posted 06-04-2003 08:11 PM            

Introduction

In any democratic society there will be shadings of political opinion broadly ranging from fascism on the far right to collectivist socialism or trotskyism on the far left. In the United States, as in Britain and many other Commonwealth countries, ideology has not been a major driving force in the politics of the majority of people and there has not been the fractioning into myriads of political parties one sees in some European countries. Perhaps this results from the fact that philosopy is no longer taught as part of secondary education in the English-speaking world.

Broadly speaking, in the 20th Century, one would generally find just two mainstream political parties in an English-speaking democracy, one to the right, representing old money and business, one to the left representing organised labour and the disadvantaged. In England these were the Conservative and the Labour parties, and in the United States they were the Republican and Democratic parties.

Within the parties there were activists who certainly had ideologies - but in general the electorate cared little for ideology. People identified themselves as, Conservatives/Republicans or Democrats/Labour and voted accordingly. Often the commitment to the party was life-long.

The Great Depression marked a step change in the fortunes of the right in both the UK and the USA. Politicians of the old right were identified as failures. Massive Keynsian economic intervention become the order of the day and World War II identified fascism as an evil which it was necessary to defeat by all means - including an alliance with Soviet Russia.

Post-war, big government and high taxation remained. Governments were broadly internationalist in outlook, supporting the United Nations, NATO, Bretton Woods, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank.

In order to be electable, Conservatives in England and Republicans in the USA had to become "one nation tories". While they differed from the left on matters of detail, the goal of all politicians was (at least in public) to reduce the gap between rich and poor and to promote equality of opportunity - and if that meant redistribution of wealth through taxation - so be it.

During the Cold War, the great bugbear was "Communism" as practised in the Soviet Union and its satellites. It became the enemy to be contained and defeated. Fearful of the "domino" effect, the US intervened openly and covertly to contain and defeat the spread of communist regimes - openly through NATO, SEATO and the like with wars in Korea and then Indochina, covertly through activities such as the funding of Christian Democrat parties in Europe (especially in postwar Italy).

An ideology was supplied for this tendency on the US right by a group of self-proclaimed intellectuals, many apostates from communism and trotskyism, who gathered at the National Review magazine, James Burnham, David Horowitz, Irving Kristol, Frank Mayer, Norman Podhoretz, Willi Schlamm - to name but a few - who started to call themselves "Neoconservatives", presumably because they did not wish to emphasise the fascist nature of the ideology they were preaching but also, as a reader of this page has pointed out, to distinguish themselves from "old" US Conservatives (whom they labelled "paleoconservatives").

Extreme right wing conservatism in the USA is, of course, pro big business, isolationist in tendency (think of "America First"), and many of the right wing conservatives also supported segregation and were personally anti-semitic. In contrast, the Neoconservatives had often come from a liberal Jewish background. Instead of being anti-semitic, they were rabidly pro-Israel.

Raymond McInnis has done useful research on the origins of Neoconservatism which he has posted to his Blogleft web pages.

According to an article by Michael Lind in the New Statesman, the Neoconservatives are:-

"products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right ."

Lind† rightly points out that this movement has no precedents in American culture or political history.

† Lind is Whitehead Fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of "Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the southern takeover of American politics.

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute, defines neconservatism thus:-

"Neo-conservatism is the secular political philosophy that defined the reaction of a group of former liberals to what they felt was the Democratic party's policy of appeasement toward the Soviet Union--most especially the USSR's treatment of its Jewish population and its relations with the Arab world. They were a small but influential group of writers, commentators and government officials."

This definition is of importance in one respect: it highlights that fact that there are few Neconservatives who could be defined as original thinkers, they are mainly journalists, media pundits from New York intellectual circles and people from what is sometimes referred to as "official Washington", the people who inhabit Georgetown and the beltway and seek administration places or advisory functions with contractors to government.

Godfrey Hodgson was for many years as a foreign correspondent in Washington. He was at different times the Washington correspondent of The Observer, the editor of Insight on the Sunday Times, the presenter of the London Programme and of Channel Four News, the foreign editor of The Independent and for the past eight years the director of the Reuters Foundation Programme for Journalists at Oxford University. In his book, "The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America" Publ: Houghton Mifflin Company 1996, Hodgson described the Neoconservatives as:-

"a cross between a generation of New York intellectuals, a coterie, and a tendency." Together, they reflected a narrow alcove of American society: essentially, they are products of Ivy League graduate schools and "a corner of the New York literary world."

