They Were Planning This All Along! | Aldous Huxley & The Fabian Society 2 Oct 2021
What was Aldous Huxley's role in the great conspiracy? Was he a whistle-blower of tyrannical socialism and eugenic control through his book: Brave New World? Or was he the linguistic puzzle piece to eventually turn fiction into reality through pre-conditioning?
And it would appear why I have all this in a thread called Liberalism.
George Bernard Shaw:
HG Wells:
Rockefeller funded:
HG Wells:
Julian Huxley:
From: This is a Thoughts on Thinking // Ordo Ab Chao production:
WEBSITE: https://ordoabchao.ca/
Comment from the video, I think it sums it up. WWI was among other things, to bring in universal suffrage...and mob rule.
Social Darwinism is a far less ambiguous a term than socialism. The Hegelian dialectic was the philosophical progenitor of all of these ideological movements—eugenics, Social Darwinism, Marxism, Social Democratism, The Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, etc. The point is that the intentions of the aforementioned groups were malevolent and that their social agenda was disingenuous and consciously planned to use various socialist movements of the time that were purported to be for the benefit of the underclasses against them. This is why Marx used the term “useful idiots” to describe the poor underclasses whose emotions would be incited and then manipulated in order to overturn the existing system—not for the benefit of the masses, rather to control the masses—toward the establishment of the utopian State.
I came across this video yesterday, the name Paul Mason won't mean much to Americans, but he was a news caster who worked as economics correspondent for BBC Newsnight, then Channel 4 News, then he left to publish and promote a book he wrote on economics, join the Labour Party, and become a freelance influencer and globalist, seeming these days calling everyone who doesn't agree with him a 'far right fascist'.
This lecture drops some salient connections; firstly, there is a direct link between Communism and Globalism; and secondly, envisioned Socialism and Russian Communism are basically the same philosophy...it was just, in Mason's view, really poorly implemented in the Soviet Union.
...Historically, the one attempt we have, the one experiment went tragically and catastrophically wrong. The Soviet Union attempted a forced march transition beyond capitalism in a poor country, and ended up with something worse...In fact the worst thing about it is it killed the thing on which our project rests; which is the solidarity and spontaneous kindness and connectivity of working class people.
Mason describes two versions of the end of Capitalism, and he is fearful of the version that ends Globalisation. ....As he suggests, we are seeing the balkanisation of the internet...but who banned Russian media? Who is constantly restricting Bitchute IP addresses for "hate speech"? Who is taking down Youtube channels such as Richard Hall's? ...I don't get his logic. What he appears to mean by "fascist", is anyone who rejects Globalism. And it's like the trope of "anti-vaxxer"...no, I don't want to take your poison vial thank you, no matter what you call me...and I'm just going to ignore you totally when you then start calling me a fascist.
He doesn't seem to get, a lot of people wanted to leave the European Union because it's corrupt...just as some people who have had dealings with the Labour Party reject it because they also know it is corrupt. At 5:10 he talks about a digital feudalism, and I don't think he's wrong, he names Putin, he names Trump, but he's not naming the British Government. What the hell is Sustainable Development, COVID Passports, and the Green Agenda, Paul? Who is censoring the internet, Paul?
Mason also blames the clusterfuck we find ourselves in directly on Tony Blair's Third Way in cahoots with German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder...still think the Germans are the good guys? Granted, Mason gave this speech in 2017, before the Fabians came up with the bright idea of COVID-19 to force everyone into Globalist Communitarianism and rule by "expert". The thing is, I don't see a separation between Trump's goals and the Labour Party's which Paul is a member of.
I've skipped sections of this lecture, but Paul Mason does make an interesting point at around 17 minutes. Capitalists are no longer interested in creating anything, they just want to make money out of technocracy:
...Already, when entrepreneurs come out of business school and ask themselves what does it mean to be a Capitalist...in countries like mine, anyway...what they think about is Monopoly. What they want to do is create a rent-seeking opportunity, a bottleneck in the market, use technology to protect that forever, and charge all other people - businesses, consumers, producers - a rent to use their property. That's now entrepreneurship in Britain. The idea of inventing something, or going to university and studying mechanical engineering...no, they all want to be out there and create a startup which becomes a monopoly. And that's quite an interesting signal, a social and cultural signal of how sick normal capitalism has become.
Manipulative socialists often misrepresent Thomas Paine, falsely asserting that he spoke of "Human Rights and Responsibilities." However, this is a deliberate distortion; Paine actually emphasized "Human Rights and LEGAL Responsibilities."
And while that might appear an odd place to start on the topic of Tony Blair’s ‘Third Way’, I assure you that is entirely relevant.
Paine’s argument in fact presents a VERY different proposition to contemporary calls for 'Human Rights and Responsibilities'; the key difference being that Paine grounded his argument within a LEGAL framework, whereas contemporary socialists will argue for an ETHICAL approach, supported by legal statutes. And those perspectives lead to fundamentally different outcomes.
A legal framework defines what you CAN do, ensuring that everyone is equal before the law. Should you break it, you will face the consequences as your neighbour. And this system has been the foundation of a prosperous West, safeguarding INDIVIDUAL rights through LAWS. It fostered a society where people in general understood the boundaries of permissable behaviour, and conformed.
An ethical framework on the other hand, dictates what you SHOULD do - not what is legally permissiblee, but what is considered ‘ethical‘ or ‘right‘, as defined through some ‘Ethics Declaration‘ upheld by an ‘Ethics Panel‘, potentially with even an enforcement mechanism ensuring compliance. Those who refuse are fired - or even prosecuted - like those doctors during the alleged pandemic.
The argument here ultimately revolves around individual liberty versus the ‘collective good’. And that's where the socialist perspective enters the frame -
You have the RESPONSIBILITY to uphold the COLLECTIVE RIGHTS of others.
This approach is not about Western-style liberty at all. Yet, in contemporary discourse you will find socialists who try to eqate the two by arguing that your ‘rights’ should be ‘balanced’ versus those of others, making the issue of rights a moral, even ethical, matter...
Moved from this thread. Don is correct, it fits better in this thread which I discuss Liberalism and what hides underneath it.
-----------------------------------
The trans stuff is to hide the reality...and the reality is CAPITALISM.
Women were cheap, movies didn't pay much. If most of the cast in any production are women, then where do men fit in? You know when you actually start "seeing". The whole "men watching women making out with each other" joke suddenly makes sense. I've spotted things I find absolutely fascinating, I'm tempted to put them up. But no one wants to talk about it.
They'd rather go with things like Paul McCartney is dead and was replaced, than the truth. The thing that dawned on me about McCartney, how was he recruited? I bet either a convent or children's home. What did both Paul McCartney and John Lennon have in common? They both lost their mother at a very early age. I'm guessing that's the same place Paul met Mike McGear.
So where do all these female entertainers making a living pretending to be men come from? You know the ones we aren't meant to talk about because they don't apparently exist. Like I said, in the first instance, I'm betting convents; it beats looking after jewelled skeletons. And I think this is a tell...that's by Mike McGear, Paul McCartney's husband...oh sorry, I mean brother.
there were flourishing pockets of capitalism during the later Middle Ages. Beginning in the 18th century in England, the focus of capitalist development shifted from commerce to industry as the Industrial Revolution flourished and the factory system developed.
