Re: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.” FDR

[Jamie McKittrick]

Thanks for this Allan,

It's like Phil Dick says, "The Empire never ended". Here's Robert Crumb
(both Phil and Bob were definitely, along with a certain other writer who
looms large round these parts, informed by *Blase zerreißen)* with more:
http://www.philipkdickfans.com/resources/miscellaneous/the-religious-experience-of-philip-k-dick-by-r-crumb-from-weirdo-17/

-J

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Allan Balliett <allan.balliett at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hopefully some have time to look over this newest piece of political
> commentary by Richard K. Moore, author of "Escaping the Matrix"
>
> "Escaping the Matrix," in an early form, appeared in Stewart Brand's
> Co-Evolution Quarterly back in the 90's (I think!)) I read every issue of
> Co-Ev from cover to cover. Without a doubt, Moore's article was the most
> illuminating piece of work carried by Co-Ev. To me, it was a methodic
> demonstration of the fact that  American's enjoy the illusion of 'freedom'
> within an alternative reality (The Bubble in 21st century terms) that is
> carefully created and maintained by multinational PR firms. (Or, as another
> man put it, "the people who have been controlling the masses since the
> dissolution of the Roman Empire") The PR firms are funded, of course, by
> the Financial Oligarchy, who came out of WWII highly motivated to recover
> the gains The People made during the FDR years and to make certain that
> there will never again be another "outbreak of Democracy."  According to
> Moore, the Vietnam War and the publics ultimate reaction to it temporarily
> tore big  holes in the Bubble (OK, The Matrix) as more and more American's
> awoke from the MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG somnambulism. There is a link to
> portions of ESCAPING the MATRIX below. I haven't had a chance to read the
> original article and the resulting book in recent years but my recollection
> is that the article delivered a much stronger picture of the plight of the
> population (or "the smoke screen of Democracy") then the book, that
> compromised its thrust with suggestions for utopian solutions.
>
> I hope you have time to read his newest comments on the financial and
> political oligarchies. Comment to him if you want (links included) or back
> here.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Allan in WV
>
> *rkm websites*: cyberjournal.org    escapingthematrix.org
> quaylargo.com  Altern <https://www.facebook.com/groups/306252806206680/>ative
> Politics <https://www.facebook.com/groups/306252806206680/>  *Escaping
> the Matrix*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cyberjournal/AYWtlZgiKvU>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Greetings,
>
> Here is an article I’m planning to publish in New Dawn magazine. The
> deadline is Dec 4, so if you have any feedback or suggestions for
> changes, please get them to me right away.
>
> thanks in advance,
> rkm
> ____
>
>
> *Trump, Soros, Putin, and the reshaping of world order*
>
> Donald Trump’s first significant act following his election was his phone
> call with Putin.  Trump confirmed that he intends to follow through with
> his promise to seek a cooperative relationship with Russia, and he
> expressed the intention to cooperate with Russia to defeat ISIS in Syria.
> This decisive step was taken even before he recruited his cabinet, or
> worked out any kind of relationship with the new Congress.
>
> Trump is coming in not like a politician, but like the new CEO of a
> failing company, hired with a mandate to shake things up and turn things
> around. With his Putin initiative – amounting to a turn around of
> establishment foreign policy – he’s letting everyone know that he’s dead
> serious about his mandate.
>
> Campaigns are theater, and we can’t judge Trump’s character by the
> exaggerated populist image he projected in the debates. He is a seasoned
> executive, a well-connected Washington insider, and he could never have
> built his empire if he was a fool. Only a fool would take on the
> establishment as a lone cowboy with a homegrown agenda. And only a fool
> would act as if he has a mandate to shake things up, if that mandate did
> not have support in the highest of circles.
>
> ===
>
> The highest of circles is of course the top financial oligarchy, the
> close-knit banking dynasties that control the currency and credit policies
> of nations, and who pull strings from behind the curtain, via key agents in
> the White House, Congress, government agencies, the CIA, the Pentagon, and
> the media. Franklin D. Roosevelt summed up the situation this way:
>
> “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it
> was planned that way.”
