Skip to main content

Does anyone even want to know what is happening?

George Floyd chants, from almost the moment of his arrest,  "I can't breathe". This is a political chant in the USA dating from 2014,  but the mainstream media ignore this and focus on the chant just before he died.  The policeman "killed" during the riot at the US Congress turns out to have died of a stroke. So no police died from the "storming of the Capitol", only a young woman demonstrator.  The WHO team "investigating" the origins of COVID was obstructed by China and the senior scientist who gave the conclusion that COVID "was not a lab escape" worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and would have been at the centre of any recriminations for a leak. Yet the mainstream media reported this as a credible announcement.  Black Lives Matter is a Maoist group financed by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and is now called by its original name: "The Black Liberation Movement".  Yet the mainstream media mention none of this.

At first sight it looks like the media is following and amplifying stories without any structured investigation of the truth; but can they all be doing this?  It looks more like the media are organised into groups that present a story in a certain way.  They seem to be in political groups so whereas the Washington Post will make a big story out of the policeman who died at the Capitol having died of natural causes much of the rest of the press will quietly hide this new fact on their internet sites, like the BBC, and avoid broadcasting it.  

The media have always been aligned with their favorite political movements but what is new is that they are now presenting propaganda for the movements rather than simply suppressing news from the other side.

Where is the fault line between the two political groups?  Given that the alignment of the media is a global phenomenon it cannot lie in national politics.  The fault line is best illustrated by the 1960s "Star Trek" films produced by Gene Roddenberry in which the world is imagined to have a global government. In this new world all of the people share the same culture and they dress in tight, but soft uniforms that are loosely based on 1960s fashions.  The TV series and films were very popular. Roddenberry's financial legacy was used to set up the Roddenberry Foundation which supports globalism and his creative legacy gives us a clear view of the globalist future.

Superficially it looks like the battle is between those who like the idea of a Star Trek world where everyone adopts the same culture against the people who imagine a diverse world with different parts having different cultures.  China, most teachers and academics, public sector workers and Corporates prefer the Star Trek idea. This fits well with the global spread of the culture war, megastates like China, the USA and EU, which are land empires that need to create uniformity from diverse populations, have a majority in favour of Star Trek living and the rest of the world is not so keen.

Recently the Trekkies have overdosed on postmodernism and are prepared to ditch the idea of the "whole truth" to obtain their ends.  This entails constructing narratives to support their world view whilst giving no access to outside truths.   This way lies the next wave of totalitarianism.

This truly is a crazy world in which the anti-racists are the people who dream of an end to diversity and a coffee coloured, secular world whilst their enemies struggle to retain cultural difference.  The internationalists dream of global government whilst reassuring us that this means independence for all nations. It is all bizarre.

Make no mistake.  The view of the future popularised by the multinationals and China is the most dangerous problem humanity has ever faced.  It will result in a total Surveillance State with global reach that no-one can escape.

20/4/2021



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b
35 comments
Read more

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H
1 comment
Read more

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage
15 comments
Read more