I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
Sunflower, I’d like you to help me reconcile these statements of yours:
And
It appears to me that you have applied no scepticism at all to that Tarpley piece. Further to that and regarding your quote:
Taking you and me as examples, how can we quantify our relative dependence, and how do we define “the system”?
@Chris Jones. Thanks also for Tarpley link – great summary for those unable / unwilling to read a book.
@21st Scent Tree
“What I have observed is that there is a general rule : the more you look, the more sceptical you become. …To enquire about the world is to grow more sceptical. The question is : where does this progression end?”
Wise words indeed. Fits my experience exactly – the more I read, the less I know. I haven’t known everything since I was about 15.
The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.
If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.
Karl Popper
Zoologist, I’m very disappointed, after your private e-mail communication with me (to which you still have not replied) , to see you again contributing on the side of irrationality and conspiracy theory. I won’t reveal what you wrote to me, but why that particular subject and not these others (Tarpley’s piece, global heating, “spiritual” beliefs)?
“swallowing me.”
Clark; Heh. That’s why it’s a ‘singularity’ of belief.
@Clark. I’ll get back to you.
In the mean time, I wonder if you could explain how you define “conspiracy theory” and “irrationality”. From my understanding, these are in no way absolute terms, although those terms are thrown at anything that questions either the scientific mechanistic reductionist world view, or the society that is based on it. A bit like the zionists labels anything that criticise how the state of Israel conducts its affairs as anti-semitism.
I have to leave this discussion again for some time. meanwhile, here is an article I would like people here to consider:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=700:the-ice-melts-into-water&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69
Sunflower, I think you are being unfair. I have extensively answered your criticisms, and yet you have not engaged with those answers. My comments have been getting longer and more detailed, while yours have been getting shorter, almost to the point of dismissiveness.
By conspiracy theories and irrationality, I mean the sort of reasoning that enables you to dismiss medical science and climate science, and pretty much all science. To support such dismissal, you have to support the idea that these sciences are corrupt to such a point as to be correctly called a conspiracy.
But yet again, you have disregarded my communication, and answered a question with a question. I am beginning to doubt that you are acting in good faith. I think that maybe you’re just making me do all the work by firing question after question at me rather than engaging with the points I have raised. Please look back through the thread. If you are indeed acting in good faith, there is much material of mine from which you could further a discussion as if between equals.
Ben, just saying “Hello!”
Gotta go now. Best wishes.
@Clark: I’d like you to help me reconcile these statements of yours:
“Thx for Tarpley link. I think he is spot on. What he says fits well with what is going on in the world.”
“Scepticism is no end goal in itself, but it’s a good start. It helps one to start the journey away from illusion towards reality”
>Clark: It appears to me that you have applied no scepticism at all to that Tarpley piece.
The definition of being sceptic is not “Disregard anything Webster Griffin Tarpley have to say”. If I compare what he says to the knowledge and understanding I have so far aquired of the world, a lot of what he says makes sense to me. Apart from that, he is most of the time, if not all, quoting open historic sources. It’s not like he is inventing things as he goes along. He is a well researched historian. The consequences of what he says may cause a buffer overflow in the minds of persons that live in a paradigm that tell them there is no way the elite of the world can be that crazy and evil. Still his historic references seem to be well researched.
‘It will be difficult for many since “‘You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system (the Matrix), that they will fight to protect it.”’
>Clark: Taking you and me as examples, how can we quantify our relative dependence, and how do we define “the system”?
I use “the system” in the Matrix movie as an analogy to both the mechanistic reductionist world view and the resultant materialistic society we live in as well as to the material energy as such. I’m not sure why trying to quantify how deep in the “shit” either of us are, but if I use the definition of being free from the “system” given in the Veda, we are both at least up to our noses, if not more, in deep shit. On the other hand, one should not criticise a person in the shower for being dirty. I think both of us are trying to get out of the “system”.
