thegreatresoot Offline

83 Male from Phenix City       43

MartianLiposome: #ENTJgang
4 days ago Report Link
thegreatresoot: I know I'm not under alien control!!!

4 days ago Report
MartianLiposome in reply to thegreatresoot:
3 days ago Report
thegreatresoot got the You're Awesome badge from enchanted_kitten 11 days ago Report
14 days ago Report Link
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 14 days ago Report
View all 4 posts
well L I T
well L I T: John
14 days ago Report
Cho_Zen_John: Pepe courtesy of Q the fiery phoenix symbol. A detail that is anonymous to the Q anonse's.

Another controlled opposition strategy to ween out deluded woke mongs just like Ron Paul's revolution bollocks. Made such a difference didn't it. Go you Ron Paul. He was so genuine about outing the infamous deep state he never mentioned a single elite family name or expose the truth about the shadowy british empire thats pulling all the strings. The empire that was supposed to have fell. Yes it fell so hard the crown has 3 states that control the world. All the money, valuable assets, religions and every fucking army on the planet foreign and domestic. They have basically won a game of chess without even a sight of check mate. They just convinced the world they were in check mate. No diff from the grestest trick the devil pulled off was convincing the world he did not exist.


And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.


The British Coat-of-Arms is the Coat-of-Arms of the 12 tribed Kingdom of Israel and Christ their Rightful KING.


The TRUE Israel People have, on their "Coat-of-Arms", a Lion and a Unicorn which is shown as a white horse "rampant" with one horn. The amber Lion "rampant" on the left-side is the emblem of the two-tribed "House of Judah" and the Unicorn or white Wild-Ox "rampant" on the right-side is the emblem of the ten-tribed "House of Israel", collectively making the 12-tribed "Kingdom of Israel".

The word British is Hebrew. It means "the People of the Covenant" or in other words "the People Israel", whose written Constitution; under that Covenant, that they have rejected to their own loss; is written in the Bible (Israel's Book) that they still swear on to tell the Truth, but whose Constitution, under which there are no poor people, is then foolishly rejected by almost everyone, in favour of inferior and unjust, man-made laws and economics which cause poverty and therefore also crime brought about by deprivation and desperation.

The Israelite tribe of Joseph (of the coat of many Colours/Coats-of-Arms) to whom Jacob/Israel gave his new name Israel and his Unicorn-Emblem (Deuteronomy 33:16-17) and the "Coat of Many Colours (many Coats-of-Arms*)", is, in fact, divided into two:- Ephraim and Manasseh.

Deuteronomy 33:16 And for the precious things of the earth and fullness thereof, and [for] the good Will of Him that dwelt in the bush: let ["The Blessing"] come upon the head of Joseph, and the CROWN upon the head of him [that was] separated from his brethren (Gen. 49:10 & 22-24).
33:17 His glory [is like] the firstling of his bullock, and his horns [are like] the horns of UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they [are] the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.
14 days ago Report
Cho_Zen_John in reply to Cho_Zen_John: Something for people to ponder.

Why is it that the British Isle's seems to be the only place on the planet that's never threatened by nature's extreme forces like earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis? Yet we get some of the worst weather consistently. Rain and cold.
14 days ago Report
thegreatresoot: Join the World Economic Frens.
14 days ago Report Link
thegreatresoot: Here's another interesting article from The World Economic Forum. This article was written by Charlotte Edmond. She talks about how a Swedish company called Doconomy, which has partnered with Mastercard, has created a credit card with a carbon-emission spending limit.

This means that your credit card company will monitor the supposed carbon-impact of every single one of your digital purchases. If they decide that the total carbon-impact of all your collective purchases over a given amount of time exceeds their allowable limits, they will cut off your spending when you reach your "carbon max". Think about that for a minute. Credit card companies are now planning to cut off their own customers' ability to access their own money. All under the guise of saving the earth.

The article goes on to detail how companies are offering their customers the privilege of paying extra to offset the carbon cost of their purchases. How kind of them. This is going to lead to a carbon tax, in the not too distant future, where every single one of your purchases will be taxed upon the supposed carbon output it took to produce those goods. It may be voluntary now, but they're conditioning people to accept this as a mandatory part of their daily lives.

These carbon-emission spending limits will work in conjunction with the coming social credit system and cashless society. I will go into those topics further at a later time. However, we now fast approaching a world where if you exceed your "carbon max" purchases, you might find yourself unable to access your own digital money and being denied access to essential goods and services (by multi-national corporations) that you need to survive.

