Stranger Than Fiction – Because the news is unbelievable.
The Left/Right Paradigm
Carroll Quigley was a historian and theorist of the evolution of societies. He is known for his work as a Professor at Georgetown University (U.S.A), his research on secret societies and his academic publications. Bill Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy.
Quigely wrote of the two-party system in The States:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies,''
Oh 'a foolish idea' that, isn't it? The idea that political parties should actually represent different ideals and policies? How ludicrous? You'd never get anything done would you? It would explain the familiar process where we get rid of the last disaster and vote in the other lot on a wave of optimism, only to end up being disillusioned, again, when nothing really changes (see Tony's New Labour and Barry Obama's 'Change' ) I suppose. But hold on, if we've not really got the power to change anything, who's pulling the strings?
Quigely claimed that secret societies had played a major role in recent world history. For example he claimed that a club he called 'The Milner group' formed in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner should take primary credit for several historical events: the Jameson Raid, the Second Boer War, the founding of the Union of South Africa, the replacement of the British Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations, and a number of Britain’s foreign policy decisions in the twentieth century.
So this is how our Western Democracies have worked, in a nutshell, according to Bill Clinton's most influencial teacher. There are groups of very powerful people, who meet in secret and decide what's best for us as Nations. The political parties are largely a facade; there to give an illusion of choice and to allow the real rulers to get on with taking the country in the direction they see fit.
Quigley said of himself that he was a conservative defending the liberal tradition of the West and as such, saw this system as justified. Primarily a historian, his pro-elite stance may have satisfied the vanities of those he sought to understand and granted him rare insight into them. Certainly, student Bill Clinton, was impressed.
"Who controls the past controls the future
~ who controls the present controls the past."
George Orwell
More than thirty years after Quigley's death, his analysis is still relevant to us here today.
On all the big issues, it wouldn't matter who was in Number 10. We'd still do the bidding of a small shadowy elite of powerful un-elected, extra-legal groups of people. Our ephemeral Establishment. Our global-corporate-financier-class. The politicians are corporate front-men and establishment stooges - no more than the latest management team for the real owners.
Whether it's Tony Blair selling us the WMD line (Gulf War II) or David Cameron harping on about 'Gaddafi slaughtering civilians'(Libya, today) it doesn't make much difference.
The left/right paradigm helps sustain the status-quo in our systems. It props up society and allows the real rulers to carry out their plans without accountability or interuption and with the illusion of choice, appeasing the public every 4 to 8 years.
The parties are bought and paid for by powerful entities and sold to us through the media that those same powerful entities own and control. The game is rigged. Sorry, you probably knew all this.
"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots" - Elbridge Gerry
Anyway, back in the States, a new study from The Indiana University points to a clear fact. The anti-war movement has demobilised since Obama came to power:
''As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan,” said researcher Heaney. “The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated. The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the antiwar movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”
“Overall, our results convincingly demonstrate a strong relationship between partisanship and the dynamics of the antiwar movement. While Obama’s election was heralded as a victory for the antiwar movement, Obama’s election, in fact, thwarted the ability of the movement to achieve critical mass.”
Opposition is a partisan formality to many it seems.
As Carroll Quigely described, 'the American people can throw the rascals out' :- read G W Bush and the war mongering Republicans - 'then replace them, every four years if necessary, with the other party' :- Barrack 'The-Great-Hope-for-Change' Obama and The Democrats - 'which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies ' :-
maintaining the occupation of Iraq, escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, keeping Guantanamo Bay open and getting stuck into Libya.
One difference between a Republican and a Democrat war, it seems, lately, is in how it's sold to us. Republicans - tough (the Bush's - Gulf 1 and 2) or The Democrats - humanitarian ( Clinton's Serbia and Obama's Libya). Still murderous wars though.
The parties have a tradition, an identity and a rhetoric and we align ourselves with the one that we feel suits us; we see ourselves as a 'Red' or a 'Blue' or a Green; we buy a certain Newspaper which suits our self-image.
We grow up in Conservative or Labour families; it's like supporting a football team; we have a basic pack-animal instinct and the system satisfies that. In this way though, are we guilty of tending towards a way of thinking before considering the real issues? We follow our teams blindly. It's a kind of faith. Faith in the system.
Someone once said that 'Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner', I've always liked that. The sheep analogy, I think, also works well relating to the control of many by the few, if we see ourselves as sheep, being herded into pens by dogs, controlled by whistling men in raincoats, who work with big crooks.
'Come-bye!'
 |
 |
| So, I hope this is clear, we are all sheep and this man is controlling us. | |
A few quotes from some notable people:
“The real truth of the matter is, and you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.” — President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, November 23, 1933 in a letter to Colonel Edward Mandell House.
“… our system of credit is concentrated … in the hands of a few men .. a power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that [we had] better not speak above [our] breath when [we] speak in condemnation of it … We have come to be … completely controlled … by … small groups of dominant men.” — President Woodrow Wilson.
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes” — Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court Justice.
“Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.” — Baron M.A. Rothschild (1744 – 1812)
COMING SOON - Stranger Than Fiction - BIN LADEN 'ASSASSINATION' SPECIAL - WATCH THIS SPACE!
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comment form
