The UK connection?

So if you have been patiently following all the blog posts about the US, various presidents’ references to secrecy, the Council on Foreign Relations, collectivism etc., you might be wondering how this could possibly have any connections with the UK, let alone the Isle of Man. As previously mentioned, I don’t believe it is possible to pinpoint any one organization as being instrumental in achieving certain aims. It seems possible that many well-known organizations have been infiltrated at higher levels without the knowledge of most of the members. That’s my take on this, anyway. For this reason I don’t feel it is essential at this point to discover which organization is pivotal in all this. After all we only (!) need to ensure we have a well-functioning Freedom of Information Act, transparency in government and also ensure that we are alert to new legislation and make our opinions known when necessary.

Incidentally, don’t you think that one world government is a little unrealistic at the moment? It seems difficult to imagine China, India, Russia etc happily bowing to the recommendations of the CFR. However, what alerted me to all this in the first place is the fact that I sense dictatorship in my daily life and have become aware of the very limited and dumbed-down mainstream media reports, the lack of adequate input from all parties involved in news stories and the lack of investigative journalism, the restrictions on freedom of choice and the seemingly irrelevant yet stringent legislation we are being bombarded with. It wasn’t a case of being naively open to conspiracy theories. No, it was the other way round. I was aware of the problems and the alternative news sources answered my questions.

While one world government seems unlikely at this stage, the fact remains that we are being dictated to and controlled in our daily lives to an ever-increasing degree. Much of the controlling legislation appears to emanate from the EU and some US – orientated organizations. It is also apparent that collectivism is rearing its ugly head so it is conceivable that perhaps the first stage of the ridiculous plans of the globalists is to harness the EU and the US. How would it be possible to implement globalist plans in a small nation such as the Isle of Man, you ask? It seems likely that the same means as anywhere else would also be effective here. Secrecy, non-transparency and infiltration are obviously not in the interests of the people.

In the third video on the Globalism or collectivism post G Edward Griffin refers to the fact that it all originated from the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Interestingly, this group is now primarily known as Chatham House. Chatham House is also known for Chatham House Rules where records of meetings are not kept, this is supposed to enable more frank discussions. One of the more well-known users of Chatham House Rules is Common Purpose.

Common Purpose (CP) is a Charity, based in Great Britain, which creates ‘Future Leaders’ of society. CP selects individuals and ‘trains’ them to learn how society works, who ‘pulls the levers of power’ and how CP ‘graduates’ can use this knowledge to lead ‘Outside Authority’.
Taken from:

CP apparently selects many potential graduates from the police and we are told that Merseyside Police spent a total of £40,654 on CP courses in a period of ten years. This information was obtained as a result of a request under the FOI act:

Do we really need police to “lead beyond authority”? I leave you to make up your mind about this information. Do we need more transparency? Do we need a Freedom of Information Act? Why not pass on the URL to others who are not yet awake?


Globalism or collectivism?

Edward Bernays tells us:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Taken from Organising Chaos

“Intelligent manipulation of opinion” is surely also dependent on secrecy and non-transparent organizations. The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group are frequently considered to be less than transparent but very influential. A comment on the Bilderbergers in the EU parliament

(Note: Should you have problems viewing the videos that “contain content from UMG” they are easily viewable on Youtube. As far as I can tell it is merely a copyright issue on the background music. The video is quite sound).

A condensed version of basic details so far leads us at the conclusion of the following clip to the New World Order. This clip contains many prominent politicians repeating this phrase. Some say that this phrase now has such negative associations that it has been renamed “globalism.” How many times do we hear about global warming, global currency etc.? G Edward Griffin referring to the Council on Foreign Relations states: The avowed purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is to create a New World Order, a global government based on the model of collectivism. Remember the definition of collectivism? It is described as a form of communism. A global government based on a form of communism? Does anything about that sound in any way attractive to you?

The reasoning behind the New World Order proposal?
[The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It’s going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think.

Taken from History is a Weapon by Noam Chomsky

G Edward Griffin goes on to explain that the process must be incremental. Well, no dictator has ever stood up and declared the details of the real plan, have they? We are certainly getting things set in place with a proliferation of CCTV and “protective” measures. Remember what they told the East Germans when they erected the Berlin Wall? It was to protect people from the world outside. The Nazis also constantly referred to the danger posed by enemies. This is an old, old trick. Could it be that the terrorist threat that compels us to endure CCTV in shopping areas, the indignity of body scans at airports etc is not quite such a threat as we are led to believe? As always, there is money to be made out of this. I wonder who has shares in CCTV and body scanners? (Well, there’s plenty of information about a particular share holder in body scanners but I’ll post that another time).

More dot joining to follow..

How to infiltrate organisations and influence people?

A quick recap of the last few posts: Various US presidents have referred to secret societies. Norman Dodd told of apparent subversive activities within tax exempt foundations. He referred to collectivism which has been defined as a form of communism and we are also told that this precludes individualism. So how does this all work in practice? Secrecy does seem to be an important part of this system. Indeed Caroll Quigley’s only criticism of collectivists appears to that he felt they should be open about it rather than secretive.

