Old World Order

We resist two groups - the Old World Order and the group that stands behind them.

For the time being, we shall say nothing more about the organisation that hides behind the curtain. The Old World Order are dupes, but they are unaware of it. Their game is the oldest one of all - power. How to get it and how to maintain it.

These are the key points about the OWO:

1) The OWO is a global network of dynastic families.

2) Their mission is to maintain the power and wealth of their dynasties in perpetuity.

3) Others are admitted to the charmed circle only if they can assist the interests of the OWO.

4) The OWO do not care about the welfare of ordinary citizens. Ordinary people simply do not show up on their radar as long as they go about their humdrum lives in the expected way.

5) The OWO have no plans to build concentration camps, or slave encampments or anything else. Such measures would consume vast resources, create unnecessary trouble and serve no useful function. The OWO can sedate the people by use of TV, Hollywood, computer games, porn, music, alcohol, recreational drugs, sport etc. All of these diversions ensure that the people will never rise up. While mindless mass entertainment exists, the OWO need no concentration camps to control the people.

6) The Bush family is the quintessence of the OWO. Father and son belonged to Yale's Skull and Bones secret society and both became presidents. Another son is a former Governor of Florida and a potential future president. How can one family in a so-called democracy have achieved this degree of power?

7) The Bush family illustrates the workings of the OWO perfectly: very rich, very powerful, very connected, and likely to bestride the American political scene for generations.

8) The OWO do not obsessively control every aspect of life. What they do is take active steps to massively increase the likelihood that they and theirs will have vastly better chances in life than anyone else. George Bush, with his limited abilities, would have achieved nothing significant in life were his name not Bush. Yet because that is his name, he is an American president. The OWO always put family above talent. This is practically enshrined as an American principle, and enjoys huge popular support, yet its inevitable consequence is that it creates unmeritocratic family dynasties that endure for millennia - you can be certain the Bush family will be such a dynasty.

9) Most people are familiar with America's great dynastic families: they are associated with oil, banking, entertainment, media, military, the intelligence services and politics.

10) The OWO are international. American dynastic patriarchs have much more in common with Russian oligarchs than they do with ordinary Americans.

11) The Old World Order's models are the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus Caesar, and the English monarchy at the time of Henry VIII.

12) The OWO are advocates of dynastic rule. Look at America: George Bush, father and son - both American presidents; the Kennedys - could have been in power for decades had they not broken the rules of the OWO and paid the price; the Clintons - husband was president and wife still could be. Daughter might be in the future. Dynastic presidencies have become de rigueur in modern America. How did this come about? By accident or design?

13) The Roman Emperors advocated "Panem et circenses" - bread and circuses. As long as citizens have fast food and cheap entertainment to pacify them, they will not cause serious trouble. Revolutions occur when the ordinary people are starving and have nothing to distract them from their suffering. Can a revolution be launched in the absence of these factors?

14) The Romans had a patrician class (the wealthy and powerful) and a plebeian class (the ordinary people). Isn't it the same in America? The super rich, the Ivy League brigade, spoiled heiresses, the political, media, military, business, banking and legal elites. They are the American patrician class. Everyone else is a plebeian.

15) Roman gladiators were worshipped by the plebeians. What do the Americans have? - super-celebrities from Hollywood, TV, rock 'n' roll and sport, worshipped by legions of American plebeians.

16) In Ancient Rome, artists and intellectuals were a joke. They were usually Greek slaves. Look at artists and intellectuals in America. They are not at the forefront of the national consciousness. The OWO despise intelligence amongst plebeians and do their utmost to ensure that plebeians are poorly educated. They advocate and encourage 'dumbing down'.

17) The Roman Empire was founded on slavery. So was America. The ordinary American people are still slaves. The only difference is that the oppression they suffer is not overt.

18) Look at the British Royal family. The Queen refers to the British people as her 'subjects'. She can't be removed as head of state. Her crown, her status, her wealth and power will be transmitted to her son. No one else is eligible. Merit in Britain is effectively illegal since the head of state is never at any stage subjected to any meritocratic criterion. Britain remains one of the most class divided societies in the world.

19) Look at British politicians. Tony Blair, from a highly privileged background, was a recent prime minister, and now his children are being groomed to follow in his footsteps. The leader of the British Conservative Party is one of the richest men in the nation. He is an old Etonian and was a member of the super elite Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. His closest colleagues all come from similarly privileged backgrounds. The Mayor of London and the shadow Chancellor both attended the Bullingdon Club with Cameron.

20) As of October 2008, America has had forty-three presidents and two of them have been the father and son team of the Bush's. What are the odds?

21) Three of the forty-three presidents have been members of the tiny, elite secret society Skull and Bones. What are the odds? John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in 2004, was a member of Skull and Bones. In other words, no matter if you voted Democrat or Republican in 2004, you would still get a Skull and Bones man in the White House. And you think you have a choice? Choice is an illusion in so-called democracies. Democracy is an instrument used to control the people and make them vote for their OWO oppressors. You are much less likely to oppose someone for whom you have voted. You have bought into their mind control system. What good is a vote if you can only vote for the two people they decide to put in front of you? In order for them to be permanently in charge, they simply need to ensure that they control the process by which the presidential candidates are chosen. Then, when you vote, you are invariably voting for one of their people, not one of yours.

