The controlled left

by **havanagilla** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:09 am

thanks dbd, this kind of brings the thread down to earth and to now. quite correct, the media is a main part of the war these days.

by **erosoplier** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am

I think this is a "can't see the wood for the trees" scenario. I don't know how the banking system works in America - if I was an American I'd be ashamed to have to admit this...but I'm not - I'm Australian, so I'm ashamed to admit I don't know how the Reserve Bank of Australia works... What I do know is all of the activities of the fed appear to be legitimate, but from a larger perspective, it is nothing more than a grand shell game. The Fed gives over to the feeder banks the licence to print money. It is your local bank that buys the right to print/electronically create roughly 10 times the amount of money it has in reserves. It is a grand conspiracy, so big, and so complicated, that the penny hasn't dropped that we the common people are getting royally ripped off. Think what it would be like if YOU decided to (and could) become a bank. For every dollar you have, you could loan out 9 dollars at-interest - all you'd need to do is find people who wanted money and had some realistic hope of slowly paying it back. At 6% interest you wouldn't earn 6 cents on that dollar in year one - you 'd earn 54 cents. A 54% real rate of return. Business people are mighty happy if they can achieve that sort of rate of return. And you could do it again next year. The Fed isn't the problem in and of itself. It is fractional reserve banking, combined with the fact that historically the sequence is advanced - that the power to create money has been in private hands for a long time - that is the problem. I'll beg you all this time: Please have a look at the Money Masters video - it's on YouTube. Edit: Or Google Video rather: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4991544789166784731&q=The+Money+Masters&pl=true">video.google.com/videopla...rs&pl=true</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=erosoplier>erosoplier</A> at: 8/28/06 1:50 am

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:05 am

sweejak...if you can get Sheehan's ear...send her to this thread. You went to Everest's site...did you not notice that most of his articles were in the "Revolutionary Worker"? That's the RCP newspaper. He's written for it forever. Jesus...ghost troops, McGovern, RCP.... Who is there representing Larouche? Seriously, this isn't good. I am so frustrated that activists don't know activist history. I guess Sheehan's not really from an activist background..but Everest is a freaking liar, as you will now easily be able to prove with your friend Google. And the fact that he's now good buddies with McGovern...I'm afraid it won't take you too long to see that this implies exactly what I was getting at earlier. RCP + CIA = COINTELPRO. I would be more than happy, if you find people who really want to know, to outline in a more thorough way what I think is going on down there...I've experienced it myself, though to Sheehan's credit, they pulled all the big guns out for her... Though I did meet another RCP leader once, Carl Dix, at a conference and I'll leave with his immortal words. He said this is how it works: "Everybody get a gun. When the time is right, start shooting." "How do we know when the time is right," I asked. "I'll tell you." Nice. That was during an organizing conference for yet another catchy titled non-event they sponsored waaaay back in '84 called "No Business As Usual Day". MO is the same, but they are sure getting more mainstream recognition. Again, you should stress it's not about redbaiting. I personally will proudly proclaim the historic role of socialists and communists in the history of this country. But those guys are FBI or I'll eat Bob Evakian's Little Red Book.

by **yathrib** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:32 am

...the details of this. As to the RCP: In the late 70s/early 80s I was involved in the movement to oppose reinstatement of registration and the draft. RCP members showed up at our meetings most of the time, and I had a number of indepth discussions with them. They openly advocated joining the army in order to get weapons training and to turn the guns around when the day came. One day, my high school went on a tour of the FBI building, and I saw the most militant RCP member I knew eating in the FBI cafeteria with a very buttoned down, stereotypically FBI type. In my naive way I said hello to him and he pointedly ignored me. MAke of it what you will. As an aside, it is very interesting that at that time the left was universally opposed to the draft, whereas today most liberals would favor some sort of reinstatement, for what I have to admit are good reasons...

