The Making Of An Evil EmpireBy Ian R Thorpe

12 March, 2013

Evil is not a word I would normally use, I am not religious and so do not believe

in ideas like the forces of good and bad being engaged in a constant battle for our

souls (the Manichean dichotomy).. Neither do I accept the concept of sin, offences

against a moral code handed down from a divine being, anwhich idea on which the

moral framework for followers of the Abrahamic religions is based (we have a

responsibility to do the best thing we can according to circumstances but to fail to

live up to impossibly high standards is not wrong). If I think of things as evil at all, it

is in terms of extreme selfishness.

Selfishness is often disguised as morality of course, to observe how that works

we only have to pay attention to the actions and attitudes of the politically correct

left. Such people love to give the impression that they unselfishly care about

injustice and unfairness, equal rights and the environment. Analysis of their modus

operandi however reveals that their caring, politically correct posturings are selfish.

“We must all make sacrifices to save the world from climate change,” they say to

back up demands that the fossil fuel industries and all activities that depend on them

The Dark Lord

(just about all industrial and commercial activities) be shut down. Ignoring the facts

that we have no viable alternative to fossil fuels as a source of energy and the

inability of those who fear climate change to understand that wind turbines cannot

generate electricity when there is no wind, just think of the economic and social

havoc such a course would result in. The irony of one 'save-the-planet' idea, to pump

sulphur dioxide particles into the upper atmosphere to simulate a volcanic winter

which would halt rising temperatures, thus recreating the acid rain that destrored vast

tracts of forest in the northern hemisphere during the 1960s, 70s and 80s is lost on the

political activist behind the global warming scare. Their agenda is political rather

than environmental, and the end always justifies the means in their poltics.

Those left wingers who think shutting

down fossil fuel industries have obviously not

thought of the consequence (they never do.)

What is uppermost in their minds is that they

are being seen to care about the environment.

“Look at me, see what a good, caring person I

am,” is all they are really saying. The

propaganda they serve up to persuade us we

ordinary punters ought to make sacrifices

while they plunder the tax breaks and subsidies

available to those who invest in schemes that depend on the wind blowing and the

sun shining twenty four hours a day is juvenile and sentimental, designed to appeal to

the fearful and those who crave only security.

Their attitude to crime and criminals is similar. If we could believe, as the

politically correct left do, that all destructive and malicious behaviour is merely a

product of bad environment, bad upbringing, mental illness or psychosis then solving

social problems would be easy. Unfortunately, as with climate change, the left do not

have the arguments to win hearts and minds among the masses , the do – gooder

approach to dealing with deviancy does not play well to the public who want to see

people who pose a threat to public safety banged up.

being seen to care.

Deviance in the name of misguided “profit” or “status” is often more acceptable

to the public; as long as there is a reason we can easily understand and grasp. The

investment banker whose Ponzi scheme steals millions from rich, greedy people is

considered a loveable rogue but fraudsters who rip off the meagre savings of old

people are despised.

What frightens the average citizen

in the developed world today is not the

act of criminality but it criminality

without easily definable reason. What

the new elite are unwilling or unable to

face (probably because it throws doubt

on their claims of omnipotence) is the

reality that some people hurt others not

because their parents neglected them,

they were bullied at school, or because

they developed a psychological deficiency that controls their actions,or that, failed by

the education system and made to feel worthless by a society that has too many

poorly educated people and too few jobs they take refuge in the instant gratification

of impulses, but that there are and always have been many people who fully and

consciously enjoy causing physical, mental or material harm to others. Such a

mindset cannot be scientifically analyse or glibly explained away and it will never fit

the narrative that everything can be controlled by scientists.

Thanks to politically correct

attitudes our society is desperate to

make excuses for the monsters of our

era, to find reasons why 'we' and not

'they' are to blame. I have often

joked that Politically Correct

thinking is based on a belief that if

we all join hands and sing Kumbaya

Who would break a butterfly on the wheel (Alexander Pope)

Some people will not sing Kumbaya

the world can become perfect. Unrealistic as that is, perhaps to those emotionally

needy people who are desperate to be seen as caring, concerned individuals, it is a

necessary self deception because they would rather not acknowledge the possibility

that there is a dark side to humanity as a whole, that if left unchecked, a certain type

of person could, by exploiting the ruthlessness of their amoral nature and taking

advantage of the desrire to be accepted among the majority, take control in a

deliberate and calculated way.

This is why the greatest crimes of our time are so often invisible to the public.

Hidden in plain sight, the crimes are simply ignored by those who will not see what

they do not want to see. The idea, for example, that international financiers and

political elites would purposely create economic disparity, social chaos, and global

war out of a desire for a centralized global government that would endow members of

the elite with levels of power over their fellow humans never known is simply too

great a shock for many to handle. Yet all around us we can see evidence that a global

elite are working towards gaining such power. Driven by a level of selfishness that

can only be described as evil and a warped sense of intellectual superiority these

elitists have no problem with persuading themselves that they know far better what is

good for us as individuals than we ever can ourselves. And what is good for us is a

world in which we surrender the power to think and act for ourselves in return for the

certainty and security of living in an ant colony society.