Is this the kind of world that you want you, your family and your community to live in?

This credit card has a carbon-emission spending limit by Charlotte Edmond on May 13, 2019 at

From bananas and sausages to flights and fuel, we all like to keep a tally of what we spend. But whether we monitor the price in dollars, rupees or yuan, it’s unlikely we are also measuring that cost in tons of carbon produced.

Everything we put in our shopping basket comes at an environmental cost. And while many of us are aware that we need to reduce our carbon footprint, advice on doing so can seem nebulous and keeping a tab is difficult.

Tapping into that problem, Swedish fintech company Doconomy has launched a new credit card that monitors the carbon footprint of its customers - and cuts off their spending when they hit their carbon max.

The DO card tracks the CO2 emissions linked to purchases to calculate the carbon impact of every transaction. The aim is to encourage people to actively reduce their carbon footprint and demonstrate the impact that small changes can have on the environment.

The card uses the Aland Index as the basis on which it calculates the carbon footprint of each product purchased. Users can set a maximum value for their carbon spend and learn how to compensate for their carbon footprint by contributing towards schemes to reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions.

A savings product also offered by the company offers an interest rate that includes investment in climate-friendly projects.

The card itself is made from bio-sourced materials, and printed with air ink - ink manufactured from recycled carbon in air pollution.

Doing good, one scoop at a time

The concept of offsetting carbon at the point of transaction is one that is slowly being picked up by companies. A number of airlines including Qantas and Lufthansa offer passengers the chance to pay extra to cover their carbon emissions, with limited uptake.

Last year, ice cream manufacturer Ben & Jerry’s rolled out a system in some shops to allow customers to offset the carbon cost of their cone. Customers could see the amount of carbon generated from their purchases and make voluntary contributions towards carbon-cutting projects elsewhere.

The company used a carbon calculator to work out how much emissions were produced by the ingredients, manufacturing, transport and retail of each tub. The answer was 2lbs (0.9 kg) of carbon - about the equivalent of a car driving 2 miles (3.2 km).
16 days ago Report Link
23 days ago Report Link
thegreatresoot got the Film Buff badge from MartianLiposome 27 days ago Report
thegreatresoot got the Kinky badge from enchanted_kitten 1 month ago Report
thegreatresoot got the Chill badge from WaterThief 1 month ago Report
thegreatresoot got the Social Drinker badge 3 months ago Report
thegreatresoot: Today, I want to share an article titled “COVID-19 as a Case for Social Scoring Systems” by Jesse Hirsh from September 15, 2020 at This is the official website for the Centre for International Governance Innovation headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. The article is centered around the concept and need for developing “social scoring system” to reduce risk during the “pandemic” by informing the public of up-to-date medical information and avoid “superspreading” risk factors.

If this sounds familiar, this is the same type of system that China has developed known as the “social credit system”. This system assigns each citizen a “social credit score” that can rise or fall depending on if their behavior adheres to the wishes of the People's Republic of China’s ruling class. If their behavioral does not fall inline with what’s expected, their lowered social credit score may result in being blocked from services necessary for day-to-day survival; this can be anything from being denied access to schools or transportation to being bared from certain job opportunities. Essentially, however, the punishments can range from whatever their government decides on any particular day and punishable offenses can change on a whim as well. I don’t think I should need to tell you how dangerous such a system poses to individual liberty, especially when combined with modern surveillance states.

Hirsh briefly mentions the similarity between the “social scoring system” and the Chinese “social credit system” and refers to the Chinese system as “misunderstood”. Hirsh mentions how the Chinese social credit system punishes polluters with bad environmental track records, whether individuals or companies, as a way to point out the supposed good such a system promotes in terms of regulating behavior. However, Hirsch completely glosses over concerns citizens may have regarding how the Chinese social credit system regularly abuses the human rights of their citizens or any totalitarian government may act in the future. In fact, Hirsch has no moral qualms with the unprecedented legal and social power of these systems and believed that the “debate around their efficacy and morality remain unresolved”.

Additionally, Hirsch openly admits that such a system is designed not just to inform individuals of health risks but to modify people’s behaviors through punishments and rewards, “The main objection people have to a social credit system, versus other kinds of scoring systems, is that it is a technology of social control designed to influence and shape behaviour. Whether a specific system is in China or North America, this depiction is accurate”.

