Born in 1947 and growing up in a NZ that was relatively prosperous and stable, I used to believe that regardless which political party was in power the government, the legal system, the police and the medical system pretty well had my back. Not any longer. The crunch came for me early in the whole sorry covid saga when, to borrow from the late Peter Mahon, I realised that what was being fed to us was an orchestrated litany of lies. When this became clear to me, early in 2020, I became profoundly depressed. I felt as though my previously solid ground was actually shifting sand, and I know I was not alone in this. I finally "recalibrated" and accepted that my previous certainties were gone forever and nothing since has caused me to revert to my previous mindset.
Thanks for your comment Aroha and apologies for the later reply. Institutions foster certainties and your comments about "shifting sand" is what follows. I wonder what can be done to rebuild trust and confidence in those institutions which have suffered from erosion
I'm not sure this is going to be possible until the Augean stables are cleaned out. By this I mean that the current crop of critical theory influenced policy makers and educators pass through (yes, I know this is a hobby-horse of mine!). In other words it will take many years to rebuild trust and confidence in those institutions which have suffered from erosion.
A good starting place would be for members of said institutions to tell the truth and stop treating the general public as though they are slightly slow. I'm sick and tired of news releases being headed up by "What you need to know", which actually translates as "This is how we want you to see it".
I'm a similar age to Aroha (above) and feel exactly the same. I was shocked at the response of Chris Hipkins and his crowd to the visit of Kellie Jay Keen last year, and to the events at Albert Park. These were my Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Crown who repeated the lies, used incorrect and pejorative language and encouraged and cheered on the mobsters. Really shocked! I expected some mature gravitas from the people who lead the country and govern FOR ALL NEW ZEALANDERS! They acted like immature teenagers who were in some kind of popularity contest.
And now my concern deepens with this information about the Supreme Court. What gets into a High Court judge when they so blatantly step outside the limits to promote their own values. What gets into a Prime Minister who forgets the obligations of his role? And the police? Now we are hearing about the incident of a peaceful protestor being arrested for what we can all see are spurious reasons. And the mainstream media, which has let us down so badly.
The ground has shifted under my feet too...... and I'm wondering, will it continue with the younger generations because it's all they know?
Thanks for your comment Sheryl. As you can imagine, the Court system is of particular interest to me and the law has been my life. What is encouraging for me at least is that there are voices that are far more respected than mine that are saying the same thing. Hopefully we may see some judicial restraint in future.
I agree about China, although I would actually prefer to keep the Anglo-American network at arm's length too. I reckon NZ should restart its manufacturing industries, cancel all free trade agreements and become the Switzerland of the South Pacific. Self sufficient. Every citizen militarily trained and armed, just in case. But of course that's not likely to happen -- well, unless somebody up in the northern hemisphere DOES start a nuclear war (in which case I would disconnect my water supply from the roof, cover my garden with something that lets light in and hopefully keeps radioactive dust out and hunker down with me local mates. Be good if Marsden Point were working again before then, but shanks's pony would do, at least for as long as it and I maintain good relations.
Meanwhile enjoy London, while one can! It's a pleasant city, or at least used to be. I spent a bit of time at UCL back in the 80s, but haven't been there since.
I think you're being a LITTLE over-cautious demanding "documents of the time", given that the whole point of the organization we're discussing was to be secret :-) -- you know about "Chatham House rules", right?! But OK, let's try to accommodate. Do newspaper reports of the time count?
As long ago as 1981, most of the NZ Labour Members of Parliament were also members of an organization called Parliamentarians for World Order. On 21st of May 1981, the New Zealand Herald reported that Richard Prebble, then Labour MP for Auckland Central, had been appointed one of 12 councillors of the then one-year-old NZ branch of Parliamentarians for World Order (PWO). PWO consisted of representatives from 36 countries, the Herald article said, and only parliamentarians could belong. In June 1986 Geoffrey Palmer, then Deputy PM, told the Christchurch Press that he was a member and added "There are approximately 40 New Zealand MPs from all political parties who are members." But then, a mere eight months later, the same Geoffrey Palmer told another correspondent "I am not a member of the Parliamentarians for World Order. I am unable to supply you with any information about that organisation."
