Karl Marx, Bill Kristol and the National Review

Yep - that's right. Not a connection I ever expected to make, truth to tell, but thanks to Bill Kristol, Editor of the National Review, I now can.

It seems that Donald has hit another big nerve.

First it was Mexico with the wall. Last week Vicente Fox, in a highly presidential moment, dropped the F-bomb on national television, startling the crap out of Maria Bartaromo on Fox Business when he did it live.

Now it's Bill Kristol and the Elites who just held their annual American Enterprise Institute meeting. This is yet another private affair, more secretive than the annual Bilderberg meetings, held on a private island off the coast of Georgia (USA, although it might as well be the Soviet Union).

What's semi-amusing, more disturbing is that the editor of a right-wing political news magazine is quoting Karl Marx in relation to Donald Trump. Read the sixth paragraph from the Huffington Post's article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d

Either Bill Kristol doesn't see the disturbing parallel between this battle for a nation and the October Revolution in which the people were so disaffected that they rose up and fought down the tyrants that ruled them, or he's just tying the opposite ends together on the far side of the sphere.

Fortunately, this is a bloodless revolution. America hasn't yet been pushed to the brink as was done in Russia before 1917. But we are fed up, disillusioned and far more than done with politics as usual.

If he is just tying the ends together - taking the right all the way around to the point where it meets with the farthest left - that's one thing. If he is actually adopting Marxist theory relative to politics, that's something else again. Either way, it's not good for the Elites. They have been outed and some are throwing up their hands, swearing they aren't stained with... whatever that is.

Elon Musk of SpaceX - the commercial rocket scientists - was reported to be there according to HuffPost and several other outlets, but now he's running around in circles screaming that he wasn't.

Why not? If this group is so honorable, up-front and above-board, why not claim it? Or, if he wasn't there, why doesn't he just shut up and ignore the report that he was? Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Could it be that it is a tyrannical society that met on that island the other day? The leaders of the Pinky & The Brain Society for World Domination I wrote about a while back?

http://philippastories.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-pinky-brain-society-are-winding-up.html

Seems like it.

After all, these guys and the Bilderbergers (overlapping group-to-group in all meaningful ways) do run the world. That's become abundantly clear this year with the election and their knicker-knots bulging out their britches.

So The Donald is not who they want in the White House. They don't want him running the country because he isn't their ideal.

America is at a major crossroads. But it's not this one any more:

 It's more like this one:

amritaspearlsofwisdom.com

 

We have a lot of unknowns ahead of us, but it's no longer just a choice between This and This where Left and Right are indistinguishable from one another. Not unless they force Hilliary or some other political shill on us, which they might do.

One thing that might happen is that they'll wake up and realize that Hilliary is un-electable in the current climate. Even though she's being funded and shoved on us by the Donor Class because she represents the palatable status quo, Bernie is still making a big statement. If it tips too far, they might panic and throw her to the legal wolves as a sop to the American people. If they let her be indicted and thrust Biden into the fray the news would be all about her, about the indictment and the scandal and the American people (Democrats) might be distracted enough for the Elites to get their way.

As for Biden, he's popped up in the news again this week after a remarkably long absence. The media have actually tried to make him look intelligent and relevant (which won't last if he opens his mouth).

That still won't shift the conservative / moderate / independent American people who are lifting Trump over their shoulders. We'll look over at the circus but I don't think it will matter. I don't think it would be a distraction for us, regardless of what these asphyxiated idiots might think.

After all, we've made it clear as day that we don't want Hilliary. Nor do we want Biden or we would be clamoring for him. We don't want Marco or a used car salesman. We don't want anyone who has been even remotely tainted by Washington air (what little is left given the state of CO2 poisoning apparent in the insiders) and water.

We want an outsider. Someone unadultered by the filth of Washington politics.

Still, they don't get it. They are so hyped up on their own brilliance, they just don't get it. And that's fine. They'll do the Olympus thing up there while the mere mortals do their thing down here, where the real folks live. In the end, when the votes are counted, they'll have a couple of choices.

