Modernism in Flight, the NWO Not!
GODSBRAIN
reactionary politics as opposed to the
NWO. I can just imagine a new political
party built around localism. Where
there was British Aerospace you
could now have the City investing
in London Aerospace, Big on
Vertical Take Off and Landing VTOL.
<a href="http://members.home.com/godsbrain/index.htm">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.</a>
<br>
Steve Reed
<gods...@aol.com> writes
>What was it? Somebody talking about
>reactionary politics as opposed to the
>NWO.
The NWO is at pains to make all its opponents appear in a reactionary
light. This is easily done, because the NWO is so radical, in one way,
that almost anything would be reactionary by comparison. But have a
care - understanding the difference between radical and reactionary does
not provide an understanding of politics. Politics consists of
policies, which can be good, bad or indifferent quite independently of
their progressive or conservative nature. Some things should be changed
- and some things should not. If anything, I would say that the
unqualified conservative is less dangerous than the unqualified radical,
because it is less dangerous - in the short term - to be guilty of not
cleaning out the bath than to be guilty of throwing out the baby with
the bathwater. Be that as it may, the principle at stake here lies in
the preservation of national boundaries as checks on supranational
capitalism. As such, it is a conservative principle. But the matter
does not end there. It was at the point in history where the cold-war
face-off came to a close, that a genuine opportunity for international
dialogue presented itself - an opportunity for a new and usefully
radical approach to international relations. The NWO ignores this
opportunity and proceeds with its NATO-led, supranationalist, offensive
programme. In this sense the NWO is as reactionary as the empire
building of previous centuries.
You and I are certainly not the only people who know that the
implementation of Hitler's plan for Europe has proceeded without
interruption from the day he initiated it. I'm sure you will be pleased
to know that a distinguished economist, Rodney Atkinson (Rowan's
brother, BTW) has written an excellent book explaining exactly what this
plan was and how it has been, and is being, implemented. This book is
being read very widely in Britain, at the moment. Interestingly,
Atkinson was unable to find a publisher, or a distributor, for it. He
had to have it printed at his own expense, and copies are available only
from Computaprint Publishing, 1 Sands Road, Swalwell, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, NE16 3DJ at £8.95 paperback and £15.50 hardback.
Some very strange rumours, regarding artificial diseases and
contaminated medical and food products, are afloat and must be
monitored. I am more concerned, so far, about the targeting of
influential individuals (Rowan Atkinson had a lucky escape in a car-
crash recently, I notice) than about the possibility of generic attacks,
because I am not convinced that the NWO has yet achieved the kind of
control necessary to carry them out, and get away with it. I think,
however, that, at some point, cleansing of the aged and disabled might
well reach the top of the agenda. This would not be because they cannot
"pull their own weight", which is a meaningless concept in a developed
economy, but because they would form a bloc resistant to the reshaping
of society.
I stood at this impasse for many months. Nevertheless, impossible
though it seems, I think that MAF is a party to the cover-up and was a
party - in some capacity - to the assassination too. I think of him now
as a sort of Pied Piper leading the youthfully open-minded into a Weser
of simplistic assumptions. This role is consistent with his behaviour
over many years, during which he has destroyed opponents of the NWO one
after another.
>
>
If I had to choose a few names, I would choose Rockefeller, Rothschild,
Warburg, Lehmann and Goldman-Sachs - for starters - and proceed to the
Governors of the American Federal Reserve Bank, the IMF and the World
Bank. After that, there are the membership lists of the Council on
Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.
European royalty is involved in this, but not (according to Atkinson)
the Windsors or Akaihito. The heirs of the Illuminists (Illuminati) who
infiltrated Freemasonry in the nineteenth century, are very much
involved - especially in France (where the Order of The Grand Orient has
persisted from Weishaupt's time to the present day) and in the USA,
which was closely linked to France during the period of the American and
French Revolutions.
>
As I read it, China, like the Vatican, is cautiously playing ball, but
has its own agenda; the Zionists have split into two groups which seem
to be at loggerheads - extremely influential proponents of globalism and
nationalist proponents of a "Greater Israel"; and, for this schism, the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, four years ago, marks the point of no
return. Hence my interest in it - and in several other key
assassinations - on this NG.
--
Steve Reed
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '17:43:42' on 'Mon, 15 Nov
1999', Steve Reed <asr...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> writes:
>In article <19991113175249...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, GODSBRAIN
><gods...@aol.com> writes
>>What was it? Somebody talking about
>>reactionary politics as opposed to the
>>NWO.
>
>The NWO is at pains to make all its opponents appear in a reactionary
>light. This is easily done, because the NWO is so radical, in one way,
>that almost anything would be reactionary by comparison. But have a
>care - understanding the difference between radical and reactionary does
>not provide an understanding of politics.
I would define politics as running, or proposing policies for, or
squabbling within, the State.
Change is inevitable. The world's central elite strives for change,
change in their interests, they also control the top level of the
technological cycle (strategic research) which is very important.
'Reactionary' would denote factions of capital which harked back to
previous ways and are doomed to fail. Rockefeller ain't reactionary.
'Radical' however in my usage means critical of the roots of capitalism,
its opposite is not 'reactionary' but rather 'capital and that which
conserves capitalism', or 'that which criticises capitalism only
superficially, e.g. presenting minor ameliorations as the most that can
be obtained, thereby presenting capitalism itself as eternal' (the
latter evidently being part and parcel of capitalism in all countries
where advanced means of 'communication' prevail).
The opposite of 'reactionary' is 'progressive'. Both are within capital.
