Political Spectrum Shifts

 Hmmm...

Corporate Socialism and the Great Reset

Michael Rectenwald gives a useful rundown of how the WEF's great reset is really just corporate socialism rebranding itself. Using ESG scores, they're running a monopolistic system.

 

Fred Reed's Warning from 2002

Found this on the internet, please read. It sounds like the world we live in now, especially after the COVID-19 panic:

https://truebluenz.com/2020/06/01/warning-from-2002-doing-the-dc-bob/

In Washington, it’s everywhere, like God and mendacity: The DC Bob. As people talk, in fern bars, in eateries, on the sidewalk, an incorrect thought occurs, something that might upset Them. You know who They are: The racial, sexual, religious, and political groups that One Doesn’t Offend, the ideas and policies one mustn’t mention, the simple observations of fact that one may not make. We all know where trouble lies. And we are careful.

The incipient malefactor leans forward. He’s getting closer to his hearers to avoid eavesdroppers. Next he drops his chin and looks furtively over each shoulder in turn to see who might be listening. This is the DC Bob. It is routine. People don’t even notice that they are doing it.

The heretic whispers, “I’m sick of affirmative-action hires. We can’t get anything done in my office.”

The DC Bob. You have to watch what you say in America.

A while back I attended a party of people in government. I didn’t know them. They knew me indirectly from this column. We clutched Heinekens in the kitchen and chewed cheesy stuff on crackers. Pretending we weren’t, we felt each other out to be sure none of us was with the thought police (another ritual in Washington). The conversation came around to the deterioration of American society. The subject is common. In fact, it is close to inevitable.

One fellow finally said approximately, “I don’t get it. We all know what’s going on. Why can’t we even talk about it? This isn’t the Soviet Union.”

Ah, but, yes, actually, it is the Soviet Union. When people have to look over their shoulders before speaking in public places, when they are afraid to utter reasonable criticism of very questionable governmental policies, we’ve reached the suburbs of Moscow. I’m not trying to be cute about this. Ours is very much the same system of social control, but without the truncheons. It’s cleverly done, so that we have no way of revolting and nothing really to revolt against.

Yes, the penalties for political transgression are here lighter than in the USSR, but methods vary little. If you criticized Stalin, you got a bullet in the nape of the neck. Rubber hoses served their soothing purpose, and there were the Gulag and psychiatric committal. We don’t do these things here.

They aren’t necessary. To enforce conformity, the threat need not be extreme, merely adequate. Here, if you say the wrong thing, you lose your job. The years toward retirement vanish. The press savages you. You don’t get tenure or, if you have it, you are shunned by the rest of the faculty, including those who secretly agree with you but are afraid of the same treatment. This is enough. We don’t need thumbscrews.

Intimidation depends not just on penalties but upon the certainty, or near certainty, of their application. In the Soviet Union, people knew they would lose if they transgressed. They couldn’t run. The police were faster. They couldn’t hide. The police would find them. They couldn’t even die gloriously to make a statement. The government wouldn’t broadcast it. Hopelessness breeds passivity. People may rebel against long odds. They seldom rebel when they can accomplish nothing.

The same is true here. We can’t win, though the penalties are not grisly, and do not always come from the formal government. If we take the wrong position on the wrong subject, the federal EEO apparatus will crush us. The feds know they can and drag a case out for a decade spend us into submission. Institutions, companies, universities — will force us to apologize and publicly humiliate us. If we go to another university, apply for another job, the word will have gotten around and we won’t be hired.

The fewer the people you can trust, the greater the intimidation. In the Soviet Union, children were encouraged to rat out their parents. Under Stalin, it could be fatal. Things aren’t so bad here. Our kids are only occasionally asked to inform. (“Do your parents have guns?”) But in school, children are steeped unendingly in Appropriate Thought. In communist countries, it was more openly done, being honestly called Marxism-Leninism or Mao Tse Dung Thought. In our schools it’s packaged as immanent self-evident Goodness. The effect is to erect a police wall between parents and children.

Do I exaggerate? Try telling your kid that Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman (whoever she was) were perhaps not the central achievement of Western Civilization, that there is an astronomical lopsidedness by race in commission of crime, or that universal illegitimacy may involve both immorality and irresponsibility. The tad will likely be horrified that you are such a racist. Don’t teachers and the telescreen say so?

And so many parents speak carefully at home, checking to see that the children aren’t listening. As in the Soviet Union, indoctrination is the unspoken purpose of schooling.

Here, as in the USSR, the press — in particular the ever-whispering screen, half-ignored, babbling like a brook, slowly depositing assumptions, views, unnoticed beliefs — is the key to social control. Russians knew they were being lied to, but they didn’t know how much. Our telescreens lie more subtly, and thus more effectively. The principle is that if people absorb one lie in two, tell them three. Soon they will believe, enough. That is all it takes.

American journalism isn’t as controlled as that of the Soviet Union, but it is controlled enough. In the media the punishment for deviationist thought is swift and sure. We in the trade know exactly what we can and cannot say. Criticize the wrong things and you will lose your job and be, for practical purposes, blacklisted.

Many journalists of course know what is going on, assuredly including editors of major publications. But, being intimidated, they intimidate. Thus what we know we don’t write, and what we write we don’t believe. Editorialists and columnists argue pointlessly within understood constraints, like ping-pong balls bouncing between two walls. The walls are there. One doesn’t step beyond.

Yet there is more to it. Editors do not control the content of publications. Advertisers do, advertisers and the owners. If you buy important amounts of advertising, you have veto power.

Sometimes the influence is quietly explicit. A major upper-middle-brow magazine once assigned me a story that might have involved criticism of defense contractors. The editor asked me to go easy on McDonnell-Douglas because it advertised. This is not uncommon. But usually writers just know what They don’t want. And they don’t write it. They are afraid.

Looking over our shoulders, dealing cautiously with strangers, doing the DC Bob.

UN Compact on Migration

People have just woken up. They've discovered there's a move to take all their money, here's how:

I remember reading academic papers 13 years ago (count them), that called for the removal of national boundaries when it came to migration. Now this thought process has got to the United Nations stage, and the final step will be each country implementing the ideas within their own legislation.

This is a form of theft. That's right, theft. The idea is to flood the western world with migrants and once they're established in their new countries, they can change the laws at will once they're the majority.

The problem is partly of the West's own making. They didn't make babies. So there is that. But the other part of the equation is to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the failure of communism, socialism, anarchism, call it what you will. This failure meant the old game plan wouldn't work, the enemy of capitalism needed a new game and they came up with a twofold approach.

The first was to ditch the colour red, for the colour green. Communists became green overnight, they were instant ecologists. But they are anything but, they are still communists. From the pocket of those who earnt it, to the pockets of those who haven't earnt it but control the distribution of it. Control the resources, the means of production, distribution and exchange and you own everything. It's got nothing to do with freeing the proletariat from the hegemony of the capitalist monster, but everything to do with greed.

The debate around global climate change (GCC) has been hijacked by these wolves in sheep's clothing. These days you hardly hear from a hard scientist on this important topic, instead it's all about the politics of GCC, and how to hobble the west while profiting the favoured few (who seem to always be the Greens - no surprise there).

Then the second approach was to use humanitarian crises to launch invasions and to make this mandated. That's what the UN Compact on Migration is about.

Think about this over Xmas folks, have a nice Saturnalia.