They can capitulate and accept what the people want for this election cycle. After all, there are several tens of million of each of us to each one of them - the odds look pretty good for our side (and it is down to sides at this point).

If there were an uprising, and let us be perfectly clear - I do not advocate anything like that - guess who would lose the most in the long run?

We would suffer, no doubt, but they would suffer worse. They would lose their power over us in a meaningful way. We would see who they are more clearly than we do now, and we would know what they're doing. It's harder to maintain control over a mass if the mass knows you're trying to control them. Masses tend not to like being suppressed.

They can keep their eyes shut, their fingers in their ears and shriek lalalalalalala at the top of their lungs, keep pretending what's happening really isn't.

Or, because these people are powerful and they are ruthless, they could have Trump assassinated.

The Kennedy assassination has never been rationally explained to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of many others. I have watched documentaries and read articles on it, and I still feel dissatisfied with the 'explanation'. The Warren Commission stinks of cover-up and there is just too much coincidence - like Ruby showing up, wandering into the mob through which Oswald was being escorted, and shooting Oswald right in front of the cops and cameras. It just stinks like a barnyard on a 100 degree day at the height of summer.

Given that assassination has been used for political purpose down the centuries, and given the gut wrenching fear these people seem to be feeling, made apparent by their coming out of the woodwork as far as they have, I won't take that possibility off the table because it could be one option these people might consider.

I do take some solace, though, in the fact that Trump doesn't just have the Secret Service detail assigned. He also has his own private security - who are more loyal to him than the Secret Service ever will be. I just hope they're better than the Secret Service, or that they're having the same feelings and suspicions I am about it. I pray that they're not only watching their boss and the crowd, but that they're also paying close attention to the government employees in their midst.

So, in the here and now, Karl Marx meets Pinky & The Brain and here we are. Secret societies, world domination and a people fed up with being held down and controlled. The next months will be interesting, no doubt.

Keep watching - this is an historic time.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

The Pinky & The Brain Society Are Winding Up

Last night, hubby mentioned the United Nation's Agenda 2030. I hadn't heard of it but, because of his comments, I looked it up and skimmed through it. It makes for interesting reading because it's a manifesto for world domination. Just like The Brain intended in Pinky & The Brain, and about as likely to succeed short of governments rounding up their recalcitrant citizens.

The document itself looks like it was written by a verbose ten year old. To say it's repetitive would be a gross understatement, but that might be deliberate. Bury the bad news in heaps of kindly hyperbole and it might go unnoticed.

For instance, I don't know how many times it mentions the eradication of poverty and disease, gender equality (yeah, as if an organization that has civil rights violators on its human rights committee is believable). It covers the same ground ad nauseam but when you filter through the fluff and nonsense, it's pretty intimidating and thought provoking.

It's going to go into effect next month - as of January 1, 2016 - and will ramp up over the next fifteen years. Reading parts of this document and thinking about recent events here in the U.S., it is worrying. In the West they might actually pull some of this off because we're not paying attention which makes the sleight of hand that much easier.

Here's the link to the full document, if you're curious:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

Filtering through the gobbledygook, these are aspects I found to be particularly interesting.

Paragraph 26 states: "To promote physical and mental health and well-being, and to extend life expectancy for all, we must achieve universal health coverage and access to quality health care. No one must be left behind."

So that's where Obamacare came from! The first step, knowing the American people don't want to be shoved into a one-size fits all box, was to implement a pre-failed healthcare system. Then, once it falls apart because of wildly expensive premiums (the plan hasn't even been fully implemented and premiums are already up +30% and +40% over last year) and unsustainable expense in the medical sector, the government will step in with its one-size fits all box into which we will be squeezed. From there, it will no doubt be expected that the US and other developed nations will start channeling money into healthcare for the rest of the world. An expensive proposition, that.

