"Either you think – or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
An excellent article by Whig, on the Adam Smith Institute website, highlights how the 'voluntary' sector is being subsumed into the state as a voice of the state, thus enabling the continuance of social engineering to be accomplished.
According to Wikipedia "Communitarianism" is an ideology that maintains the responsibility of the individual is to their community, emphasizing the family unit. The European Union and politicians have usurped this and applied it in order to further their own ends - in other words they intend us to believe we are all one community and of one family and that our responsibility is to them and the state. We can call this communism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, or any other name you may wish to apply, but at the end of the day it boils to down to one word: 'control' - control of the people and their minds. Ian Parker-Joseph uses the term 'Marxism', a post in which he mentions Cameron's 'Big Society' idea, an idea that continues the subservience of volunteers in that each group of volunteers will have the 'assistance' of the government in the form of a minister or bureaucrat to 'guide' them.
The people of this country are in the process of being brainwashed to ask only those questions the political elite will allow and are, at the same time, being programmed to see every political decision as one that is unquestionably correct. This brainwashing, or social engineering, has now reached a stage where it appears that Britons are no longer able to see what is happening to them and their country.
As I have posted previously, the media are complicit in this process of brainwashing, or social engineering, because if the public does not receive all the information required for them to make an informed decision on any particular subject, it must follow that some form of news censorship is taking place. Whilst the media deliberately 'overlook' some news stories, or cover them superficially, others are covered to distraction - the latter which may be termed as 'junk news'.
That our governments both at home and abroad are making it a crime to have an opinion, limiting our freedom of action and choice, are themselves committing a crime- and it is about time that the people of this country exercised their right of making a citizen's arrest.
10 comments:
Great post WfW
As I see it we have a nasty two way street between government and many large, national or supra-national charities.
There are, of course, many kinds of charity, medical charities are probably the most altruistic and independent, animal charities cross the complete range of charitable existence from the respected RSPCA (although I wouldn't give them the time of day) to the unacceptable animal rights nutters. There are also the charities that are in existence purely to provide fat salaries for their executives. Nothing new, I recall the furore when Oxfam in its earliest days was accused of spending over 90% of its donations on administration. There are, as we know the environmental charities that work tirelessly for international socialism as well as local NIMBY charities, plus the educational charities and worst by far, party political or government sponsored charities providing 'legitimate' public opinion that just happens to mirror political policy intentions.
We have all seen just how a coalition of Children's charities have effectively co-opted and steered governments of all parties in their ideological direction and are probably single-handedly responsible for the chaotic incompetence of our children's social services. Similarly we see animal protection legislation based on RSPCA formulation as well as condoning RSPCA officers acting as police officers, quite illegally, of course. We all know Greenpeace and WWF et al control not only national government but also EU and UN environmental and climate change policy.
Governments fund and accommodate these organisations for several reasons; to keep them 'on side' because they do have public influence and easy access to the press, because they can justify doing things by pointing out that charities are asking for it, because they can in turn rely on the charities to promote the party or government line and steer 'public' debate, because they can then expect political support in other areas, because it allows a measure of control over their activities. As I say, a nasty two street of mutual back-scratching.
Cameron's big society is simply formalising what has been an ad hoc relationship to ensure even more control on the one hand and distancing government from direct contact and thus responsibility on the other.
The more I see of Cameron the more I see a fascist in the Mosely tradition.
WfW, I too agree this is a good posting. The one thing that I have learned is that socialism is relentless; it never takes no for an answer. And that's why it's so hard to fight against. It wears people down with its incessant demands and its superficial reasonableness. It becomes easier to say why not rather than no.
In my opinion, there should never be any compromise, any concessions to socialism. It has to be destroyed. The problem is, it is in the ascendency in those governing bodies that are supposed to be protecting us from such extremism.
I've downloaded a number of annual accounts for various "charities", and one alarming reference that usually crops up is "The Third Sector". If it doesn't appear in the accounts, it invariably does on their websites.
This is basically a Government department, and is just a vehicle to hand out taxpayers money. It has its own organisation and website, which is full of non-jobs, Guardian style.
There also seems to be a common thread which I have seen in reports:
"The principal objects and activities of the Foundation are:-
• The promotion of any charitable purposes for the benefit of the community in the County of *******
and its immediate neighbourhood and in particular the advancement of education, the protection of
good health both mental and physical, and the relief of poverty and sickness.
• Other exclusively charitable purposes in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, which are, in the opinion
of the directors, beneficial to the community with a preference for those in the area of benefit."
That covers just about anything you could think of!!!
As I posted on recently, it's also typical for the majority of a "charities" income to be derived from Government, or government supported sources.
The only charity I support is the RNLI...
To follow on from microdave, any charity that receives a large amount of its money from the state is not really a charity at all, it's a quango that receives special tax treatment.
Elsewhere we use the term 'fake charity' to describe such organisations. Many of them can be seen scaremongering when there's any hint of a suggestion that they might lose some of their funding. Several pay their top staff quite a lot of money, too.
If I wasn't taxed to pay all this money to charities that might not be my first choice, I might have a bit more to give to charities that I prefer to support.
Not much of a fan of Noam Chomsky but this quote is great:
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
Yes, a good post wfw. What a nightmare EU "family" you depict - brutal parents, bigger siblings beating up the smaller ones, scapegoats getting the blame for everything, and filthy secrets which must never be revealed.
Socialism: The Big Scary Monster.
I doubt we have socialism in its true form.
Modern socialism is just a means of gaining power, if not socialism it will be fascism, capital[ism] or any other ism you wish make up.
At the end of the day, it is just gaining power FROM the people in order to RULE the people, usually without explicit consent.
You're just falling into the trap of adopting an anti-ism, instead of being anti-government.
K: Thank you
PC: A vicious circle in fact and yes totally agree with your last two paragraphs.
jic: Thank you too - unfortuantely you will never, I think, eradicate socialism completely.... :(
md: Yup, the Third Sector - very Orwellian..... and you are also right as to charities having roughly the same mission statements.
DH: Agreed.
TM: A good observation and quote - thanks.
I:thank you too for your comment.
Anon: Anti-ism is anti-govt....
One major name, which influences all aspects towards global governance, has been overlooked: The Bilderburg Committee consisting of the most dangerous group of influential individuals in the world, and who meet in secret.
Post a Comment