I'm a member of the Northern Panhandle Greens. I was a Precinct Committee
Person for the Democrats for a while before this and inbetween I was an
Independent. I guess I still am.
The rag tag Republican Party in this county was funded and organized from
outside the state. For awhile they were very right wing and had some
connection to Richard Butler's Aryan Nations, but they severed that and
later Butler was kicked off his property as the result of a legal judgment
on a assault charge when his goons shot up somebody's car that backfired on
the road in front of his compound.
The Democratic Party's aphorism was that first you have to WIN so they
wouldn't take a stand on environmental issues. Historically, men have made
their living in this area in the extraction industries. There was an
attempt by progressives to take over the Democratic Party, and the old
guard responded by black-listing the perpetrators. Two long-time state
senators lost their seats in this struggle and the result was that the
state became controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Republicans.
Liberals are now nationally disenfranchised by the electoral college.
What I'm trying to get across here is that Green Party here is a way to run
candidates to get environmental issues mentioned at all in campaigns. We
have a huge lake that is threatened with the extinction of life in it by
mine tailings laced with Ammonium nitrate that will be put into the Clark
Fork River by a Montana mine right over the border. The Idaho Republican
powers that be in Boise won't lift a finger to stop it and they could.
There's so many planning and zoning issues, logging issues, water and air
issues here--so many different groups trying to deal with all of them and
the Demos as a party act like they're ostriches with their head in the
sand.
What I'm trying to interject into this discussion is the problem of
uncommitted voters and the spoiler aspect of Green Party candidates making
a three-way split which gives the election to the Republicans. If we can
solve this, then we can possibly turn things around if it isn't already too
late. If not, the Green Party is indeed a Spoiler. Recently, we were
asked to come to a Democratic campaign party by the Demo Chair, and we
should have gone, but we didn't. It's so hard to deal with some of the
Demos who can't forgive me for my part in challenging them years ago.
People around here fight dirty when they get challenged and they succeeded
in hurting a lot of people including themselves. Their long-time Speaker
of the Idaho House died of a heart attack, possibly from just the last
straw of stress in his life, who knows?
I received a mailing from a friend which contained an article about
Doublespeak and Neoliberalism and how important it is to recognize how
words like "freedom fighters" and "conservatism" have been coopted. It's
long and it's angry, but I'll put it on the list. We need to keep our
spiritual focus in all this. We need to get involved and call the
Republicans on what they're doing.
I can't deal with numbers and information like Hugh put on the list in Post
Three about nuclear weapons at the World Trade Center and Bali. My
husband, who could deal with it can't get past the first paragraph of Joe
Vialls' article. He says he knows too much to read it. He's like that.
We were sailing past Orca in the San Juan Islands on a rainy day in our
yellow slickers and I saw the Ferry make a sloshing turn way ahead of us
and I said, "Herb, the ferry is doing something funny. Look." He said,
"Nonsense, ferries don't do funny things," and he wouldn't look. The ferry
ran aground right in front of us. The captain was drunk and had his
girlfriend on his knee showing her some land with a close-up view. It
shouldn't have happened, but it did and we were eyewitnesses. Herb
wouldn't let me call the authorities and get involved. The captain lost
his license and was put in jail.
I have no idea whether this is the case now or not. He calls Joe Vialls'
article, a "Thought Virus." He says, "When I see something that is counter
to the laws of physics, I don't want to read any further." This is way
above my head and my husband won't cooperate as usual. Said he used to
blow holes in sidewalks with his chemistry set when he was a boy. Says
that steel melts easily. I wish I could coax him to read all the BD posts
on this, but I can't, and it's way out of my league.
Our friend who sent us the 1998 email below, is a very effective
environmental organizer who is burned out, but who can't stay out of the
fray when he feels someone needs to be supported. He's a writer/editor and
very interested in words...
Doublespeak And The New World Order - Semantic Warfare
& Propaganda
>> Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery,
and vocabulary is the ammunition. The New World Order
(NWO) has taken the field by storm, and is proceeding with
coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the latest hi-tech
vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines
that cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism",
"conservatism", "prosperity", "democracy".
Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow
find a way to fight back. The achilles heel of the NWO
lies in its runaway successes: its high-handed treatment
of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential counter-
reaction -- if people can be made to see who the real
perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline of
democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes
can be turned against it, if people can learn to read the NWO
agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out.
The NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so
arrogantly confident are they that their doublespeak enigma
device won't be seen through by the people. <<
Thanks Nick -- this article deserves our utmost detailed attention.
Folks, don't let its length dissuade you -- every sentence is vital.
Let's keep it handy -- this approach is key to so much. The writer
is an exceptionally keen observer and immaculate linguist, and has
precisely defined much that we know but hadn't actually wrapped
words around. I don't think the job can be done better -- this one is
tops.
We have to be able to authoritatively cut through this bullshit in
order to combat it. Translate it to the public at large. Preempt
its power to deceive.
I'll reformat this article as other commitments permit -- to maximize
its readability -- and repost it to the group.
<3 <3
----- Original Message -----
From: hypegnosis4all
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:58 PM
Subject: [All_Freedom] Fwd: Doublespeak And The New World Order -
Semantic Warfare & Propaganda
http://rense.com/political/doublespeak.htm
Doublespeak And The New World Order - Semantic Warfare &Propaganda
9-22-98
The New World Order (you know what the NWO is -- the corporate-
sponsored "free-trade" globalization steamroller) exploits language in
precisely the way Orwell predicted. Words are used to mislead and conceal
-- not clarify -- and are twisted to designate the opposite of their true
meanings. Concepts are tagged as being either "good guys" or "bad guys" by
dressing them up in "white hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or "black
hat" words (like "bureaucracy" or "politics").
This use of language is a form of propaganda -- and this _vocabulary
propaganda_is much more subtle and effective than _content propaganda_.
Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary propaganda
interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in a way that can
lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.
As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda makes language volatile.
In his scenario, one might read in the morning paper about an action
against an enemy, with no mention that the same folks were faithful allies
as recently as yesterday's edition. In actuality, the shifts in today's
doublespeak are more subtle and evolutionary. As you watch new language
being created, you can map out the NWO agenda: the white-hat items are to
be promoted, the black-hat items to be suppressed.
A classic example was the Oliver North hearings. Words like "good
soldier", "patriotic", "freedom fighter", and "legality" -- not to mention
"constitutional balance of powers" -- took quite a beating. By labeling
state-armed mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom fighters",
the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond hope. Those
who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk colonel and
impeaching his boss were instead prefacing their remarks with kowtows
toward the "freedom fighters" (if there was time remaining after the prayer
service). There was no ability to discuss the affair from a meaningful
moral or constitutional perspective, and the hearings dissolved into circus
rhetoric/coverup, as was intended by the NWO language masters.
If we want to discuss the world situation with any kind of useful
understanding, we need to explicitly decode the NWO doublespeak, and learn
how to translate it into straight language. This is not an easy task,
because the doublespeak process has, over time, warped political language
to the point where it is nearly useless. Words like "socialism" or
"tariffs", being so heavily tarred with the black brush, can't be used
meaningfully without an explanatory preface. Even the word "government" is
tricky to use -- the echoes of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt"
reverberate unconsciously.
Meanwhile, words like "market" and "competitive" have been promoted
with the white brush to Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would
it be to hold back the tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market
forces", or so it would seem.
Following is my attempt to associate accurate meanings with some of
the NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps these definitions will ring true to
you, and help you better understand what the NWO is about. With the
doublespeak unraveled, the media becomes a source of accurate information
after all -- NWO statements, though coded, are actually fairly descriptive
of the sinister NWO agenda.
________________________
"COMPETITIVENESS": the attractiveness of a venue to multinational
investors, particularly: laxity of regulation and taxation; the degree to
which a developed country regresses to Third-World status.
The phrase "Britain must be made more competitive for today's markets"
decodes as "Britain must have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates so
that it can compete with low-income parts of the world in attracting
_generic_ corporate investments".
_Genuine_ competitiveness, as demonstrated by Japan, involves
marshalling the nation's skills & resources toward adding value in focused
markets -- achieved by promoting synergy and making coordinated
investments. NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution -- it
values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.
__________________________
"CONSERVATISM": a policy of radically restructuring politics and
economics in order to produce investment opportunities and undermine
democracy; contrast with _actual_ conservatism: a policy of preserving
existing institutions in the interest social and economic stability.
Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar of this particular line of
doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning to traditional values"
while he was in fact dismantling long-evolved institutions and pursuing
policies of unprecedented and untried social and economic transformation.