Furthermore, Hirsh attempts to correlate the social scoring system its proposing with other systems such as financial credit scores or online business reviews as though they were equivalent. This is clearly an attempt to downplay the radical amalgamation and transformation of power with no discernable checks and balances, as if such a system could ever be compatible with human liberty in the first place.

Now, I’ll briefly talk about the Centre for International Governance Innovation which published this article on its website. Jim Balsillie, who founded the Centre for International Governance Innovation in 2001, also oversaw the coordinating partnership between the Canadian Institute of International Affairs and the Centre for International Governance Innovation in which the merger was reborn as the Canadian International Council. The Canadian Institute of International Affairs, today renamed as the Canadian International Council, is the Canadian branch of the Round Table Groups that I’ve written posts about in the past which originated from Cecil Rhodes, the Rhodes Scholarship, the Rhodes Trust, Nathan Rothschild and the Milner Group (to name a few). So, this organization belongs to the same network of globalist organizations I’ve written about in the past which openly advocate their commitment and labor towards the creation of a world government.

This “pandemic” has been used to usher in the greatest centralization of state and corporate power in the history of the world. This centralization of power is occurring on a global scale and is absolutely circumventing the rights and national sovereignty citizens of every nation state. I’ll try to write more about this in the future, but I felt it was imperative to share this article to anybody who might actually care. If these measures are adopted by western governments, especially America, eventually there will be no more freedom left in the world. Normal people will be completely dependent on the approval of the governments, corporations and organizations running these social credit systems just to be able to secure the goods and services necessary to survive. All forms of speech that are ruled politically or socially “dissident” will result in brutal reprisals which will serve as examples to keep the rest of the people inline through fear. I could on forever about this, but I at least tried to make my point somewhat coherently. It’s just something that’s worth thinking about because thousands of think tanks, tax-exempt foundations, governments and corporations are working on programs like this around the clock that very few people are even aware of. Is this the kind of society you want to live in?

COVID-19 as a Case for Social Scoring Systems. What if there was a scoring system or app that provided people with information on the likelihood of a superspreading situation? by Jesse Hirsh on September 15, 2020 at

While scoring systems are widely criticized and often discussed in dystopian contexts, the current global need to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 provides a decent case for considering social scoring systems.

Digital economies and societies already depend upon scoring systems to navigate and manage information. Algorithms are employed widely to sort, rank and file information that is in abundance, and make it possible to find, choose and understand that data through a vast array of possible options. In this context, algorithms are both the cause of and the solution to information overload.

Examples include:

rating and recommendation systems that help people choose where to eat or who to buy from;
social media metrics that help people choose who to trust or follow;
human resource systems that measure productivity or indicate which employees need support or attention; and
credit scores that determine our trustworthiness and fiscal responsibility.
All of these systems are designed to make it easy for others to make judgments and assess risk or trust, by aggregating and synthesizing various sources and values to come up with a symbolic (and often powerful) score.

Perhaps the most notorious and misunderstood scoring system is the Chinese social credit system. Developed over the past decade, the primary goal of the Chinese scoring system is to act as a tool for regulatory compliance, making it easier for regulating agencies to pursue their mandates, while also making it possible for others to understand the regulatory process. For example, an environmental regulator can use such a system to reward and punish companies who comply with or disobey environmental regulations. In creating a score, it makes it easier for people to assess the environmental track record of a corporation.

Popular perception of these systems in western societies has focused on their potential role for individual social control, as an extension of an authoritarian surveillance society. However researchers have noted that similar systems exist elsewhere, and the debate around their efficacy and morality remain unresolved.

The main objection people have to a social credit system, versus other kinds of scoring systems, is that it is a technology of social control designed to influence and shape behaviour. Whether a specific system is in China or North America, this depiction is accurate.

A social scoring system’s goal may indeed be the modification of behaviour, but if its campaign is carried out transparently and offered with clear public health benefit and justification, how would it differ in its substance from broader public health campaigns?