>
>
> It is no secret that these oligarchs are engaged in a process of reshaping
> the world order. David Rockefeller brags openly in his autobiography about
> being “part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the
> United States”, and about “conspiring with others around the world to build
> a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if
> you will”. He boasts, “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud
> of it”.
>
> If Trump has a mandate to shake things up, and if that mandate comes from
> the oligarchy – the only place it could come from – then we can assume his
> mission is to move the globalist project forward, in one way or another,
> despite his rhetoric to the contrary.
>
> ===
>
> The process of reshaping the world order involves destabilizing the old
> nation-state order, while at the same time developing the infrastructure of
> the new globalist order.
>
> The globalist economic infrastructure is already largely in place, in the
> form of organizations like the IMF, WTO, World Bank, and the BIS (Bank of
> International Settlements, the central bank of central banks). Such
> organizations wield immense power over the fate of nations, and they are
> not subject to any political process nor are they accountable to any
> nation. Their agenda is determined by corporate and financial elites, and
> one of their primary missions over the past several decades has been to
> destabilize the nation-state order, by trapping nations into debt, and then
> forcing the privatization/corporatization of national assets and
> infrastructures.
>
> Multinational corporations are themselves an essential part of the
> post-nation-state globalist power structure. These corporations have
> interlocking boards of directors, and the strings of power lead ultimately
> to the usual suspects, the oligarchs. As more and more functions and assets
> are transferred from nations to corporations, and with corporations
> empowered to ignore regulations (due to ‘free trade’ treaties), the
> political process becomes increasingly irrelevant to the operation of
> societies. Nations devolve into corporate fiefdoms within a global economic
> empire managed by the globalist oligarchy.
>
> ===
>
> Recall that David Rockefeller referred to “a more integrated global
> political and economic structure”. While the integrated economic structure
> is largely up and running, we seem to be a long way from having an
> integrated political structure, an actual world government.
>
> We do have the UN, and if there is to be a world government, it will
> presumably result from a transformation of the UN and its mission. The UN
> already has much of the structure of a world government, if only in
> embryonic form, with its General Assembly, Security Council, ‘peace
> keeping’ missions, and all of its committees, projects, and agencies.
>
> In order to be a real world government, the UN would need to be empowered
> to issue binding directives to nations, and empowered to enforce
> compliance. It would need to have the exclusive right to intervene
> militarily in the affairs of nations, if the need arises, and it would need
> the military muscle to do so. It would need to have an effective
> decision-making process, one that couldn’t be blocked by vetoes.
>
> In other words, nations would need to give up a great deal of their
> political sovereignty to the UN, in order for it to become the kind of
> world government envisioned by the oligarchy. This is not something we can
> expect to happen any time soon. Nations would need to be gradually seduced
> into it, as Brussels has seduced Europe, with insincere promises of
> subsidiarity and the like.
>
> Perhaps most important, there would need to be an atmosphere of trust
> among nations, in order for a world-government project to be feasible. Like
> that which existed after World War 2, enabling the establishment of the
> existing globalist institutions.
>
> It has taken decades for the oligarchy to develop its globalist economic
> empire to what it is today, and this was accomplished in stages. Similarly,
> it will take some time to create the conditions necessary for a world
> government to be established, and the current institutions can be seen as
> the first stage of that process.
>
> ===
>
> If Trump has a mandate from the oligarchy to shake things up, then it
> would make sense for us to review his announced agenda in light of what we
> know about the globalist project.
>
> As regards setting the stage for a world government, Trump’s cooperative
> approach to Russia has the potential to contribute to that process in a
> couple of ways. For one thing it could be a significant and dramatic step
> towards building trust between nations, particularly if Trump approaches
> other nations in a similar spirit, as he has said he intends to do.
>
> For another thing, by pursuing this initiative, Trump is undermining the
> doctrine of US exceptionalism, and opening up the possibility of a
> multi-polar world. If major powers feel they are being treated as equals,
> rather than being bullied by Washington, they’d be more likely to give
> consideration to stronger global institutions.
>
> As regards advancing the economic agenda of the oligarchy, we can turn to
> Trump’s most ambitious initiative – his infrastructure rebuilding project.
> The US certainly needs such a project, and the work required is so vast
> that it could increase employment and economic activity to such an extent
> that that America could seem ‘great again’, at least while the construction
> phase lasted.
