It is said that the first king to introduce rules of the road almost had a rebellion on his hands. "Why", his subjects asked, "should we be told on what part of the road we can walk, ride or drive our carts? We are FREE people, are we not?"
It would, at that time, have seemed a very reasonable argument. After all, since time began, the rule had been simple: the big man had 'right of way' and the small had 'out of the way'. Now all were being asked to obey some nonsense law just to please a king's arrogance.
Today, no doubt, even the most ignorant of reasoning people can see that without rules of the road modern civilization could never develop.
Therein lies one of the greatest lessons available to human understanding. In its most simple expression it may be put that:
For every human advance to greater freedom there must be a corresponding, mastering, discipline and order imposed on lesser freedoms. Or, alternatively, only by bringing lesser freedoms to order can we progress to greater freedoms.
This is a lesson that the, 'New World Order' has hidden from present society to allow the Public Relations promotion of adolescent 'freedoms' that lead inevitably to social chaos and deliver the great mass of humanity to the mercy of tyrants.
It was in service to tyranny that PR seduced the present generation of parents and educators to deny children the thing that children most want: a just discipline which tells them that their seniors REALLY CARE and do not see them as mere pets and playthings. Nothing makes a child despise his parents more quickly than lies, pretenses and indifference to behaviour.
It is in service of tyranny that the British Family Planning Association recommends books like Make it Happy, a book said to contain pictures of naked children in poses that could be called obscene and which gives pornographic 'value-free' information on oral, anal and group sex, communal masturbation, sexual contact with animals and informs that intercourse between brother and sister could be an expression of a loving relationship. Highly damaging literature of this kind is not unusual as promoted study In Australian schools today.
It is in the same service that the Parents & Citizens Association of NSW produced a reference book in 1985 which on p47 has this to say; quote:
(f) Drug Education
(i) Drug education should become part of the present and proposed Personal Development Programs within the schools.
(ii) ...
Teachers should never give undue emphasis to, nor in any way underline the dangers of drugs. EQ EA.
The needs of the elitist mafia created the PR promotions that have in turn led to the depravities and misunderstandings mentioned in this book; not to mention far greater numbers of examples we have no space for. People who lead children to depravity are so selfish that they prefer to destroy young lives rather than make honest effort to understand life.
In a world of overgrowing population and pollution, elitism has failed the mass population. In their own defence elitists now need total power of life or death to ensure their own survival.
The human social order is called DEMOCRACY and is a system of individual freedom confined within a kingdom of natural order. It can be said to be a structure satisfying the need for human self-motivation with protection against disintegration into chaos. In other words it is a system of freedom within law.
The system "Common Order, Man Made Unity, No Individual Self-Motivation" = COMMUNISM, is not a human social order but a man-made attempt to impose on humanity a social organization best suited to insects.
Communism, which is only a development of socialism, is not a human system. It is not even a deformity of a human system as are, for instance, dictatorships or republics; socialism is a device or design of elitism.
Capitalism is related to socialism; it is the queen bee and the worker thing, where the 'queen' provides the authority very much as with socialism except that, by an extremely efficient public relations trick, it is presented as an executive ideal rather than a worker's ideal.
This twin pair is mechanistic, it offers an order based on a mechanical arrangement of society creating a mechanical elitism of cybernetics - a system of order governed by intelligence without wisdom - without soul. Elitism created communism as a device to regiment common mankind as a slave force; a labour to create the environment wanted by the self-seeking money-mafia.
Capitalism and communism have the same imperatives, the same need of a permanent 'public relations' to kill off public enterprise and independent thinking outside of the required limits of 'politically correct'; the same permanent mental curtain to hide secretive control.
A mark of this intelligentsia is long and involved titles spelling out meanings in a mechanical kind of way, as shown in the treatment of the word communism above. We human beings, might think that the, word communism was simply an adaptation from commune or community, as it is intended we think, but in fact both commune and community infer a democratic interaction that is impossible with communism; communism requires a mindless service to the perpetuation of the system. All thought, as we have seen, must be politically correct.
Understanding something of the structure of capitalist communism we quickly see why they want an ability for detailed surveillance of every member of the society and why it is, in operation, entirely ruthless and without conscience in its treatment of those unwanted or rebellious. This surveillance is, in Australia, most likely to be provided by a system called LEAN.
LEAN, meaning Law Enforcement Access Network was discussed on the ABC 7-30 report (4/2/1992). The following comments are taken from transcript.
Quentin Demagser; quote:
A new and powerful Federal Government computer will be coming on-line later this year to watch the company and land dealings of all Australians. ... so far there's been little publicity about this far-reaching scheme ...
Murray Hogarth: In today's high-tech worm there's every reason to think you're being watched .... and it's the invisible watchers, roaming through the electronic expanses of computer databases, who pose a threat to freedoms most of us take for granted.
...
When they set out to number everyone with the Australia Card, the people rose up to defend their liberties .... the government backed off. But the Australia Card debacle was just a setback ....
Roger Clark: They do take privacy a little more seriously than they once did, but they have found other ways ... and clearly one of the ways in which they can achieve their objectives is not to go through legislation, not to take the risk of going into parliament ... EQ EA.
So we see here another example of serious political action being taken to avoid public reaction. However in this case it has been made public - this helps create confusion and conflict. Did you know that the Bill of Rights, officially abandoned because of public pressure (28/11/1986), had all its important features introduced as part of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill (10/12/1986)?
We also saw that secretive means were used to import hard-core porn; in recent years, there are many such instances of public betrayal.
The problem with computer surveillance is that there is no end to it. As an honest person I would see little objection to it if we also had honest government, but honest government today is, as they say, a laugh. The plans make clear that tax files, medical records, and property ownership will quickly be encoded on the one surveillance system.
After that we would certainly find phone and all forms of card-credit (which in a few years will substitute for almost all money in the 'cashless' society) will also be added. This will mean, among other things, that your activities and location can be ascertained at any time.
Even worse, hundreds of people are using hundreds of terminals. There will be thousands of mistakes and thousands of leaks and, you have no protection from spiteful bureaucracy. Not a pleasant world to contemplate.
People are inclined to get upset about 'identity cards', computer surveillance, evidences of 'Big Brother' prying into their affairs, confiscation of assets, legal injustices, etc., but in comparison to the long-term mental enslavement of mass population all such forms of surveillance and control are largely irrelevant. Were people not already brainwashed into subservience they would not allow these things to happen.
In fact, common displays of enslavement are so irrelevant that it would seem overt displays in these lesser fields are mainly for display of power or to tease and distract the mass mind rather than for the direct purpose of a surveillance or robbery no longer essential. Public reactions are predictable, futile and serve to reassure the manipulators that all is well in the best of all manipulated worlds.
Knowing the nature of the beast we can know why the bulk of serious propaganda is directed against children - human style family is incompatible with a mechanistic society.
They also need to wreck the free-enterprise system. Only a small fraction of useful work is of value to the elite - most product is consumed by those who produce it.
We now have better than reasonable evidence of what we may best call a 'mafia-type' brotherhood of families - an on-going hierarchical power block determined to own the earth.
Although this 'family' has been operating in the world since quite ancient times and with varying degrees of success, it is only in the high-tech world that it has gained the power to fully achieve its ambitions. A population threat creates urgency.
The working of the system is now evident. The years off crushing private enterprise will be followed by a short rebuilding process where international money will pick up the pieces.
Is there a better way? Does the world really need Australia? Does Australia really need the world?
An interesting exercise is to imagine all the world sinking under the sea on one night leaving Australia without exports, imports or foreign money. If we set aside the emotional shock and fears, would Australia be worse off or better off?
I doubt if anyone who has any understanding of Australia's resources and scientific abilities would conclude other than that we would be greatly benefited. We have all the resources needed to feed, clothe and house all of our people in comfort and without want of any essential. We could easily halve the labour needed to maintain these life-support systems. Our leisure time could then be used to make Australia a paradise and to develop scientific understanding.
Public Relations propaganda gives people the impression that we need the rest of the world and, even if not, then it would be selfish of us to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. If this is so then how do you explain our incredible foreign debt?
We have been importing massively more than we have been exporting over the last ten years. We have been mortgaging our children to pay foreign workers to keep us at the standard of living to which most of us have become accustomed.
Why are we building up a social class of poor and unemployable misfits? In what way are we helping the world? Our farmers, the most efficient food producers in the world, are going broke because the world does not want our food even though some desperately need it. Our industries are closing down because our government thinks we should have other people do our work for us, others who will work for less pay because they are hungry.
No, the way we are the world does not need us but, if we were free people, then perhaps we could show the world a better way - a more human way - a way of life not subject to constant New World Order wars; economic manipulations to enforce an unneeded and unnatural poverty; order that ignores morality, right and justice.
The danger posed by the present enslavement is that if humanity is returned to the primitive then we cannot escape by efforts.
To not attempt to free ourselves while we can is an insult to our intelligence and our human gifts. It is a great and unnecessary addition to human suffering - perhaps permanent loss of civilization. There is no other escape because those who only learn enough to enslave others, also, by their deformed desires, enslave themselves (power corrupts).
There is a common saying in computer talk "garbage in, garbage out" and while the human brain has great ability to defend itself against garbage it can be overcome by a massive onslaught - by authoritative miseducation and commercial trickery at a scientific level.
Advancing culture will become more fragile in its technicalities and lifestyles; we need increasing consciousness to maintain our advance. Brutalizing the young, instilling arti- ficial values and restricting understanding, can only result in social disaster. We are well into the danger zone today.
The automobile designed to protect its occupants from the results of a crash may seem a good, if expensive, idea. Is the next step to encase pedestrians in safety armour so that they can be run over with impunity? Perhaps we might consider that going to great lengths to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity indicates a failure of our social order - a failure of our ability to behave rationally.
There are many examples of communal irrationality in many walks of life.
Educated people are no longer able to see that the principles of social order are as insistent and, over time, as certain in their effect, as are the principles of engineering.
Ignorant people react to moral laws as they did to rules of the road, as though they are a matter of some tyrant's pleasure. However moral laws, like mathematical laws, are there, they are not for our decision or choice.
Because of short-sighted attitudes we have educators today teaching children that there are no social truths, "Work out what is to be your behaviour by agreement with your friends"; or, "Do whatever seems best in your situation".
The "Situation Ethics" attitude means divorce from the benefits of historic human experience; to remain modern each individual would have to re-invent a million wheels.
It is obvious that many people today are so impregnated with political ideology that they are quite incapable of making! or wanting to make, a rational assessment of their beliefs. Some would rather destroy humanity than question their beliefs.
Lesson: The basic threat to society is the same threat the world over, it is the rise of a criminal elite. This power began with economic manipulation and the elitists now control the greater part of world industry and finance.
By historic funding of education the social sciences were manipulated - from social sciences the news media. The educated are able to selectively favour people influenced. including politicians - from politics they maintain their hold on education; a self-supporting circle.
The evidence of this economic power, when taken in conjunction with day to day world events, should be quite convincing to any rational-reasoning mind. There can be no reasonable doubt of the existence of this elite; only when we look from this viewpoint do world events become logical. There is no other driving force for manipulative planning.
Social engineering is abundantly visible, even openly admitted. There is a cause for each effect! Knowledge is just a matter of a suitable level of scientific observation.
This situation is not truly mysterious, it is the staled humanist/socialist solution to the problem of government. A problem that has grown more urgent as society has become more and more crippled by manipulation. The answer of the manipulators is more manipulation, more laws and legal restraints.
On the other hand more and more intelligent people arc now coming to see through the frail veil. Dr. Susan George, for example, has been a consultant to the United Nations University, UNESCO, the UN's Economic Commission for Europe, the International Union of Food Workers and the Government of Nicaragua, among other such. Obviously a person in favour of and favoured by, the internationals. Yet in answer to recent questions and reported on the ABC we find these comments; quote:
Well, I think this meaning of the word 'development' is rather obscene. Development in biology means that an organism unfolds harmoniously in its environment. It means that the flower becomes a fruit, or the embryo becomes a child. But the social sciences have taken over this concept and perverted it. When we say 'development' in the modern sense, we generally mean outside intervention and meddling. If you meddle too much with an organism, it will be damaged or will die, which is precisely, I think, what we're been doing with other people's lives.
I think development has failed largely because the assumptions that underlay the whole concept were absolutely false.
...
[On economic manipulation.] All these institutions are centralized, hierarchical, completely undemocratic and working with a lot of money contributed by their members, mostly their richer members. What do they do with that money? Well, in many ways they are helping subjugate all the economies of the world and making them satellites of 'free enterprise', so to speak. ... So the World Bank is in charge of imposing this economic doctrine, the International Monetary Fund is in charge of imposing structural adjustment, in other words austerity programs in the Third World, and GATE is involved with indeed reducing not only barriers to trade, but any standards - environmental standards, health standards, high wages that could be considered impediments to trade. I feel very much that the undemocratic nature of these institutions will mean that a whole new world order is put into place and that it is an anti-democratic, authoritarian order run by the elites of the rich world on their behalf.
...
.. every time citizens in one country, or another seem to be winning some victories, seem to have gained, for example, either higher wages or better environmental standards or whatever, these international agencies will often say, 'No, wait a minute, it's our law, international law is above national law and your national standards simply don't hold up.'
If I can give one example from the US/Canada free trade pact, a model for what GATE would like to do for the entire world: British Columbia was planting trees - the province itself- and the Americans challenged it and said, 'This is a help to the Canadian timber industry and we don't do that for our timber industry so what you're doing is impeding trade ..'
That's just one example of the kind of thing that would happen under universal free trade. The standards for pesticide residues would become the standards of the FRO ... sometimes 50 times lower than certain national standards. So if I want to export fruit laden with pesticides to Australia, Australia would have absolutely no recourse but to accept them .. EQ. EA.
Our politicians say that we must become a republic - free ourselves from British restraints. But Britain has had only a protective role over Australian government since Federation. On the other hand the faceless people behind the UN are now exercising controls over our lives far greater than Britain pre-Federation ever did and our politicians have signed hundreds agreements that (with cutting of our British rights and protections) would make of us a fully servile dominion of the UN. What they are doing is, by our rightful heritage, treason, and treason is no mere figure of speech.
There is a lot more in that one article; there is a lot of other material I could quote, but if what is here doesn't stir awakening, a ton of evidence will make no difference. Still, just one more small item from Dr. George; quote;
.. dystopia, which is where everything is just as bad as it can possibly be. My dystopia is a kind of worldwide apartheid in which a very small transnational elite is served by a more or less permanently employed middle class, people who generally have job, generally have services, all on the backs of an increasingly marginalised and criminalised underclass. EQ.
The nightmare of Dr. Susan George - a state of the world that she does not want to admit is the metamorphosis taking place before her eyes - is the international 'mafia' now establishing their ownership of the world.
This mafia consists of only a few hundred families who have gained their power because of long and brutal ancestral pursuit of self-interest. They, of course, represent Dr SG's elite. The middle class is represented by the self-satisfied and comfortably off who feel secure in a world they think is of their creation and as honest as, on the surface, it appears to be. The increasingly marginalised and criminalised underclass is made up of what is called 'the working class', most of whom are rapidly becoming redundant in an age of computerized technology.
As members of the working class become redundant they must be disarmed of their ability to create serious trouble. This is achieved by de-education, enticement to drugs, fire-arms control, confused loyalties, sedation and mental fixations to matters of trivial importance.
What Dr George is afraid to see is that, in the present socio/industrial arrangement, the lower class is a rapidly increasing problem. An unneeded workforce that, by its very existence, creates pollution and a threat to order and comfort a problem whose most convenient solution is its elimination.
As the need for unskilled and trades work is reduced by technology, the service needs of those so employed is reduced. The need for services offered by the middle class is also reduced. The middle class moves down and the lower middle class takes over available trades and unskilled work.
To make any useful reduction in human population would require the elimination of about two out of three existing families within about 50 years. The elitists have the means and the morals to achieve this.
How would they go about eliminating surplus people? The most logical means would be by the use of man-made 'designer' disease.
A few years ago I helped assemble a small booklet called AIDS (a politically protected disease) and the World-Government plot. 20,000 were printed and sold. The 'anchor' of that presentation was provided by information in an article by W C Douglas, M.D., in the September 1987 issue of Health & Freedom News, Monrovia, California. The Dr Douglas article referred to an item in the World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin Vo1.47 pp257-264, 1972. Here is the important WHO quote:
(3) An attempt should be made to ascertain whether viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function, e.g., by depressing 7S versus 19S antibody, or by affecting T cell function as opposed to B cell function (Allison el at., 1971). The possibility should also be looked into that the immune response to the virus may itself be impaired if the infecting virus damages more or less selectively the ceils responding to the viral antigens. If this proves to be the case, virus-induced immunodepression might conceivably be highly instrumental in prolonging certain virus infections, such as murine leukaemia, hepatitis, sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis, or infections caused by LDV, LCMV, or ADV. EQ.
We may not understand that but we can see it has a relationship with the following comment; quote:
The World Health Organisation, in published articles, called for scientists to work with these deadly agents and attempt to make a hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans .... they said, "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."
That's AIDS. What the WHO is saying in plain English is 'Let's cook up a virus that selective& destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'
Why would anyone want to do this? ...
If their new virus creation worked, the WHO stated, then many terrible and fatal infectious viruses could be made even more terrible and more malignant. Does this strike you as being a peculiar goal for a health organization?
...
Because of the artificial nature of the AIDS virus it will not transfer easily from man to man until it has become very concentrated in the body fluids through repeated injections from person to person, such as drug addicts, and through high multiple partner sexuality such as takes place in Africa, among homosexuals and among native American Indians. After repeated transfer it can become a 'natural' infection for man, which it has. EQ
This disease had to be started in a situation of high person to person contact so as to become human specific; it was.
Nothing much has changed since that booklet was produced. So far as we know, no new mutation has yet occurred to make the AIDS virus so highly infectious as to become a serious threat to the moral community.
On the other hand there appears no reason to believe it is not a man-made disease. The technology is there and to add substance to that point I will quote a small item from a report in The Sydney Morning Herald (14/2/1985); quote:
A mad scientist may have been responsible for unleashing the AIDS virus, an expert said today. Consultant Dr Seale, a sex disease specialist, made his claim after discovering links between AIDS and the lethal VISNA virus which attacks sheep. He believes the scientist created AIDS by mistake while experimenting with VISNA.
Dr Seale said the only difference between the two viruses was that AIDS had an extra gene which could have been 'quite easily' inserted during experiments. EQ.
Obviously Dr Seale had not read the WHO item. Having looked closely at the world situation we can see that there is reason enough for certain interests to want such weapons of mass human destruction. We can deduce from the manner of its first spread that it was no accident and the failure of governments world-wide to take normal disease control action is very significant.
A designed virus would seem a most useful way to reduce population. It has the advantage of working best among unhygienic and ignorant people (i.e. the poor). It is also easily spread by contaminated immunization, especially if, as with AIDS, the incubation period is long and variable.
Furthermore treatment can be cost selective in favour of those well-off and able to afford quality health monitoring. Obviously there is a good buffer zone between the lower levels of society and the elitists.
If there is no world-government plot why did the advocates of manipulative government not broadcast their plans world-wide? Why was John Kenneth Galbraith's advocacy of an elite composed of intellectuals and academics, not publicized until it was common knowledge? Why was the idea in Bertrand Russell's book kept in the social sciences closet? Why did Robert Theobole not make world headlines when he said at the World Future Society (1975), "It's naive to deny the necessity of some kind of competent elite."?
Is there a problem? Who is to decide just who is 'competent'? Would common display of the plan threaten it? Would it, perhaps, be too obvious to too many that there is a preordained bias in favour of the ego-maniac when we plan for a competent elite? Can we know how much brain-wash splashes on to the brain-washer?
Power corrupts! Who could believe elitist government won't nurture the seed of self-destruction? They may be mad, but not so mad as to risk revealing their plot to the common herd.
If a plan cannot be argued in public, giving full involvement to all who want to take part, then it is a sick plan - a plot.
All able to read and understand this book will see that there is a solution to world problems, it begins with putting our own chosen representatives into parliament.
Recent figures show that over the last decade or so the rich have become richer and the poor poorer. We do not object to the rich getting richer .. if they earn it, or the poor getting poorer .. if they deserve it. What is objectionable is robbery; whether it be money out of a pocket, food out of a mouth or our rights of social inheritance - robbery is our just complaint.