After more than half a year of living in a pandemic, it is clear that we have to make it easier and more rewarding for people to comply with public health advisories and guidelines. Using scoring systems are one means by which that could happen.
“In October 2007, Jim Balsillie (the former co-CEO of the Canadian information technology company Research In Motion ('BlackBerry' initiated the formation of the CIC as a partnership between the CIIA and the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), a think tank based in Waterloo, Ontario, that works on global issues, in order to create a research base on Canadian foreign policy similar to the American Council on Foreign Relations and the United Kingdom's Royal Institute of International Affairs.[4] In making the announcement, Balsillie wrote, "CIC will be a research-based, non-partisan vehicle. Applying expert and fact-based research to complex issues is the essential foundation for creating effective policy."[4] In November 2007, members of the CIIA voted to become the Canadian International Council.”
3 months ago Report Link
WannaRuleTheWorld: I read something similar a year back or so

there so much to unpack here

most of it is on the money though both metaphorically and literally
3 months ago Report
thegreatresoot added a new image to his gallery Profile Pictures 7 months ago Report
SaintSallyJudgesYOU: steve ray vaughn
7 months ago Report
LeonTheBald: Daniel San
3 months ago Report
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 7 months ago Report
thegreatresoot: A while ago, I made a post analyzing and quoting an article titled “Ruling Class Journalists” by Richard Harwood on October 30, 1993 published by the Washington Post. The article outlines how the owners and prominent journalists of media conglomerates making up the so-called free press in the United States of America are by and large members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Harwood calls the Council on Foreign Relations the “nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.

He goes through the history of the symbiotic relationship between the press and the Council on Foreign Relations, detailing many of its members. He also makes it clear that the press is part of the establishment and is actively involved in shaping American policy through the Council on Foreign Relations, not merely serving as a watchdog for the public’s interest as Americans have been told.

Today, I’m going to be demonstrating how the banking establishment established near full control over the major organs of the free press even before the Council on Foreign Relations’ creation in 1921.

Congressman Francis Oscar Callaway (TX) spoke before the House of Representatives on February 3, 1917 regarding why wasteful military spending, often on obsolete battleships, resulting in high deficits in the national budget. While speaking on this issue, he referenced testimony of the fact that the Morgan family and J.P. Morgan interests (after J.P. Morgan’s death in 1913) had purchased the most prominent newspapers in the country in order to control public opinion.

He stated that the J.P. Morgan men had “got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States”. Once this committee had been established they selected 179 newspapers and sifted through them to determine how many would be necessary to purchase in order for their banking interest to control the opinions and sentiment of the general public.

They discovered that they would need to only purchase 25 of the country’s most prominent newspapers in order to be able to use them to create, control and manipulate public opinion, “They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month”. Congressman Callaway mentioned how they could use these newspapers to create the public’s opinions regarding foreign policy, financial policy and things of an international nature that were important to the vital interests of the purchasers. He also mentioned how this level of media control would also allow the J.P. Morgan family and interests to suppress everything that was in opposition to their interests.

Callaway mentioned how since March, 1915 these papers were manipulating public sentiment into supporting wasteful military spending that was not necessary or useful to America’s campaign in World War I.

Callaway may have been primarily concerned with wasteful military spending, budget deficits and war profiteering (researching the Nye Committee to learn more about this) as a result of this Morgan owned media cabal. However, this level of media conclusion with banking interests and bloodline families has far more serious implications and dangers in terms of the manipulation of public opinion. This consolidation was a precursor towards the media’s integration into the Council on Foreign Relations and their role as a mouthpiece for the globalist, one-world government establishment.

Remember this information the next time you hear someone claiming that the United States of America, or any country for that matter, has a so-called free press that serves as a watchdog for the public’s interests.

Congressional Record, February 3, 1917, Volume 54 pp. Page 2571 (Francis Oscar Callaway mentioning J.P. Morgan interests buying up and consolidating media control):

“In March, 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.

These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is “patriotism.” They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”
4 months ago Report Link
thegreatresoot: This is a quote from president Woodrow Wilson in his book The New Freedom, A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People that was published in 1913. In the following two paragraphs, Wilson admits that since entering politics, he’s had people at the highest levels of industry confide him in him that they are afraid a federation of secret societies composed of the most powerful industrialists in the country. He describes these secret societies and organizations as so organized, subtle, watchful, interlocked, complete and pervasive that men don’t dare to openly criticize these groups.

He further states that if aspiring entrepreneurs and businessmen don’t join this federation of secret societies and organizations and adhere to their wishes, that they will find themselves backlisted and unable to even compete within the marketplace. Wilson describes how these organizations and secret societies will put pressure on the new industrialist’s suppliers, customers and retailers to discourage them from even doing business with him and effectively bankrupt him by preventing him from even participating in the market entirely.