Really? What happened? Easy answer – the name of the organisation had been changed, apparently to something deemed less threatening. In a letter dated 4th December 1986, Helen Clark reportedly told a correspondent "Yes, I am the branch secretary for Parliamentarians for Global Action in New Zealand. It is an international organization of legislators which aims to promote disarmament, development and more effective international institutions ... Most Labour Members of Parliament belong to our branch as do a small number of National members".
OK then. Like most of what the United Nations and other globalist organisations choose to publish about their aims, this seems on the surface to be a very "mom 'n' apple pie" sort of goal – certainly innocuous, possibly even delicious. Who could possibly object to "disarmament, development and more effective international institutions"? Well, let's take a look at how the Free Trade arm of this avowed internationalisation agenda has worked out for New Zealand.
Sadly I don't know how to pin a figure to this box, but basically if you ask Statistics NZ for a time line of balance of payments, you will (still, I hope) find a graph showing that from 1950 to the aforementioned Ms Clark's unannounced introduction of a plethora of free trade agreements, NZ's balance of payments was pretty much zero -- didn't import more than we exported and vice versa. Then, free trade essentially made it so much cheaper to import manufactured goods from countries where workers that were paid a dollar a day that our hitherto flourishing manufacturing industry was completely killed off, leaving NZ with only two industries (which couldn't be off-shored) -- primary production and tourism. This meant our balance of payments started fluctuating wildly in a seasonal pattern, with the average trending inexorably downwards. I could rant on this topic for some time, but this forum is not the place for it.
Meanwhile, yes Clark was Ardern's mentor -- they reportedly spoke on the phone every morning during the covid period. And yes, Clark is certainly the brains of that outfit, but not in a good way. For example, her last act as Minister of Health at the end of the 1990 Labour govt was to disestablish the NZ MRC and replace it with the NZ HRC. The NZ HRC was set up to be structurally biased towards her husband's research field, epidemiology (which hadn't been getting much funding from the MRC because it's not a science at all, in that it can't TEST any of its hypotheses (aka mathematical models) so just announces these as "the science" without further ado. As a direct result of this change and natural attrition, there are now no genuine medical scientists left in NZ to tell the truth about the pandemic scam .... Oh, this is a very long-term agenda promoted by the UN. Suggest you look with a language-piercing eye at Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030, David. Those are certainly documents of the time, and they're right out in the open!
What you describe as over-caution I characterise as "intellectually rigorous" but lets leave it at that. Thanks for the very full discussion.
I was well aware of Helen Clark's support for Peter Davis' research and I understand that they jointly fund the Helen Clark Foundation of which - mirabile dictu - Davis is the Chair. I read with increasing concern Clark's opposition to AUKUS and what seems to be a not-so-hidden agenda to continue the alignment of NZ foreign policy with China under the guise of an "independent foreign policy". A reading of Frank Dikotter's books on the history of Chinma since 1949 would suggest that this is a country that we should keep at arms length.
Thanks David. I already gave you the source of the evidence supporting the Cecil Rhodes world government theory -- a 1,347 page tome written by Carroll Quigley and published in 1966 by MacMillan NY., Collier-MacMillan Toronto and Collier-MacMillan London. Quigley, who may or may not have been a covert member of the CFR, by his own testimony was given access to their classified papers and more or less commissioned to write a history of the group. They didn't expect him to PUBLISH this history though (they were, after all, still an avowedly secret society) and when he did they quickly took steps to suppress the book. Fortunately for the rest of us, those steps were unsuccessful. I borrowed the book from the excellent Auckland Public Library system early in the first lockdown (they sweetly got it delivered from the branch library that held it to my local library, took it out for me and handed it over the 2 metre barrier at their main door)! If you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole book there's a summary of it availoable here https://www.joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-101. Quigley also wrote a shorter but slightly less readable book, "The Anglo-American Establishment -- from Rhodes to Cliveden" which was published by Dauphin publications in 1981. Ask Amazon about that one. Arnold J. Toynbee, writing in the November 1931 editon of International Affairs, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin in The Quigley Formula http://youtu.be/ynVqPnMQ2sI?t=42m33s "I will hereby repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all of our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands".
According Quigley, The Network that grew out of the original Rhodes secret society remains active to the present day, in the form of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States of America and various other organisations in other Anglo-American countries (e.g. Chatham House in England). In this context, it is interesting to note that Helen Clark is currently president of Chatham House.