>
> But how will Trump fund such a vast project? It won’t be through tax
> increases, given his intention to cut taxes. It can’t be through borrowing,
> because the amount would be so large, and the US is already deeply over its
> head in unrepayable debt. The only viable source of funding – and the one
> most in line with the globalist project – is wholesale privatization: to
> fund the rebuilding with the infrastructure itself, giving away the
> infrastructure (roads, bridges, railways, water systems, power grids,
> airports, national parks, prisons, schools, fire departments, etc.) to the
> folks that do the rebuilding.
>
> Richard Sauder described the situation this way, in an article he posted
> online, back in October 2015:
>     http://tinyurl.com/hy56ayv
>
> “If Donald Trump is permitted to prevail in the quadrennial political
> farce known as the ‘national election’ – all thoroughly rigged and
> controlled by powerful, shadowy, mega-rich interests that largely hold
> themselves back from direct public view – then he will have been brought in
> to manage the USSA corporate bankruptcy, precisely because of his
> bankruptcy experience.”
>
>
> The rebuilding project is a clever way of making the sacrifice of American
> assets seem like a good thing. First the assets will be given away to
> creditors to write off debt, and then lower taxes and reduced regulations
> will make it easier for the creditors to develop the assets into ongoing
> profit streams.
>
> Long after the bonanza of the rebuilding project has been forgotten,
> Americans will still be paying for that bonanza with a myriad of usage fees
> and tolls, high prices for water and electricity, etc. Perhaps America will
> be new and shiny, but it won’t belong to its citizens – it will be a
> corporate fiefdom. Indeed, people will hardly be citizens any more; they
> will instead be customers of USA Inc, over which their votes have no
> influence.
>
> ===
>
> If Trump has the support of the oligarchy, and if billionaire George Soros
> is aligned with the oligarchy, as he most certainly is, then we may wonder
> why Soros is sponsoring mass demonstrations against Trump’s election, what
> the media is calling a ‘counter-coup’.
>
> The first thing to notice is that this counter-coup does not address the
> actual Trump threat – selling off America – rather it continues the same
> line of attack used by Hillary, responding to Trump’s racist and misogynist
> comments. This serves to distract the population from the real threat, and
> it serves to keep alive the extreme divisiveness that characterized the
> campaign.
>
> This is a classic divide-and-rule strategy – get the left and right to
> fight against one another over identity politics, so that the oligarchy can
> proceed with its plans undisturbed.
>
> Indeed, what other purpose was there to Trump’s inflammatory comments in
> the first place? His campaign would have been much stronger without them.
> He could easily have proclaimed his opposition to immigration without
> employing racist slurs. While presenting an image of reckless disregard for
> the effect of his rhetoric, he was carefully planting the seeds that would
> enable the counter-coup to emerge following the election.
>
> How far Soros plans to go with his counter-coup is an open question.
> Hopefully it will just be demonstrations and protests, aimed at maintaining
> divisiveness. There is another possibility however, one which I do not
> offer as a prediction, but which I think we do need to be aware of. This
> other possibility is what we might call the ‘Maidan scenario’ – referring
> to the fascist coup that Soros helped sponsor in the Ukraine.
>
> What the oligarchy did in Maidan, among other things, was to install
> snipers who shot both protestors and police. In the Western media, this was
> presented as the Ukraine government shooting protestors. The result on the
> ground was a successful coup followed by a civil war that is still going on.
>
> Imagine the consequences if a sniper were to take out a few protestors in
> one of the Soros-sponsored demonstrations, and if the media blamed the
> shooting on right-wing Trump supporters. Under such conditions Soros would
> be able turn his counter-coup into full-scale riots all across the nation.
> Out would come the police and military to suppress the riots, which would
> only add fire to the flames of outrage. We’d end up in a martial-law
> regime, with half the population in active and staunch opposition to the
> government – we’d be on the verge of a civil war. What a difference a few
> bullets can make.
>
> This may seem like an extreme and unlikely scenario, but it is the kind of
> thing the oligarchy has been doing overseas routinely in the maintenance of
> its global empire. It’s the kind of thing the CIA specializes in. If the
> oligarchy believes such a move is necessary to fulfill their agenda, we can
> be sure that moral considerations would not hold them back.