Research reveals that many well-known organizations are considered to be secretive. While many members of these organizations are probably quite unaware of this issue and work tirelessly for charitable causes etc. the element of secrecy involved can obviously be helpful to higher ranking members who might seek to subvert these organizations. It seems likely that the network has been constructed in such a way that it is virtually impossible to single out any particular organization as being the catalyst for a subversive movement. However, certain organizations are mentioned repeatedly and it might be helpful to look more closely at these particular groups.

The Council on Foreign Relations is frequently viewed as suspect by those who do not accept everything at face value. In the following clip Stan Jones, a Senate candidate, tells us that the CFR is attempting to follow EU examples of seemingly undemocratic processes. He states that CFR also plans to implement a new constitution comparable to the former Soviet Union constitution where rights were both granted and could be removed at will.

I hope you can spare a few minutes to watch the following video. Containing an excellent collection of quotes from various prominent politicians and businessmen going back to Disraeli. It states so much in a quickly assimilated form.

Collectivism v individualism

Norman Dodd mentions the word “collectivism” in his interview. This has been described as “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” That might not sound so unreasonable perhaps. Indeed prominent politicians such as Bill Clinton have openly demonstrated their attitudes to this philosophy. Shortly after his election Clinton thanked his former mentor Carol Quigley, the author of Tragedy and Hope – a work which gives an insight into collectivism.

In the following video G Edward Griffin explains the crucial difference between collectivism and individualism. He states that while the theory of collectivism is based on making decisions for the greater number this neglects the rights of the smaller number. He also makes the point that leaders take these decisions in the belief that their decisions are for the greater good. However, he argues that in extreme forms this can result in imprisonment or elimination of the smaller number.

Whether or not you view this extreme form as unlikely, it seems unwise in the extreme to pass legislation which is beyond our needs. It would suggest that we need vigilance in the Department of Home Affairs. If a member is tasked with running the department then they need to be streetwise. They need to think ahead and ensure that we are not introducing unnecessarily harsh or stringent legislation just because it is contained in the draft, which came from somewhere. Where indeed?

Yet another former US president has made references to unseen but pervasive powers.

Woodrow Wilson stated: “ Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Quigley states: “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 Communists act…….. it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” The following link containing an article entitled How the World Operates is well-worth reading:

MHKs do listen if we speak clearly enough.

 It is warming to hear that the Children Bill – check – has been abandoned for now. Personally, I am thankful to those who spotted the issues in the bill and made them public. Without their hard work the issues would never have been spotlighted. Voters did the rest. I seem to recall that there was an unusually high response to the consultation on this bill and the majority of respondents said “no.” How effective that little word can be. We are told that our MHKs listened. This is important news – just prior to elections our MHKs listen. To what extent timing played a part it is difficult to say but it may well have been a factor…However, if the response had been weak it is unlikely that the bill would have been abandoned. People power does exist. Right now we have perhaps more power than we realise. When canvassing commences I intend to make my views very clear. If you have felt a little neglected for a few years now is your chance, it seems that potential voters have a voice.

An astonishing suggestion

We are warned about secrecy and subversion and infiltration and the possible dire effects. Who or what were Eisenhower and Kennedy referring to and how could that ultimately affect other countries? I won’t attempt to respond with one simple answer. There are seemingly complex organizations and networks in various countries. Many authors have attempted to give the enemy a name such as the Illuminati or the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers etc. Personally, I believe the web is too complex to find one single name or group of names, although certain families do appear to be intrinsically connected with various organizations. However, it might be best not to look for one particular name but simply to examine those groups whose activities are secretive and suspect and don’t appear to be working in the interests of freedom.

The content of the following video is astonishing. Please note that I am not suggesting that is the answer to the above question but if it is true, and I leave you to judge the credibility of the interview, it could be a part of the jigsaw. If the 52 min long video is too time-consuming for you the following link supplies the transcript:

Kennedy: Secrecy is repugnant

New readers: Previous posts have shown evidence of secrecy, dishonesty, and attempts to mislead the public in various juridictions. We have touched on the lack of investigative journalism and a tendency to repeat statements. Please explore the posts. I would suggest that all of this must lead us to totally discard the rose-tinted specs and look at what is in plain sight if we only take the time to see it. Please note that the more recent posts are mostly US content. This is relevant to future posts and how the US and foreign institutions can, and arguably do, affect the Isle of Man. So please bear with me. Btw I don’t claim to be an expert on politics but I can see when things are changing dramatically and freedoms are disappearing.

It seems that others tried to alert us to the dangers of permitting secrecy in government. At least two US presidents are on record as having had concerns about it. Unfortunately, modern day presidents seem more concerned with the secrecy they deem necessary to protect us. Please listen to what Eisenhower had to say about being alert to threats to freedom.