_Genuine_ conservatism acts as a societal gyroscope, resisting nearly
every kind of change, regardless of its direction. Conservatism's catch
prase might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A very important point to
notice is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic institutions
has reversed the field in the game of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of
the twentieth century, it has been the democracy-minded progressives who
sought radical change, and the capitalist right wing who were the
conservatives. But since Reagan & Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the
initiative for radical change (in the wrong directions), and it is now the
progressives who have a vital interest in maintaining the political status
quo (ie., constitutional democracy and national sovereignty).
In this case, doublespeak succeeds in separating the progressives
from their natural constituency. Progressive activists _should_ be reaching
out to the silent majority -- arousing stick-in-the-mud conservatives to
join the cause against reckless NWO-induced changes. By pre-empting the
term "conservatism", the right-wing radicals have tricked most of the
conservative-tending masses into following the wrong parade.
Progressives _must_ reclaim their natural ground. To have any hope of
assembling a significant constituency, they must find a way to break
through the doublespeak jargon and help the general population to see that
its interests are not being served by the new "conservatism", and that
reckless changes are its true agenda.
We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable conservative reaction in the
Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy theories" are actually
quite close to the mark: the U.S. government _is_ being sold out to
international interests; the U.N. _is_ beginning to establish a
sovereignty-
threatening military force; the Constitution _is_ being trashed; the
establishment inWashington _is_ effectively a bunch of traitors. But it's
not the progressives who are bringing this message to these hard-core
backwoods conservatives -- instead the message is getting to them with a
doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label the sellout of America as a
"liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat happens to be in the White House,
the NWO myth spinners have been able to transform anti-establishment
sentiment into anti-liberal sentiment. Instead
of addressing the real enemies of the Constitution (the corporate elite),
the
Militia tilts its lance toward the liberals and progressives who should be
instead its natural allies in defending democracy. Divide and Conquer
shows up once again as the most potent tool of autocratic control.
Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery, and
vocabulary is the ammunition. The NWO has taken the field by storm, and is
proceeding with coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the latest
hi-tech vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines that
cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism", "conservatism",
"prosperity", "democracy".
Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow find a way to
fight back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies in its runaway successes: its
high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential
counter-reaction -- if people can be made to see who the real perpetrators
are, those who are engineering the decline of democratic civilization. Even
its doublespeak successes can be turned against it, if people can learn to
read the NWO agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out. The
NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident
are they that their
doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the people.
_________________________
"DEMOCRACY": a government with a competitive party electoral system, in
which multinationals are able to exert effective influence; Note: unrelated
to whether the government represents the people or supports their welfare.
If multinational interests are served, then no amount of popular unrest,
nor
vote rigging -- not even civil war -- will serve as credible evidence that
a
"democracy" is a sham. If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of
civil accord, prosperity, and popular support qualifies the government as
"democratic".
Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous climax when CCN broadcast live
coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly, and billed it as a victory
for"democracy"! (Did they realize they were televising an exact repeat of
Lenin's shelling of an earlier Constituent Assembly? Would that have
altered their assessment?) What Yeltsin's bloody power grab _was_ a victory
for was the corporate-sponsored dismantlement of the Russian economy, a
program the Western-backed Yeltsin has played his part in flawlessly. With
a subtle doublespeak twist within a twist, the media refers to Yeltsin as a
"liberal element" -- in fact he is a "neo- liberal" element, which
translates as "NWO stooge".
_Genuine_ democracy must be judged by its responsiveness to the informed
desires of the people, its success in promoting their welfare, and their
satisfaction with its performance. The mechanisms used to attain a
functional democracy can have many forms. The media says only competitive
political parties can deliver democracy, but don't believe it.
The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee whatever of
democratic process. Not only can parties be limited to those representing
elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the autonomous authority of the
military (typically subsidized by major NWO powers) often overshadows
governmental policy.
To understand what democracy is really about, we need to re-examine
our most cherished assumptions. Is the U.S. a democracy? Is Cuba a
democracy? Do you think you can tell?
Cuba doesn't have competitive parties or elections. But policies are
worked out by representatives from different segments of society, are
explained forthrightly (at length!) on the media, and feedback is listened
to. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels (until recently) have been
the envy of comparable economies. And Castro has been overwhelmingly
popular for most of his tenure.