Thanks but I was thinking of primary sources rather than a secondary source which is what Quigley amounts to. I am not being dismissive but my PhD was in history - legal history - which relied very heavily on documents of the time. But thanks for noting the source. I don’t uncritically buy into some of your conclusions but it is important that you state you view and be able to do so. That said, anything that Helen Clark is involved in these days is questionable. I place her on a par with JA although HC did have more intellect heft.
I, too, am a baby boomer, who grew up in NZ during the 50s. Yes, everything has certainly changed. What concerns me is that neither the very erudite author of this essay, nor the two commenters on it so far, seems to have any idea about the driver of these changes. This driver was, perhaps, first outlined by Harvard history professor Carroll Quigley, in his magnum opus "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time". Quigley describes the root of the whole thing as the society started in the early 20th century at Oxford University, by Cecil Rhodes. The goal of this avowedly secret society was to establish a world government, which would essentially spread the British Empire to all parts of the globe. This aim was seen to necessitate the complete destruction of national sovereignty and the consolidation and control of the real levers of power throughout the world in the hands of members of what Quigley calls The Network, or the Anglo-American Establishment. The members of this network, were, he says, "satisfied to possess the reality, rather than the appearance of power".
But how to achieve such a grandiose aim? The first requirement was essentially to destroy national sovereignty. Can't have the plebs thinking they can rule themselves. In order to do this, it was deemed a good idea to invent global problems, which individual national governments would be seen by their populace as unable to handle. Thus the sheeple would be induced to WANT a global government, which would be seen as the only thing that could SAVE them from these terrible problems. At present, the two main such problems are presented as (1) pandemics (which are conveniently generated by development of engineered viral bioweapons) and (2) a(n entirely fictional) 'climate crisis' (for evidence of the fictional nature of this please see https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/03/dr-susan-pockett-obliterating-climate.html).
These two problems are now actually already being "handled" globally, simply by the imposition of coercive strategies straight out of the Leninist playbook (the difference between Marxism and Leninism being described by G. Edward Griffin as the difference between theory and raw power -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsEzBjOias). Reading Orwell's dystopian novels has almost certainly helped. Unfortunately, Rhodes's original project soon got muddled together with the eugenics movement, which arose from the acceptance by the entire British intelligentsia of the period of Thomas Malthus's mathematical model showing that if the human race continued to procreate at current rates we would eat ourselves out of house and home within a decade (this was over a century ago). The eugenics movement soon found fertile ground in America, where William Gates the first was a fervent supporter (hence his grandson's stated espousal of the use of vaccines for population reduction).
Of course there is much more to be said in this area -- for example about the formation of the WEF by Henry Kissinger, one of the biggest wheels in the US Council on Foreign Relations, which Quigley names as having grown out of the original Rhodes Network in America. The WEF's practice of copying the Rhodes Scholarships by indoctrinating WEF Young Global Leaders and implanting them in a frightening number of national governments (NZ, Canada, France, Holland etc) has been especially successful. Once a government is thus infiltrated, the bureaucracy of the state in question is of course populated with appointees, who remain when the original infiltrator is voted out and are thus much harder to get rid of than their elected supposed masters.
I had thought that most of this was widely known by now. But no, apparently not. Thinking people can certainly see the unpleasant results. But apparently they still need to be educated about the drivers of those results. Sigh. Perhaps I SHOULD go to the trouble of starting a SubStack.
Thanks for your comment Susan. I didn't want to look into the causes of the erosion of our institutions but rather describe what had happened.
I find your commentary interesting al;though I am not sure that I can adopt it entirely. I wonder where the evidence is that supports the Cecil Rhodes world government theory. I know and accept that Rhodes wanted most of the east coast of Africa coloured red and the development of a Cape to Cairo railway. I am also aware of an association Rhodes had with an outfit called the Milner Group but whether or not that association was in the nature of likeminded imperialists sitting in a Club and imagining what the world could be or an actual plan to do so is not clear on the evidence. It sounds like an early iteration of concerns about the WEF.
I understand your concerns about the management of the pandemic (we seem to be waking up to that, and that the "climate change" crisis is a reason for greater control of the populace, but is that an international movement or one adopted by nation states to cement their own agenda.
Maybe you should start a substack - more voices in the room is a good thing.
