by Dreams End » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:43 pm
Good to bring up Gorbachev. More on him in a sec. And I think that my main point is that I keep seeing rightists talk about the elite plan for a world socialist government. Socialism, folks, is an ECOMONIC system, not a system of government. <br><br>Here's that radical website, Dictionary.com:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>THAT is socialism. A socialist economy can be accompanied by any number of government systems, but any form I would favor would be highly democratic.<br><br>It's good to help those at the bottom, but that is welfare, not socialism. However, England has (or used to have) "socialized medicine" for example. In that case, rather than private corporations running the insurance and healthcare industries, you have a great deal of government involvement. I know that they've been trying to dismantle that and, though I'm not that familiar with England's politics, I'll bet they use the trick they are using here to dismantle public schools. Reduce funding for them, then show how they are failing to justify reducing funding even more. By the way, public schooling WOULD be considered socialist, but since most people have always thought of schooling as a right and not a privilege, it's common not to think of it that way. And that is changing in the US. The very idea of public schooling is under attack and while the real forces attacking the system are corporations who'd like to make money off of for-profit schools, and corporate stooges who simply want to get the government out of the business of ANY kind of social welfare programs to reduce the tax burden on those poor billionaires, there is a rightwing grassroots movement or at least the appearance of such, that is equating public schools with government oppression. (This is beyond the legitimate debate that should always be happening about how best to educate our kids. This is neo-liberalism in action: destroy infrastructure, destroy all barriers to corporate profit.)<br><br>So, by definition, a fully socialist system would replace private ownership of the large scale enterprises with government ownership or other methods of public ownership, such as worker collectives, etc. One can argue about the efficiency of such a system, though I'm here to tell you, having worked at the bottom of chain retail stores, and having experienced the "joys" of private, for-profit healthcare systems, the private sector is NOT inherently efficient. And economies of scale give government control of things like healthcare an advantage.<br><br>Most countries considered "socialist" actually have mixed economies, with state intervention only in certain areas. <br><br>To assist the poor is a good thing. But if you leave a capitalist system, especially a largely unregulated one such as we have here in the US, disproportionate accumulation of wealth is inevitable. Here in the US especially, those who accumulate that wealth immediately turn it to political advantage to keep the state from interfering with their profit systems or even to make their profitability greater.<br><br>We are subjected from birth to an intense propaganda campaign about how "democracy" and "capitalism" are the same thing, and that is the mistake in this discussion so far. In fact, if you think about it, because accumulation of capital and the ability of private individuals and corporations to make decisions that affect thousands and even millions of people (when to close a plant and relocate to Mexico, when to raid the pension funds, how to structure wages (very, very minimal laws here about that)) and if you add to that the near destruction of labor unions, capitalism is inherently UNDEMOCRATIC. Sure, we all get one vote, but the rich have a vast array of ways in which they can get their voices heard that most of us have no hope of imitating.<br><br>You could conceivably have socialism with a dictator or with a series of decentralized, locally run, community councils (though you'd have to have some kind of coordination among them) or any number of other arrangements. Fascism has, actually, especially in its "leftwing" or, as it's called now, "third way" or "third positionist" tendency, the possibility of being concerned with those on the lowest end of the economic ladder. In fact, many fascist demogogues make a direct appeal to those people. However, the fascist is usually backed by the big corporations. Why? Because ultimately the agenda is to create a state in which government's role is to insure the complete domination of society by the corporations. This is why Hitler was so big into differentiating "finance capitalists" (bankers, though in practice he really only meant Jewish bankers as the Jewish banks were often taken over by non-Jewish Germans) and "industrial capitalists." The latter were considered the good guys. <br><br>Even if you didn't add in the anti-semitic component, and went after ALL bankers, the amount of control and wealth of the industrial capitalists would not be challenged. Unions and worker movements of all sorts would be outlawed. The ultimate goal is a COMPLIANT WORK FORCE. (And perhaps a compliant peasant class, happily toiling in the verdant fields of their motherland. Starving, sure, but filled with the spirit of "blood and soil.")<br><br>So what, then, to call Gorbachev? Hmm...well, first off, this thread is about Maurice Strong, so let's start with him. He's a Rockefeller guy. Rockefellers are NOT socialists. Repeat, Rockefellers are NOT a socialists.<br>Rockefeller, Strong, etc. may secretly or overtly advocate any number of ideas that involve greater control over the lives of individuals, but NONE of those ideas would involve turning control of their vast fortunes over to public ownership. I do think that the Rockefellers are a great example of the mega rich making inroads into government, but this is a tactical move. Nelson Rockefeller got involved in order to push a certain agenda. That agenda has to do with social control in order to insure corporate dominance. <br><br>Others, such as the Duponts, Morgans, Fords, etc embraced fascism as the best approach. This, by the way, should be a clue to the working classes what fascism is really about. The idea of democracy is simply too dangerous. What if people vote to limit wealth? HORRORS!