The quote from Morpheus can be used on 9/11 as well. There is in my mind absolutely no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 collapsed of a natural cause (some scattered office fires). It fell at the rate of gravitation, free fall, and that is not possible unless all resistance from within and under the building was removed.
Many people cannot accept this, not because of the scientific evidence that the building collapsed at the rate of free fall, but because the implications of it not coming down as a result of a “terror attack” is just too much for them to handle, again mental buffer overflow. It would mean that the entire paradigm they have grown up with and from which they derive their sense of security would collapse, also at the rate of free fall. So, in order to not go completely bananas they take shelter in cognitive dissonance and try to think of something that is easier to understand, like American Idol or something.
“But yet again, you have disregarded my communication, and answered a question with a question. I am beginning to doubt that you are acting in good faith. I think that maybe you’re just making me do all the work by firing question after question at me rather than engaging with the points I have raised. Please look back through the thread. If you are indeed acting in good faith, there is much material of mine from which you could further a discussion as if between equals.”
Yes, you are right. I’ll try to get back on more of your points.
Hi Sunflower – with regard to your post of 2 Oct, 2012 – 6:07 pm, you’re accusing those who don’t agree with you of not accepting the truth – with references to The Matrix and so on. Great film as that was, it’s a little insulting to assume yourself to be the position of Morpheus’ enlightenment, while the rest of us are mindlessly running around in a maze. Particularly since you reject science.
As it happens, I agree with your position about near free-falling buildings, and also agree with your conclusion that most people reject the obvious conclusions – not because they think the Official Story has merit, but because the alternative is too terrible to consider.
But surely this argument from disbelief is what GCC deniers are engaged in? I’ve heard many, many times people reject that anything so terrible as catastrophic GCC could be taking place, and also dismiss the idea that something as insignificant as little old us could cause such a massive change. That’s not arguing from anything but disbelief, a notion you rightly identify as false.
But I don’t think you care much to respond to me anyway, so it’s probably a waste of time trying to talk with you.
What an interesting read this topic has turned into…..
I am not too sure how anyone can be labelled “irrational” and/or a “conspiracy theorist” on account their interpretations differ from ones personal views.
Nobody has read everything (well I don’t think so….but may be some have on here) therefore by default individuals will interpret their readings in their own style and based upon their further readings, draw an understanding based accordingly. In most cases, given the individuals on this thread, additional further /broader reading would take place to gain a more balanced view.
I do feel that indoctrination is a good word (both in meaning and in alarming people)…..and individuals of intelligence tend to grasp the difference between becoming “indoctrinated” by their readings so as to become so disillusioned that they seek to label any individual who opposes their “view”.
It is amazing how modern science based on the longevity of the plant earth is given as gospel especially when science 40 years ago is already being re-written based on new findings.
Regarding global heating [central warming], having experienced first hand 18 months at the UK’s Carbon Trust organisation…. I feel I have witnessed both enlightenment and indoctrination……
@Clark “There is also the matter of quantum physics; have you not read of the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment?”
No I had not, but now I have 🙂
I also read about the mind-body problem, Quantum mechanics and Quantum entanglement, all on Wikipedia.
Regarding Schrödinger’s theoretical experiment I stick with Niels Bohr, the cat is either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer.
To be honest, I could not understand anything of what I read. I understand the need for Quantum theory to explain the inner world of the atom since the theory of relativity has problems explaining it. Other than that, my mind is blank.
I became very happy when I came across the quote of Richard Feynman who said “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. I could easily identify with him, although I’m sure he wasn’t thinking of me when he made that statement.
From my Joe down the street perspective; when I read about quantum theory I came to think of a group of extremely intelligent school kids heading out to enjoy a nice swim in a nearby lake.
Walking through the lush summer landscape they noticed how the grass straws where growing in different directions and started to discuss why. They sat down and applied all their intelligence in formulating different mathematical theories that would explain this phenomena, they ended up sitting there until the end of creation and never got to enjoy the refreshing lake water. But they didn’t mind at all since they were completely happy in their grass.
