The Controlled Left

I have been criticised time and time again as being a "conspiracy theorist" by a few people in here for implying that the so-called anti-war left is funded and controlled by the same tax-exempt foundations as the neocon right. The fact is that it is. These foundations I am referring to -- the Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Schumann Foundations, to name a few -- are closely tied in with groups such as the CIA, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Carlyle Group.

These elite-fronted groups essentially exist above our government, and they work to shape both policy and public opinion from behind the scenes through control and manipulation. These elites control the media, the major universities, big-business and government, so once you begin to understand this, it isn't so hard to realize that our political views are being dictated to us in many ways, when we believe we are thinking for ourselves.

So why would these elites be controlling both sides of the political debate? I mean, don't the elites benefit from war? Sure, of course they do. But for every war there is opposition. What better way to control the masses by not only funding the war and fueling support for it, but also taking control of the "opposition." By controlling the opposition, you can keep the people locked into a rigid belief system based on only the information you allow them to know. This phony opposition might superficially go against the rhetoric of the "opposing" side, but under this veneer pushes the same overall agenda while appearing in many ways to offer a solution. The elite control both the left and right by controlling the media and the output of information. They do this by either installing their CFR and Trilateral puppets throughout the media (many of them are commonly known as editors), or by limiting or removing the funding to those media outlets that choose not to go along with what they are told to present and how to present it.

Shouldn't it seem suspicious that large factions of the so-called "progressive", bleeding heart Left are every bit as hostile towards the 9/11 Truth Movement as the warmongering, neocon Right? Both sides are clearly attempting to hide and discredit the truth behind what happened on 9/11. This couldn't be any more apparent than on leftist shill Michael Moore's vapid Fahrenheit 9/11. Not only does Moore refuse to cover things like the stand-down of NORAD, he also refuses to discuss America's ties to Israel.

This Hegelian system of control has been used for ages to control and manipulate the masses. Many people either don't know, or they refuse to believe that Communism was funded and created by the West. Mass-murderer Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution was funded by Wall Street, leading to the rise of Communism, which most self-proclaimed socialists and communists to this day will argue goes against the capitalistic greed practiced by the elite, and that it is a real solution to "evil" capitalism. Little do they know it plays right into the hands of the ruling-elite by fooling the people into thinking that turning their rights and their wealth over to an all-powerful government results in freedom and equality for all. The fact is, it always has, and always will lead to tyranny.

It's amazing how well the false left/right paradigm has so many people trapped within its confines. This works perfectly for those on top. Instead of the people turning against the corrupt practices of their government, they turn against each other based on nothing more than a label and polarizing smoke-screen issues pushed by the media. This creates a sort of football fan like mentality amongst the people, where it's this side against that side. This causes people to see only within the two-sided system that has been set up to control them.

For instance, just look at the last election where you had two Skull & Bones' cousins running against each other. They were alike in so many ways. They both support the war in Iraq. They both support the Patriot Act. They both support big government. Despite this, look at the infantile, braindead bickering between the two parties leading up to the November elections, where you had both sides arguing over how much their guy is better, when they're almost exactly alike. This can be largely attributed to the controlled media, which controls the minds of the large majority of Americans without them even knowing it.

Anyway, what brings me to this topic is an interview I heard on the radio today with a man named Charles Shaw. He is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Newtopia Magazine, and has been heavily involved in the anti-war movement since the bombing of Afghanistan. You can read his excellent (but long) article on this subject here:http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/40

 

please stop using the term theorist and theory. youre discrediting the sane informed few.

 

I tell you man sometimes you’re funnier than an episode of the Simpsons.

This is once again just - SUPPOSITION, INNUENDO AND OPINION.

You believe that shadowy conspirators have control of things so that is what you see.

You’re a libertarian so you hate socialists and communists so they also get woven into your conspiracy because you’re a right winger you hate lefties so they become fools that have been duped by your conspirators.

I mean you might not have noticed but I’m sure other have that it is all your political enemies are shown in a bad light in your conspiracy theories, do you think that a coincidence or that it could be by design?

