|
Fact?
Fiction? or Hypothesis?
Several thousand years ago, there were individuals that travelled the world,
largely unmolested, but fierce and merciless when attacked, they were
welcomed in every tribe, regardless whether it was at war with it's neighbour or
not.
They carried LIFE with them, spices, minerals and other trade goods, their goods
were more valuable than gold, because their customers lives depended on those
minerals.
The other invaluable commodity, was NEWS, they travelled distant unknown lands,
faced the unknown on a daily basis, no destination too far, or too hard, their
stories must have been the very elixir of life to the tribal customers.
It would be no surprise to me, if these merchant's stories were not the
origin of religion, not necessarily instigated by the merchants, but by others
who were looking for the opportunity to control the masses.
The 'main chance' is never missed by those who want to manipulate.
Over the centuries, these hardy individuals came to know and trade with each
other, they built up a network of contacts covering the world. They were
merchants, they may never have met, but they knew the existence of every one of
the network, what they did, what they traded, even if they did jealously guarded
their sources.
With the advent of money, the trade took on a different perspective, they had
money, it had to be used in order that it accumulated more, hence some became
money lenders and traders. Over the years, some became bankers, but the network
remained, it was even more essential to know what was happening on other parts
of the world, as it could have serious implications to their business.
Their influence grew, and so did resentment, the Jews took the brunt of it for
centuries, largely because their religion told them they had sinned, so they
must be punished. Anyone with an axe to grind about money-lenders had an easy
victim, and usually without repercussions.
However, the network grew even larger as the world grew.
Nothing could stop it's influence, wars were opportunity, wars need money in
order to buy weapons and food, they, or theirs, could provided. 'I can't, but I
know a man who can'.
The interest rate on wars is very good, and they will want more after the war,
so if trade is static, well it's not that hard to stir some people up.
Some where along the line, I would guess about the middle to late 18th
century (my history never was much good), things started moving on the political
front, the development of parties and the class war. The upper class in the
House of Lords, the middle and working class fighting it out in the House of
Commons, now I would not say the Parties Act was engineered by these guy's, but
it must have been Manna from heaven.
The egg had been laid, the incubation period started.
I am not sure what part the two world wars played in this, but I am sure they
were an essential part of the scenario, whether it was manipulation of
governments, more money for phase 2 (UN) and 3 (EU), or just to put the public
in the frame of mind to accept phase 2 & 3, I don't know.
Would the UN, or EU, have started without 2 world wars? I know they would not.
Did they set it up? I can believe it.
What one has to remember about these guy's is that time means nothing, they are
empire builders, the sort that buy a piece of land and rent it out for a
pepper-corn rent for 200 hundred years, their descendants take it back with a
phenomenal real-estate value, but it stays in the family.
Did I say empire? perhaps dynasty is the better
word.
Having constructed the frame, they now had to engineer the detail, i.e.
dismember the current power structures. Politically and financially, they had
control, but they have to remove the sources of independence:-
1:- National income. The strength of any country can be judged by it's
dependence on imports of major commodities. So evaluate the strengths, make them
dependent, then weaken them. The UK had food, mining and manufacturing, not
self-sufficient, but strong. Money spent on food was too great, and they needed
consumer spending to be used in other ways, so subsidise farming (this would
also increase farming dependence on banking when equipment replacement was due).
Fishing? subsidise, and 'as we are equal partners, we ought share out the fishing
grounds'. Manufacturing and mining? as Maggie said "we should be
concentrating on being a 'service' country", which is political speak for
"we are going to screw all base industries". How did they do it? you
can always stir up trouble by starting something with 'bad management',
'unions', 'workers', 'bosses', how many times have you heard it? and as usual,
'there is no smoke without fire'. In the 19th century the base industries
(farming, fishing, manufacturing, mining) employed about 80% of the population,
now the total would be lucky to reach 10%.