This is a very important quote because it demonstrates that even as far back as 1913, the so-called capitalist, free enterprise marketplace didn’t exist as people envisioned it. Instead, the American economy, and the world economy for that matter, operated as a network of interconnected cartels and trusts. Anyone at the highest levels of industry who attempted to bypass this network would be squeezed out purely through predatory pricing. When Wilson also refers to powerful men of commerce and manufacture being afraid of openly acknowledging and criticizing this network, it alludes to these men not just being afraid of bankruptcy but also the possibility of retribution in the form of assassinations and targeted violence.

I bring this up mainly because this network of secret societies and economic organizations, that dominates the marketplace and controls the inclusion of its participants, existed in 1913 and still exists today. Organizations like the World Economic Forum, the Business Council, European Round Table of Industrialists, the Empire Club of Canada, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and many others dominate the economy of the world.

Wilson describes this network of organizations and secret societies operating in a clandestine and subversive nature hiding their activities and presence from the general public. This is similar to the quotes I previously posted from Edward Bernays in his book titled Propaganda where he describes an invisible government who shapes the opinions of the public and operates as the true ruling power of America unbeknownst to the majority of people living under it. It’s important to be aware these networks and powers have existed for a very long time and continue to operate today in the same fashion, albeit with much greater control and through even more different organizations.

This is not the ramblings of some crazy person but the personal writings of the president of the United States. Woodrow Wilson would know very well about this topic considering his history working with many of this groups members including Nelson Aldrich, Frank A. Vanderlip, Henry P. Davidson, Charles D. Norton, Benamin Strong, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, John Foster Dulles, Edward M. House and many others. He helped these men install the income tax amendment, establish the Federal Reserve central bank, bring the United States of America into the First World War and create the global government body in the form of the League of Nations. However, these are massive subjects all of their own and best left for another time.

The New Freedom, A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People by Woodrow Wilson:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares." - The New Freedom, A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People by Woodrow Wilson.
5 months ago Report Link
thegreatresoot got the Taco badge from MartianLiposome 5 months ago Report
thegreatresoot: This is an interesting article that was written by David Rockefeller, of the esteemed Rockefeller family, on August 10, 1973 for the New York Times. At the time, David Rockefeller was not only the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations but he was also the Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. David Rockefeller and other Chase representatives were invited to China to negotiate forming a relationship with

David Rockefeller went out of his way to praise not only the Chinese Communist Party but also the effect of the Chinese revolution as a whole, regardless of the cost of upwards of 80 million human lives. He praised the system as “efficient” and “dedicated”. He calls the social experiment under Chairman Mao’s leadership as “one of the most important and successful in human history.”

David Rockefeller praises the economic advancements in China even as he acknowledges the lack of human freedom: he noted that this ranged from constraints on intellectual thought and speech against Chairman Mao’s thought, lack of freedom to travel and lack of freedom of choice of occupation. His only objections to these constraints to human freedom seem to revolve around how this might stifle intellectual creativity among the scientific and academic elite, rather than any concern about how these totalitarian measures effect the general Chinese population. In fact, he seems to praise this efficiency and a single minded community of purpose of this totalitarian regime that allows them to achieve goals without the roadblocks faced by a free society.

We have been taught our whole lives that capitalism and communism lie diametrically opposed to one another on the so called left-right paradigm spectrum. If this is truly the case, you have to wonder why one of the richest capitalists in the world, from one of the richest families in the world, would not only praise but openly conduct business with an economic and political system that's supposedly a threat to not only his wealth, power and possibly his life as well. This was especially true considering the deaths and political persecution of suspected "hidden capitalist roaders" during the Chinese Cultural Revolution that was transpiring in the country while this meeting was taking place.

Of course, the Rockefeller family had a long history funding the communist movement in China before this meeting. This funding came from the Rockefeller Foundation and was channeled to the Institute of Pacific Relations which was used these resources to promote the spread of communism throughout China prior to the revolution.

The Chinese regime and the Rockefellers were cozy enough that the Bank of China chose to let Chase Manhattan Bank represent the Bank of China in the United States after this 10-day visit.

David Rockefeller ends the article mentioning how the future of many nations will be impacted by how they interpret and react to the social innovations and lifestyles that China has developed. He seems to be advocating that western nations should adopt the totalitarian social innovations that China has developed.

This important article demonstrates how the richest international bankers and capitalists in the world have always been funding, directing and managing the communist experiment regimes, while slowly integrating and standardizing both systems together into the totalitarian hybrid system that’s emerging today. I will post more on this subject in the future.