According to Hodgson:-

"Although many of them claimed to be 'scholars' or 'social scientists,' their real gifts, in most cases, were for a particular style of what used to be called 'the higher journalism,' more French in many ways than American, in which they slashed away at the errors of those who disagreed with them in great and sometimes cloudy realms of high policy and national destiny. ...They definitely made the decisive breach in the defenses of the liberal orthodoxy, because they succeeded in stripping liberalism in the public mind of its monopoly of expertise...."

The group who founded the magazine The Public Interest represented the core of what later became the neoconservative movement.

Hodgson points out:-

"Beginning in the late 1960s this group did develop a cluster of ideas and attitudes that were characteristic of what evolved into an identifiable neoconservative movement. It was to have an immense effect on the form American conservatism took in the 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies." ‡

"This belief has been deeply ingrained in the United States since the Revolution. It was strong in the American colonies before the Revolution. It has origins in the puritanism of the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and it has religious overtones, in the idea that it is the destiny of the United States to "redeem" a sinful `- world, as well as nationalist ones. Indeed, it has sometimes been called a "secular religion." It is found in every corner of the country geographically and in Americans of every ethnic origin and social class, even among many black Americans."

‡ It could be argued that is the Neoconservative conviction that American society is innately morally superior that is one of the marks of the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought. A somewhat similar view of the superiority of British British society and moral values marked the high point of British Imperialism and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that some Neconservatives talk in terms of taking up "the White Man's Burden" in the Third World.

As the former editor of the Observer, Will Hutton, said in an on-line debate with Robert Kagan on America's Public Broadcasting System:-

Will Hutton on Neoconservatism

Public Broadcasting System Debate - 3 April 2003

"American neoconservatism is a very idiosyncratic creed. Its pitiless view of human nature, its refusal to countenance a social contract, its belief in the raw exercise of power -- "full spectrum dominance" -- its attachment to Christian fundamentalism, its attitudes towards abortion and capital punishment, and its deification of liberty of the individual are a mishmash of ideas that have no parallel anywhere.

It is an outlier within the Western conservative tradition, and it has taken very special circumstances for it not to be more seriously challenged intellectually, culturally, and politically within America.

Without the collapse of American liberalism, the openness of American democracy to the influence of corporate money, and the continuing resentments of the distinct civilisation below the Mason-Dixon line, this neoconservatism would never have come to have the influence it has."

(link to full text of debate)

Will Hutton is author of a forthcoming book entitled A Declaration of Interdependence: Why America Should Join the World in which he argues that Europe and America share a great liberal tradition that runs much deeper than the temporary phenomenon engendered by the occupation of the White House by an Administration whose foreign policy has been hijacked by the Neoconservatives.

Hutton's thesis is that the current rift between the Bush Administration and its European allies over the war in Iraq is really a sharp split between this consensus of US/European foreign policy liberalism and the presently prevailing Neoconservatism of the Bush administration.

We question whether the "Neoconservative hijacking of US foreign policy" will prove to be as temporary as Hutton evidently hopes.
http://www.eurolegal.org/usneocon2.htm

Avowedly Neoconservative sites.

Neoconservatism On-Line - claims to be the "official" web site of Neoconservatism

The Public Interest - One of the original Neoconservative publications

The Weekly Standard - Kristol's Right Wing Rag - a News Corporation Publication - the awful Rupert Murdoch finger is in this pie too.

Front Page Magazine - Neoconservative Web Site

The Razor (afer William of Ockham, not Gillette) whose editor uses the pseudonym "Niccolς Macchiavelli" - try also some of the sites in the web rings in which the site participates

http://www.eurolegal.org/usneocon3.htm

posted 06-04-2003 09:44 PM            

If they have to USE the United States as the vehicle...they will.

Just as they would turn their backs on us as well.

The NWO/illuminati have controlled most of the world over the past 200 years or more.

Their names are Rockafeller, Krupps, Mellon, Carnegie, Harriman, Rothschild,....

This list goes on.

BU$H is just a PUPPET for the globalists and the Military industrial Complex. As Bill Clinton was.

posted 06-07-2003 02:37 PM            

Could that also apply to W Bush?

Who is in charge?

>Here's a guy the Republicans don't want us to know about.
The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification Church and a self-declared Messiah from South Korea, is a major behind-the-scenes GOP player. His organization owns The Washington Times, the right-wing newspaper Ronald Reagan once called his favorite. Moon said he has pumped over $1 billion into the paper since the Church bought it in 1982. Those poor Moonies had to sell a lot of flowers!<

>President Bush has appeared at Moonies events and endorsed the cause of the moonies. So has former president Ford. Moon has spend at least 2 Billion Dollars influencing American Politics, Christian Organizations, and the American Press.<

>According to advertisements taken out in major papers around the country, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon has been tapped as this world's "King of Kings." That these particular advertisements were paid for by the reverend is perhaps worth noting, but only in passing.