by **Sweejak** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:43 am

You know, I didn't meet anyone doing Larouche, but CC did attract a whole slew of all types of people who did want to hitch their wagon to what she started. I've heard of some "socialists" who were kicked out and have seen someone removed who I also thought was a provocateur. This accounts I think for the highly protective atmosphere around there and their desire to focus on one issue; Bring the troops home. IMO they sometimes shoot themselves in the foot trying to enforce this, not necessarily Sheehan, but those who presume to speak for her. Recently a long time supporter was told to leave because of the Pal/ Israel issue. I've heard that some vets were upset when they were told not to bring up the DU issue, but that was a while back. Geoffrey Millard a Iraq war vet who is close to that movement has DU poisoning. It's probably important to remember that she has been seriously sick and is coming off a long fast. She has been accused of "bumper sticker politics", I don't think she is a sophisticated political analyst and I happen to like bumper sticker politics, meaning that sometimes the simplest tactics and talking points are the best. Here is an example of someone who thought they were speaking for her: This is the text that was presumed to be Cindy's this was posted all over the web as proof that Sheehan was a gatekeeper: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>-- Quote: WE ARE NOT, REPEAT, NOT, 9-11 RESEARCHERS At the risk of offending you (plural), the majority of us are not into the 9-11 investigations and would really appreciate it if you would please stop using the CAMPCASEYALUMNI for your messages. There are plenty of sites devoted to your efforts. The 9-11 victims are dead! Our soldiers are dying, today, and every day. This is now. We can revisit your issue after we get our troops home. Y'all are sucking all the energy out of the antiwar movement and it is VERY DETREMENTAL to what we are trying to do. We all have things that interest us, other than ending the war. Most of us pursue those things on our own. I appreciate your (plural) passion but believe me when I say that this 9-11 obsession is not helping us get our troops home. Please stop usurping the CAMPCASEY site for your personal agendas. Some of us are working our asses off 24/7 on ending the war and y'all are not supporting us or helping by what you are doing on this site. There are 50 other groups where you can post. Give us back our site. It seems to me that Crawford this August is going to be ISO, 9-11 ers and at least one person who was already thrown out once. Nothing personal but please, keep your 9-11 stuff someplace else and let us move forward with our work. -- end quote <hr></blockquote> However, these are not Sheehan's words. These are the words of a Camp Casey Alumni member, not even a moderator of that board. This was widely taken as Sheehan's quote. Sheehan's words regarding this issue are: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>--Quote: it is so important to stay focused and camp casey will not be about 9/11 it will be about the war, like it always has been. i hope people understand that because if anyone comes out with an agenda other than stopping the war, then they will be disappointed when they are not allowed to take it over and use CC for their own agendas....and I am not sure what an ISO er is...as long as they are focused on ending the war and not any other issues -- End Quote<hr></blockquote> There was a problem when CC supporter Ellsberg came out with an article indicating the likelihood of 9-11 as a psy-op. I left the Camp Casey Alumni forum over this issue, it's not that I thought that CC had to be about 9-11, god knows that movement is about as divisive as it gets all on it's own, and there is a little more to the story, but that had nothing to do with Cindy and I still support that movement, at least large parts of it. Re Everett, I'd never heard of him before, don't know who he is buddies with in the CC group and merely sharing a roundtable doesn't necessarily make you buddies, but I do think your concerns are justified and am not discounting them even though it might appear so and that my mind is too naive. I just don't think the formula is so easy to make for the reasons outlined above and in the other thread. I need something like a CIA pay stub to confidently accuse most suspects of being an actual plant. A quick google didn't pull up anything about him lying, he has a book out: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/kxofg">tinyurl.com/kxofg</a> It's clear to me that if not a member of World Can't Wait his support is so close as to make little difference. I contributed money to World Can't Wait a while back but got pissed off and X'd them out over a disagreement about another hot button, the immigration issue. If you mean he is a liar because of my paraphrase I could easily, as indicated, be mistaken about that. However the talk was videotaped with Truthout cameras so it might make it on the web. Carl Dix, MO of a provocateur. What was the context of this quote? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>.... it's not about redbaiting. I personally will proudly proclaim the historic role of socialists and communists in the history of this country.<hr></blockquote> Understood. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I would be more than happy, if you find people who really want to know, to outline in a more thorough way what I think is going on down there.<hr></blockquote> That would be very helpful. I know people would be interested. I'm in a tight spot right now and all this time online is killing me, I can't research as much as I'd like, maybe I should stick to the Picture thread. In the bigger picture I don't see any way to avoid the jacking and jerking that surrounds movements. I'm hoping there is a way to opt out and simply sidestep the whole paradigm. I mean, important as it is, not everyone has the time, inclination, or passion to crack the can of worms.