Surely, the terrible events throughout our modern history, wars, genocides,

pandemics, famines, the great climate change scare, are merely the result of random

coincidence and human error…right? Wrong.

Unfortunately, when we open our eyes and examine the evidence this is not the

case. In fact, the majority of catastrophic humanitarian tragedies can be linked

directly back certain social and economic policies devised and promoted by a

particular subset of people, who use their positions of influence in supra - national

agencies such as the United Nations and the World Bank for ill purpose, and

knowingly engineer calamity not just for personal gain, but to reinforce the grip of

their elite class on global power.

People of a Libertarian mindset refer to this group as “Globalists” or, with tongue

in cheek, The New World Order. They permeate the upper echelons of national

government but seldom hold elected office, and they have a culture that is entirely

separate and disconnected from our own. If one studies their literature, their

initiatives, and their motives, he would discover another world, driven by a

frightening brand of quasi religious fanaticism for advancing their agenda of

establishing global totalitarian govrnment. Here are some of the character traits and

beliefs that make these people easy to identify…

The Elitists' Utopia

The Global Elitie tend to see

themselves as a separate breed of

human being; a class of superior beings

with superior intellectual faculties, a

different breed born to “rule” over the

rest of us. In physical appearance they

are often uninspiring, typical wimps or

nerds.

Philosophically they often espouse the teachings of Plato’s Republic, and the

The Evil Empire

Higher beings: The stairway to Utopia

concept of the “Philosopher Kings”. They believe that some men and women are

endowed with a genetic predisposition to leadership, and that the average person does

not have the intelligence to determine his or her own destiny. Thus a hierarchic

society is the only viable social model. Plato's Republic is a fine book of

philosophical writing but we should be mindful that Plato lived in a society whose

economy was built on slavery.

The global elitists see the rest of humanity as a blank canvas, and themselves as

the artists. We are to be “molded” and our indivisual personalities and collective

social and cultural mores are to be manipulated.

In reality, the new elite are no smarter than the rest of us (weeeeell, except for the

Politically Correct 'useful idiots' who are willing to vote for their own enslavement

maybe). Nor are they better qualified than we to decide what is in our best interests,

the best interests of an ordinary individual are seldom served by allowing a self

appointed elite to make decisions for the group that only individuals can make for

themselves. A surprising number of global elitists inherited positions of wealth and

influence from aristocratic ancestors or dynasty building industrialists and banking

families, yet in spite of social changes through the twentieth century their privileged

background automatically leads them to assumptions of superiority. This is no

different to the fallacious assumptions of the old aristogracy and the stratified

societies of ancient civilisations. And yet the new elite call their political philosophy

'progressive'.

The elite's ability to mould society is not due to their assumed intellectual

superiority (Many of their decisions are gobsmackingly stupid) but derive entirely

from their dominance of financial markets and complete lack of morality. If they

were not in the top .1% of the worlds rich, they would be treated like common

criminals for their behaviour, but sadly, in our day and age money often buys undue

influence.

The ascendency of this elite, The Scientific Dictatorship that U S President

Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech in 1960 (video of full address

-youTube) was predicted early in the twentieth century. At that time a surprising

number of leading left wing intellectuals sympathised with ideas such as eugenics,

selective breeding, population control and social engineering programmes such as

direction of labour. Here are a few examples:

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and

ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs

would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the

practice of eating mutton.” — Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

(1953) pp. 49-50.

“Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence

control asserted, ‘I foresee a time when we shall have the means and therefore,

inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of

all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.’”

— Zbigniew Brezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era

1970.

Elitists are easily persuaded that conscience is a hindrance to success, instead of a

worthwhile virtue. They knowingly and deliberately abandon morality because they

see it as an obstacle that stands in the way of getting what they want. Conscience,

however, never quite disappears in anyone. In order to reconcile their wretched

mindset with that distant nagging sensation of guilt, they claim that their actions are

“for the greater good of the greater number”. They desperately want to believe that

they are serving the future of mankind, that enslavement of the masses and

population reduction are necessary for the survival of humanity and that we should

appreciate their leadership, even though the things they do, engineering wars and

conflicts for instance, seem far more harmful than helpful.

They further attempt to avoid facing their own dysfunction by trying to elicit

criminality in others. If they can convince the masses that morality is “relative” and

that right and wrong are subject to “interpretation”. Once the majority can be

convinced to ignore the inner voice that determines right and wrong then their amoral

monstrosity, the evil of utter selfishness, becomes normal, even preferable. Here are

the thoughts of a moral relativist:

“The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with

what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches

during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for

reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the

bullet.” Saul Alinsky. (Barack Obama taught the amoral philosophies of Alinsky as a

community organizer in Chicago. Hillary Clinton made Alinsky the topic of her

undergraduate thesis. In Alinsky's philosophy 'the end always justifies the means'.)