People are now so confused in their values and their appreciation of life that parents often excuse exposure of their children to sick and depraved influences as, "They have to learn to cope with REALITY".
"Sickness and depravity" is not a reality of life~ it is a reality of death. That is what is meant by "good" and "evil" - good is that which advances life, evil is that which destroys life. Who decides what is good or evil? No one! It is in the nature of life. Children need to be warned about poisons but do not need to be exposed to them. The 'realities' they need to learn are the principles of healthy living.
The people who planned this arc not stupid, they have been careful not to disadvantage everyone al the same time and those disadvantaged most will always be kept too poor and ignorant to do anything about it. So, despite that Australia (1992) is in deep recession and morally at an all time low, the majority of people arc still in the mood of "I'm all right Jack."
When it's their turn to suffer they will be at first incredulous and then angry but, like others before them, they will retain their arrogance. 'They will ignore the truth. They will not listen to those who have studied the problem but will think of their own brilliant response - a protest march - a petition to the Prime Minister to tell him what he should do - a new political party. And the politicians will try not to laugh on TV.
Because of false teachings and confidence trickery people have become more and more irrational - we are easily persuaded that we need more and more laws to control our every activity; we cannot be trusted to run our own lives.
A mere 100 years ago we needed comparatively few laws and could appreciate the need to live by general rules of behaviour. In a truly advancing culture the word "advancing" MUST refer to an increasing understanding of life and increasing morality. Increasing social complexity has to be balanced by responsible behaviour. Increasing freedom to create means increasing rigidity in areas already mastered. Genuinely civilized people are more self-disciplined and need less law.
Examples of the problems caused by mental confusion are over-population and environmental destruction.
With overflowing good will and equal ignorance we rushed to undeveloped but stable communities and upset the balance of nature. We leave them with starvation, pain and conflict, and blame everything and everyone but ourselves. Why do we not solve our own problems first?
Almost every common attitude today is in reverse of reason. These problems would never have come to being had it not been for the manipulation of social behaviour.
Assuming that light really does help us to see, what is the alternative. Should we accept that the criminal hierarchy know best and surrender the world to their care?
It must be well apparent to any reasoning person that population cannot keep doubling every thirty or forty years, with use of resources and pollution proceeding even faster. The present system is out of control! Is our choice between natural disaster and man-made disaster? I would not be so keen to expose the system if I thought that the alternative.
The present socio/industrial system may have been right at one time but it is certainly long out of date now. The elitists are social engineers only in so far as self-interest is concerned, they have no feeling or understanding of human need. It will be a long haul back but the main difficulty is to make a start.
Right now Australian governments are dead set on selling "public owned" assets to help toward a temporary' relief for disastrous government and to make us vulnerable to a NWO economy. Twisted thinking gives many people the idea that public ownership is socialist. Public ownership is not socialist, socialist is a myth.
Over the last ten years or so more than half of Australian private enterprise (small business) has been made bankrupt because of destructive government policies brought into force over the last twenty years and, for longer than that, social engineering ideology has dominated the education system. These policies must be reversed.
Our first need is Constitutional Democratic Government and the obvious reversal of international policies to policies that serve local needs. We can do nothing to help the rest of the world we understand our own problems and have cleaned up our own back-yards.
Having stopped the rush to the precipice and got the nation reversing back to the highway we can then start thinking about the future we can then have. The present industrial system is incredibly wasteful, probably around half of our work is taken up with administration and book-keeping and about the same percentage of the energy we use is also wasted.
Having lived through the changes in public attitude and understanding that have taken place over the last twenty years I know that this is reversible, similar effort in the right direction would allow people to accept a more rational lifestyle and more logical appreciation of progress. I can see cities built from the ground up for efficiency; I can see people becoming more socially integrated; I can see people accepting communal ownership in many more areas where community ownership is more convenient and efficient; I can see private ownership and enterprise being more secure.
I cannot tell you, even to my limited understanding, the future. If I could you either would not believe me or you could not understand, we have to go there to see and do for ourselves. Nevertheless, if you believe I know anything, then believe me, there is a better, a much better, way. brain9.htm