Re: MD newsflash: it's all a con

From: gav (gav_gc@yahoo.com.au)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2005 - 02:59:24 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD newsflash: it's all a con"

     i think i need to reply to adam and nick's very
    reasonable points.
    firstly nick:
    i wasn't just talking about 'democracy'. i am actually
    an ardent fan of direct democracy: in the family,
    school, workplace, community, but the concept of
    democracy that we are actually talking of here is
    really 'representative oligarchy', the modern western
    mode of government, which is i believe a con, first
    and foremost cos it ain't democratic (ie the people do
    not rule themsleves).
    you may think that i am splitting hairs but i think
    reclaiming the actual meaning of the word is necessary
    if we are to use it at all, otherwise we are just
    dealing in propaganda.
    so i don't think democracy is a con; i think
    representative oligarchies are a con (regardless of
    the ideologies involved).

    i had the pleasure recently of living in an autonomous
    community in southern spain for a month. this village
    of mostly british expats was more or less independent
    of the state apparatus, like the anarchist spanish had
    been 70 years earlier in the same region. for two
    years or so, in the 30s, whole tracts of spain were
    autonomous and truly democratic. no
    gods/kings/politicians lorded over them. unfortunately
    (due to the curious cooperation of supposedly
    oppositional ideologues from germany and russia) it
    didn't last and over the next four decades most of the
    radicals were rooted out and executed. strange now
    that their spirit lives on in these ex-pat brits,
    escapees themselves from the banal tyranny in their
    own homeland.

    the point: we have *never* needed politicians, kings
    or popes. to be ruled is to be a slave. slavery is
    slavery no matter how you dress it up. worst of all
    perhaps is the willing slave. doesn't the english
    anthem make you sick? 'long to reign over us...'

    now the really impressive bit is the masterful
    trickery necessary to convince 99.99% of humanity, for
    thousands of years, that you *do* need masters.
    how has it been pulled off? here we get to adam:

    there is only one way to pull such an amazing feat:
    you have to control reality. you have to have a
    monopoly on reality and pump that sole reality into
    the 'cattle' consistently, lest they start to wake up
    and construct their own. of course cracks always
    appear in this monoreality and lately these cracks
    have widened, due to the internet for one.

    controlling reality is a big task and requires a
    shitload of coordination. this is where the secret
    societies like the masons come in...it is quite
    simple: if you have a hierarchical (pyramidal) power
    structure (and we always have) then you need only
    control the very top people in diverse areas to
    control reality. eg nearly all US presidents, from
    washington onwards, have been masons.

    there is a great site called freemasonry watch that is
    worth checking out. freemasonry traces it roots to
    ancient egypt and perhaps beyond.

    which brings me to another point: due to the efficacy
    of this method of reality control we know virtually
    nothing about our own history pre ancient greece. the
    pagan cultures and knowledge of europe for instance we
    are largely ignorant of. all we do know is that they
    knew a lot that we don't. when pagan wisdom started to
    seep back into the culture action had to be
    taken...burn them witches!

     one of the really good things about all this is that
    you start to realise that we know very little at all
    because our reality has been so blinkered. history,
    magic, science, astrology etc is all there like a new
    continent waiting to be (re)discovered.

    bedtime.