An Illusion Of Collectivism

Globalists are not collectivists themselves but avid collectors of material wealth

and social kudos. In personal behaviour they are usually at the opposite end of the

spectrum to collectivists, preferring an aberrant form of self indulgent individualism

to the asceticism of true collectivists such as Mohandas K Gandhi. Many see crimes

like paedophilia, rape, even murder as being justified by their superiority, they cannot

be governed by the same rules as apply to 'little people'. A solipsistic attitude enables

them to see the most reprehensible crimes as being justified by their desire. They

even see conscience as a restriction on their personal freedom. What they do not

grasp is that the inherent nature of conscience is a gift, one which has so far kept

humanity from total self-destruction. Conscience is not a burden but a shield.

The elitist’s insane ideal of self indulgence

without self discipline is in contract to the

collectivist lifestyle they constantly promote yet

they see no contradiction in admonish

individualism or self interest in common people

as “selfish” or “narcissistic”. Elitists see no irony

in demanding the highest standards from others Behind the mask of collectivism

while observing no moral constraints on their freedom tp pleasure themselves.

People often confuse “collectivism” with “community”. This is caused by a lack

of understanding as well as a lack of experience. Community is a voluntary gathering

of individuals for the purpose of mutual aid. Collectivism is the gathering of people

by threat of force or loss, for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a

few. It is the act of destroying individualism in the name of “protecting the group”. In

the west, particularly the English speaking nations, we have a disappearing sense of

real community because our communities, family units, culture and traditions have

been under attack while the “advantages” of collectivism and multiculturalism are

being promoted in a flood of propaganda generated by useful idiots in the media on

behalf of the global elite.

If the population can be convinced that they are devoid of inherent qualities and

characteristics, and that their environment is the totality of their existence, then they

will hand over all power to anyone who promises them the best possible

surroundings. That is to say, when we have no faith in our own individualism and

self-responsibility, we will automatically seek protection, usually from a nanny state

or apparently benign dictatorship. This process of wrenching self determination from

the populace has the goal of World Governance and total dominance as President

Illustration 1: The gathering of people by threat, for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a few.

Eisenhower and many others have warned.

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less

than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate

the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This

system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world

acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and

conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements

in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central

banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to

dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate

foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to

influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business

world. — Carroll Quigley [CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton], Tragedy And Hope.

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will

recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea

after all.” — Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted

in Time Magazine, July 20th, 1992.

Elitists are very keen on use of the “noble lie”; a lie employed to attain a

“positive goal”. In their view, citizens lack the capacity to understand the bigger

political and social picture, and so, we must be lied to in order to make us do what is

best for ourselves. (Recall members of the UK Labour government and the Obama

administration speaking of making global warming scepticism a crime on a par with

holocaust denial, justifying this curtailment of free speech with the excuse that

'ordinary people do not understand what is at stake' We did understand what was at

stake, a carbon tax that would not solves the problem because it is not caused by

CO2 emissions, but would drive the majority of people into poverty.)

Of course, their version of what is best for our culture always seems to include

first and foremost what is best for them.

The noble lie is a logical fallacy of such monumental immorality it could only

have been dreamed up by politicians or scientists. If you need to lie to people in order

to get them to accept your ideas, then there must be something terribly wrong with

your ideas. Ideas with vitality and honesty do not need to be “sold” to the public

through chicanery; the truth takes on a life of its own. Only ideas harmful to the

interests of the wider population need a foundation of lies in order to take root (“Tell

the lie big enough and repeat it often enough and it will become the truth” Josef

Goebbels, Chief of Propaganda in Hitler's Third Reich. But it wasn't just him:)

“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious

force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All

the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” —

Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June 1931 speech before the Institute for the Study of

International Affairs in Copenhagen.

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to

have.” — Richard Salent [former CBS News president].

RELATED POSTS:

Agenda 21: Wyoming man faces $75,000 a day fines for building a garden pond

Feeding The Monster

When Mainstream Parties Say The British Are Xenophobes They Are Lying

Our New Unhappy Lords

Slaves To The Machine

A Manufactured Singularity

N W O destabilizes Ukraine

Elite Plan For Global Takeover

The Folly Of Trying To Inflate Away Debt

Debt Threat To Civilisation

Naked finance, how the debt crisis was engineered

Sacrificing the future to save the Euro

Interesting Times

Global Government – Scientific Dictatorship

Holy City (poem)

Chasing bubbles (poem)

Volunteers for slavery(All pictures Bing Images)