Liberalism

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4451
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1660 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Re: Liberalism - The Fabians

Unread post by rachel »

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:
gbshaw.png

HG Wells:
hgwells.png

Rockefeller funded:
Rockefeller Institute.png

HG Wells:
HGWells-2.png

Julian Huxley:
Julian Huxley.png

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.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4451
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1660 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Digital Capitalism

Unread post by rachel »

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.

Keynote von Paul Mason, Journalist und Autor
14 Nov 2017
Eine Aufzeichnung im Rahmen des FES-Kongresses "Digital Capitalism" - 2./3. November 2017.
http://www.fes.de/de/digitalcapitalism/

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.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4451
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1660 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Re: Digital Capitalism

Unread post by rachel »

Since Paul Mason seems obsessed with fascists of late, here's an interesting video...

FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism


ScreenShot-VideoID-qdY_IMZH2Ko-TimeS-58.png

Hahaha...TIK says around 7:45...

ScreenShot-VideoID-qdY_IMZH2Ko-TimeS-503.png
ScreenShot-VideoID-qdY_IMZH2Ko-TimeS-513.png
ScreenShot-VideoID-qdY_IMZH2Ko-TimeS-518.png
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4451
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1660 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Re: Liberalism

Unread post by rachel »

Good one from escapekey on Tony Blair and his Third Way.

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-third-way
The Third Way.
AUG 24, 2024

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.

1c4a7959-caa0-4ec0-bfc8-b34439fcd782_3866x2320.jpg

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...
DonPowell
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon May 13, 2024 5:33 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Liberalism

Unread post by DonPowell »

https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog ... lism-in-uk
https://www. diligent.com/resources/blog/evolution-capitalism-in-uk
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.
User avatar
SaiGirl
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Location: 21075
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 275 times
Contact:

Blueprint of the future: Taking down the "West"

Unread post by SaiGirl »

The WEF’s Great Multipolar Reset encourages collusion, it is a merger of vassals, and an active strategy of joining the barbarians together. Instead of imperial conquest and confrontation, there is cooperation and collaboration among the tributaries.

Klaus Schwab and his army of vampires are bringing all the barbarians to the bargaining table and giving them everything they want, in exchange for unswerving loyalty and obedience to the WEF’s dystopian vision of a technocratic global police state.

What could go wrong?

The second part of the deal, which has far greater implications for America and the West: The WEF are guaranteeing that America will be brought to its knees. The West has created enormous anger through decades of wars, invasions, interventions, sanctions and covert manipulation of nations.

The Global South and the BRICS are only too happy to sign on the bottom line under these terms.

The destruction of America and the West is being accomplished by several nefarious methods:

Funnelling taxpayers’ dollars into useless wars of attrition such as Afghanistan, and now the Ukraine. These money laundering schemes enrich banks, weapons manufacturers and oil companies.
Flood the West with immigrants. Millions of these immigrants are Muslim refugees that were displaced due to the American wars in the Middle East. Muslim anger is pitted against the anger of the declining working class as witnessed in the UK with recent riots and protests. This anger will serve as more fuel on the fire to increase spending on more useless wars of attrition. See #1
Neglect development and infrastructure. America has not put serious money into bridges, tunnels, sewage, power plants and transportation for decades. China has 46,000 kilometres of high speed rail, compared to USA which has none.
Send all the jobs and factories oversees to China, Indonesia, India and other Asian countries. This began in the 1970s when Kissinger went to China and made a deal with Mao Tse Tung to turn China into the world’s factory.
Transfer the wealth of America to the globalists. This happened in two phases so far—in the subprime mortgage crash in 2008 and during the pandemic when the big box stores stayed open and the lockdowns bankrupted thousands of small businesses.
Flood the West with inexpensive, toxic opioids like fentanyl, MDA, ketamine, ecstasy, salvia and GHB. Make marijuana legal, very potent and easy to get, in order to create a sub-culture of homeless people and disaffected, marginalized youth.
Create intense polarization on social media to deflect social unrest away from the architects of the controlled demolition of Western Civilization. Keep the left and the right in a state of perpetual fury through false flag trigger events, such as the opening ceremonies of the Paris Olympics that was intentionally designed to trigger conservatives, Christians and anyone else that still has morals and sanity.

https://off-guardian.org/2024/10/23/the ... the-brics/
/quote]
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4451
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1660 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Re: Liberalism - Tony Blair's Third Way

Unread post by rachel »

From @_Escapekey_ on Tony Blair's Third Way:

https://threadnavigator.com/thread/1822246918438748358/
Oh my, Tony Blair. He wrote in 1991 -

'The more the word 'citizen' is used, the less satisfying it becomes - unless... it implies obligations as well as rights... citizenship must be distinguished from individualism by an insistence that a citizen is part of a wider community'

GUnr6WPXUAAuPJl.png

It makes total sense. The drive for (Global) Citizenship is explained right there. It further loops in rights and responsibilities (obligations).