From a China Traveler by David Rockefeller on August 10, 1973 at

“Given China's vastness, it was only due to the remarkable thoughtfulness of our hosts that the six members of our Chase group were able to see and experience so much during just ten days in Peking, Sian, Shanghai and Canton. In terms of simple geographic expanse, a week and a half visit to China is something equivalent to trying to see New York City in less than one and a half minutes.

One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. From the loud patriotic music at the border onward, there is very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.

General economic and social progress is no less impressive. Only 25 years ago, starvation and abject poverty are said to have been more the rule than the exception in China. Today, almost everyone seems to enjoy adequate, if Spartan, food, clothing and housing. Streets and homes are spotlessly clean, and medical care greatly improved. Crime, drug addiction, prostitution and venereal disease have been virtually eliminated. Doors are routinely left unlocked. Rapid strides are being made in agriculture, reforestation, industry and education. Eighty per cent of school‐age children now attend primary school, compared with 20 per cent just twenty years ago.

Each step of the trip was choreographed precisely by our hosts and, though virtually all our requests were granted, we clearly saw what they wanted us to. Still, there was little sense of the constant security found in some other Communist countries. Issues such as Taiwan and Cambodia evoke strong positions, but conversation does not founder on ideological shoals. The Chinese seem so totally convinced of the correctness of their own world view that they do not feel they have to push it aggressively.

Despite the constant impressions of progress, however, some gray areas and basic contradictions also emerged. Three major questions remain in my own mind.

First, can individuality and creativity continue to be contained to the degree they are now in a nation with such a rich cultural heritage?

The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. But a stiff price has been paid in terms of cultural and intellectual constraint. There are only eight different theatrical productions in the entire country. The universities are rigorously politicized, with little room for inquiry unrelated to Chairman Mao's thought. Freedom to travel or change jobs is restricted. When asked about personal creativity, one ceramics craftsman answered only that there was not time for individual art if the masses were to be served.

Second, will the highly decentralized Chinese economy be able to adapt successfully to expanded foreign trade and technological improvements?

Considering the problems to be overcome, economic growth in China over the last 25 years has been quite remarkable, with an annual average rise in gross national product of 4 to 5 per cent. For the 1971–75 period, this growth should range between 5.5 and 7.5 per cent a year. These results have depended largely on a wise emphasis on agriculture and a nationwide policy of decentralized, balanced industrial development. The industrial spread reflects strategic factors, the laborabundant nature of the country and inadequate transportation. There are, for instance, now only a handful of commercial jet airplanes in China, and flights are entirely dependent on weather conditions owing to limited guidance facilities common in most parts of the world.

Third, are we and the Chinese prepared to accept our very real differences and still proceed toward the closer mutual understanding that must be the basis of substantive future contact?

I fear that too often the true significance and potential of our new relationship with China has been obscured by the novelty of it all. Pandas and Ping‐Pong, gymnastics and elaborate dinners have captivated our imaginations, and I suspect the Chinese are equally intrigued by some of our more novel captitalistic ways.

In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental phenomenon. The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus that they have pursued for a quarter century under their current leadership. We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one‐fourth of the world's population. When one considers the profound differences in our cultural heritages and our social and economic systems, this is certain to be a long task with much accommodation necessary on both sides.

The social experiment in China under. Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a profound impact on the future of many nations.”
6 months ago Report Link
thegreatresoot: This is an article that was written by Ida Auken, a representative of Denmark's parliament, at the World Economic Forum website, It poses a scenario in 2030 where private property ownership has been completely abolished.

You can't own a home, a car, cooking appliances or even the clothes that you wear. You will have to use public transportation or bicycle to travel. Your own place of dwelling will be used by strangers for business meetings when you're not there. If you even want to cook something for yourself, you will have to ask permission to have drones deliver the equipment towards you. Shopping will also be prohibited in this new future.

There will also be no privacy in the future has everything you ever do, think or even dream of will be recorded. The author of this scenario just hopes that nobody will ever use it against her!

It's all good, though, because Auken put a disclaimer both at the beginning and end of the article stating that this isn't an admission of some kind of sinister plan or conspiracy. It's just a discussion of where the world COULD be heading.

So, don't worry. This isn't some type of communism, neo-feudalism, or oligarchical collectivism. It has nothing to do with that Great Reset you hear so many people on television talking about. Apparently, once someone put a disclaimer on something and create plausible deniability, they can write and actively plan towards whatever agenda they want to create while anyone who even talks about it (using their own words as evidence) is considered a conspiracy theorist.