“There is in my mind absolutely no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 collapsed of a natural cause (some scattered office fires).”
That came out backwards. Should be “There is in my mind absolutely no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 _did not_ collapse of a natural cause (some scattered office fires).
Sunflower: “That came out backwards. ” Don’t worry – I knew exactly what you meant, and I agree.
Hi Glenn, “with regard to your post of 2 Oct, 2012 – 6:07 pm, you’re accusing those who don’t agree with you of not accepting the truth – with references to The Matrix and so on. Great film as that was, it’s a little insulting to assume yourself to be the position of Morpheus’ enlightenment, while the rest of us are mindlessly running around in a maze. Particularly since you reject science.”
No, I don’t accuse those that don’t agree with me of anything. We are having a discussion and I’m giving my perspective on the world. We may have different views and if it comes out like I dismiss you because you don’t agree with me it’s my bad communication. I try to argue as far as I can from the perspective of how I understand logic and my experience and knowledge.
It’s not me inventing the idea that people that fill their existence with eating, sleeping, having sex and defending themselves live in a maze, I just happen to support that perspective.
Actually, I don’t reject science as such. Science is a mighty tool for human progress, like a sword it can be used righteously or for bad. What I reject is science used to keep people in ignorance and slavery. Science is hijacked by the same people that control everything else at the moment. It is for all practical purposes serving the elite and therefore I reject it completely.
“But surely this argument from disbelief is what GCC deniers are engaged in? I’ve heard many, many times people reject that anything so terrible as catastrophic GCC could be taking place, and also dismiss the idea that something as insignificant as little old us could cause such a massive change. That’s not arguing from anything but disbelief, a notion you rightly identify as false.”
Look at the Sun, it’s enormous and look at the greed of the man made GW advocates (that wants to create a global CO2-tax) it’s also enormous. Anyway, the Sun, goes through variation, it has cycles just as everything else in nature. What is more logical, that this enormous star, just right nearby us, is the cause of fluctuations in Earths climate, or the taxable individuals and corporations?
Troofer
The term is used most often in a derogatory way as an ad hominem in order to avoid dealing with the facts, commonsense questions, and supporting links presented by 9/11 sceptics.
Denier
The term is used most often in a derogatory way as an ad hominem in order to avoid dealing with the facts, commonsense questions, and supporting links presented by AGCC sceptics.
Which is more helpful?
“So, in order to not go completely bananas they take shelter in cognitive dissonance and try to think of something that is easier to understand, like American Idol or something.”
Just to clarify, I’m not referring to you Clark. It’s hard for me to answer you because my mind is automatically going into the “big picture” mode. We talk of something specific and I extrapolate the issue and try to understand how it fits on a broad general scale, its just how my mind works. I guess that’s why I believe in God, picture can’t be bigger than that.
“I have to leave this discussion again for some time. meanwhile, here is an article I would like people here to consider:”
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=700:the-ice-melts-into-water&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69
I read it Clark, thank you for the link. No doubt the Artic is on a low. On the other hand Antarctica seems to be doing quite fine.
Here are some links regarding the Antarctica ice record.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/sea-ice-sets-all-time-record-high/
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/11760/Cold-Hard-Fact-Antarctic-Sea-Ice-is-at-Record-High
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/hadsst2-southern-hemisphere-aug-2012-cooling-for-15-years/
And a different perspective on the Artic low:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-2012-arctic-ice-melt-an-unusual-year/
I saw another quote by Richard Feynman “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”.
He was one of the physicists involved in the Manhattan project, making the atomic bomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Good night, I will try harder to have a discussion between equals, but that quantum stuff.. really. You understand those equations? I’m impressed. How do you do it? Can you visualise what they mean in the mind? It’s extraordinary. 🙂
@DopeyJoe. “Regarding global heating [central warming], having experienced first hand 18 months at the UK’s Carbon Trust organisation…. I feel I have witnessed both enlightenment and indoctrination……”
I’m listening.. Can you say anything more?
