[brave new world] tony’s not to blame
Tony Blair
His biographer Rentoul records that, according to his lawyer friends, Blair was much less concerned about which party he was affiliated with than about his aim of becoming prime minister … Although the [later] transformation [to New Labour] aroused much criticism (its alleged superficiality drawing fire both from political opponents and traditionalists within the "rank and file" of his own party), it was nevertheless successful in changing public perception.
Tony Blair was bereft of policies and weak but what he had was charm and a visionary manner of speaking and so he swept all before him. He was selected for such traits as being either 1] a buffoon 2] intergenerational with the ‘right stuff’ 3] malleable. Ditto Dan Quayle, Gerry Ford, Al Gore. Jim Hacker is no more than a spoof on the type. In turn, Blair was swept along into things which made him blanch.
Blair, as with the others, had to have his atrocity. Bush had had 911, Howard had had Bali and Port Arthur, Putin had had Beslan, Jacques had had his Paris riots. Only Mr. Blair had held out but that was fixed on 7/7. Bush probably wins the prize though for the greatest loss of life.
These men, as Tin Drummer says, are not actually guilty. They are so far in and being swept along, as Woodrow Wilson said, “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."
Who is this group? It’s not a group – it’s a many-headed hydra, the heads springing from the same body.
Since the Congress of Wilhelmsbad in 1782, the principles of the abolition of all ordered governments, private property, inheritance patriotism, the family and religion and the creation of a world government have been followed more or less continuously by the old money and only the Andrew Jackson blip temporarily inconvenienced the inexorable progress of the process.
Why would the old money concern itself with world issues? They don’t. They just fund it. It’s the power behind them who is concerned with it all and this manifests itself through various organizations.
On December 15, 1922 the CFR endorsed World Government in its magazine "Foreign Affairs." Author Philip Kerr stated: "Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government."
July 1948 - Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR's "Foreign Affairs," sees "a New World Order" taking shape: "How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?"
On Feb. 7, 1950, International financier and CFR member James Warburg told a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent." It was just the division of the spoils which was not agreed upon. The map on the homepage here shows the divisions into which the world would be divided by the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government. The map was released by the National Economic Council Inc. and is now outdated.
So the North American Union and the dissolution of the United Kingdom have less to do with a Prime Minister and a President than to do with those behind them. If you look at the trend itself and leave aside my take on it, you’d have to agree it’s a strange agenda at a time of peace and better living standards – it’s not a revolutionary time such as in the great depression. And yet it is clearly an agenda, for it’s simultaneously occurring in the US, Canada, Australia and the rest of the West, while other major movements are taking place in the Middle-East and in China.
In other words, it’s not just Britain and it’s not just Tony Blair behind this thing.
His biographer Rentoul records that, according to his lawyer friends, Blair was much less concerned about which party he was affiliated with than about his aim of becoming prime minister … Although the [later] transformation [to New Labour] aroused much criticism (its alleged superficiality drawing fire both from political opponents and traditionalists within the "rank and file" of his own party), it was nevertheless successful in changing public perception.
Tony Blair was bereft of policies and weak but what he had was charm and a visionary manner of speaking and so he swept all before him. He was selected for such traits as being either 1] a buffoon 2] intergenerational with the ‘right stuff’ 3] malleable. Ditto Dan Quayle, Gerry Ford, Al Gore. Jim Hacker is no more than a spoof on the type. In turn, Blair was swept along into things which made him blanch.
Blair, as with the others, had to have his atrocity. Bush had had 911, Howard had had Bali and Port Arthur, Putin had had Beslan, Jacques had had his Paris riots. Only Mr. Blair had held out but that was fixed on 7/7. Bush probably wins the prize though for the greatest loss of life.
These men, as Tin Drummer says, are not actually guilty. They are so far in and being swept along, as Woodrow Wilson said, “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."
Who is this group? It’s not a group – it’s a many-headed hydra, the heads springing from the same body.
Since the Congress of Wilhelmsbad in 1782, the principles of the abolition of all ordered governments, private property, inheritance patriotism, the family and religion and the creation of a world government have been followed more or less continuously by the old money and only the Andrew Jackson blip temporarily inconvenienced the inexorable progress of the process.
Why would the old money concern itself with world issues? They don’t. They just fund it. It’s the power behind them who is concerned with it all and this manifests itself through various organizations.
On December 15, 1922 the CFR endorsed World Government in its magazine "Foreign Affairs." Author Philip Kerr stated: "Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government."
July 1948 - Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR's "Foreign Affairs," sees "a New World Order" taking shape: "How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?"
On Feb. 7, 1950, International financier and CFR member James Warburg told a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent." It was just the division of the spoils which was not agreed upon. The map on the homepage here shows the divisions into which the world would be divided by the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government. The map was released by the National Economic Council Inc. and is now outdated.
So the North American Union and the dissolution of the United Kingdom have less to do with a Prime Minister and a President than to do with those behind them. If you look at the trend itself and leave aside my take on it, you’d have to agree it’s a strange agenda at a time of peace and better living standards – it’s not a revolutionary time such as in the great depression. And yet it is clearly an agenda, for it’s simultaneously occurring in the US, Canada, Australia and the rest of the West, while other major movements are taking place in the Middle-East and in China.
In other words, it’s not just Britain and it’s not just Tony Blair behind this thing.
posted by James Higham @ 18:06
<< Home