09-24-2010: Globalism, Neocons and Marxism

Posted: September 24, 2010 in Weekly Constitution Watch

One World Government, One World Governance, Globalism;  three different themes on the same power shift and outcome.  The outcome is one centralized government;  or a network of centrally controlled governments with three classes of people:  The uber rich international Elite;  The Ruling Class Pawns;  and The Slaves.   Socialism promises re-distribution of wealth from the very wealthy to the much less wealthy.  Given that there are millions of the “not so wealthy” that’s where the votes are, so they get the promises.  The misinformed votes then confidently deliver the political power, but the promise is never delivered.  The only delivery is uniform poverty;  both spiritual and financial.

The actual intent of socialism is to stop short at the point of establishing centralized government control by force or by coercion;  then eliminating free market competition through government regulation written and developed by “insiders”;  control the wealth;  and finally, reduce the overall population to centrally planned feudalism, basically slavery.  In other words, government regulation is used to promulgate and protect government sponsored monopolies owned and operated by insiders.  Restrictions on speech, media prostitution and propaganda are used to incrementally manipulate the general population into ignorantly voting for their own indoctrinated enslavement.

The new incrementalism proposed by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, Saul Alinsky and others is now considered preferable to the starvation, imprisonment, rape, torture and murder employed in Cuba, Cambodia, China and Russia, when re-education attempts didn’t result in effective population complacency.  Our own Weather Underground, now living comfortably and elegantly in our White House, dressed respectably in their new bespoke, wool suits, at our expense, foresaw the probable need to eliminate twenty-five percent (25%), say 20 million or so American citizens who would likely not respond acceptably to re-education.  With today’s American population of 308 million, that thinking would require the elimination of 77 million of us.  I hope to figure prominently within that number.  I believe we can appropriately consider the turning off of the irrigation water to 500,000 acres of prime California cropland a test case.  We as a people, as expected, did nothing.  Can you say “starvation”?  The citizens learned quickly to say it in Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea.  The Gulf Oil drilling moratorium is an obvious second test case within the self sufficiency industrial area.  Again we have done nothing.

Why kill people, when a few well placed lies can easily get them to vote for their own permanent indentured servitude?  Socialism is the preferred tool of the international elite.  The ground level socialists like Van Jones, Bill Ayers and others are easily manipulated fools, who buy the dream, but will be eliminated when they are no longer useful.  Do these egotistical morons actually believe they too will become “elite” once centralized control has been established?  Do they believe they will be allowed by the elite to freely express themselves and continue to manipulate public perception once slavery is the norm?  These folks are going to be surprised.  Their own educated ability to manipulate the masses will ultimately pose a threat to  elite power and suddenly their ability becomes their own elimination guarantee.

The international elite do many things, but sharing wealth  isn’t one of them.  (By the way, this treatise is not a criticism of free market capitalism, the most generous economic system the world has yet seen.  The elite do not believe in free markets.  We don’t even know what capitalism is because we do not have it.  We have an aborted fascist subversion of it.) The sharing of propagandized ideas is another matter.  With the influence of popular thought, they are generous to a fault.  Essentially Bolshevism and its various spawned forms were and are the seeds planted by the elite, intended to grow incrementally into world domination by themselves, the elite oligarchy.  Islam uses the same play book, only with a religious twist.  Both socialism and Islam are used and manipulated by the international oligarchy to foment world chaos, continually applying pressure on world populations to lean toward One World Governance for the promise of order and a release from chaos and hopelessness.  This incremental infection is systemically implanted through organizations such as The Bilderberg Group, The Tavistock Institute, Royal Institute For International Affairs (RIIA), Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission (TC) and hundreds of others, which are used to convince, cajole and embed certain desired philosophies, theories, and ideas, which in turn become popular media views and eventually give birth to public policies.

Neocons, or neoconservatives are something else altogether.  Neoconservatives are also committed internationalists, but are generally anti-communist and view the world as a place best ruled by beneficent United States elites.  Neocons also believe many other things, most of them conservative and good by the way, but what sets them apart from other conservative folks like myself is their belief that the world should in fact be dominated by the United States.  You may recall the George W. Bush / Donald Rumsfeld litany of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world.  This is, of course, just another form of globalism promoted primarily by ex-liberals of the sixties;  hence “new” conservative or Neocon.  Neocons tend to be a painful  thorn in the hide of Islam.  In this sense socialist CFR Globalists are buddies with CFR Neocons.

Prominent Neocons you may be familiar with are people such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Rupert Murdoch, Charles Krauthamer, William Kristol, Fred Barnes and too many others to name.  Personally, I’ll choose the Neocon view over Globalism any day of the week, if these are my only two choices.  (I don’t consider Islam to be a choice.)  As a practical matter, it may well be, that these are, in the end, our only realistic two options.  Charles Krauthammer is not a fool.

Pope John Paul II (Karol Józef Wojtyła) spent his entire adult life and dedicated his Papacy to his role as Catholic leader and as such, his role and responsibility  in geo-politics.  Many claimed he sacrificed the internal workings of his church in doing so.  Good, bad or otherwise, this is what John Paul II did.  Malachi Martin, a Jesuit priest and prominent exorcist, wrote extensively in his  The Keys of This Blood about John Paul’s work and dedication in this area of our lives.  Pope John Paul II seemed to accept that a One World Government was likely  inevitable.  He argued that should such be the case, the critical issue was not whether or not we would have One World Government; but what form would that government take?

I am not a Bilderberg Member nor a Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) member.  I am not invited to the meetings so I can only conjecture as to the nature of discussions and study group content.  However, observing newspapers and what typically spews forth from our dumbed down media services and Congress, it appears their is a great divide among Bilderberg, RIIA, CFR and TC Members.  It also appears that Pope John Paul II was correct in that the geopolitical battle being fought within these organizations is not whether or not we shall have Globalism and the much vaunted New World Order;  NO;  but who will sit atop the pile and what form of government or governance shall ensue.  The two sides line up on the Chess Board of life with the Marxists around their black king and the Neocons around their white king.

Which side do each of us line up on?  Not to choose is to choose?  Like it or not;  we are all players on the Chess Board.  Marxist Globalists like Barack Hussein Obama stand on one side;  Neocons such as Newt Gingrich stand on the other.  Is there a realistic third option or must we fight for one of the two?  I just write.  You decide!

  1. Mayank says:

    Thanks for such a wonderful post. It was a great read.


  2. fax modem says:

    In this great pattern of things you get an A+ with regard to effort and hard work. Where exactly you confused everybody ended up being on your specifics. You know, people say, details make or break the argument.. And it couldn’t be more accurate in this article. Having said that, permit me tell you what did give good results. Your authoring is definitely pretty persuasive and that is most likely why I am taking the effort to comment. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Secondly, whilst I can certainly see a jumps in logic you come up with, I am not sure of just how you appear to connect your details which produce the final result. For right now I will subscribe to your position but hope in the foreseeable future you connect your dots better.


  3. Ken Brown says:

    no difference between the Neo Con Marxist and the liberal Marxist – just preceived differences created by the “establsihment.” Have you ever heard one of the Neo Cons really support true Tax Reforms (get rid of the IRS and pro-Marxist Tax system)? How about true monetary reforms (getting rid of fiat currency and the FED)? They are two peas in the same pod, excpet one like Newt are more dangerous (and Krauthammer)…


Leave a Reply to Mayank Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s