by Dreams End » Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:04 am
I assume I am one of the ones being called out. There actually isn't much here to comment on. I don't have 3 and a half hours to watch the video, I'm afraid. Sutton and Quigley are both on my reading lists...but haven't been able to read them yet...most sophisticated version of this sort of theory and I see such "classics" as "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" are based very much on Quigley.<br><br>That elites have have great power and run much of the show is not a controversy for me. This is my perspective as well...and allegedly the perspective of the left. At least the left takes this to its logical conclusion and suggests we overthrow these folks and the system that allowed them to become elites in the first place. I'm not exactly sure, except for abolishing the Federal Reserve, what the right wants to do about it. They are all gung ho capitalists, so even if you round up one set of elites, another will be there to take their place. That would be a good discussion to have actually.<br><br>I also note with a bit of amused irony that this sort of conspiracy theory sort of conflicts with the "neocons hijacked my country" conspiracy theory. In that sense it is far more line with my own thinking...that this is a deeper, more structural problem than a small group of neocons can account for. So I guess that's something else to think about.<br><br>That I have never been able to articulate cleanly the concerns about "international banker" as code word as distinguished from the fact that privatized and concentrated capital is the essence of much of the world's ills I will simply have to accept as my own failure. However, anyone who's read all my posts will be pretty clear on this point. <br><br>What I expect to find, should I ever have time to read the 1300 page Quigley monster of a book, is probably along the lines of <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.namebase.org/news01.html">this article</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> from Daniel Brandt, the developer of Namebase. Obviously, I don't agree with all of it. He takes both Larouche and Pat Robertson as "sincere" researchers and not the intel assets I have always assumed them to be, but he does a good job of laying the groundwork for the different ways this information has been interpreted. Mostly ignored on the left and taken as proof of one single, overarching and all powerful cabal on the right, the spin on this sort of info varies widely. <br><br>Here's a quote in the Brandt article that, if I ever can read Tragedy and Hope, will likely mirror mine own interpretation. It's from one of the few leftists to look at this information seriously, Carl Oglesby:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Am I borrowing on Quigley then to say with the far right that this one conspiracy rules the world? The arguments for a conspiracy theory are indeed often dismissed on the grounds that no one conspiracy could possibly control everything. But that is not what this theory sets out to show. Quigley is not saying that modern history is the invention of an esoteric cabal designing events omnipotently to suit its ends. The implicit claim, on the contrary, is that a multitude of conspiracies contend in the night. Clandestinism is not the usage of a handful of rogues, it is a formalized practice of an entire class in which a thousand hands spontaneously join. Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means.[1<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'd not seen that quote before, but I have used my own version of that line, "conspiracy is politics by other means", on several occasions.<br><br>Oglesby developed a "cowboys vs. Yankees" view of elite factionalism, and Brandt himself talks about his own experiences of big business types trying to buy out SDS members during the Vietnam war as evidence that, after 1968, there was a split among the elites.<br><br>It's also fascinating that much of this material has been used by Bircher types as proof of a "Communist conspiracy." Even taken completely at face value, this would seem to be putting the cart before the horse. It is one thing to argue that elites have cooperated with Communists when it served their interest and another to say that the most voracious capitalists in the land are in fact communists. This is interesting in its implications as inculcating the fear of communism and blind worship of the free market has always been a goal of the elites because...well, they happen to have lots of private property and would prefer not to have it taken from them.<br><br>And I would also point out that Sutton, whose books I have also not read, save for his section in a book on Skull and Bones, was meticulous in his rejection of anti-Jewish spin on international banker theory. Strangely, despite this, I sometimes see him quoted on sites that continue to push this spin. The summaries of his views definitely go way too far, from the little I've seen, in terms of suggesting that one elite group controls everything in history. But I can't comment on what I haven't read. Or seen, in the case of this video, though it looks on the surface like the type of stuff that is always accompanied by offers to sell the wary, elite-aware investor lots of Gold.<br><br>Getting back to neocons for a second. If one accepts the Quigley view, which, with probably a lot of modifications is closer to mine than the "Israel" is behind everything, or the neocons, since the neocons were certainly NOT part of the theories Quigley put forward, then one can go back to criticizing the whole ball of wax...the structure of international capitalism going back surely at least to our Robber Baron days. That's a good idea, in my view.<br><br>In fact, as I wrote very recently "democracy" and also the various institutions posing as democratic, are very new things in human history. Most of our history has been rule by elite, usually in family lines. Something like 2 percent of the population (thinking of European history primarily) was nobility and the rest peasants/serfs. <br><br>These movements toward greater freedom were likely brought about in great part by the development of capitalism, which expanded the base of property owners to a certain degree. You can trace the "bankers" all the way back to the Medicis, but what is that saying...that the bankers subverted the rightful and just place of kings and queens? Are those really our options?<br><br>Marx himself looked at capitalism as progress, and an inevitable part of historical development. He felt that, quite inexorably, capitalism would have to give way to socialism and then communism. Marx greatly underestimated the power of capital...probably mostly due to ignoring the way capitalism can export misery in terms of colonialism and imperialism. Well, at the very least, the revolution didn't happen...in fact the only places it did happen, places like USSR and China, never went through the industrial capitalist phase. They went basically from feudalism to "post capitalist" state socialism. <br><br>All this is to say that I have always operated under the assumption that much of our history has been determined by the decisions of a very small number of elites. IN fact, some time back as I was looking at all the stuff about Eurasianism, Dugin, etc, I was wondering aloud if this represented a real rift in elite politics. <br><br>But I simply don't go so far to say that all revolutionary movements, and all mass movements for change, all movements seeking to apply standards of justice and fairness to at least mitigate the effects of unbridled capitalism, if not overthrow it, are workings of the elite. They want to keep their hand in and hope to shape the opposition whenever possible, sure. I've warned of this myself when people here go about embracing any writer or website that appears to be "oppositional." <br><br>Oh, here is a very long summary of "Tragedy and Hope" with comments thrown in by someone I have no idea who he is. I think I'm on pretty safe ground in assuming most here have not read it either, so maybe it's a place to start:<br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/tragedy.html">Quigley summary.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Then maybe we can also wonder aloud to each other about Quigley's odd stance that these elite machinations were actually GOOD things, and that he just didn't agree with their secrecy. Or why Clinton, in an age where anything even remotely resembling conspiracy theory is ridiculed, continued to publicly embrace Quigley as his "mentor." Clinton, the Rhodes scholar/CFR member/Rockefeller family friend. <br><br>I think that's interesting. Quigley, whose works have spawned countless lines of inquiry into elite conspiracy was, in fact, not opposed to their agenda. He wasn't blowing the whistle...he was tooting their horn. <br><br>And Slim...I never said the bankers were lizards. That was Icke. So if you want to know what that means, you'll have to pull out your dogeared copy of "The Biggest Secret..." <br><br>Or <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/War/icke.htm">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In one sentence, you have the true attitude of the Rothschilds to Jewish people, and indeed, the human population in general. These people are NOT Jews, they are a non-human bloodline with a reptilian genetic code who hide behind the Jewish people and use them as a screen and a means to an end.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>In fact, I recommend that everyone read this little Icke summary (written by Icke himself) to see the difference between what Quigley and Sutton were doing (though I still don't agree with elements of it) and what the traditional fascist right does. If you take out the reptilian part, just notice how he is not concentrating on international bankers, but only on one family, who aren't just powerful elites, but a secret, world-controlling bloodline. Now...that's all I'll say about that because that, I'm sure, is not what this video is saying. However, slimmouse brought it up...so I thought I'd let Icke speak for himself. <p></p><i></i>