J F Kennedy tells us:
We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

So what do you make of those comments? Do you think JFK would have sanctioned CCTV, body scans, internet snooping, e-borders etc? I doubt it. Note that he talks of subversion and infiltration.To me his message is that extreme security measures endanger our life quality and leave us open to other forms of dominance:

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

Think about it…..

The Fed is no more federal than Federal Express

Just supposing that the US Federal Bank did not belong to the US government but actually belonged to private individuals who were simply printing money? Does that sound too ridiculous? Well, various politicians including Congressmen Ron Paul and Denis Kucinik have stated that this is the case. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 dramatically changed the financial set-up of the USA.

Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders….The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and….manipulates the credit of the United States.” [Senator Barry Goldwater]

Ron Paul has also told us that the Fed creates money out of thin air.

So it seems it’s not just the EU. The Fed has never been audited. This seems sensational doesn’t it? Private bankers run the Fed, create money out of thin air and yet many if not most people don’t realize this. So there you go: the EU dictates to other countries about level playing fields and toeing the line and complying with EU diktats but they have been unable to get the auditors to sign off the accounts for 16 years! Excuse me? The Fed had never even attempted an audit. Most people assumed that it must be ok. You couldn’t question something like the Fed, could you? If something wasn’t right we would all know about it. That’s my point. We don’t question. We are trusting. But why? What is the basis for our trust? The EU, the Fed how big does it get? Actually, you start to wonder about the Bank of England.There are numerous references to this question on the web but I’ll leave it there for now. It is shrouded in secrecy and questions are not permitted. I wonder why.

My point is: Things are not always the way they appear to be or as we have been conditioned to see them.

We need protection from naïve or self-promoting MHKs dabbling in world affairs. We need to be sure our candidates are wised-up to the world as it really is.

But the is only a small piece of the jigsaw.

To be continued

Would you buy a used car from….?

We can see that secrecy and lack of transparency combined with an attempt to hasten the voting on legislation could well result in inappropriate legislation being introduced. We have read admissions that those at high levels can introduce intentional lack of transparency (note: I refer to the note in Comment 2 on the previous post where Valerie Giscard D’Estaing tells us prior to Ireland’s second vote on the Lisbon Treaty: Public opinion will be led – without knowing it – to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way. As well as the quote from Jens-Peter Bonde in the previous post.).

No matter how often politicians in various countries have been proven to have human characteristics, i.e. not always truthful, capable of fiddling their expenses, taking bribes etc, some will continue to believe that they are all people of character who could never really intentionally do anything extremely dishonest. Some are genuinely caring and idealistic while others do not share these characteristics and are in politics for very different reasons. That is a fact that we have to accept. How can it be any other way? We have all seen examples that prove that politicians have their failings like everyone else. So rose-tinted spectacles are not appropriate for what follows:

Let’s start with the EU. Did you know that the EU has not had its accounts signed off for the 16th consecutive year? Furthermore the former Chief Accountant, Marta Andreasen, was dismissed from her position when she turned to whistle-blowing. She lost her job on grounds of disloyalty. DISLOYALTY? Definition: deserting one’s allegiance. So it seems she was dismissed because she felt she did not wish to be allied to those who were involved because she felt a need to be honest about things. In this article from 2004 she states that the annual budget is around £65 billion yet auditors do not know what happens to 95% of the budget:

So the EU might have a problem but let’s not generalise – is it generalising? I don’t think so. It seems this is an international problem. The US appears to have a habit of losing track of its cash too. $2.2 trillion of bailout money was lent to banking institutions but they can’t say who received it:

Or worryingly vague answers:

Not to mention the $2.3 trillion that was mislaid by the defence department the public announcement of this happened one day before 9/11. Understandably, this news item was dwarfed by the news of the tragedy in New York on the next day:

Where does this relate to our elections in the Isle of Man? The next few posts will paint a different picture of the world than many see. Which is why – I would suggest – that we need clued-up, canny, determined, honest politicians with integrity to represent us on the world stage. It seems to me that while we may be telling ourselves how important we are now that we are world players we need professional players if we want to play at professional level. Maybe they need to be streetwise as well……

All comments based on observations, genuine quotes and video footage.
To be continued.

PS I have no idea why the second video has developed strange background noises it was fine yesterday so maybe it will sort itself out?

“most laws to be adopted in secret by civil servants”

A further quick post about the previous videos: In the second video Jens-Peter Bonde informs us of the plans contained in the Treaty (unfortunately, too late now for those countries locked into this) including the fact that most laws are to be adopted in secret by civil servants. Repeat: most laws to be adopted in secret by civil servants.

The protesting MEPs were merely registering the fact that the powers contained in the Lisbon Treaty are so far-reaching that countries should be permitted to hold a referendum. Nigel Farrage requests that the vote be postponed until the next sitting in Strasbourg reasoning that this would enable MEPs to debate the Treaty and look into it.

We have come across the words “secrecy” and “haste” before. It’s difficult to see how these words can be conducive to reasoned discussion, but they do seem helpful in passing legislation that the public might not agree with.