What is the purpose of the Carbon Trust? Do they actually plant trees or do anything practical to reduce pollution – or is it about jetting around the world attending summits? Do you know how it is funded?
What was your impression as an insider?
It sounds like you changed your position but you don’t make it clear which way?
Sunflower, I’m still very short of time. Thanks for looking at quantum physics; modern science isn’t quite how most people imagine it, is it? Objective? Reductionist? Things seem to have moved on! Waves that are particles and vice-versa, things that have to be particles that somehow must be passing through two separate slits simultaneously like waves. The “delayed choice experiment” is a scorcher! Just wait until we get to Bell’s Inequality and the Aspect experiments. The universe really is an undivided, indivisible whole. This is holism writ large!
I’m going to come back to this. In the meantime, so that what I have to say will make some sort of sense (dear God please help me to phrase it!), please have a look at “complex” mathematics, ie. mathematics performed in the complex plane, where the horizontal axis represents the “real” numbers that we are familiar with, and the vertical axis represents the “imaginary” numbers, the first of which is called “i”, which is that number which, when multiplied by itself, equals -1 (minus one).
This next bit isn’t really relevant; I just want to make some bright lights pop in your head. You’ve probably seen the Mandelbrot Set. It’s basically a map of the stability of a remarkably simple equation. But it’s plotted on the complex plane; this is what complex maths is capable of on it’s day off. Go look at the pictures and soak them up a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
All of that in this: Z becomes Z squared plus C
Hello Sunflower, thank you for your reply. Before I return comments on it, may I quickly weigh in on your links to the Antarctic? Levels of ice there are increasing at the moment (though not as quickly as ice is being lost globally, because the arctic is losing it at a much faster rate). But this isn’t because the planet is cooling down – rather, it’s because of the weather changes down there.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html
If we lose the Gulf Stream Drift, we’ll experience very cold temperatures indeed in the UK and in northern Europe, despite it being caused primarily through GCC. That’s why it’s more helpful to refer to this change as GCC, rather than GW.
Beware of any stats that pick 1998 as a reference point. If they do, they aim to mislead.
*
Certainly, you’re absolutely right that science can be used for bad as well as good. As a moral thing it’s neutral. Weapons research scientists, for instance, are unconscionable bastards imho. Miserable, evil sell-outs who’ll happily have human death and suffering because of their wish to make a comfortable living.
The fact that we have people wanting to cash in on business opportunities presented by GCC doesn’t make it any less real. No more than the fact that new opportunities of exploration for fossil fuel reserves under the now melted Arctic make it less real.
The Sun has the most significant effect on Earth, certainly – but we can measure these things. It’s not just a question of us opening possibilities and they’re simply points of debate. Is the Sun now stronger? Does it emit more radiation? Could that be causing climate change? The good news is that these can be very accurately measured.
These are not imponderable questions. With all things considered, the fact that we are steadily altering the atmospheric content of this planet (primarily with CO2) appears to be the decisive factor. That is the consensus of qualified scientists who have the time and the data, not to mention the background, to analyse these things. Of course – they might all be liars and bought off by the same governments who show little interest in doing anything about it. (The latter explanation makes very little sense to me.)
It’s not a question of whether the Sun or “the taxable individuals and corporations” might be causing the effect we observe – really – it’s about scientific conclusions. The way the (largely innumerate and scientifically illiterate) media report science does not help very much.
The atmospheric content of CO2 appears to have a very direct bearing on global temperature. This graph wasn’t hard to find:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Coming back to the present, the proportion of CO2 has been heading up in a straight line trend since the 1950s, and shows no sign whatsoever of levelling off, let alone falling back. This is despite all these howls that GCC is a hoax by dupes and liars to ruin the industrial base etc. etc. – if it is a hoax, it’s one of the worst kept secrets, and the least successful in outcome ever. What do you think will happen as CO2 maintains its inexorable rise, to 500ppm, 600ppm… nothing at all?