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As to the RCP: In the late 70s/early 80s I was involved in the movement to oppose reinstatement of registration and the draft. RCP members showed up at our meetings most of the time, and I had a number of indepth discussions with them. They openly advocated joining the army in order to get weapons training and to turn the guns around when the day came. One day, my high school went on a tour of the FBI building, and I saw the most militant RCP member I knew eating in the FBI cafeteria with a very buttoned down, stereotypically FBI type. In my naive way I said hello to him and he pointedly ignored me. MAke of it what you will.<hr></blockquote> Wow. That's some of the damning evidence that I've ever read of "agent provacateurs". As to Mullins, EUSTACE IS WRONG as to who owns stock in the Federal Reserve Bank.. IT'S NOT A JEWISH CONSPIRACY. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty5.html">www.geocities.com/Capitol...erty5.html</a> According to the N.Y. Fed itself, as of June 30, 1997 the top eight shareholders were Chase Manhatten Bank Citibank Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Fleet Bank Bankers Trust Bank of New York Marine Midland Bank Summit Bank. As of January 1996, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talad of Saudi Arabia owned 8.9% of Citicorp stock. With that myth debunked, I poked around a bit looking at the Federal Reserve membership and I found some things that seemed a little odd. <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-06-2006/0004375389&EDATE=">www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bi...389&EDATE=</a> Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Names New President Charles I. Plosser named Philadelphia Federal Reserve President. PHILADELPHIA, PA UNITED STATES 06/06/2006 The Feds picked an interesting date to appoint him on, methinks. ( 06/06/06) But that's just for a little color. What I found interesting was in his credentials. While on sabbatical during 2003-04, Dr. Plosser was a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and an advisor on monetary policy and research at the Bank of England. <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/publicaffairs/stone-FirstVP.html">www.phil.frb.org/publicaf...rstVP.html</a> William H. Stone, Jr. First Vice President Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia He is a frequent spokesperson on national and regional economic matters and has consulted with foreign central banks in the World Bank. So....The President and VP of the Federal Reserve in Philadelphia have been hanging out with international banks and bankers. Nothing too suspicious there, but....I'm reminded of another "internationalist" banker, David Rockefeller. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller</a> David Rockefeller (born June 12, 1915) is a prominent American banker. After the War, in 1946, he joined the staff of the Chase National Bank, which subsequently became the Chase Manhattan Bank, now JP Morgan Chase & Co. He worked his way up through the ranks, becoming president in 1960. He was chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan from 1969 to 1980 and chairman till 1981. He joined the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a director in 1949, the youngest to be appointed to that position up to that time. This began a lifelong association with the prestigious Council, which had already been financially supported for its establishment, in 1921, by his father, as well as ongoing support from the family's Rockefeller Foundation; along with a Standard Oil executive's widow providing the mansion for its expanded New York headquarters, Harold Pratt House,. Under his stewardship the Chase spread internationally and became a central pillar in the world's financial system. A notable achievement was the setting up of the first branch of an American bank in the then Soviet Union, in 1973. The bank also had a strong connection to the World Bank, as three presidents (John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods) all worked at Chase before taking up positions at the international bank. A fourth president (James D. Wolfensohn) is also closely associated with Rockefeller, serving as a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, amongst other Rockefeller-created institutions. In addition to these connections, he hosted annual luncheons at the family's Pocantico estate for senior officials from the World Bank and IMF, which were also attended by John D 3rd up until his death in 1978. The Chase was also the bank Paul Volcker worked for before he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve. So, I started to wonder if there were other bankers who were involved in the Council on Foreign Relations, and this is what I found. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/cfr2005roster.html">www.geocities.com/benribq...oster.html</a> Bakstansky, Peter – Senior Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Bhala, Raj – former attorney for Federal Reserve Bank of New York Blinder, Alan S. – former Vice-Chairman of Federal Reserve Brimmer, Andrew F. – former member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 1966-1974 Chase, Anthony R. – Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Checki, Terrence J. – Executive Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Considine, Jill M. – Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Cumming, Christine M. – First Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Debs, Richard A. - former Chief Operating Officer of Federal Reserve Bank of New York Ferguson, Roger W. Jr. – Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1999-present) Fisher, Richard W. – President of Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (2005-present) Geithner, Timothy F. – President of Federal Reserve Bank of New York Greenspan, Alan – former Chairman of the Federal Reserve System (1987-2006) Harmon, James A. – former president and chairman of Export-Import Bank (1997-2001) Hedstrom, Mitchell W. – former vice president and member of the restructuring committee at Citibank Hendricks, Darryll E. – a senior vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Herz, Barbara – former World Bank executive Hormats, Robert D. – Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs (International) Horn, Karen N. – former President of Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (1982-1987) Johnson, Karen H. – Director of the Division of International Finance at Federal Reserve [as of 1998] Johnson, Thomas S. – Chairman & CEO of GreenPoint Bank; former President of Chemical Bank Kamarck, Andrew Martin – former President and Chairman of Export-Import Bank (1996-1997) Lagomasino, Maria Elena – former chairman and CEO of J.P. Morgan Private Bank Lambright, James H. – current acting chairman and president of Export-Import Bank Lipsky, John P. – Chief Economist for JP Morgan Chase Lovejoy, Thomas E. – former Chief Biodiversity Advisor for the World Bank MacLaury, Bruce K. - former President of Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Macomber, John Dewitt – former president and chairman of Export-Import Bank (1989-1992) McDonough, William J. – former President of Federal Reserve Bank of New York McNamara, Robert S. – former President of World Bank (1968-1981) Mendoza, Roberto G. – former Vice Chairman of JP Morgan & Co. Merrill, Philip – former president and chairman of Export-Import Bank (2002-2005) Metzger, Barry – former General Counsel of the Asian Development Bank (1995-1999) Moskow, Michael H. – President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (1994-present) Nasher, Raymond Donald - chairman of the Board of Comerica Bank-Texas Niehuss, John M. – former General Counsel of the Export-Import Bank Patterson, Patricia M. – former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Rivlin, Alice M. – former Vice-Chairman of Federal Reserve (1996-1999) Sexton, John E. (Edward) – Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Solomon, Anthony M. – former President of Federal Reserve Bank of New York Speyer, Jerry I. – Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Stewart, Jamie B. Jr. – former acting President of Federal Reserve Bank of New York (2003) Tang, David K. Y. – Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Volcker, Paul A. – former chairman of the Federal Reserve (1979-1987) So, basically a group of bankers, who NO ONE VOTED FOR, are helping to shape America's foreign policy. But, of course, anyone who says we're controlled by bankers is crazy, right?