Paragraph 28 dictates how and what we can buy and use:  "We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services."

Tyranny, anyone? Consumption is going to be watched or regulated, meaning if I want to buy Product A but this UN committee deems that Product A is no good, I can't have it?

And Paragraph 29 states we're going to effectively dissolve sovereignty. Nations will no longer be nations. Borders will no longer exist: "We recognize the positive contribution of migrants for inclusive growth and sustainable development. We also recognize that international migration is a multi-dimensional reality of major relevance for the development of countries of origin, transit and destination, which requires coherent and comprehensive responses. We will cooperate internationally to ensure safe, orderly and regular migration involving full respect for human rights and the humane treatment of migrants regardless of migration status, of refugees and of displaced persons."

So much for national security and right of self-determination.


Paragraph 30 makes our economy a part of the world economy - and takes away our right to economic self-determination, financial self-rule. "States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries."

In other words, our money is their money and they can tell us what to do with it, how to use it, and prohibits us from objecting.

Paragraph 38 seems to be a gross error since it specifically contradicts Paragraph 29, but it's so plain text that it's obviously just a sop with no meaning. "We reaffirm, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the need to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of States."

There's more, a lot more, but what's an interesting conundrum throughout is the repeated refrain of:

We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want, where all life can thrive.

That's a worthy goal. Who would say that isn't a worthy goal? However, with more than 6,000,000,000+ (six billion plus) people wandering the face of this planet right now, and with resources - clean water and food - already stretched to the breaking point, how can they accomplish that?

Could it be through eugenics? Governments or agencies or committees deciding that some of us are surplus, taking up space, damaging society by our mere existence? Hmm. Smacks a bit of Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes, doesn't it?

If you're non-productive because of a birth defect or deficiency of some sort, out you go - no food for you.

If you're non-productive because you spent your life producing and are now in your seventies or so and aren't able to continue to drone along, out you go - no food for you because you're not helping to produce it.

Some of the nut jobs are seeing a conspiracy in this. I'm sure the Pinky & The Brain Society for World Domination would disagree, but perhaps there is a middle.

If I say Planned Parenthood, what do you think of? I think of, and I suspect most people think of, abortion. The killing of children before they're born so that the parents don't have to be burdened with the nuisance of dealing with what they created.

China is more direct and far more brutal with its one child policy. Now, though, a generation later, they're seeing the problem in that. Get a girl baby when you wanted a boy baby, let the girl baby die so you stay under that one child limit. Twenty-five years later, there aren't enough baby girls to go around to the baby boys to create the next generation, so they're relaxing the one-child rule.

Yeah, that's the kind of world in which I want to live. Where government picks and chooses who lives and who dies - and I'm afraid that the more I think about these lofty goals, that is what it would come down to. How else can they feed and provide clean water for so many people? Particularly in the under-developed countries in Africa where obtaining clean water and sufficient food have been real problems for centuries.

Now, it might be that there is no intention to really implement all of this. Perhaps it is just a lofty pie-in-the-sky dream that they know will never be fulfilled, but honestly? I do not trust the UN. Not even a little bit.

Personally, I think that those who want the US out of the UN have it right because who, in this New World Order they're proposing, will foot the lion's share of the expense? Which country has the greatest amount of personal wealth per capita? If the UN is going to implement these things, it will need money. Lots of it. And where do you suppose they're going to look for that money? Yep. Uncle Sam, I need a new water system. Please? Pretty please?

Oh, it started in its early years as a valid and worthy committee, but as committees tend to do over time, they aggregate more and more power and control. Like this Agenda 2030 to which nations are signing up and committing to.

Skimming through to the end, it remains reasonably benign in tone, but it does reference a fair number of other agreements and documents, none of which I have the time or energy to pursue this morning. I'll revisit them and see what's said, but this is something to keep on your radar.

Have a pleasant day and don't worry about this, yet. We have another month before this is implemented.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories