Back in last August I wrote an article called Right-Wing Conspiracy, see: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2018/08/right-wing-conspiracy.html;
and this one is something of a follow-up. Since then Neil Sanders has published
two more instalments of his article series about Cambridge Analytica. I have
lurked on Facebook while he has got into several arguments with his detractors...
like that ever happens on Facebook! In Right-Wing
Conspiracy I left the conclusion very open-ended because I was uncertain. Since
then I have continued to read and assimilate the additional information Neil
has tabled, although this task is not yet complete. In his latest two posts Neil
talks about the very disturbing psychological research by Philip Zimbardo who,
along with Stanley Milgram, has discovered a side to human nature that is
uncomfortable to contemplate. Also he explains the way we are absorbed into
positions where our rational mind breaks down and we act as if we are members
of a cult. However Neil reveals evidence that it is not accidental, but rather
a product of psychological manipulation by experts in the field working for the
authorities. In his latest publication, he addresses the most recent political
upheavals around the world, especially in South America
and India
Quite a few people have asked me to say more on this
subject, especially since Neil's most recent blog post, because they know I am
an enthusiastic proponent of the 2016 Effect. I'm still not sure how to respond
though. Neil Sanders has generated a huge amount of material with a lot of
detail and I can't see how he is incorrect about any of these individual facts.
However, what has he actually discovered in essence? He has proven that there
are wealthy people who will use their financial clout to influence politics,
often employing questionable means. So be it. I have no doubt that is the case;
it always has been. Maybe that is indeed ethically problematic, but it will
probably not stop. I am not a utopian and don't believe the end of the
globalist agenda would automatically transform the entire world's population
into priests of High Atlantis. I wouldn't be surprised if outfits like the
Mercer network will continue to operate in the post-Illuminati era. My latest
book is fundamentally an exploration of that very conundrum, see: http://hpanwo-bb.blogspot.com/2018/12/roswell-redeemed-is-here.html.
This is one of the reasons I still use terms like "deep state", even
if it is an invention of Steve Bannon's JTRIG efforts. We also have to look at
the proportions in what we have learned. What Neil has exposed is not in any
way the equivalent of the New World Order agenda. For instance, would Cambridge
Analytica theoretically be able to remove Margaret Thatcher from power? Could
they carry out 9/11? Could they shoot President John F Kennedy? Could they
cover up free energy, aliens or ghosts? Obviously the crimes I have just listed
are real and are aided and abetted by people who do use the same methods Neil has
talked about and he correctly compares Cambridge Analytica to MI6 or the CIA;
but what about the difference in scale? I am often challenged by people who desperately
implore me: "Can't you see it, Ben? Trump is just another insider! Brexit
is just a deeper part of the conspiracy!" In the background links above
and below I explain why I do not think that is the case. 2016 is real. In fact
if it is not real and Neil is completely right about everything, than why was
the New World Order not done and dusted ages ago? It should have taken five
minutes if the elite were so truly all powerful and everything that happens in
the world is something they intended and anything that appears to be against
them is just controlled opposition in more and more devious disguises. No, the
Illuminati do not have everything their way. They have always faced genuine
forces of opposition throughout history and those forces have never been more
powerful than they are today. Eventually their opponents will reach a level
where the Illuminati can no longer oppose them which is when they will fall. I
think I am on the winning team, even if it doesn't always feel like it... I
hope so anyway.
See here for
background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2016/11/conspiracy-theorists-finally-proved.html.
Interesting, but I'm a little confused as you seem to say in your comments under your blog on Prince Philip that you have no problem per se with royalty and aristocracy, but yet you also rail against an invisible elite. Surely you're either in favour of elitism or not. You can't favour one bloodline based elite like royalty yet attack the illuminati simply because they're reptilian! I mean that makes no sense. Ian.
ReplyDeleteIan. No I said I have no problem with the CONCEPT of an aristocracy. Do you know what "noblesse oblige" is?
ReplyDeleteYes of course I know. Responsibility of nobility- that privilege brings a duty of care. Quite an outmoded idea as it presupposes that it's right to have an elite based on birth and not merit. I'm not personally into cap doffing and I think deference is quite a backward concept. If you have have no problem with the concept of aristocracy surely that means you agree with it in principle?
ReplyDeleteIs it a nosebleed?
ReplyDeleteIan, actually I'm not sure. It is possible that inherited political authority is necessary simply because it is so complex and involves so much responsibility that it cannot be achieved in a single human lifetime.
ReplyDeleteAnon, no it is French and it means "the obligation of being noble". It refers to the duty of being an aristocrat that goes along with the privilege.
ReplyDeleteDo the inhereted ruling class/nobility demonstrate an obligation to the poor? What examples are there?
ReplyDeleteGetting back to elites then Ben, do you not see it as a contradiction, your fighting the illuminati yet supporting inhereted elites? Ian
ReplyDeleteWell Ben I ain't gonna present my arse to be fisted by royals I can tell you that much my friend.
ReplyDeleteI think your right Ben. Rulership is natural for certain bloodlines. The dead weight of democracy results in a tyranny of the masses. Nature is aristocratic not democratic. People who hate aristocracy have been brainwashed by marxism. I would love to see marxism destroyed wherever it lurks. Its the worst poison there is. Inequality is not only natural but desirable I would argue. Keep up the great work. Simon
ReplyDeleteHi Ben. The best form of nobless oblige was the form that the notionally aristocratic Tony Benn advocated, namely to work towards the eradication of privilege. We must progress towards meritocracy or we won't progress at all. Cheers. Ade
ReplyDeleteIan, there are no examples I can think of because we do not have a noble aristocracy in this world.
ReplyDeleteNo contradiction, Ian. The Illuminati are a malevolent elite. I have no problem with a natural and benevolent aristocracy.
ReplyDeleteMe neither, Dick! Not my cup of tea at all.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Simon. I will. I agree. Inequality is not only natural, but unavoidable unless it is engineered out of existence, as Marxism has attempted to do, and is still attempting to do. This engineering always results in atrocity. Inequality is often confused with poverty, deliberately so by leftist propaganda. All it really means is some people have more material resources than others. This does not automatically mean some people will end up poor. See my article "What Class are YOU?" https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-class-are-you.html. Inequality can be the sign of a healthy society.
ReplyDeleteAdrian. I've got a lot of respect for Tony Benn and I'm sorry to didn't live to see Brexit, but he was wrong about this. Aristocracy is a form of meritocracy actually, one that is multi-generational. It's a common misconception that aristocrats are completely unaccountable to the masses and can basically do what the hell they like. Not at all. An aristocrat who did that would be removed, either by their own families or by an uprising of the masses. Marie Antoinette is a good example, left lying headless in a Paris square.
ReplyDeleteSo because you have no problem with aristocracy it is perfectly acceptable for it to exist? So you think it is fair by dint of birth that being in the upper classes means you go to better schools, get seen quicker by private doctors, and get the best university places and jobs? All this with little ease whereas someone born in the lower classes is trapped in a hamster wheel not knowing if they have work from one week to the next. I am scared for my children's future because I am working class and I swing to the left. People like you astound me because you have nothing and yet you seem to revel living in a country where there is so much unearned privilege.
ReplyDeleteYou remind me of those royalist bastards who waste their Christmas day at Sandringham queuing up to watch over privileged human beings walk by and preach to a non-existent entity. It is almost cult like, which is why I think you like it.
Garth
Hi again Ben. I've said this before but I think you're wrong when you say 'inequality can be the sign of a healthy society' as the World Happiness Survey consistently puts social democratic countries at the very top of the league. Canada, all the Scandinavian nations and New Zealand. No coincidence there Ben. Social democratic states have the lowest income inequality.
ReplyDeleteConversely ultra neoliberal decidedly unequal Great Britain languishes at 19th place I think it is Ben. I'd like to know what countries you refer when you say inequality can be a sign of a healthy society as I assume when you say 'healthy' you mean happy? Cheers. Ade
Ben, I fail to see how aristocracy is meritocratic. The very opposite. We have very low levels of social mobility in the UK by the way
ReplyDeleteGarth, as it happens I am working class myself. And you're partly wrong about the NHI, Bhutan scored very high even though it is an aristocratic monarchy. Australia, Finland and the USA scored very low despite being liberal democracies.
ReplyDeleteGarth, you totally misunderstand what I said, perhaps deliberately so. Inequality does not inevitably lead to poverty; this is a common misconception. Also aristocratic privilege is not unearned. I explained how such rulers will need to be strong and virtuous if they are going to retain power. If you try to force equality it will be incredibly destructive. It's been tried many times and every time the people regret it. It's like forcing Manchester United to be at the same level As Dover Athletic; you wouldn't like that would you?... Have you ever watched Dover playing?
ReplyDeleteAdrian, that's because we do not have a natural aristocracy. We have an illegitimate aristocracy propped up by the globalist Illuminati.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBen here is the top 10 WHS rankings from 2016, the last available report. Bhutan is in fact number 97 and Finland number 1, so dont know where you get your info from
ReplyDelete1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Denmark
4 Iceland
5 Switzerland
6 Netherlands
7 Canada
8 New Zealand
9 Sweden
10 Australia
Adrian. Incorrect. Please see my article on the main HPANWO site, "Bhutan- the Happiest Country in the World".
ReplyDeleteWhat is the source Ben?
ReplyDeleteBen mate, surely you recognise the major World Happiness Survey? The top ten I post is the most current top ten ranking. Bhutan number 97
ReplyDeleteAdrian, I gave you the source.
ReplyDeleteBen, HPANWO is not a credible source. Self-citing is not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteColt.
I've read that Ben and that isn't a reliable study but small, impressionistic and arbitrary. No robust survey methodology but woolly and small samples i. e. not statistically significant. The study I cite is the authoratitive one. Do you not recognise the major WHS?
ReplyDeleteColt, the article provides details of where the info came from. You don't need my help to Google.
ReplyDeleteAdrian. No, it's something that's been running since 1972 and the questions are very specific ones.
ReplyDeleteWe might need your help to Google stuff Ben. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYes but it lacks the credibility of the major UN funded administered World Happiness Survey which I cite
ReplyDeleteNot really, Ade. King Wanchuck's survey measures differently.
ReplyDeleteBoff, The Wiki page compares the WHS to the WGNHI.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find Ben that the major UN one is more scientific and thus more reliable
ReplyDeleteAde, that's really an appeal to authority. Would you suggest that we embrace the WHS with open arms and accept its conclusion 100% and totally ignore the WGNHI? It could be that both are wrong. I knew somebody who lived in Zambia for most of his life and he told me people generally are far more cheerful there than they are in England. However Zambia scored low on both the WHS and the WGNHI. The problem is that happiness is a difficult thing to gauge. We can't use an instrument to see if one person has 5 "happiness units" and the other has 10.
ReplyDeleteBen, yes it's problematic doing something like cross cultural comparators on something as variable as 'happiness'. However, the point of all this is that income equality seems to create better outcomes. If you look at the top ten rankings I posted above, note how all the social democratic states are at the top. Yes the WHS might not be perfect but surely you see a pattern which is compelling? Neoliberal very unequal societies like the UK don't tend to produce happy people. Surely you can see that socio-economic policy is significant for the wellbeing of populations? And no, the drive toward more equality doesn't have to end in atrocity as you've argued, for the most advanced and happiest nations on earth are social democratic ones. The WHS is the best indicator of all round health and wellbeing. Ade
ReplyDeleteBut you must admit there is a pattern of social democracy and ergo equality of opportunity and income with happiness? This is borne out in the findings of the WHS every single year.
ReplyDeleteAlright. I'll think about what you've said, but I'd like to move on to another topic now.
ReplyDelete