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:05 pm

Nemo, I think that's a little more to the point. There's not an overt structure that allows it. It's one bank, one vote, so ownership of stock by the biggest banks does not give them direct control. But that's far different from saying uber-capitalists don't have all kinds of ways of messing with the economy. And I put absolutely zero limits on the lengths they will go to. But I tend to see much of this as a class issue. Those 1 percent that own nearly half of everything..they have a different worldview and direct conspiracy is often not needed. For example, you see that everyone in your area is finding good paying jobs and you celebrate. To them, this is cause for concern. Full employment is not good. Or larger examples..the "right" of the U.S. (and before them England and much of Europe) to simply claim a country whose resources are desired or covertly overthrow it once overt colonialism went out of fashion....it's just the way business is done. The actual conspiracy part of, say, funding the contras, is purely the mechanism by which it is carried out...it's not some group subverting an otherwise benign government. That's not to say there aren't factional fights and inner turmoil and even a hierarchy of the elites of some sort. obviously, even if not because of the structure, Chase Manhattan is going to have more influence than Jim's Bank with it's 6 branches or whatever. But the Mullens business started with a presupposition, which really goes back to Jewish banker theory (not emphasizing anti-semitism in this post, but simply WRONG information.) When one starts with such an overarching assumption that there's a tightly controlled clique that controls everything, one simply cherry picks data and interprets it through that lens. The fact that two people were at the same conference becomes "proof" that they are conspiring together. It's dangerous for two reasons. One, it simply puts out bad info that lets a lot of bad guys and systemic evils off the hood and two, if taken to its extreme, you have a philosophy that says "group x" is running the world, so we must rid ourselves of "group x". Of course, Mullens just made shit up as well, which is also part of the problem. My perspective evolved very differently. I started within the far left, pretty trusting of everything that had the left label. But I was really uncomfortable with RCP for example, and the "I'll tell you" when it's time to shoot business. But actually it was a Japanese Buddhist monk (you often see these guys at peace rallies beating on prayer drums) who was the first person I knew who said "I think they are FBI." I began reading about COINTELPRO and also observing what a group of (now very obvious) infiltrators did to an anti-war coalition I was in. So I didn't start with some blanket presumption...well, I did, but it was an incorrect one. And I really hate that I'm always saying who I DON'T trust....but I suppose part of the problem is that the more exposure some alleged leftist has, the more likely they are to be compromised. I used to read Cockburn religiously. But I couldn't figure out his pro-Scientology stuff as I'd done a lot of research on them (they approached an organization I worked with who had consultative status at the UN wanting us to collaborate on a project...I had to kill that idea good and dead...I actually had interns doing research for me.....I was Mr. Bigshot for about five minutes.) Then I owe a lot to our dear boardly departed proldic. If you ever learned to read past his anger and his sometimes impenetrable prose (he's got too much in his head and it's hard to get down concisely sometimes) who opened up another line of thought for me. As a true leftist I was very anti-Israel and very pro-anybody who opposed Israel. The truth I accept now is FAR more complicated, with British funding of Arab extremists immediately after Israel's statehood, Muslim Brotherhood and the shady English and US intel connections, Nazi ties of early Palestinian leaders...etc etc. So when I saw Cockburn pushing CIA guys who aren't outing the systemic abuses of the CIA but merely how a small clique of neo-cons somehow subverted the entire military industrial complex for their own reasons I really began to question. This is the theme that has made me sit up and take notice. "This war is entirely for Israel" coming both from the far right and all elements of the left. something is really wrong here. No matter your views on Israel, can we not assign a little bit of blame to those who profit from war and oil and the destabilization of the Middle EAst (think about it...what major countries are far nearer the Middle East than we are whose growth and military power we'd like to keep in check? Can you say Chechnya?) It's too pat. Too easy. and too wrong. I don't know how directly the U.S. is funding the terrorists, or if simply creating chaos and the current conditions is enough to insure generations of hatred and warfare, but either way, we can dismiss right now...all of us...the idea that neocon philosophy as stated by the neocons themselves, i.e. the idea that they would "establish democracy" in the Middle East, was never, never, never, never, never ever the goal. Whether neocon thinkers were sincere in the first place is another question, but that stated goal was always a cover, as was wmd. I don't know that the neocons themselves are anything much more than a sophisticted form of PR. None of them are making the big decisions, that much I know. A website I just came on recently made that really clear. It said something to the extent that, for purposes of analysis, I will assume that the results of the current Iraq war are, in fact, the intended results and then proceed to analyze why those results were desireable and to whom. Michael Parenti has a good line about the "incompetence view of history." He mocks this idea that most of the ills in U.S. policy are just based on the bumbling of well meaning dogooders. I know I'm throwing out a lot of stuff the last few days. I'm beginning to start writing about these issues locally as all of this stuff is just becoming popular here in my city among activists.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:49 pm