OK, I’m catching up with the thread, and commentating on comments as I go. I’m not going to attribute here, as this comment looks likely to be messy enough without. I’ll just quote the relevant bits and add my two cents’ worth; “You know who you are”, as they say…
Yes. I’m reminded of the character Harry Tuttle in Terry Gilliam’s film Brazil. Sam Lowery says “Shit!”, and Harry replies, “That’s right, kid. We’re all in it together”.
Science in general and physics in particular being special interests of mine, I don’t regard science, nor “material energy” as purely mechanistic nor reductionist. If I’d found that, I would have rejected it long since. And I don’t regard these things as being directly responsible for the shit. I could point to any of the religions that initially grew around genuine spiritual practice, and the strife and conflict associated with those, and on that basis throw the accusation back, but that wouldn’t be spiritual, and it wouldn’t help to solve anything.
The modern problems seem similar to those of the past; dogma, intransigence, greed and manipulation, leading to conflict. What is different is the scale in terms of numbers of people and extent across the globe, and the resources at humanity’s disposal. This includes, but is not limited to weaponry. The scale of the problem has been enabled by the incredible success of technology in giving relative physical advantage to the human species… Technology is the application of science, not science itself.
Now, I’m aware that I’m encountering a problem with words here. What do I mean by “success” and “advantage”? I’m delighted to live in a heated house, with water on tap, antibiotics available if I have an infection, digital communication enabling multi-way communication with people from all over the globe whom I wouldn’t even recognise, etc. etc.; things such as this I feel deserve the label of “progress”. I’ll omit a list of downsides for now.
Through technology, the human species has gained an advantage (in terms of competition) over… over what? “Circumstances” seems the best answer, but in the language of biological evolution, an advantage over the other forms of life. Now I run into another language problem. On the one hand we have “the balance of nature” and on the other is “the harmony of nature”.
Nature certainly displays both balance and harmony amongst her incredible diversity, but she also produces immense suffering, angush, violence and destruction. It is too easy to look at all the downsides to our modern ways, and imagine that a simpler way of life was more peaceful. But “balance” isn’t always “harmonious”. I think we can all feel that when we see those incredible TV pictures of, say, antelope running from a predatory cat. Putting myself in the position of the captured antelope being torn apart alive and eaten, I think I’d tell anyone insisting that I was enjoying “natural harmony” to fuck off.
But the balance has certainly shifted to the advantage of humans as a species, and it’s technology wot dun it. Just look at the human population curve, and match it to the ongoing technological development that we call the Industrial Revolution. Central to that is the discovery of fossil fuels, and the development of the knowledge that enables their application. For global temperatures, some dispute the “hockey stick” graph. Applied to the number of humans on Earth, we certainly see a “hockey stick”. Any dissenters please speak up!
. . . . . . . . . . .
NO, I don’t see science (nor its offspring, technology) as mechanistic or reductionist.
Earlier, I described the development of the Big Bang theory, and the inclusion of discoveries from multiple disciplines into one remarkable theory. Of those disciplines, nuclear physics concerns the utterly tiny. Gravitation theory concerns the unthinkably large. Optical astronomy and radio frequency engineering both fall in the middle, but they’re chalk and cheese. The drawing together of such disciplines is the opposite of reductionist, it’s holistic.
Anyone who has experienced a sudden insight will know that the experience deserves the label “inspirational”; all the puzzle pieces suddenly assemble themselves into a new “big picture” that makes more sense of the whole than the former model. This is not the least bit mechanistic. To take poetic licence here, it’s more like hearing the voice of God. Penrose’s book The Emperor’s New Mind has much to say on this matter.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Anyway, I have some technological trivia to sort out now. Technology didn’t create the problem I’m about to solve. Greed, working through market economics came up with this particular WOMBAT. A “WOBMAT” is a “Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time”.