The U.S. has parties and elections. But policies are worked out by
corporate interests, sold through misleading media rhetoric, and popular
opposition is dismissed as emotional reaction. Literacy, health care, and
nutrition levels -- in fact human welfare by any measure -- are on a steady
decline. The esteem of government and elected officials looms ever lower on
the horizon, nearly ready to set into a sea of total disgust.
The elections themselves are circuses where certain topics are
selected as being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an
orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy Democrat
dance around the limited ring of issues. When the match is over, the
establishment gets back to its un-discussed
agendas. Because there are no substantive issues raised during the
campaign, the rhetoric fades into memory. There's no platform, and no
distinct "change of government", as there used to be in Britain, before
Tony Blair infiltrated the Labour Party.
Such elections are more like a shuffling of board members in a corporation
-- the faces change, the policies continue to be set as before -- outside
any democratic process.
Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?". I
ask
you: Can you tell a self-governing people from a stone parliament
building?
________________________
"DEVELOPMENT": the restructuring of an economy to facilitate
extraction of wealth by multinationals; transforming an economy so as to
become more dependent on trade with multinationals; the theft of national
assets by multinationals.
"Development" is usually pursued where the potential profit is greatest.
This means that the investment is as little as possible and the exportation
of eventual revenues is as great as possible. The result is a net drain
on the "developing" economy. Fair play, you might say, if the "developing"
country is
able to take advantage of the situation to bootstrap its way into general
economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if an infrastructure is
created which benefits the general economy.
But these collateral benefits are not the purpose of "development", and the
consequences are usually otherwise. Brazil is an example
where "development" was heralded as a great success (at least for a
period), due to the large flow of money through the country. But the local
benefits were concentrated in relatively small, elite management and
land-owner classes, and the consequence for the general population was the
destruction of their food supply and agricultural economy to the benefit of
agri-export operators. Meanwhile the rainforests burn to make room for
displaced farmers or new agri-business "developments".
In other cases, a country might be left with an infrastructure to support
export operations, such as a selectively deployed highway system, which may
not be appropriate for the general development needs of the country, and
which increases its dependence on oil imports.
In many cases, "development" involves the granting of mineral rights,
land leases, tax discounts, or exemptions from regulations, as enticements
to attract corporate "investment". In rare cases, such grants are valued
appropriately, but all too frequently a cash-strapped Third-World country
is compelled to give away long-term rights to valuable national assets
while getting very little in return, usually some low-paying jobs and
under-valued royalties. Whether the asset be copper, oil, or agricultural
land, the multinational investor extracts billions in profits while the
host country gets a relatively minor pittance of the actual value of the
arm-twist stolen asset.
__________________________
"FREE TRADE": the systematic destabilization of national and regional
economic arrangements, by means of treaties such as GATT and NAFTA, in
order to take economic decision making as far as possible from any
democratic process, and centralize global economic control into the hands
of the corporate elite.
"Free trade", it would seem from the corporate media's propaganda, is
universally accepted by all reputable economists as the One True Path
to prosperity and progress. Such a belief, which does not in fact enjoy
a consensus among economists, is historical nonsense. The Great Economies,
such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain, and modern Japan, were
developed under nurturing protectionist policies. Only when they achieved
considerable economic strength did these countries begin to adopt "free
trade" policies, as a way to prevent other nations from catching up.
An economy (see also: "Reform") is an ecosystem. A strong economy is
one that has diversity and synergy. When "free trade" is imposed on an
underdeveloped economy, it develops in a distorted way, and is over-
dependent on external market fluctuations. Such weakness increases the
bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious objective
of "free trade" in the first place.
"Free trade", which is part of the "globalization" agenda, brings a
shift economic sovereignty from nation states, where there is hope of
democratic participation, to corporate-approved international commissions,
where only the corporate voice holds sway.
________________________
"GLOBALIZATION": the undermining of the nation state as a focus of
economic organization; the reduction to commodity status of worldwide
raw-goods suppliers; the monopolization of distribution channels by
transnational trading companies; the reduction of health & quality
standards to least-common-denominator levels; the most honest
self-characterization of the NWO agenda.