DE wrote- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Michael Parenti has a good line about the "incompetence view of history." He mocks this idea that most of the ills in U.S. policy are just based on the bumbling of well meaning dogooders.<hr></blockquote> Social Darwinism is US foreign and domestic policy as it always has been. The intentional destruction of life-supporting infrastructure and civil institutions leaves only those with money and guns left standing, the bunkered elite of a nation who can be both bought and encouraged to run the place with US-financed and US-trained gangsterism. See 'School of the Americas Training Manual Analysis.' <a href="http://www.lawg.org/misc/publications-manuals.htm">www.lawg.org/misc/publica...anuals.htm</a> And those people surviving American sabotage by spooks and bombers speak the language of and are forced to accept the values of Might Makes Right if they didn't before. Having been 'softened up' like a detainee at Gitmo, they are ready to do business the American Way. This is why the CIA and Pentagon have been refining the science of amplifying crime and destruction to leave only people who speak their language and will then run the local franchise of the biggest baddest organized crime family in the world, USA, Inc. The humanitarian rescue is the cover story to begin the rape and incompetence is the cover story to continue it. "She's screaming in agony but we can't pull out now because then someone else would get in." (I think I've got post-awareness stress disorder. grrr.)

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My perspective evolved very differently. I started within the far left, pretty trusting of everything that had the left label. But I was really uncomfortable with RCP for example, and the "I'll tell you" when it's time to shoot business.<hr></blockquote> I started out my political awakening by being completely disgusted with Reagan's fascist war on the homeless and believed the whispers about the "October Surprise" (I still do). I got involved with the IWW and I actually heard about the Bohemian Grove from The IWW/Earth First newsletter. The Dead Kennedys song "When Ya Get Drafted" got me interested in what the Trilateral Commission was up to. But many leftists aren't talking about this stuff anymore. Perhaps they felt uncomfortable agreeing, in any way, with the far right. I'm still far left idealistically, I just don't trust any organization that has more than two members. So, I end up mining the propaganda, and ignoring the anti-semitic sh*te, to arrive at what I percieve to be the truth. Speaking of which, here's some more on secret societies and British imperialism from Bill Clinton's hero, Carol Quiggley. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Quigley">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Quigley</a> As a spell-binding lecturer, Quigley made a strong impression on many of his students, including future U.S. President Bill Clinton, who named Quigley as an important influence during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention, saying: As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest Nation in history because our people had always believed in two things–that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so. Quigley became well known among those who believe that there is an international conspiracy to bring about a one-world government. In his book Tragedy and Hope he based his analysis on his research in the papers of an Anglo-American elite organization that, he held, secretly controlled the U.S. and UK governments through a series of Round Table Groups. The Round Table group in the US was the Council on Foreign Relations. He argued that both the Republican and Democratic parties were controlled by an "international Anglophile network" that shaped elections. If you doubt Quigley's word, take it from here. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes</a> In his will, he (Cecil Rhodes) left his money for the establishment of a secret society that would enable Britain to rule the entire productive world. The exact words are as follows: To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity. I'll end this with Quigley's account of how the whole thing got started. Quigley, Carroll (1910-1977), The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, 1981, Books In Focus, NY, NY pg. 3 "The goals which Rhodes, and Milner sought, and the methods by which they hoped to achieve them were so similar by 1902 that the two are almost indistinguishable. Both sought to unite the world, and above all the English-speaking world, in a federal structure around Britain. Both felt that this goal could best be achieved by a secret band of men united to one another by devotion to the common cause, and by personal loyalty to one another. Both felt that this band should pursue its goal by secret political, and economic influence behind the scenes, and by the control of journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies... - " Quigley, Carroll (1910-1977), The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, 1981, Books In Focus, NY, NY pg. 49 Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 8/28/06 4:40 pm

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:28 pm

If you look, you'll find Quigley explicity states that he thinks these elites are doing good things. It's a really odd position to take, in my view.

by **smithtalk** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:02 pm

what about jekyll island DE? what about the timing of the events, the split presidents race, the presidents advisor edward mandell house and his book, and the beginning of the first world war, all made up? nothing at all to do with the federal reserve act, and the people that controlled it?