**

As to the Newtopia article, I have to say so what, I mean it is very hard to pin down what they are saying and when you do it doesn’t amount to much? For one thing the Left Gatekeeper website attacks many people from the left and right unless it also believes Bush and Condi Rice are left wingers? It is in fact very hard to see what the website does stand for?

As to Charles Shaw’s ‘proof’ of some sinister conspiracy to quote -

"To offer a clear portrait of how "regulated resistance" works within the "Left" or "progressive" media, consider their steadfast refusal to report on or organize around two of the most important incidents in modern American history as pertains to our present situation—possible US government involvement in 9/11, and the relationship between the Bush family and the Nazi regime in Germany."

Well for one thing I’ve read many articles in "Left" or "progressive" media about these things, I think I’ve even heard them raised on both the BBC TV and radio plus the TV’s Channel 4 all parts of the UK’s mainstream media.

I believe it hasn’t just turned up in the Guardian paper but several other mainstream newspapers and journals. I’ve also had discussions on both subjects with members of several political parties and Stop The War Coalition members. And on Hipforums there have been many threads on the subjects.

So this ‘proof’ of so called ‘regulated resistance’ is not exactly conclusive is it, I mean when you look at it isn’t ‘proof’ at all.

Then you have to consider that US government involvement in 9/11 it is even in Shaws word only ‘possible’ and to many is suspect or discredited. I also have to point out that since the first book of Shaw’s new venture Drench Kiss Media will be a book called 9/11 Whistleblowers: The Authoritative Guide to the Case against the Official Story of 9/11, he might have another motive for wanting to say others are not covering it. (but that is only supposition)

Then you take the Bush-Nazis connection Shaw says

"This story should have resurfaced every time one of the Bush men ran for or was appointed to public office"

Well it is a good story but can you really say that the sins of the grandfather could be used to continually smear the grandson 50 years later, oh I think people should be reminded of the skeleton in the cupboard but it could be overused.

**

Rat if this was meant to be some great revelatory piece to convince people once and for all that your theory of a generations spanning conspiracy controlling the world is correct and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong, it is an incredibly damp squib and very anti-climatic.

 

It's supposition, innuendo and opinion that the same elite foundations that fund the left, also fund the right?

 

Thank God for the internet. Information for all!

 

Rat, quick question, just so I and others here understand when you are referring to the left in your post, you mean democrats, correct? I just want to be clear, because I don't consider democrats to be very left at all, so I'd have to agree with you. However, there are people who are much further left than that who aren't exactly affiliated with any "groups" who really do want truth and justice to prevail. No wait I live in a fantasy world. Ignore me. I'm the only one who wants that.

 

I am referring to Democrats, as well as some socialist and anarchist groups further to the left.

 

I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you have not addressed any of the criticisms I’ve levelled against the article you posted.

Is it a matter of being unable or unwilling to address them?

 

Let's all just be able to leave this post with the same moral, which is labelling yourself to any political party or group is dangerous, and you should always just formulate your own views instead of follow certain parties and blindly support every one of their positions. Good enough?

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Well Dan to me it is a matter of honesty not labelling.

Rat claims to know the ‘truth’ and to be presenting the ‘truth’.

To me that is not being honest because all he is really presenting is what he believes is the truth as seen from his right wing perspective. Also a lot of things Rat presents as ‘fact’ are just supposition innuendo and opinion, and again these are all coloured by his right wing views.

Rat has presented this Charles Shaw piece as supposedly supporting his ‘conspiracy theory’ and as pointed out that doesn’t quite stand up to scrutiny it is again just supposition innuendo and opinion, not ‘truth’.

**

I agree we should formulate our own views, but by what means should we formulate them?

Basing you views on the information you collect and your own experiences is ok, but by what means to you test if your ideas are sound?

I believe the only way to test such things is in debate and opening them up to scrutiny.

But what if someone claims to know the ‘truth’ but seems unwilling to debate the reasons for that viewpoint when they have presented it in a debating forum?