Posting “blind”, More soon…
Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm.
Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today.
Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes– confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain– earth’s climate has been warming and cooling on it’s own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show.
At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due– some say overdue– for return to another icehouse climate!
^^^^
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
“But the secret of intellectual excellence is the spirit of criticism ; it is intellectual independence. And this leads to difficulties which must prove insurmountable for any kind of authoritarianism. The authoritarian will in general select those who obey, who believe, who respond to his influence. But in doing so, he is bound to select mediocrities. For he excludes those who revolt, who doubt, who dare to resist his influence.
Never can an authority admit that the intellectually courageous, i.e. those who dare to defy his authority, may be the most valuable type. Of course, the authorities will always remain convinced of their ability to detect initiative. But what they mean by this is only a quick grasp of their intentions, and they will remain for ever incapable of seeing the difference.”
Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 1 : The Spell of Plato
Conspiracy v Compartmentalization
The practice of charging money for education and providing wisdom only to those who could pay led to the condemnations made by Socrates, through Plato in his Dialogues.
“Western society” has always been an oligarchy of some nature. The many ruled by the few.
It is not a “conspiracy”. It is an OLD BOYS NETWORK.
If you went to Eton or Harrow you would still be taught Latin and Greek. You would have been taught classics – the “real” translation – and you would understand the true nature of the society in which we live. It has never been “classless”.
It’s exactly the same model of control as the “Abrahamic” faiths. Paternalistic means they are the “father”. You are the “child”. They have the “knowledge” and the “authority”. You must not “question”, you must “obey” or be “punished”.
“They know what’s best for you”. “They have been trained to rule”. “You cannot understand”.
For 100 years now (in England), we have been deliberately “dumbed down”. We have not been educated. We have been trained to work the gears of GB plc and react in defence of the Status Quo.
We the people are given “bread and circuses” to keep us quiet and content.
Stop looking for “conspiracy” and start looking for vested interest.
Craig Murray writes about it here ..
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/10/politicians-private-profit-from-nhs-sell-off/
As I said before.. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
(George Carlin)
Britain is a nation that pretends to have little or no political corruption, yet is one of the most corrupt nations on earth.
Corruption is endemic it actually forms part of the system. It is so built into the fabric of Britain that it is almost invisible.
Try reading Shakespeare. You will find more “truth” there than in and state “his-story” book.
The East India Company (chartered by Queen Elizabeth I, 1600) gave global power to the oligarchic families of Venice and Genoa, who in the 12th century held the privileged trading rights (monopolies). The first of three crusades, from 1063 to 1123, established the power of the so called “Venetian Black Nobility” and solidified the power of the wealthy ruling class.
In 1204 the oligarchic family parceled out feudal enclaves to their members, and from this epoch dates the great building-up of power and pressure until the government became a closed corporation of these “Black Nobility” families.
The City of London was incorporated long before there was an “England” as we know it. It pre-dates parliament. It is an independent city state which is effectively “off-shore”. It even has it’s own police force.
The shareholders of UK plc are the “Crown”. Not the Windsors.
We are all Subjects of the Crown, not the Queen.
Knowledge of this arrangement is disseminated on a “need to know” basis.
As a rule, “Subjects” don’t need to know.
Internationalist organizations include:
Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), United Nations (founded by CFR), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Bank of International Settlement, Club of Rome, Chatham House (formally the Royal Institute of International Affairs – RIIA), Round Table, Tavistock Institute for Human Studies, Associated Press, Reuters, and many others, all of which, whether they are dupes or adapts, work in favor of Great Britain’s aristocracy and their one world government agenda.
This establishment used to be called the British Empire and then the Commonwealth.
Who’s Common Wealth, do we think?
I see no empirical evidence that this group’s motives are entirely benign. Am I a “conspiracy theorist” for asking the question?
Or maybe a dissident of the system?
I think Sunflower’s analogy of the “Matrix” is bang on. If their motives were good, why all the secrecy?