Do you, as a rationalist, regard them as wittering whackjobs, on the grounds that, whatever they say, you don’t “do” conspiracy theories [general, uncountable, non-specific]? How about they might have a point? How about they don’t fall into any political category but are simply reporting what they know to be wrong?
Even within Christianity, the divide and rule is working fulltime. So the Pretribbers and Posttribbers are opposed. In the old days, the Consubstantiationists and Transsubstantiationists conducted pogroms against one another. A point of view, e.g. Evolution becomes the new Orthodoxy and any who oppose it are ostracized. Who’s on the side of the angels now?
How many of us step back, take a breath and ask why we’re at each other’s throats when the 3rd force, Them, simply extends its control, gets richer and more entrenched in its powerbase? They know they exist only as a lie and thus their systems of control, from false constructs, e.g. the yin and yang dualism through to the political division of the day, is essentially false as well, with two aims – to stay in power and to pressgang humanity – increasingly ignorant, compliant, undernourished as opposed to overfed and at each other’s throats – into service to the puppetmasters.
If there’s not an intelligence controlling this [Ephesians 6:12], if you can’t accept that there is, then it must be an amazing coincidence or natural predisposition to oligarchy with religious overtones, for religious overtones there very much are. Have you looked at the type of language the top Environmentalists use, with their Shamballa etc.?
If it’s insanity, it’s focussed insanity, seemingly-rational, dispassionate insanity, rapacious insanity, indifferent to the sufferings of others, happy to have peoples taking up arms and slaughtering each other for some constructed ideological reason, delighting in honour killings and mutilations, wanting people even within the same political area to fall out over what, in the end, turn out to be divisions with a shelf life.
This is way different to wanting to have a little business and gain a certain market share. It’s an entirely different mentality. And it’s so easily understood when you can see the 3rd force and its driving power for what it is. In fact, you could go further and say that there are two political forces, not three – there is Them and then there is the 98%, 1% less but essentially what Occupy were saying.
But not in the way Occupy conceptualized it.