This is actually a really, really good article. It explains so much. The emphasis on public-private is indeed centric to a third motivating factor.

Tony Blair, you really are a stonking, fat Marxist.

You can find Tony Blair's article from 1991 over here. It's titled "Forging a New Agenda", and it was published by - I kid you not -

MARXISM TODAY - OCTOBER 1991
https://web.archive.org/web/20190227231 ... oct/34-38/

GUn2sh3WoAA55bK.png

see, by wrestling the point of contention to not be about individual rights vs community, 'citizen' should be somewhere in between - and this then calls for a discussion about 'rights'.

GUn3xz-WgAANIHB.jpg

Next, we must reframe economics in terms of 'public interest', where who renders said services matters less - public or private, provided they work 'in the public interest'.

Thus, Third Way partnerships.

GUn4Uj1W0AAh3wm.jpg

However, in order to participate, companies need to accept 'social responsibility'.

... which then later on leads to Good Corporate Governance, Good Governance, then ethics.

GUn4myDXYAM0t4C.jpg

However, when it comes to the principles of 'Good Governance'... we have representative, accountable, transparent, and information open.

Early days, but in same ballpark as World Bank 1992 (public sector management, accountability, legal framework, information/transparency)

GUn46uqWkAATNbG.jpg

Either way, with this new proposed 'economics' also comes new powers.

And companies and consumers (private+public) should 'accept some restriction in freedom'.

GUn5e6vW8AAUMY3.jpg

... and this then leads to a 'new framework of the public interest', yes, it should be patently obvious where this is going...

GUn5ssEWYAA9ctV.jpg

... it becomes a question of debating the objectives and the manner of securing them.

It becomes a matter of purpose, in short. Whose purpose?

Why, that of the public, of course.

The common good.

GUn54EyWgAAW0Cx.jpg

... this then leads to the debate about the 'right' to a decent living standard for the citizenship to fulfill.

Rights vs obligations, which is ok because...

GUn6W5VXQAAXl-3.jpg

... the public fundamentally believes in social justice - and the removal of poverty.

GUn7DF3WEAE9cvf.jpg

And should it not be obvious where this all goes, this new 'settlement' should also recognise that it's internationalist at heart.

Marxism generally is.

GUn7OdbWUAAi_zp.jpg

Yes, quite simply - the state must be transformed, becoming on in which society 'embodies the public interests', which as above essentially boils down to the common good.

And that calls for rights and obligations.

GUn7goOXsAAs5L_.jpg

Either way, this new approach should fundamentally revolve around a change in terminology, as we saw above. Both State and Market should be subject to the 'public interest'.

GUn7-TyWAAEpSOS.jpg
GUn8DneXUAA3T4T.jpg

And you of course cannot expect Tony to come straight out and admit it - so 'common good' instead is referred to as 'the public good'.

It's right there, below the appeal to collectivism.

GUn8XeFWEAAuIo0.jpg

And just to nail home exactly where Tony's ideology actually lies, this phrasing is really rather indicative.

GUn8rPOWoAAc7AU.jpg

And to ensure this isn't someone else, the article is signed by the 1991 shadow employment spokesperson.

GUn86MZW0AA_Tr6.jpg
GUn9HVHWEAA9t5l.png

... and he, incidentally, also recommended the UK to join the single currency back in 1991.

I've seen Gordon Brown receive criticism for that, but I haven't heard Tony Blair being targeted with similar.

Good to find them both aligned... with the Fabians, no doubt.

GUn9MD1WIAAGeUW.jpg

And the article, again, can be located over here.

Courtesy of Marxism Today.

Because it is entirely common and reasonable to find allegedly centrist politicians writing articles for Marxist periodicals.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190227231 ... oct/34-38/
GUn9z_jWEAAMC1q.jpg

... and needless to say, all of this aligns with what I've been hammering home repeatedly as of late.

This is about creating a mechanism of Global Governance through Global Ethics.

And this centres around the Marxist approach to Social Justice.

And you can call it fascism or whatever, but in terms of ideology, we are so closely aligned with pure, Marxist ideology here that from an ideological perspective, I beg to differ.

But I can't be bothered debating it, because it does not matter in the slightest.

The bottom line is this -

Once your rights are gone, they can - and will - do to you as they see fit. Consequently, if our future glorious leader Starmer decides to be a Marxist on Thursdays and a Fascist on Fridays, then who will stop him?

It'll make for a fascinating debate while you await your fate in the gulag.

For the time being, whether you believe it's Marxism or not - let's just make sure we focus on the common enemy here.

and as per f-in usual on this 'free speech' platform, retweets gather absolutely no impressions.

please just copy material and post as your own. no need to give credit. in fact, please don't link to me, because the 'algorithm' also censors on basis of user-user links.