<snip>
>I'm sure you will be pleased
>to know that a distinguished economist, Rodney Atkinson (Rowan's
>brother, BTW) has written an excellent book explaining exactly what this
>plan was and how it has been, and is being, implemented. This book is
>being read very widely in Britain, at the moment. Interestingly,
>Atkinson was unable to find a publisher, or a distributor, for it. He
>had to have it printed at his own expense, and copies are available only
>from Computaprint Publishing, 1 Sands Road, Swalwell, Newcastle-upon-
>Tyne, NE16 3DJ at £8.95 paperback and £15.50 hardback.
He was the man who tried to initiate court action against the government
for 'treason' after it backed signing the Maastricht treaty... What is
his relationship with the far-right loony McWhirter of the National
Association For Freedom? (I can't recall what that org changed its name
to).
>Some very strange rumours, regarding artificial diseases and
>contaminated medical and food products, are afloat and must be
>monitored. I am more concerned, so far, about the targeting of
>influential individuals (Rowan Atkinson had a lucky escape in a car-
>crash recently, I notice)
Yes, a quad crash. But does he share the views of his brother?
>than about the possibility of generic attacks,
>because I am not convinced that the NWO has yet achieved the kind of
>control necessary to carry them out, and get away with it.
Did you read about the recent spraying of New York from aircraft? This
was said by the authorities to be with an anti-viral spray. It was soon
reported that prior to the spraying the CIA thought it quite possible
that an attack had been launched by a 'foreign power' with a biological
weapon.
Also a few years ago when a few cases of bubonic (pneumonic?) plague
were 'found' in India, it was announced in the media that the Indian
government was getting ready to gas-bomb the country. Why, wasn't said.
The reports soon changed, but things like this sink in to people's
minds.
>I think,
>however, that, at some point, cleansing of the aged and disabled might
>well reach the top of the agenda. This would not be because they cannot
>"pull their own weight", which is a meaningless concept in a developed
>economy, but because they would form a bloc resistant to the reshaping
>of society.
>
>I stood at this impasse for many months. Nevertheless, impossible
>though it seems, I think that MAF is a party to the cover-up and was a
>party - in some capacity - to the assassination too. I think of him now
>as a sort of Pied Piper leading the youthfully open-minded into a Weser
>of simplistic assumptions. This role is consistent with his behaviour
>over many years, during which he has destroyed opponents of the NWO one
>after another.
Which opponents?
Also I am not quite sure whether the term 'NWO' can withstand the weight
you are wanting it to carry. There is a *dynamic* of capitalism. Why not
date the NWO from say 1815 or 1945? It is not as if there hasn't been a
single dominant currency before.
Which is a good link :-) to...
Money. The change in the form of money, related to increasing social
control, is a crucial issue. [1] At the same time that we are seeing a
move towards one world currency, it is being reported that within 10
years companies such as Microsoft will be issuing their own money.
Integration and differentiation, increasingly despotic social control
and increasing competition too, this is not something that economists
are able to understand at all.
(1) If I ever get my international conference, this will definitely be
on the agenda :-)
>If I had to choose a few names, I would choose Rockefeller, Rothschild,
>Warburg, Lehmann and Goldman-Sachs - for starters - and proceed to the
>Governors of the American Federal Reserve Bank, the IMF and the World
>Bank. After that, there are the membership lists of the Council on
>Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.
>European royalty is involved in this, but not (according to Atkinson)
>the Windsors or Akaihito.
Is Atkinson not the sort of guy who would think the UK government's
support for the Maastricht treaty was 'treason against Her Majesty the
Queen'?
>The heirs of the Illuminists (Illuminati) who
>infiltrated Freemasonry in the nineteenth century, are very much
>involved - especially in France (where the Order of The Grand Orient has
>persisted from Weishaupt's time to the present day) and in the USA,
>which was closely linked to France during the period of the American and
>French Revolutions.
Benjamin Franklin is without doubt a very interesting figure indeed.
>
>As I read it, China, like the Vatican, is cautiously playing ball, but
>has its own agenda; the Zionists have split into two groups which seem
>to be at loggerheads - extremely influential proponents of globalism and
>nationalist proponents of a "Greater Israel"; and, for this schism, the
>assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, four years ago, marks the point of no
>return. Hence my interest in it - and in several other key
>assassinations - on this NG.
The assassination of Rabin seems important to me too but we should not
forget that Netanyahu did not last long and is now practically a nobody.
The proponents of a Greater Israel are probably going to lose out to
their rivals.
BTW what do you think Prince Charles has been doing in Saudi? See
Catherine Bennett's column in the Guardian that I posted here. Most of
his time there has been spent 'privately'. What can a serious person
conclude this has anything to do with, apart from profit? [2] Bennett
also recalls something that is extremely rarely mentioned in the press,
but that I give a lot of weight to: the account in the Dimbleby book
about the plan to have a 'second Foreign Office' linking to the Gulf
despotisms from St. James's Palace. I suspect Bennett has access to the
files that Francis Wheen has access to - and Wheen, despite his 'cheeky
irreverent chappy' persona, who has written before in uncomplimentary
terms about the Windsors, has also managed to get some brown on his nose
from SIS and Whitehall b*ms when preparing his scribblings about MAF and
the Paris crash.
(2) This is not to say there is not the important question: did Prince
Charles secretly visit Mecca? People should not rule this out, it is not
at all unlikely that he sees himself as a Sufi. Britain is planning to
open a consulate in Mecca - its staff would of course have to be
Muslims.
--
banana