Capturing more broadly the scope of the "free trade" campaign,
"globalization" expresses the intent to homogenize the world economy -- to
make national borders transparent to the transfer of capital and goods, and
enable a higher-order of centralized global management. The claim is
frequently made that this will lead to a leveling of prosperity levels on a
global basis, but with some exceptions, the evidence is all to the
contrary. What we see instead, and as we should expect from how
"development" is structured and "free trade" is implemented, is that
"globalization" leads to a _greater_ prosperity disparity between
the"developed" and "developing" nations, as measured by the disposable
income and living standards of the general populations. The greatest _real_
prosperity gains have been achieved by those countries which created
domestic synergy in their economies through selective protectionism (eg.,
Japan).
The availability of low-cost worldwide transport and the multinational
scope of corporate operations -- together with deregulation of trade
barriers -- leads to a situation where every producer is competing with
every other producer throughout the world. Distributors can thus shop for
the best deal globally, and continue to sell at whatever price they can get
in their markets. As the distribution channels are increasingly
concentrated into fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food
importers, etc.), a classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing, and
will become more pronounced as globalization progresses.
The "robber-baron" scenario looks like this: On one side you have
separated, unorganized producers, all competing with one another to supply
the distributors. On the other side, you have the consumers of the world,
also separated and unorganized, buying what they can afford from what is
offered in their local outlets. In the middle you have the distributors,
who like robber barons of old, have (increasingly) monopoly control over
the the flow of goods from producer to market. Not only can producer prices
be driven down in one-sided bargaining, but producers can be selectively
driven out of business, and in general the distributors have the power to
dictate whether and producers do business.
The classic example of a robber baron regime was California in the
heydey of the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP would audit the books of firms
which shipped goods on their lines, and adjust each firm's shipping rates
so that profits on sales were shared "fairly" with SP. We see this kind of
thing today when the same drugs from the same distributors are sold at
radically different prices in different countries -- those who can afford
more, pay more. It's the corporate version of a graduated income tax -- but
for the people, it's taxation without representation all over again.
As for non-price consumer concerns -- environmental protection, content
labelling, pesticide levels, other health issues -- we can expect to see a
rapid reversal of the "green" gains which have occurred since the sixties.
Initially we see some localized improvements in standards, as the EU, for
example, levels its regulatory playing field. But the long-term
decision-making role for these policies is being shifted to
corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels).
This means that as the distributors tighten their noose of control,
and after local regulatory power has been disabled, the distributors will
wield their awesome influence to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist
"shackles" on "free markets" and "consumer savings". This is of course
already happening. We have the EU telling the Germans that UK beef is safe,
when the UK can't even get its story straight about whether adequate
controls are being implemented. The EU, and even more so the WTO, have
every motivation to go out of their way to decide in favor of more trade,
and minimize appraisal of any negative consequences. Their business is to
increase business, and they are a level removed from the influence of
citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization"
amounts to a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to
corporate feudalism.
"Globalization", among the terms in the NWO phrase book, comes
closest to being an honest use of language. The NWO does indeed, as
"globalization" suggests, want to systematize commerce on a global scale,
to homogenize the world in who-knows-how-many aspects -- to bring forth a
new world order. The deception comes in the implication that
"globalization" will bring increased prosperity, that "free markets" will
get goods to those who need them, and that the abundance of the earth will
become available to humanity on a more equitable basis. As the song goes,
"It ain't necessarily so".
___________________________
"PRIVATIZATION": (1) the theft of citizen assets by corporate interests,
achieved through discounted sell-offs of intentionally under-valued public
properties; (2) the creation of new investment opportunities by means
of dismantling successfully operating public services.
Media discussion of privatization is generally limited to the narrow issues
of consumer benefits and operating efficiency. Even on these grounds,
the arguments presented are usually far from convincing. They are
frequently simply a recitation of the axioms "public is inefficient",
"private is efficient" -- often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
Privatization is not just a change of managers, it is a change of
ownership. It removes equity from citizens, and removes or minimizes public
control
over asset development and pricing. In many cases following privatization,
employment is reduced as an immediate step in reducing costs and enhancing
the profit picture -- without the social costs of the unemployment being
considered in the overall accounting for the transaction.
The aim of a privatized operation shifts from providing a public service,
to
making a profit. Short-term profit pressures may reduce investment in
long-term maintenance and upgrades, since their payback period may be
beyond the horizon of the investor's plans for cashing out.
Despite inflated claims to the contrary, consumer benefits tend to be
minimal -- any reduction in rates would be a direct loss from the bottom
line, and token reduction are usually enough for PR purposes and to satisfy
regulatory constraints. The obvious fact that the operator needs to take
out a profit is seldom mentioned when the benefits of privatization are
proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if any) would accrue fully to the
consumer.
In their personal finances, citizens appreciate the value of asset
ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant cost savings over the
lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits the citizen in the face
of
inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With privatization, citizens are
transformed from owners to renters, and suffer a long-term equity loss that
may be many times greater than the discounted sale price of the asset. A
privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates the first few years, but in
the long run it will charge whatever the traffic will bear -- in tomorrow's
inflated economy.
___________________________
"REFORM": the modification or replacement of an existing economic or
political system, so as to create new corporate investment opportunities --
it is not required that the new system perform effectively, only that it
deliver corporate profits.
A system is in need of "reform" whenever corporate investors think of
a new angle to make new profits. Obvious failures of the "reform" process,
such as unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of "reform", but of
incomplete implementation. Belief in "reform" is like religious faith: no
amount of counter-evidence can phase the True Believer.
"Reform" is like clear-cutting. A forest is an ecosystem, with wildlife,
streams, underbrush, etc. Careful forestry can harvest timber without
destroying the ecosystem -- but clear-cutting destroys all at once. An
existing political/economic arrangement is also an eco-system: it is the
subtle fabric that weaves the society together and enables its
functioning. "Reform" -- as we see in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff --
can destroy the existing framework all at once, and replace it with one
that doesn't fit, that would take years or decades to take root and begin
producing, and will be owned by someone else at the end of the day.
_Genuine_ reform would take into account the existing conditions, and
if a change is needed, would make incremental changes over time, evolving a
working system toward sounder functioning. Most significant, it would
reflect local customs and preferences -- it would not seek to impose a
cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures and traditions.
__________________________
"THIRD-WORLD ASSISTANCE": (1) the subsidization of non- competitive
First-World industries by means of channeling earmarked funds through
Third-World hands; (2) carrot-money to entice "development" in preferred
NWO directions; (3) hush-money to fund domestic suppression in host
countries
In order to encourage acquiescence by the taxpayers who foot the bill
for it, "assistance" or "aid" almost always comes wrapped in the rhetoric
of humanitarianism. Recently in Germany a more honest sales- pitch has
been launched, announcing that for every mark that was spent as
development aid, 1.15 marks came back as orders for German business. This
is no surprise to anyone who's followed the numbers, but perhaps the
publicity will invite the German people to ask why German business doesn't
pay more of the "aid" bill.
Heaven knows the Third World needs _real_ financial aid -- not
interest-bearing loans and not funds earmarked for externally-defined
purposes. When strapped for development funds, it is difficult for a
country to turn down offers, even when strings are attached. But money
which leaves crippling debt in its wake, or which encourages the
development of a dependent economy, would be better refused -- it's like
buying things you don't need using a credit card you know you can
never pay off.
In fact, the bulk of "assistance" has been channeled directly to military
and
"security" forces, in the form of weapons, training, and cash. In some
cases this results in lucrative contracts for First World arms
manufacturers, but the main objective is to create a political climate
subservient to NWO designs. The military muscle enables unpopular and
NWO-submissive regimes to retain power and drain their country's resources
by participating recklessly in the "aid/development" game -- running up
their country's credit cards at the NWO bank.
Viewed from the broadest perspective, the definition of "Third-World
assistance" is "the NWO version of imperialism". It succeeds -- in too many
cases -- in accomplishing the following imperialist objectives: (1)
controls the development priorities of the subject states (2) manages the
ruling class in the subject states (3) puts the subject states into a
condition of eternal debt (4) extracts profits and resources with minimal
taxation and labor costs (5) provides markets for First-World goods,
enhanced by absence of development in directions of self-sufficiency
Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises, this is all accomplished
with minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations, and no public
understanding of what's going on -- and the bill is being paid by those who
benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so sinister, you'd have
to respect them.
__________________________ CyberLib maintained by Richard K. Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 26 www or ftp: Wexford, Ireland
ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
--- End forwarded message ---
Lloyd Charles wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Another reason to vote Green
>
> > I'm not being paranoid Hugh, just trying to be sensible... you really
> ought to watch what the hell your signing your name to. We need you on
> this side of the barbed wire, even if you are not rowing with both oars
> in the water...follow my drift butt head??? SStorch
>
> I agree!
> LCharles
> >
> >