Is that the approach of an honest individual?

 

Hey, what about the Masons? I thought all this was THEIR fault! Don't they run everything?

 

I've read much of the same theory/theme in The Spotlight, a US newsletter.
This publication describes "Builderbergers" members of an internationalist elite who form trade & monetary policies to keep the working man down. They lump Bush & Kerry together. This publication is also anti-semetic. It contains rants against The Federal Reserve and Chairman Greenspan as a Jewish CABAL.

These theories are pure Nilihism.

 

Maggie

Do you mean the Perry Mason’s? -)

 

<snork> Those damn Perry Masons and thier Lodges, screwing things up for everybody.

LOL

 

No, I am a dumbed-down leftie who believes the world is the way it is presented to me on the nightly news and in Mother Jones Magazine. I am going to go buy some bell-bottoms now so I can be accepted amongst my lice-infested hippy brethren. It means so much to me about what they think of me. Being part of a clique is so cool.

 

The Spotlight -- now known as American Free Press -- is, in my opinion, one of the best American publications available today. Unlike most of the phony Left/Right publications people read, which are funded by the same organizations I was referring to in my original thread -- designed to keep people trapped within the rigid two-sided belief system that is controlled by those pulling the strings -- AFP is devoted only to exposing the truth, and pledges no allegience to either party or side of the political spectrum. Many free-thinkers are aware that the problems that most affect us all, completely transcend the false Left/Right paradigm.

They lump Bush and Kerry together, probably because Bush and Kerry are the same. Same foreign policy, same big government, same secret society, and same bloodline. Same corrupt assholes.

As far as being anti-semitic, what a farce. The anti-semitic trick is most often used by neocons to knock down an argument they cannot back up with facts. It is the same tactic used by people like Richard Perle and Bill Kristol of PNAC.

I am not anti-Jewish, but I am anti-Zionist. Much of the war and destruction in the world today can be blamed on Zionism, which has nothing to do with the Jewish people. It's no surprise that most Jews are against Zionism.

 

Many Nazis, including Reinhard Heydrich, were supporters of Zionism until Hitler decided the Jews should be killed, not merely relocated.
On another note, until we collectively wake up and realize that republicans and democrats differ in name only, that they are supported by the same multi-national corporations, that they support the same principles, and that they only desire to relieve us of our freedom through slightly different methods, we will continue to live more and more like vassals of the "government". Even on the far ends of the so-called political spectrum, there is little difference. Doesn't it seem strange that hard-line communist and hard-line fascist countries look exactly alike?
The contentiousness of the last presidential election amazed me. Those two could hardly be more alike, and the masses were conned into believeing they were as different as god and satan. Doesn't it seem strange that nothing changes, no matter who's in power (Clinton still has the record for depolying the US military) and what the parties claim to believe (Bush II still has the record for blowing the budget). Only when people realize that the two parties are fatally flawed and basically identical (Puppet A vs. Puppet B), and that they no longer stand for anything except perpetuating their power, will true change occur. Unfortunately, we have also been conned into believing that voting for third parties is a "wasted vote". It really doesn't matter, anyway. I wonder if they even count votes any more. Whoever "they" want to get in, will get in. If their machinations fail, there's always assassination.

 

Amen to that.

 

With Rat the issue of honesty just keep on coming up.

He refers the original post that is heavily criticised to the point of being discredited and which is undefended by the poster (himself) as if it backed him up when it clearly doesn’t. That to me is dishonest.

He says “Many free-thinkers are aware that the problems that most affect us all, completely transcend the false Left/Right paradigm”

Yet why is he saying this when a more truthful person would admit they were right wing and that the policies they have to “the problems that most affect us” are right wing? That is not transcending a false paradigm it is reinforcing it and pushing a right wing view at the same time.

Is that being honest or dishonest?

**

So please Rat let have a bit of honesty in this thread from you and let us get back to the original post and how it failed to back up your theories and why that should be?

 

Welcome, bro. {Maggie picks a nit and eats it.}