I have no objectivity on this matter, so let's turn to Jim Remsen of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who has reported on the ad campaign. According to Mr. Remsen, Moon is "proclaiming that Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha - even God - have told him he is now 'the Savior, Messiah and King of Kings of all of humanity!'"
He also reports that Moon is paying $720,000 to place the ads in papers across the country,
which makes him something of a saint in this time of falling revenues.
That the ads run 7,000 words,
outstripping the Sermon on the Mount by a fair distance,
underscores the importance of the message.

It appears Moon was informed of his new standing during
"a seminar in the spirit world for leaders of five of the great religions."
Explains Mr. Remsen:
"40 leaders of the five faiths, as well as Karl Marx and three other Communist greats,
express their obeisance to Mr. Moon.
At the celestial event, Mohammad is said to have led three cheers, while God submitted a letter stating, 'I believe in the True Parents.'" Perhaps it should be mentioned here that Moon and his wife (his second, as memory serves) bill themselves at the True Parents.
<
Remembering who controls the government now (beating a dead horse eg:
attacks on Clinton notwithstanding/
he is out of office
and his party out of the drivers' seat)

>Frederick Clarkson (Eternal Hostility, Common Courage Press, 1997) reports that Moon has stated his goal is the "subjugation of the American government and population." {B}(Clarkson's source: John Judis, "Rev. Moon's Rising Political Influence: His Empire Is Spending Big Money To Try To Win Favor With Conservatives," U. S. News and World Report, March 27, 1989.)
>He has given millions of dollars to a number of Republicans. Paid speakers at his Family Federation for World Peace have included George Bush, William Bennett, Jack Kemp, and Ralph Reed. In the early 1990s, his organization funneled millions to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University when it was facing staggering debts.<

Moon has stated his goal is the "subjugation of the American government and population."

sources: http://www.unification.net http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/ http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/132/33.0.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/unif112.html http://www.realjournalism.net/times.htm

That's one major player in the NWO
who has unified the worst elements of fascism and communism with Fundamentalist 'Christianity".

>Reverend Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification Church and a self-declared Messiah<
>But he has often complained, "look, I'm doing my best to be the Messiah. You try to be the Messiah."<

posted 06-08-2003 09:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
I don't think Mr Moon is even close to being a christian.

---

Please forgive me Professor..
but we aparently agree about Moon.

Google Results: "Moon was excommunicated"
1. Dave Shiflett on Rev. Sun Myung Moon & Religion on National ...

posted 06-08-2003 09:20 AM            

We have Moon and his minions masquerading as conservatives.
Who are masquerading as Liberals?

Do the Bilderbergers really exist..etc..?

posted 06-14-2003 01:52 PM            

By someone who doesn't even know I exist.
Not a word of it mine;
Quote:
"MAO WAS A YALIE - Back in 1903, Yale Divinity School established a number
of schools and hospitals throughout China that were collectively known as
'Yale in China.' It has since been shown that 'Yale in China' was an
intelligence network whose purpose was to destroy the republican movement
of Sun Yat-sen on behalf of the Anglo-American Establishment. The
Anglo-American "Establishment" hated Sun, because he wanted to develop
China. On the other hand, they loved the Chinese communists because they
intended to keep China backward, and were committed to growing dope. One of
'Yale in China's' most important students was Mao Zedong.

"During World War II, 'Yale in China' was a primary instrument used by the
U.S. Establishment and its Office of Strategic Services (OSS) to install
the Maoists into power. 'Yale in China' was run by OSS operative Reuben
Holden, the husband of Bush's cousin, and also a member of Skull and Bones.

"The Maoists made China into the world's largest opium producer.
"'Yale in China' was also closely associated with the New York-based Union
Theological Seminary, which has been a center for U.S. subversion of Asia
(literal wolves in sheeps clothing - Branton). Every prominent radical
leader operating in Korea today, for example, was trained at Union
Theological. Union Theological was dominated for twenty years by Henry
Sloane Coffin, a U.S. intelligence executive from the Sloane and Coffin
families. He was a Skull and Bones member as were a dozen of his relatives.

"Nor should it be forgotten that Averell Harriman, the former Ambassador to
Moscow who did so much to build up the Soviet Union, was a member of Skull
and Bones. Harriman was also a business partner of Prescott Bush, Sr., the
father of Maoist enthusiast George Bush."