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:36 pm

well, skipping past smithtalk's rather cryptic post...am I to now somehow prove that the founding of the Federal reserve didn't cause world war 1? Perhaps smith wants to tell us how the founding of the Fed caused these things...or perhaps he just likes to toss out phrases. Start a whole thread about it if you want...I simply answered the question "who owns the fed"? Anyway, I said Larry Everest was lying because I thought sweejak was saying he denied being a member of RCP. Since he's been a write for Revolutionary Worker for many, many years, I suggested he was lying. If, instead, he was talking about WCW...that is an RCP project. i can guarantee you that if you are part of RCP you are 100 percent in agreement with all subsidiary projects...or you are not in the RCP. So this is what I was talking about. My sympathies to the good hearted and well meaning who have to wade through all this stuff. It's not easy and a bad guy can so simply start creating divisions by specifically pushing on a limit set by the original organizers and then raising hell when confronted, gathering others to their side, continuing to disrupt meetings, etc.

by **Sweejak** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It's not easy and a bad guy can so simply start creating divisions by specifically pushing on a limit set by the original organizers and then raising hell when confronted, gathering others to their side, continuing to disrupt meetings, etc<hr></blockquote>. This is true, but in the CC situation there is more to the story. I could, but really it's not worth the wading thru the emails. My take; the person attempting to defend that forum was unreasonably vigilant and it was her, not any invasion by wacko 9-11ers that was disruptive. That poster lied, misrepresented, used rude characterizations, and had a false presumption of authority. This is not to say that the possibility that there were "9-11 plants" attempting to push their agenda did not exist. That, along with a general impatience with this crap on all forums, is why I quit. It was cheap for me, it's only a forum and there are others, not to mention my personal friends who go to CC. So, the situation could easily be that a bad guy can start creating divisions by pushing a set limit down onto people who don't deserve to have the limit tripped onto them. In the end though I think that everyone was well meaning, for whatever that is worth.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:23 am

Nemo...what is IWW? Not IndustrialWorkers of the World..."wobblies"...? Very few of them left and I doubt they'd have a newsletter with Earth First. Dave Foreman is an out and out fascist...so Earth First doesn't count as left. Oh....sadness. I go to the Wiki on Earth First and see a link to IWW. What does that mean...it can't be good. Anyway, no time to do much digging, but here's a sample: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the Australian magazine Simply Living, Foreman stated that, “the best thing would be to just let the people there [Ethiopia] starve.. .“ He has made similar statements to the local media in Tucson, where Earth First! (the organ of Earth First!) is published.<hr></blockquote> I've seen tons of such from him. Praising of AIDS, for example. Environmentalist does not mean fascist, but there is a strong fascist strain within environmentalism. Anyway, I guess that could be part of the controlled left, though most on the left abandoned Foreman a long time ago. All malthusian population reduction, anti-immmigrant racist garbage.

by **AlanStrangis** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A website I just came on recently made that really clear. It said something to the extent that, for purposes of analysis, I will assume that the results of the current Iraq war are, in fact, the intended results and then proceed to analyze why those results were desireable and to whom.<hr></blockquote> Care to share the website you mention? Since most of the mainstream media seems frozen at the "is Iraq in a state of civil war?" debate, and the level of US incompetence that led to that alleged state, any site that takes a more rational approach should be shared with all. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

The controlled left

Re: example of how left is controlled today

Re: The Fed

Re: The Fed

I'd like to know...

Re: The Fed

The REAL bankers running the world AREN'T JEWISH

Re: The REAL bankers running the world AREN'T JEWISH

Re: Disaster management = social Darwinism

I started out far left, as well

Re: I started out far left, as well

what

Re: what

Re: what

Re: what

Re: The REAL bankers running the world AREN'T JEWISH

Who is online