>
> ===
>
> Let us now turn our attention to Russia and Putin. The media wants us to
> believe Putin was interfering in the recent election, and was behind the
> Wikileaks revelations. This is of course ludicrous, but at the same time
> Putin is clearly playing a central role in bringing in a new world order.
> Not only is he energetically promoting a multi-polar world, but he has more
> than once called for a stronger UN, where only the UN would undertake
> military interventions.
>
> The big unknown with Putin is whether or not he is aligned with the
> oligarchy. What we can be sure of is that he is fully committed to Russian
> national interests, and that his only concern with American internal
> affairs is how that affects Russian interests. Has he made a deal with the
> oligarchy, where he expects Russian interests to be somehow protected under
> the oligarch’s new global regime? Or is he acting entirely on his own, in
> the belief that multi-polarism can be a way to curtail the power of the
> oligarchy? Either is within the realm of possibility, and both play into
> the hands of the oligarchy.
>
> ===
>
> Next, let’s turn our attention to the actions of the Obama administration,
> in the wake of Trump’s election. If the oligarchy, who is behind both Trump
> and Obama, wants things to proceed according to Trump’s agenda, why is
> Obama apparently sabotaging Trump’s rapprochement initiative by extending
> sanctions against Russia during this lame-duck period? Presumably Trump
> will reverse any such lame-duck actions once he gets into office, so what’s
> the point?
>
> One possible answer to this question lies entirely in the realm of
> domestic politics. By opposing Trump right up to the end, Obama is
> encouraging his followers to do likewise, to keep struggling against Trump
> even after he takes office. What better way for Obama to implicitly add
> fuel to Soros’ campaign of civil discord?
>
> There is another possible answer, and again I don’t offer this as a
> prediction, but rather as a possibility we should be aware of. You may
> recall how the Pentagon sabotaged the cease fire agreement between Obama
> and Putin in the Ukraine, by launching an airstrike on Syrian troops. What
> if the sanctions extension is only a first taste of lame-duck sabotage?
> What if the Pentagon arranges for a US plane to shoot down a Russian plane
> in Syria, or some such similar event, bringing us to the brink of all-out
> war just as Trump is about to take office?
>
> If this happened, it would provide a dramatic opportunity to accelerate
> the creation of a multi-polar world. Trump could immediately contact Putin,
> blaming the oligarchy for stirring up trouble. The two of them would end up
> on prime time TV – on all channels – shaking hands, and agreeing to work
> together to build stronger international cooperation. The world would have
> been saved from nuclear war! What better way for the oligarchy to
> implicitly add fuel to Trump’s campaign for international accord?
>
> ===
>
> Finally, in closing, I’d like to bring to your attention an important book
> published by insider Samuel P. Huntington in 1996, *The Clash of
> Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*. This book caused quite a
> stir in Washington circles when it came out, and it presents a very
> specific vision of a multi-polar world order.
>
> Huntington dismisses the idea of universal human values and asserts that
> there are seven distinct ‘civilizations’ in the world, each of which can be
> expected to maintain its own unique set of values. The Muslim civilization,
> Western civilization, the Russian civilization, and the rest, are to remain
> distinct and in cultural opposition to one another, enabling
> divide-and-rule by a dominant player, which Huntington identifies as the
> US, backed by the Pentagon.
>
> By its actions in the Middle East, it seems that the US is seeking to make
> Huntington’s vision come true. Not only did the US create the whole Jihad
> movement, but the Muslim nations it has chosen to invade (Iraq, Libya,
> Syria) are precisely the ones that were moving toward a modern,
> cosmopolitan culture. In this way, the US is ensuring that the ‘Muslim
> civilization’ takes a form strongly distinct from the West, and in
> opposition to it.
>
> In Huntington’s multi-polar world, each ‘civilization’ has its own
> regional hegemon, each of which is granted the right to maintain order in
> its own sphere of influence. Russia is mentioned specifically in this
> regard, and Huntington says Russia should have the right to ensure that its
> interests are protected around its periphery. Like in Syria for example.
>
> Very little changes in Huntington’s model if we substitute a strong UN for
> the US, as the dominant player in the oligarch's multi-polar world.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20161130/085cbc91/attachment.html>