Note: This Skull and Bones - Communist connection is also confirmed by
geopolitical and economics researchers such as Dr. Antony Sutton (Sutton's
books may be obtained through THE PATRIOT REVIEW., 33836 SE Kelso Rd. #6.,
P.O. Box 596., Boring, OR 97099; OR via THE MIDNIGHT MESSENGER., P.O. Box
472., Altadens, CA 91001). Not only did the Skull and Bones (Western
Illuminati) help to build up the Communist movement in China, but they gave
considerable financial aid to the Soviet Union communists as well.
According to Sutton, this power cult has for centuries been playing a "two
ends against the middle" type of game, attempting to control America (the
thesis) and Russia (the anti-thesis) and other countries or movements,
carefully pitting them against each other at the lower levels in order to
keep the populations of the world in a state of confusion and despair, to
the point that they will - hopefully - resign themselves into accepting the
New World Order "synthesis" as the only alternative to solve the very
"problems" which THEY, the New World Order initiators, created in the first
place! One startling, though documented, claim which Mr. Sutton makes is
that the Nazi Movement was largely financed by the Skull and Bones -
Illuminati as well. This connection was recently described in a mailer
describing Val Valerian's book MATRIX III (c/o Leading Edge Research., P.O.
Box 481-MU58., Yelm, WASH 98597). Part of this mailer states:

"Interspaced with the material comes a host of data, supplementary
material, interviews, and revealing information. The 'Final Scenario' is
discussed relative to the New World Order and the plans for total economic
control, a one-world religion, and the electronic mind control objectives,
schools of thought, and research. MATRIX III brings out in detail how
various families in the United States and Europe are also involved in a
scenario which has as its main tenet the suppression and elimination of
human beings on many levels - a scenario which includes worldwide traffic
of drugs, vast laundering of drug money by national banks of several
countries, and assassination and murder. These are the people who arranged
and supported all the wars. There is discussion of the Bush family, and how
Prescott Bush assisted the finance and management of the Nazi empire - the
so-called Hitler project..." http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/evils/politics/X0002_BUSHED.TXT.html

Why did Nixon make an arrangement with communist china?
Why was George HW Bush the Ambassador to Communist China.
Why was George HW Bush the US ambassador who facilitated the removal of Free China (Taiwan) from the UN
and placed Communist China on the UN security council in their place?

Why did these self described
'anti-communists'
serve international communism better than anyone else ever has?

posted 06-14-2003 02:27 PM            

The globalists helped totalitarian Communism and propped up Mao.

Even David Rockefeller publicly praised the Chinese Revolution.

They propped up Hitler as well. Prescott Bush was one of them who helped fund IG Farben and give them the patents to Elthylene Dibromide aviation gasoline while keeping it from our own government.

The same IG Farben that built the death camps at Auschwitz.

As you know, Prescott was also a leading advocate for Eugenics.

posted 06-14-2003 02:35 PM            

************************************************************
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/chapter_11.htm

Wall Street, or rather the Morgan-Rockefeller complex represented at 120 Broadway and 14 Wall Street, had something very close to Williams' argument in mind. Wall Street went to bat in Washington for the Bolsheviks. It succeeded. The Soviet totalitarian regime survived. In the 1930s foreign firms, mostly of the Morgan-Rockefeller group, built the five-year plans. They have continued to build Russia, economically and militarily.18 On the other hand, Wall Street presumably did not foresee the Korean War and the Vietnam War — in which 100,000 Americans and countless allies lost their lives to Soviet armaments built with this same imported U.S. technology. What seemed a farsighted, and undoubtedly profitable, policy for a Wall Street syndicate, became a nightmare for millions outside the elitist power circle and the ruling class.

posted 06-14-2003 02:55 PM            

Reverend Sir: It was not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am....

— George Washington to Rev. G.W. Snyder Ocotber 24, 1798

In London, there are all the factors for the most dangerous mob the world can produce. In France, the commune is stronger than ever it was and the Red terror may appear with ever turn of the whirligig of politics. In Spain and Italy, the socialists are busy while in Germany and in Russia a crisis is at hand. Let none mistake either the purpose or the devotion of these fanatics, nor their growing strength. This is a methodic, not a haphazard conspiracy. The ferment in Russia is controlled by the same heads and the same hands as the activity in Chicago. There is a cold-blooded, calculating purpose behind this revolt manipulating ever part of the world over to a common and ruinous end.

— Police Captain Michael Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists, 1889

"Over the past two years, the Russian secret police .. . . has regained most of the powers and functions of the KGB [and] resumed its old habits of arbitrary persecution and detention."

— Toronto Globe and Mail, Dec. 1996
[And communism is dead...right?]