Born in 1947 and growing up in a NZ that was relatively prosperous and stable, I used to believe that regardless which political party was in power the government, the legal system, the police and the medical system pretty well had my back. Not any longer. The crunch came for me early in the whole sorry covid saga when, to borrow from the late Peter Mahon, I realised that what was being fed to us was an orchestrated litany of lies. When this became clear to me, early in 2020, I became profoundly depressed. I felt as though my previously solid ground was actually shifting sand, and I know I was not alone in this. I finally "recalibrated" and accepted that my previous certainties were gone forever and nothing since has caused me to revert to my previous mindset.
Thanks for your comment Aroha and apologies for the later reply. Institutions foster certainties and your comments about "shifting sand" is what follows. I wonder what can be done to rebuild trust and confidence in those institutions which have suffered from erosion
I'm not sure this is going to be possible until the Augean stables are cleaned out. By this I mean that the current crop of critical theory influenced policy makers and educators pass through (yes, I know this is a hobby-horse of mine!). In other words it will take many years to rebuild trust and confidence in those institutions which have suffered from erosion.
A good starting place would be for members of said institutions to tell the truth and stop treating the general public as though they are slightly slow. I'm sick and tired of news releases being headed up by "What you need to know", which actually translates as "This is how we want you to see it".
I entirely agree but giving a straigh answer is not in the DNA of bureaucrats or politicians.
I'm a similar age to Aroha (above) and feel exactly the same. I was shocked at the response of Chris Hipkins and his crowd to the visit of Kellie Jay Keen last year, and to the events at Albert Park. These were my Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Crown who repeated the lies, used incorrect and pejorative language and encouraged and cheered on the mobsters. Really shocked! I expected some mature gravitas from the people who lead the country and govern FOR ALL NEW ZEALANDERS! They acted like immature teenagers who were in some kind of popularity contest.
And now my concern deepens with this information about the Supreme Court. What gets into a High Court judge when they so blatantly step outside the limits to promote their own values. What gets into a Prime Minister who forgets the obligations of his role? And the police? Now we are hearing about the incident of a peaceful protestor being arrested for what we can all see are spurious reasons. And the mainstream media, which has let us down so badly.
The ground has shifted under my feet too...... and I'm wondering, will it continue with the younger generations because it's all they know?
Thanks for your comment Sheryl. As you can imagine, the Court system is of particular interest to me and the law has been my life. What is encouraging for me at least is that there are voices that are far more respected than mine that are saying the same thing. Hopefully we may see some judicial restraint in future.
Hi David
I agree about China, although I would actually prefer to keep the Anglo-American network at arm's length too. I reckon NZ should restart its manufacturing industries, cancel all free trade agreements and become the Switzerland of the South Pacific. Self sufficient. Every citizen militarily trained and armed, just in case. But of course that's not likely to happen -- well, unless somebody up in the northern hemisphere DOES start a nuclear war (in which case I would disconnect my water supply from the roof, cover my garden with something that lets light in and hopefully keeps radioactive dust out and hunker down with me local mates. Be good if Marsden Point were working again before then, but shanks's pony would do, at least for as long as it and I maintain good relations.
Meanwhile enjoy London, while one can! It's a pleasant city, or at least used to be. I spent a bit of time at UCL back in the 80s, but haven't been there since.
Anyway, thanks for the entertaining discussion.
Supersue @waiheke42
I think you're being a LITTLE over-cautious demanding "documents of the time", given that the whole point of the organization we're discussing was to be secret :-) -- you know about "Chatham House rules", right?! But OK, let's try to accommodate. Do newspaper reports of the time count?
As long ago as 1981, most of the NZ Labour Members of Parliament were also members of an organization called Parliamentarians for World Order. On 21st of May 1981, the New Zealand Herald reported that Richard Prebble, then Labour MP for Auckland Central, had been appointed one of 12 councillors of the then one-year-old NZ branch of Parliamentarians for World Order (PWO). PWO consisted of representatives from 36 countries, the Herald article said, and only parliamentarians could belong. In June 1986 Geoffrey Palmer, then Deputy PM, told the Christchurch Press that he was a member and added "There are approximately 40 New Zealand MPs from all political parties who are members." But then, a mere eight months later, the same Geoffrey Palmer told another correspondent "I am not a member of the Parliamentarians for World Order. I am unable to supply you with any information about that organisation."