Keep in mind, this isn't This is the World Economic Forum. One of the most powerful international NGOs in the world made up of some of the most influential and wealthy leaders in business, banking, academia, science, education, media and other prominent fields. You can find hundreds of similar articles on their website.

Considering how these kind of articles coincide with so many other books and writings by other powerful think tanks and individuals, you would be wise to not just dismiss this as insane ramblings and start to take these kind of proclamations very seriously. Or don't. It's your choice.

"Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030 by Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget), on November 11, 2016.

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city". I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

"Environmental problems seem far away"
In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in awhile, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy - the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

The death of shopping
Shopping? I can't really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don't really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

"They live different kinds of lives outside of the city"
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently."
6 months ago Report Link
thegreatresoot: This is an extremely important article that I uncovered many years ago written by Washington Post journalist Richard Harwood, where he reveals perhaps a bit too much about the innerworkings of the round table group in the United States known as the Council on Foreign Relations and the incorporation of the so-called free press of the United States into its membership and its long-term agenda.

The American people have been told for decades, at least the ones who bothered to dig enough to get an explanation, that the Council on Foreign Relations is nothing but a benign think tank where people from different fields come together to share ideas. They’ve been told that there’s nothing sinister and conspiratorial about this private organization and anybody who suggests otherwise is mentally unhinged. We’ve also been told that while there are wealthy and powerful individuals in our country, there is no such thing as a ruling class in America that collaborate together for their collective benefit.

Well, according to journalist Richard Harwood the Council on Foreign Relations is the true ruling class of the United States. He actually admitted that the Council on Foreign Relations is not made up of ordinary people who look like America but are the people who have dominated America’s foreign relations, foreign policy and the military-industrial complex. In his own words, he said the “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”. He points out that David Rockefeller, of the elite Rockefeller family, served as Council on Foreign Relation’s chairman from 1970 until 1985.

Additionally, major media conglomerate owners, editors and journalists have been brought on board as members of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gives a short history of this process as well as some of the prominent media figures at the time who belonged, and some who still belong, to this organization. Harwood admits the fact that these journalist have joined this organization “is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class.”.

Even more chilling, however, is that Harwood freely admits that the press in the United States does not serve as a watchdog of governments and corporations in the public interest but rather work hand in hand with members of this ruling class in order to advance their collective agenda. In his own words, the press are part of the establishment and share most of their values and world views, “Is there something unethical in these new relationships, some great danger that conflicts of interest are bound to arise when journalists get cheek and jowl with the establishment? Probably not. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.”

This is a very short article that anyone can spare five minutes of their lives to read and get a better understand of the symbiotic relationship between these powerful institutions. I will post the text and link it down below.

“RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS by Richard Harwood on October 30, 1993 at the

In its 70-year history, the quarterly journal Foreign Affairs has had but five editors. The fifth, recently appointed, is James Hoge, former publisher of the New York Daily News and before that editor of the Chicago Sun-Times. The quarterly is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.

The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man, David Gergen, are members, along with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate.

This is not a retinue of people who "look like America," as the president once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex. John W. Davis, a Wall Street lawyer, was chosen as the council's first president in 1921 and three years later was the Democratic candidate for president against Calvin Coolidge. His successors at the council were from the same mold -- financiers, corporate lawyers and industrialists. John J. McCloy, described by Richard Rovere years ago as the patriarch of the American establishment, served as council chairman from 1953 until 1970. Allen Dulles, first head of the CIA, was a council director for 42 years and was its president from 1946 until 1950. David Rockefeller succeeded McCloy, serving as chairman from 1970 until 1985. His successor is Peter Peterson.

Today, two-thirds of the council's more than 2,000 members live in either New York or Washington and, as you would expect, include many of the leading figures of American political life: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, McGeorge Bundy, Gov. Mario Cuomo and so on. Captains of industry and finance, the big universities, the big law firms and the big foundations are heavily represented. That is the way it has always been.

What is distinctively modern about the council these days is the considerable involvement of journalists and other media figures, who account for more than 10 percent of the membership. Walter Lippmann was a director of the council in the 1930s, but he was sui generis. It was not until the late 1960s that journalists began showing up with some frequency on the council's board and in the membership lists. Hoge's appointment to the Foreign Affairs editorship is symbolic of their rising influence. So is the election of Leslie Gelb as the council's new president, succeeding Peter Tarnoff, who has gone to the State Department. Gelb for many years was a reporter and columnist for the New York Times and was a State Department official in the Carter administration.