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.... The social experiment in China under the Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

— David Rockefeller, 1973

During Mao's crazy Great Leap Forward, in which China's farmers were collectivized en masse, an estimated 30 million or more people starved to death. Another two million are said to have died in Mao's Cultural Revolution. Total: 35 million dead.

— Eric Margolis 26 June 1997

"These [regarding the neo-Nazi culture] are the dysfunctional miscreants the left-wing media smear artists delight in labeling as "right-wing," and "patriot," with the obvious intent of transferring the malodorous taint of neo-Nazi racism to conservatives and constitutionalist who hold nothing in common with the Aryan collectivist. ...And although some of these cretins skulk behind a pseudo-Christian theology they call "Christian Identity," most are openly contemptuous of Christianity and proudly proclaim their paganism. ...These National Socialist degenerates are not "conservatives." They are politically, socially, philosophically, and morally cut from the same cloth as their Marxist socialist brethren."

— William F. Jasper The New American Magazine March 31, 1997

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

— James R. Warburg (CFR)

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communist act. In fact, this network... has no aversion to cooperating with the Communist, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records."

— Prof. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

"[David Rockefeller is the] unelected if indisputable chairman of the American establishment...Rockefeller sits at the hub of a vast network of financiers, industrialists, and politicians whose reach encircles the globe.... [W]hat some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life, just another day's work."

— Journalist Bill Moyers

"The [Council on Foreign Relations] grew out of the Inquiry, a secretive group of well-educated bankers and lawyers who accompanied Woodrow Wilson to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The council saw [as] its mandate the calling of signals from the sidelines.... [T]he [elites] govern, while the lowly men of elective office...dirty their hands with politics... The international institutions conceived in 1945 — the UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund — were anticipated in studies done at the council."

— New York Magazine, Oct. 7, 1996

"[Council on Foreign Relations displays] all the earmarks of a conspiracy — a few hundred Wall Street Bankers, lawyers, foundation executives and businessmen, meeting to arrange the deals far from the prying eye of the public and their elected officials."

— [Clinton's CIA nominee] Anthony Lake & Leslie Gelb Our Own Worst Enemy

"What is being arranged in Washington these days is really a gigantic experiment in internationalism. We are witnessing the creation of a supranational control of the world's necessities. The old notions of sovereignty no longer govern the facts. We have entered upon another phase of political unification, a phase greater in its methods to the formation of national states in the nineteenth century. This is the birth of the League of Nations."

— Walter Lippman, April 1917

Bloomfield recognized this very problem when he stated in A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations: "[I]f the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might well lose whatever incentive it had for world government."

— MIT Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR) under a contract
(No. SCC 28270) with the U.S. State Department.

"Many times in the course of my visit [to a US military training institute] I heard discussion of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the National Guard from acting as a local police force. The implication was that turbulence within the United States might one day require repeal of the act."

— Robert Kaplan The Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1996

"[A] time may come when the military will have to go domestic..."

— Robert Kaplan quoting Army Officers
The Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1996

"It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague.... And indeed it has, but [it has been] a plague of Power, not germs...

The common and fundamental justification of government is that it exists to protect citizens against the anarchic jungle that would otherwise threaten their lives and property... A preeminent fact about government is that some of them murder millions in cold blood. This is where absolute Power reigns."

— R.J. Rummel, as reported in his book, Death by Government

posted 06-14-2003 03:12 PM            

the people are...always will be...duh...

cracks me up how hard you folks work for a simple answer....

as far as who runs things...the federal reserve does...I rarely do this...but I'm going to quote myself

pay attention !

I myself think the "end" of the U.S and the beginning of the USA was when money as we knew it just physically disappeared in the 30's...and came back as something else "gold" to "gold bullion" standard...a late 70's clincher was the world being taken off the gold standard...basically in favor of the international monetary fund and a debt based economy....which in turn makes the "independant" federal reserve and alan greenspan...the most powerful entities on the planet...a full scale one world control of money 23 years running....

there's the whole ball of wax....ya boobs...

posted 06-14-2003 03:39 PM            

WHO runs the federal reserve?

Don't even say that it's run by the U.S. Government because that is PURE BS.

posted 06-14-2003 06:07 PM            

alan greenspan runs the fed...

do search on the fed...

how it works...learn...

go hither into the mountains...

posted 06-14-2003 09:42 PM            

not enough conspiracy there to be the truth ?

you guys see what you want to see...and hear what you want to hear...

neither of which is part of the deductive reasoning process...

pooh on ya'

posted 06-14-2003 09:46 PM            

The FED RES is a PRIVATE, UNACCOUNTABLE TYRANNY unto itself...period.