Really? What happened? Easy answer – the name of the organisation had been changed, apparently to something deemed less threatening. In a letter dated 4th December 1986, Helen Clark reportedly told a correspondent "Yes, I am the branch secretary for Parliamentarians for Global Action in New Zealand. It is an international organization of legislators which aims to promote disarmament, development and more effective international institutions ... Most Labour Members of Parliament belong to our branch as do a small number of National members".
OK then. Like most of what the United Nations and other globalist organisations choose to publish about their aims, this seems on the surface to be a very "mom 'n' apple pie" sort of goal – certainly innocuous, possibly even delicious. Who could possibly object to "disarmament, development and more effective international institutions"? Well, let's take a look at how the Free Trade arm of this avowed internationalisation agenda has worked out for New Zealand.
Sadly I don't know how to pin a figure to this box, but basically if you ask Statistics NZ for a time line of balance of payments, you will (still, I hope) find a graph showing that from 1950 to the aforementioned Ms Clark's unannounced introduction of a plethora of free trade agreements, NZ's balance of payments was pretty much zero -- didn't import more than we exported and vice versa. Then, free trade essentially made it so much cheaper to import manufactured goods from countries where workers that were paid a dollar a day that our hitherto flourishing manufacturing industry was completely killed off, leaving NZ with only two industries (which couldn't be off-shored) -- primary production and tourism. This meant our balance of payments started fluctuating wildly in a seasonal pattern, with the average trending inexorably downwards. I could rant on this topic for some time, but this forum is not the place for it.
Meanwhile, yes Clark was Ardern's mentor -- they reportedly spoke on the phone every morning during the covid period. And yes, Clark is certainly the brains of that outfit, but not in a good way. For example, her last act as Minister of Health at the end of the 1990 Labour govt was to disestablish the NZ MRC and replace it with the NZ HRC. The NZ HRC was set up to be structurally biased towards her husband's research field, epidemiology (which hadn't been getting much funding from the MRC because it's not a science at all, in that it can't TEST any of its hypotheses (aka mathematical models) so just announces these as "the science" without further ado. As a direct result of this change and natural attrition, there are now no genuine medical scientists left in NZ to tell the truth about the pandemic scam .... Oh, this is a very long-term agenda promoted by the UN. Suggest you look with a language-piercing eye at Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030, David. Those are certainly documents of the time, and they're right out in the open!
Hi Susan
What you describe as over-caution I characterise as "intellectually rigorous" but lets leave it at that. Thanks for the very full discussion.
I was well aware of Helen Clark's support for Peter Davis' research and I understand that they jointly fund the Helen Clark Foundation of which - mirabile dictu - Davis is the Chair. I read with increasing concern Clark's opposition to AUKUS and what seems to be a not-so-hidden agenda to continue the alignment of NZ foreign policy with China under the guise of an "independent foreign policy". A reading of Frank Dikotter's books on the history of Chinma since 1949 would suggest that this is a country that we should keep at arms length.
Thanks David. I already gave you the source of the evidence supporting the Cecil Rhodes world government theory -- a 1,347 page tome written by Carroll Quigley and published in 1966 by MacMillan NY., Collier-MacMillan Toronto and Collier-MacMillan London. Quigley, who may or may not have been a covert member of the CFR, by his own testimony was given access to their classified papers and more or less commissioned to write a history of the group. They didn't expect him to PUBLISH this history though (they were, after all, still an avowedly secret society) and when he did they quickly took steps to suppress the book. Fortunately for the rest of us, those steps were unsuccessful. I borrowed the book from the excellent Auckland Public Library system early in the first lockdown (they sweetly got it delivered from the branch library that held it to my local library, took it out for me and handed it over the 2 metre barrier at their main door)! If you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole book there's a summary of it availoable here https://www.joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-101. Quigley also wrote a shorter but slightly less readable book, "The Anglo-American Establishment -- from Rhodes to Cliveden" which was published by Dauphin publications in 1981. Ask Amazon about that one. Arnold J. Toynbee, writing in the November 1931 editon of International Affairs, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin in The Quigley Formula http://youtu.be/ynVqPnMQ2sI?t=42m33s "I will hereby repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all of our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands".
According Quigley, The Network that grew out of the original Rhodes secret society remains active to the present day, in the form of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States of America and various other organisations in other Anglo-American countries (e.g. Chatham House in England). In this context, it is interesting to note that Helen Clark is currently president of Chatham House.