In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc., Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who is now President Clinton's ambassador at large in the Slavic world. The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly newsmagazines, network television executives and celebrities -- Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example -- and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland.

The membership of these journalists in the council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. Their influence, Jon Vanden Heuvel speculates in an article in the Media Studies Journal, is likely to increase now that the Cold War has ended: "By focusing on particular crises around the world {the media are in a better position} to pressure government to act. ... Humanitarianism has taken on new dimensions as a component of American foreign policy, and the media are largely responsible."

Somalia is Exhibit A. American troops are there, it is generally believed, because of a decision by NBC to air BBC film of starving Somalian children. It set off a chain reaction in the press and humanitarian concern among the public, forcing the Bush administration to intervene. It is also arguable that the troops will be coming out soon because of film of a captured airman and of a dead soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Is there something unethical in these new relationships, some great danger that conflicts of interest are bound to arise when journalists get cheek and jowl with the establishment? Probably not. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views. In any case, they must deal with it daily in their professional lives, even to learning which forks to use.”
7 months ago Report Link
7 months ago Report Link
thegreatresoot: Not available in my country.
7 months ago Report
thegreatresoot: This is a passage from a work titled "The Country School of Tomorrow by Frederick T. Gates" from the General Education Board, Occasional Papers No. 1. The General Education Board was an organization that was incredibly influential setting up white public high schools in the south, funding for universities and setting up black schools as well.

It eventually got submerged into the the Rockefeller Foundation when its funding ran out in 1960. Frederick Taylor Gates was a "philanthropic advisor to John D. Rockefeller Sr., was the president of the General Education Board, and designed the Rockefeller Foundation becoming one of its trustees in 1913.

This is an important document because it not only demonstrates the influence that the Rockefeller family and their organizations have had in shaping American public and private education, but it also shows their goals as well. They state very clearly that their goals are not to teach and promote students in critical thinking and logic. Nor is the goal to raise students up with the skills necessary to join in higher professions.

He states, "We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."

No, instead, he wants these students to "yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand" and to train these people to find themselves just where they are. Basically, train them with just enough education to be better industrial and manual workers than their parents were while keeping them in the same poverty stricken conditions, and of the same level of ignorance, that their parents were in.

Pretty fascinating stuff. I will also link a lecture from former New York State teacher of the year John Taylor Gatto who went in depth about this topic of what the aristocratic elite had as goals when they designed our modern educational system.

"Publications of the General Education Board, Occasional Papers No. 1, The Country School of Tomorrow by Frederick T. Gates

“In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply. We are to follow the admonitions of the good apostle, who said, ''Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low degree." And generally, with respect to these high things, all that we shall try to do is just to create presently about these country homes an atmosphere and conditions such, that, if by chance a child of genius should spring up from the soil, that genius will surely bud and not be blighted. Putting, therefore, all high things quite behind us, we turn with a sense of freedom and delight to the simple, lowly, needful things that promise well for rural life. For the task that we set before ourselves is a very simple as well; as a very beautiful one : to train these people as we find them for a perfectly ideal life just where they are — yes, ideal, for we shall allow ourselves to be extravagant since we are only dreaming; call it idyllic, if you like — an idyllic life under the skies and within the horizon, however narrow, where they first open their eyes. We are to try to make that life, just where it is, healthful, intelligent, efficient, to fill it with thought and purpose, and with a gracious social culture not without its joys.” – Page 6”

7 months ago Report Link
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 7 months ago Report
thegreatresoot added a new image to his gallery Profile Pictures 7 months ago Report
thegreatresoot: In his book Propaganda, Edward Bernays discusses the methods by which a small “invisible government” truly runs America and so-called democratic governments in general. He openly admits that there is an unseen power that shapes our ideas, opinions, tastes, and government. Throughout the book, he goes into great depth about how this invisible elite uses propaganda, psychology and organizational structures to manufacture the public into giving its consent and approval to these elites to do what they otherwise already wanted to do. He says himself that most people don’t even know this elite even exists, and he completely supported the existence of this type of system. One merely needs to look at Bernays’ professional career and his family lineage, as well as his modern descendants, to understand the power of this scientific persuasion to manipulate the public against their own self-interests.

“Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.

In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.”
7 months ago Report Link