<br><br>I don't think the Rockefellers ever openly embraced fascism, but I"m not an expert. The whole "Trilateralist" approach is more sophisticated. While it has a longterm strategy in mind, I've been impressed, if that's the word, at how their tactics can change with fluidity. For example, reading reports of the Council on Foreign relations leading up to US entry into WW2. They had plans for what to do if Hitler won and also when Hitler lost. This is back when corporations were more based in particular nations, and so the American industrialists and financiers decided they'd prefer that Hitler and also Japan not have too much control over world resources. <br><br>So I think that this is typical of the "globalist" agenda. Their overall goal is to reduce barriers of any sort to the free movement of capital across borders. They are the ones trying to equate capitalism with freedom in the public mind. And I think Gorbachev is part of this. I don't know if that represents his original views or if he's just a handy figurehead. <br><br>Here's a link for those interested in Gorbachev to his "State of the World" forum. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.worldforum.org/">www.worldforum.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I've been writing ad nauseum about the agenda of those seeking to influence the "New Age" movement as being about promoting an ideology that ultimately rejects rationality, true democracy and ideas of collective action for political change (as opposed to "creating your own reality", positive thinking, etc.) <br><br>I'm still muddled, I confess, because there are overt strains of fascism within the roots of the New Age movement and among some of its proponents. I can't tell if there is a REAL difference between the globalist "religiou" agenda and the fascist. You have people like Soros who allegedly OPPOSES the globalist agenda, but if you see all he's doing in his "open society" programs, it's clear that this actually supports a globalist agenda.<br><br>I think the only real difference between fascism and this globalist approach is that with fascism the role of nationalism if more important. Do the fascists really believe they can or even desire to dismantle the multi-national corporate system? I'm not sure, as the most powerful corporations are all multi-national in character now. But they certainly PREACH that they are going to do that. <br><br>So the lines of demarcation aren't completely clear to me. The agenda is ultimately the same...benefitting an elite class, whether based in a nation, or simply running the world.<br><br>Back, again, to Gorbachev. The website doesn't tell us much, really. I am struck by my first encounter with the "State of the World" forum in a piece by physicist Jack Sarfatti, who found himself in the middle of a bizarre collection of "New Age" mystics and theoreticians intermingled with some high level players like Gorbachev. <br><br>Check out the cast of characters just in the first paragraph:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Jim Garrison and Tom Jenkins from Gorbachev Foundation hosted a fun-filled birthday party for Nina Kucharev on this past Saturday night on the third floor of my office at 3220 Sacramento Street in San Francisco. Tom Jenkins is a former physicist who arranges much of the logistics for Jim Garrison, such as Boris Yeltsin's visit to the USA before he became President of Russia. Tom and I had an interesting conversation in which we both noted the amazing patterns of synchronicity linking physicists interested in consciousness, extra-terrestrial intelligence, remote-viewing and other fringe areas with the pivotal events that ended the Cold War. Danny Sheehan, who also visits our office, was co-founder with Garrison, of the now defunct Christic Institute, a casualty of the Iran-Contra operation. Sheehan, has had childhood "close encounter experiences" analogous to the one I reported in "The Parsifal Effect". Evidently, it might appear that Dan Sheehan, was also part of the "400" contactees mentioned to me on the phone in 1952 by the alleged "conscious computer" on the spacecraft from the future. Harvard Professor John Mack, influential in the Esalen-Soviet Exchange Program, and under fire from Harvard for his bold study of UFO abductees, is also, it might appear, part of the "400".<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Read the rest. Have mind blown. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/si03.html">www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/si03.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>There was a time when I would have seen this as a collection of great thinkers and mystics working on important, deep, spiritual questions of vital urgency in our time.<br><br>Now, what I tend to see is a network of intelligence operatives and powerful elites trying to create and promote a whole new religion and worldview. That's why ole Lawrence Rockefeller is promoting UFO's and why Danny Sheehan was defending John Mack. I've done many posts on this sort of thing.<br><br>So, like Christians on the right, I do see much of this New Age thought as a plot to create a one world religion. I see this as about pacifying the masses or at least important segments of them, and also about pushing an agenda about imminent "earth changes". Since we know the Rockefellers have pushed eugenics and population reduction and we see so many messages of imminent collapse of society, I think it may have something to do with getting us to accept the deaths and degredation of billions on this planet as "inevitable" and not as the result of choosing to protect profits rather than reform a worldwide economic system based on manufactured scarcity and profits over morality.<br><br>However, despite, as I said, the seeming conflict between fascists and globalists or even criticism of the globalist agenda within much of the New Age movement, I really see so much that is similar in the two messages. I guess it's simply a matter of whether this conflict is real or manufactured to control the opposition. Either way, neither offers a valid way out of this mess for me. <br><br>So, socialism. No, that's not what's being promoted here. Gorbachev's role? Honest opinion (but I'll do more research): paid spokesperson for an elite agenda. <p></p><i></i>