    --- Adam Watt <adamwatt@mac.com> wrote:
    > Hmm... Interesting post. Certainly compared to some
    > the recent low
    > quality plattitudinous nonsense..
    >
    > Well, democracy these days is largely fallacious, if
    > it was ever
    > anything else. Capitalism is not Democratic. Closer
    > to racketeering..
    > That much I agree on, if indeed that's what your
    > saying.
    > Any speculation or voicing of opinion is pointless
    > unless you have
    > significant power to exercise. Or just enjoy it..
    > kind of like amateur
    > dramatics. Nothing wrong with that. One other
    > advantage to this type of
    > political debate that occurs to me is in it's
    > unsurpassed ability to
    > quickly ascertain the perspective of a person more
    > generally, but
    > imagining you can alter that perspective is i think
    > limited, in the
    > vast majority, to imagination. The only power most
    > people really have
    > is their power as consumers.
    >
    > Regards Bilderberg, mostly talk on the subject is
    > varies from idle
    > speculation to less idle mad stuff.. Re: Timothy
    > McVeigh.. Your 'facts'
    > are a little off though..
    >
    > The Bilderberg group is infact named after the hotel
    > in Holland where,
    > in 1954, the group had the first of their since
    > annual 4 day meetings.
    >
    > The attendees differ from year to year, and are
    > sworn to secrecy. As
    > far as I know Charles Kennedy has never made the
    > grade...
    > Last year, apparently, BP boss John Browne, US
    > senator John Edwards and
    > Mrs Bill Gates are among the invitees. People who
    > have been in the past
    > include the likes of Henry Kissinger (a regular),
    > Prince Charles, Bill
    > Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, Peter Mandelson, Kenneth
    > Clarke, King Juan
    > Carlos and Lord Black.
    > They don't promote their activities (no official
    > site..), but they're
    > effectively an open secret, largely because of the
    > high profile
    > attendees.
    >
    > The official line regarding the secrecy states it
    > exists to "facilitate
    > vibrant, uninhibited informal discussion". Makes
    > sense to me.
    >
    > Freemasons are just a rich white boy club,
    > basically. I don't buy all
    > the bullshit about 'ancient and esoteric knowledge'
    > for a minute..
    > Powerful? sure.
    >
    > Does Billderberg conspire on the fate of the world?
    > Well, that's what
    > very rich and powerful people are able to do, that's
    > capitalism. No big
    > shock there then.. The official line is that 'no
    > decisions are taken
    > there'. That may be true. It may not. Who knows.
    > Decisions are
    > certainly taken somewhere, the 'will of the people'
    > bears at best small
    > influence on what those decsions are (your main
    > point i think), so
    > there seems as good a place as any other really..
    > Interestingly, one of
    > the four founders of the group was the one time
    > Labour Party chancellor
    > Dennis (now Lord) Healy, a considerably more left
    > wing politician than
    > would ever hold office in the UK now, or that even
    > exists in the US to
    > my knowledge.
    >
    > Here's a short interview with him on the subject,
    > taken from the BBC
    > link below -
    >
    > As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis
    > Healey, who went on
    > to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four
    > founding members of
    > Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in
    > Holland where the first
    > meeting was held in 1954).
    >
    > His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a
    > shadowy hand on the
    > global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness.
    > "Crap!"
    >
    > "There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought
    > to reach a consensus
    > on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place
    > for discussion,"
    > says Lord Healey.
    >
    > Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic
    > co-operation, the idea
    > behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be
    > prevented by bringing
    > power-brokers together in an informal setting away
    > from prying eyes.
    >
    > "Bilderberg is the most useful international group I
    > ever attended. The
    > confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly
    > without fear of
    > repercussions.
    >
    > "In my experience the most useful meetings are those
    > when one is free
    > to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at
    > all. Cabinet meetings
    > in all countries are held behind closed doors and
    > the minutes are not
    > published."
    >
    > More obvious than sinister, though I very much doubt
    > discussion is
    > limited to preventing future wars. Any economist
    > knows war is often
    > quite beneficial, especially if oil is involved. But
    > I'll speculate no
    > further..
    >
    > That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no
    > surprise to Alasdair
    > Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.
    >
    > "Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful
    > organise things in
    > their own interests. It's called capitalism."
    >
    > Indeedy.
    >
    > > anyway the good news (and bad) is that everything
    > is
    > > changing. exactly how...????? my feeling at the
    > moment
    > > is that we are going through an evolutionary
    > > bottleneck: those that adapt (tune in) survive;
    > those
    > > that remain stuck in obsolete realities....
    > >
    > > don't get stuck.
    >
    > Yeah.. exactly how?? Good question, I'm quite
    > aware of propaganda
    > soit's difficult to be certain, but I feel near
    > certain that global
    > warming/dimming are real enough.
    > And that the consequences are grim. Perhaps totally
    > beyond prevention,
    > I believe 400 parts per million CO2 in the
    > atmosphere is sufficient to
    > make the process of global warming irreversible.
    >
    > James Lovelock has much of interest to say on the
    > matter. Are
    > Bilderberg on the case? I have little faith, and
    > even less evidence.
    > I'm not sure what 'tuning in' is going to achieve.
    > Or even what that
    > means.. Unless you mean the shipping forecast.. if
    > there are any
    > 'obsolete realities' left to transmit them from..
    > No, really if it does get that bad, and well it may,
    > it'll be most
    > likely beyond this lifetime for me. Maybe that's
    > that.
    > Political opinion without power is of little
    > consequence. Your choices
    > and actions as a consuming entity certainly are.
    > They're the only real
    > power you have.
    > Beyond that, hedonism seems more sensible by the day
    > to me. And ego
    > mostly usless.
    >
    > Have a nice day.
    >
    > Source links -
    >
    >
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,,1231830,00.html
    >
    >
    === message truncated ===

    Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
    http://au.movies.yahoo.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 25 2005 - 04:26:44 GMT