22) No doubt there are more Bush's, more Kennedys, more Skull and Bones members being lined up for future high political office.

23) If you're not one of the patricians, you're a nobody. People could choose to stand up and do something about it but they don't because they have been stupefied by the rhetoric and propaganda of the patrician class, they have got their bread and circuses that keep them endlessly distracted, they have their gladiator heroes to worship, their army of imperial conquest to support, their conspiracy theorists to mock, and their 'freedom and democracy' to trumpet.

24) The symbolic head of the Old World Order is the Queen of England. When she parades through the streets, legions of people wave flags and cheer. They are ecstatic about being her subjects - her acknowledged inferiors in every way. That shows you the power of the tyrants. Now imagine a hereditary monarchy with executive power. That's what the Old World Order seek. They dream of dynastic marriages. Imagine a future where the Prince of America marries the Princess of China. That's what's coming if the Old World Order achieves its full ambition.

More about this here.

                       

Web of Privilege

A web of privilege supports this so-called meritocracy

by  Gary Younge

On both sides of the Atlantic, the social ties that bind our political, legal and corporate forces lie exposed. Shortly after Mitt Romney's failed 2008 campaign for the Republican nomination his son Tagg set up a private equity fund with the campaign's top fundraiser. One of the first donors was his mum, Anne. Next came several of his dad's financial backers. Tagg had no experience in the world of finance, but after two years in the middle of a deep recession the company had netted $244m from just 64 investors.

Tagg insists that neither his name nor the fact that his father had made it clear he would run for the presidency again had anything to do with his success. "The reason people invested in us is that they liked our strategies,'' he told the New York Times.

Class privilege, and the power it confers, is often conveniently misunderstood by its beneficiaries as the product of their own genius rather than generations of advantage, stoutly defended and faithfully bequeathed. Evidence of such advantages is not freely available. It is not in the powerful's interest for the rest of us to know how their influence is attained or exercised. But every now and then a dam bursts and the facts come flooding forth.

The Leveson inquiry has provided one such moment. It was set up last year to look into the specific claims about phone hacking at the News of the World, alleged police corruption and the general culture and ethics of the British media. But every time it probes harder into the Murdoch empire it draws blood from the heart of our body politic, telling us a great deal about how Britain's political class in particular and ruling class in general collude, connive and corrupt both systemically and systematically.

Issues of alleged criminality will eventually be determined in the courts. But while illegality would be more damning, much of what we now know that is legal is no less corrosive. The evidence has laid bare the intimate, extensive and insidious web of social, familial and personal ties between the political, corporate and legal forces that govern a country: a patchwork of individual and institutional associations so tightly interwoven that to pick at one part is to watch the whole thing unravel. The "sit downs", pay-offs and class camaraderie on display owe more to a cross between Downton Abbey and the Sopranos than the functioning of a 21st-century democracy.

The details of the main narrative bear repeating. We now know that James Murdoch met with David Cameron 12 times between January 2006 and January 2010 – eight times for dinner, twice for breakfast, once for lunch and once for drinks. Between May 2010 and July 2011 there were also more than 60 meetings between ministers and either Rupert Murdoch, his son James, the then News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks or James Harding, the editor of the Times. That averages around one a week. We know there were more, but not all were logged as such by Downing Street.

The subplots are stunning. And the forthcoming attractions could yet overshadow the lot. Now that Brooks has agreed to hand over her text messages to Cameron, we are about to learn whether rumours that they exchanged as many as 12 texts a day are true.

Brooks was arrested both on suspicion of phone hacking and corruption last year. She was arrested again this year with her husband, Charlie Brooks, on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. Charlie went to Eton with Cameron – as did the Tory mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Such is the incestuous nature of the British ruling class and the gene puddle from which it draws its stock. Such is their brazen venality, complicity, contempt and mendacity. Eton, Oxford, Bullingdon, Westminster – if you're looking for a tiny minority who are struggling to integrate, look no further than the cabinet.

Two things make this a matter of import as well as intrigue. The first is the lie it gives to the insistence on meritocracy at a time of acute economic crisis when benefits are slashed, the poor hammered.
Cameron and his cabinet insist others pull themselves up by their bootstraps even as they themselves swan around in their parents' expensive pairs of loafers. Today almost 40% of MPs went to private school. In 1997 it was just 30%. In terms of social mobility, we are going backwards. The issue here is not class envy but class entrenchment. The fact that they were born rich is irrelevant. They had no choice in the matter. But the fact that they appear to want to give even more to those who already have a great deal while denying much to those who have little is unforgiveable.

The one job Cameron landed in the private sector was arranged by his wife's mother, Lady Astor, who was friends with Michael Green, then executive chairman of Carlton. Green gave Cameron a starting salary of £90,000. He has no more had to stand on his merits than James Murdoch had to interview for a job at News Corp.

Rocked in the cradle of power from birth so that its rhythms become second nature, these people imbibe their sense of entitlement with their mother's milk. But the personal tutors, private schools, the most expensive universities do not, somehow, suffice. As though the benefits of wealth were not enough, they apparently feel the need to game the very system they already control.