So back up for a second.

The public-private should work for the 'public good'.
The (public) individual should be rephrased as 'citizen', and this term should be moved towards 'community'.
The private should have 'social responsibility'.

Social responsibility is easy. That's CSR, later ESG.
Citizen should be moved towards the rights versus obligations discussion.

duties/rights ==> you have a duty to uphold the right of others. ethics and justice.

and CSR is also ethic-centric. so are governance principles.

and within the corporate, employees must have the same (ethics-based) 'good governance' rights just as well.

everything leads back to ethics. ethics leading to justice.

GUoFDyjWcAAnPAp.jpg

social justice. such as the removal of poverty. which calls for a 'right to a decent living standard', which then leads to those 'obligations' once again.

it's just so deceptive. Tony Blair is a filthy, lying Marxist.

GUoFUoSWYAIqeq8.jpg
GUoFc5iXsAAUyDx.jpg

oh, and to address the 'public good' - that'd be a call for 'maximum societal well-being', im sure.

... and that, of course, leads back to justice.

they're marxists. have to be.

https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1822235431007576307
User avatar
SaiGirl
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Location: 21075
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 275 times
Contact:

Who (really) were the "barbarians"?

Unread post by SaiGirl »

So many "problems" with the legacy spin on "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" so generously bequeathed to us from the scholars at Oxford, Cambridge and Tavistock.

For one thing: The "Byzantines" never called themselves that.

They called themselves ROMANS.
Right on up to the very moment, in 1453, when Mehmet and his Ottoman cannon breached the famous impregnable walls of Constantinople, and secured its peaceful surrender.

It was the British Empire, through its court scribes and assorted academic hacks, who dubbed these late (modern) "Romans" as "Byzantine".
Just as they had dubbed the Hellenes struggling to break free of the Ottoman Empire as "Greeks".

Just as the Roman Church had earlier defined these heretical (Christian) Germanic migrants as "barbarians".
This would generically categorize them; as opposed to recognizing the distinct tribal identities of Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Alemanni, Burgundians, Franks, Suevi, Saxons, Lombards, Gepids
... etc.

Once the Church had converted them away from their "Arian heresy" (as it accomplished first with the Franks under Clovis) THEN these "barbarians" could become well behaved and complliant tax paying, tithe paying ROMANS.

The "history", embodied in the names and narratives, was reverse engineered to suit the cultural agenda of a rapidly growing "British Empire": Where the sun never set.

User avatar
SaiGirl
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Location: 21075
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 275 times
Contact:

Communitarianism: "Max Igan" and his Third Way

Unread post by SaiGirl »

We shouldn't overlook a more recent effort to launch a "World Citizen" campaign; that unfortunately foundered on the rocks and craggy peaks of fraud, embezzlement, malfeasance and other assorted scandals.

"World Citizen" indeed.

Is that term copyrighted?

https://www.youtube.com/user/WorldServiceofficial



"Max Igan" (not his real name?) does his "mea culpa" for his "World Citizen" project.



https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... Igan%22.++


Of course a "Max Igan" can only fantasize about reaching the Tony Blair level of performance on the world stage. With or without "world citizenship".
User avatar
SaiGirl
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Location: 21075
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 275 times
Contact:

BRICS Policy: From the frying pan into the fire.

Unread post by SaiGirl »

BRICS supports the World Health Organization and its “central coordinating role” in strengthening “the international pandemic prevention, preparedness and response system”

We reiterate our support to the central coordinating role of the World Health Organization in the implementation of multilateral international efforts to protect public health from infectious diseases and epidemics and commit to reform and strengthen the international pandemic prevention, preparedness and response system. We recognise the fundamental role of primary health care as a key foundation for Universal Health Care and health system’s resilience, as well as on prevention and response to health emergencies. We welcome fostering closer ties among BRICS health institutions responsible for sanitary and epidemiological health and well-being, prevention, preparedness and response to epidemic prone communicable diseases and health impact following disasters and encourage further exploring opportunities for knowledge sharing, exchange of expertise and undertaking joint projects in the health sector.”

BRICS supports the development of safe & effective vaccines

We support the initiatives of the BRICS R&D Vaccine Center, further development of the BRICS Integrated Early Warning System for preventing mass infectious diseases risks and the operations of the BRICS TB Research Network. We welcome the outcomes of the 79th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) HighLevel Meeting on AMR, committing to a clear set of targets and actions, including reducing the estimated 4.95 million human deaths associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) annually by 10% by 2030. We express concern about the growing threat of AMR to all sectors of the economy, in particular healthcare, and note the timeliness of holding the first BRICS Conference on AMR in May 2024.”
https://off-guardian.org/2024/11/02/wou ... -declared/
Post Reply