In other words, each of those industries has less political clout than the
average ethnic minority. THAT is dangerous, those industries were not called
BASE without good reason. Each of the base industries has been subsidised, and
broken up. Farming, Fishing. Manufacturing, Mining, each in turn has suffered
the same treatment, Maggie said "we should concentrate on being a 'service
country' ", well, we was told.
But what happens when the money system collapses? 2:- Nationality. In the west,
successive governments have broken down the
concept of family, community, and now nationality. The destruction of the
'family' unit, at all levels, follows the same format as the base industry
breakup, divide and conquer, i.e. subsidise, segregate (promote/attack different
sectors, OAP's, parents/youth/children). The result is disorientation, therefore
dependence on the 'parent' authority (the state) is assured. Do the same with
the state and it moves up one level to, for example, the EU. The best example I
can give is farming, which is now totally dependent on the very thing that is
destroying it.
Would you like to guess the next step?
You should also remember they are the 'pillar's of society', most likely
regular church goers, give millions to charity, even if it is to shut the mouths
of those who know the truth. Their morals are different in that money, or is
power?, comes first, NO it is money, power can be bought, money is power. Life
has no value, it has a use as long as it serves their objective, any way life is
easily replaced, the escalating world population is proof of that.
With the system pushing 'nobody should die, because we have the treatment for
your problem', is the population problem part of the scenario for phase 4(OWG)?
If so, how are they going to control it when phase 4 is implemented? or did the
rumours about AIDS being 'man engineered' have more than an element of truth?
Yet the fact is the population is going through the roof, cheap fuel cannot last
for ever, so what will happen when it runs out? It does not add up to Utopia,
that's for sure.
Politicians look at the next election (if you're lucky), these guy's think and
plan in centuries. The UK situation, with the UN and EU running (but with the UK
trailing behind), they need to bring the UK up to speed, they gave the Tories 18
years to get them caught up, Maggie blew it for them, she was sticking her heels
in, so she had to go. The back-log of public resistance, had got to much, so
they had to change horses, and quick, or was it? did they plan the British
stubborn character in to the frame? did they select someone from a Tory background, give him some socialist training,
and boost him up the ladder to be party leader ready for the right time? It
would be easy enough to bribe a previous tenant to resign, to take up a better
paid job, with his wife and family of course. The next tenant would set the
scene for the coming of the saviour. Bingo, we have a New Labour party, with a
Tory leader and Tory values (don't forget Maggie is his hero), all set for the
hard push in to EU. Big snag, or is it? the British with the 'hump' take a lot of moving, you would have though they would have
learnt that after 2 world wars, or is that why successive governments have tried
'watering down' the indigenous population?
The curious part of the scenario is that New Labour is being run by a Tory,
with Tory policies, yet backing the socialist ideals of EU? The Tories and Lib
(all varieties) are no different. WHY? Is the promise of 'loot' that great? What
other factor is there, that would make them sacrifice their ideals?
So what skullduggery have they got planned to over come the hold up?
Are the Tories going to inherit some loot from an unknown aunt at the last
minute?
Are they going to have a 'second coming of the lord'?
Is it all a ploy to 'piss the punters off' so much that only the faithful
turn out to vote?
That can't be right, or are the Fabians batting for the wrong team with the
'fine them if they don't vote'?
But after all that, does it really matter which party gets in? the end result
will be the same, because none will be able to resist the money these boys have
got.
I opted out of voting at Maggie's second election, because I could see what was
coming, too much power corrupts, and it did. I have not voted since, and it has
cleared my brain of the party syndrome.
I WILL vote next time, for an independent candidate that 'sings my tune'.
NO party will get my vote, because it is totally predictable what will happen
if, and when, they get to power.
ANYBODY who votes for ANY party, will be voting for the New World Order.
We have ONE last chance, don't blow it.
-----------------------------------------------
How much of the above is hypothesis?
How much is putting pieces of a puzzle together?
There are elements of fact in every part of the puzzle, whether I have put them
together to make the correct picture, I do not know, but one thing I am most definitely
convinced of, is that voting for parties has nothing to do with democracy.
INDEX TOP
|