Thanks but I was thinking of primary sources rather than a secondary source which is what Quigley amounts to. I am not being dismissive but my PhD was in history - legal history - which relied very heavily on documents of the time. But thanks for noting the source. I don’t uncritically buy into some of your conclusions but it is important that you state you view and be able to do so. That said, anything that Helen Clark is involved in these days is questionable. I place her on a par with JA although HC did have more intellect heft.
PS I will be staying around the corner from the original Chatham House when in London later this year.
I, too, am a baby boomer, who grew up in NZ during the 50s. Yes, everything has certainly changed. What concerns me is that neither the very erudite author of this essay, nor the two commenters on it so far, seems to have any idea about the driver of these changes. This driver was, perhaps, first outlined by Harvard history professor Carroll Quigley, in his magnum opus "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time". Quigley describes the root of the whole thing as the society started in the early 20th century at Oxford University, by Cecil Rhodes. The goal of this avowedly secret society was to establish a world government, which would essentially spread the British Empire to all parts of the globe. This aim was seen to necessitate the complete destruction of national sovereignty and the consolidation and control of the real levers of power throughout the world in the hands of members of what Quigley calls The Network, or the Anglo-American Establishment. The members of this network, were, he says, "satisfied to possess the reality, rather than the appearance of power".
But how to achieve such a grandiose aim? The first requirement was essentially to destroy national sovereignty. Can't have the plebs thinking they can rule themselves. In order to do this, it was deemed a good idea to invent global problems, which individual national governments would be seen by their populace as unable to handle. Thus the sheeple would be induced to WANT a global government, which would be seen as the only thing that could SAVE them from these terrible problems. At present, the two main such problems are presented as (1) pandemics (which are conveniently generated by development of engineered viral bioweapons) and (2) a(n entirely fictional) 'climate crisis' (for evidence of the fictional nature of this please see https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/03/dr-susan-pockett-obliterating-climate.html).
These two problems are now actually already being "handled" globally, simply by the imposition of coercive strategies straight out of the Leninist playbook (the difference between Marxism and Leninism being described by G. Edward Griffin as the difference between theory and raw power -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsEzBjOias). Reading Orwell's dystopian novels has almost certainly helped. Unfortunately, Rhodes's original project soon got muddled together with the eugenics movement, which arose from the acceptance by the entire British intelligentsia of the period of Thomas Malthus's mathematical model showing that if the human race continued to procreate at current rates we would eat ourselves out of house and home within a decade (this was over a century ago). The eugenics movement soon found fertile ground in America, where William Gates the first was a fervent supporter (hence his grandson's stated espousal of the use of vaccines for population reduction).
Of course there is much more to be said in this area -- for example about the formation of the WEF by Henry Kissinger, one of the biggest wheels in the US Council on Foreign Relations, which Quigley names as having grown out of the original Rhodes Network in America. The WEF's practice of copying the Rhodes Scholarships by indoctrinating WEF Young Global Leaders and implanting them in a frightening number of national governments (NZ, Canada, France, Holland etc) has been especially successful. Once a government is thus infiltrated, the bureaucracy of the state in question is of course populated with appointees, who remain when the original infiltrator is voted out and are thus much harder to get rid of than their elected supposed masters.
I had thought that most of this was widely known by now. But no, apparently not. Thinking people can certainly see the unpleasant results. But apparently they still need to be educated about the drivers of those results. Sigh. Perhaps I SHOULD go to the trouble of starting a SubStack.
Thanks for your comment Susan. I didn't want to look into the causes of the erosion of our institutions but rather describe what had happened.
I find your commentary interesting al;though I am not sure that I can adopt it entirely. I wonder where the evidence is that supports the Cecil Rhodes world government theory. I know and accept that Rhodes wanted most of the east coast of Africa coloured red and the development of a Cape to Cairo railway. I am also aware of an association Rhodes had with an outfit called the Milner Group but whether or not that association was in the nature of likeminded imperialists sitting in a Club and imagining what the world could be or an actual plan to do so is not clear on the evidence. It sounds like an early iteration of concerns about the WEF.
I understand your concerns about the management of the pandemic (we seem to be waking up to that, and that the "climate change" crisis is a reason for greater control of the populace, but is that an international movement or one adopted by nation states to cement their own agenda.
Maybe you should start a substack - more voices in the room is a good thing.