These socalled Think Tanks

[scroll for at læse på dansk]


These so-called spin- and think-tanks... where are they irksome !


They can produce the most incredible statements. And it is not just because the statement 'inequality and poverty leads to growth' is politically incorrect. If you are a neo- liberal, it is the only politically correct. Political incorrectness, bring it on!

It's not just because the statement is border-psychopatic = stripped of empathy. Because that's what it is.
It is simply because it is some piece of utterly tremendous nonsense.

The tragedy is that the policy is conducted by both the neo- liberals, social democrats and most blatantly by the eurostocracy.


 
Statements of this kind are hopelessly caught in the dying 20th century paradigm. It's just a burp from the echo chamber where nonsense seems to repeat itself ad infinitum. But in the context of the experience of one whole vicious century of misery + another hopelessly decade, the hollowness of the statement is rather huge. You could even take a step backwards and allow yourself to discover that the concept in fact is: medieval. Neo-liberalism IS neo-feudalism.



The castle in the world
We see the global medieval castle for us with ruling class superior to the poor crowd in the stinking streets underneath - safely guarded behind their thick walls, their toy soldiers, serviced by their sheriffs, tax collectors with shrill shouters on street corners announcing what the lord of the castle recently proclaimed. And when you occasionally get too many dirty and useless eaters in the sticky alleys under the walls or too many dispensable layabouts in the shire, they are sent to a place outside the shire to slay away at some Saracens, so as the gentlemen on horseback can tow their stolen goods back to the castle.



Such a system fits quite nicely with arranged poverty. Here it is systemic.



Only the paradox that neo-liberal ideologues - 'liberal', this glorious piece of newspeak that means the opposite of liberty, or does it mean the liberty of the few free to rake-off on behalf of the many and is therefore merely a variant of the newspeak - that these ideologues speak of impoverishment as a prerequisite for growth is quite bizarre. Who grows, what grows ? Is it the growth of cancer boil? Is it the tumor, parasite, systemic rottenness?



These think tanks chumps will almost in the same sentence predict that inequality and poverty motivates people to work AND that there are too few jobs and too little growth (whatever that is) ! And the Socialists have bought it. People out of work should be pushed so hard that they will search all the jobs that admittedly do not exist. And you can hear it, right? But they can not, understand it who can.


As can be read in a Danish newspaper, the European Social Democrats have missed their chance. I would say that it is far worse: they're not even social semocrats any longer. They've both forgotten their social visions, and they respect no longer democracy, but sell it all out to the European Empire and the global post- democratic corpocracy. What can we call this monstrous post- social democracy that we see ? Socio - feudalism, corpocratic socialism, socio globalism, socio bureaucratism? Maybe we should just call it fascism 2.0.


Henning Meier is a member of the German Social Democratic Commission for Basic Values, and he says:


'There are two reasons (for the failure). When you look at the last 25 years of reform efforts in the context of the Third Way, it was about to advance social democracy programmatic and ideological development through the center and adapt to a neo-liberal policies. When moving through the center thus neglecting to develop alternatives. When it became clear that mainstream politics recipes were inadequate, socialists were without ideas, because they’ve spent the last 25 years to adapt to others' performances. Since the question of alternatives emerge the social democrats were intellectually unprepared’


Exit the Social Democrats ! Once they dared stand up against their brutal masters, the industrialists and got in half a century mitigated some of the worst slave features of the industrial society. It was almost a decent result that they created for large groups in society. There is nothing left of that spirit. Their vision is now identical to the neo-liberalists, the corpotocracy and the global elite. The murky poverty dogma, we read about in their statements, IS in fact one of the global elite's main tenets, and their excessive wealth can only exist at the expense of the many.


They certainly did not intend to create growth for many simply because their own wealth are growing. This is why it was so grotesque to witness during the financial crisis the the bankers were respectively moping and threatening and demanding that people should help these poor banks to cover their limp deficit created by the reckless speculation so that they might help us. When people afterwards came and asked them to perhaps lend out some of their money to create the growth that their economists constantly were babbling about, people got a blank refusal. For banking and business elite the poverty and deficiency state of the many each day ensures that the many never have the energy to say no and throw off the shackles put onto them by the few. For the globalists it is just like raising chickens. The creatures may only get just enough food so they will slaughter mature, but never so much that they become satisfied. Always, always, they must be in search of food, be it food they steal from each other. Chopping Guild, chop down chop to the side. Divide and conquer, eat and shit.



For the European and global elite poverty and unemployment of the peoples is a control system. Ask the Spaniards, Greeks, Portuguese, Italian and soon the French. Now the impoverishment is being spread eastward. There is war in the air - and the smell of money. A lot of money ! And thus further poverty. These three friends always go together. They light up the eyes in the think tanks.



It is intended that the impoverished masses rush in and beyond the borders that now have been repealed and yearn for the next underpaid jobs by undercutting local workers. Life in the chicken coop is by design, not by accident. It is the eternal and artificial state of deficiency that makes us behave like chickens. There is well described and documented philosophy of scarcity behind the design. It is conceived in the think tanks, or whatever they have been called : forums, institutions, foundations, councils, boards, lodges, groups, whatever, which has operated and been around for centuries. Many of them come from the British Empire. These totally non-democratic organs together - we are not talking about parliaments and other open institutions here! - constitute the total body of the real decision-makers in the world. And these days, they are trying to formalize their network into an actual World Government.



An increasingly detailed knowledge of the elite mindset shows, unfortunately, that such a venture, in their opinion can not be done without yet another ‘Great War’. Therefore, we witness the attempts to deploy such this very moment.



A Danish neo- liberal think tank that has just repeated the cliché of ' greater inequality and poverty is good for growth ', CEPOS is of course just a local squeek in a haystack compared to the long-term think-tank-tyranny in the western world with its ‘Great’ wars, bloody, financial, environmental, information, health, energy and trade wars included. Constant war is part of the anemic elite's blood supply. The world is running on vampyre fuel. CEPOS as similar pseudo-scientific institutions across the Westen world is formed to think of new ways to repeat old clichés. One could also say, to extend the 20th century paradigm beyond what it can withstand. They supply preservatives to extend the product across the expiry date.



Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist and vice president of CEPOS say it straight out :


'It is good that the government has not ridden with the underlying agenda that inequality is a growing problem, and something must be done to reduce inequality'
Equality is not an end in itself, but in the neo-liberal model inequality is close to being an end in itself. They know very well that there is no creation of jobs. They know very well that values today are disappearing to an extent not seen straight to the story. The world is in deep and unpayable debt. Where does the money go? Yet no one knows, no one talks about it. You can not talk about what you do not know. And those who still know it say absolutely nothing. The concept of the shadow banking system ( where half of the world's money is ) is simply not in either the media or politicians vocabulary.

The ice is thin these days. And you wonder why so many cases of bankers close to the top comitting suicide (read: are being murdered)? Are they among those who are too close to the inner circle to see, that at huge systemic piece of fraud is going on that has to do with the hidden banking system? The Libor scandal showed that fraud was definitely going on in every major bank in the western world. Banks are controlled by central banks. So this is where the mafia of the world is hiding!


And finally: Think Tank, what a strange word. What does it mean?

  • Does it mean that thoughts and ideas can be weaponized and that we are under attack by philosophers in tanks?
  • Or is it a combination of the 'money tank' of Uncle Scroodge and the 'think hat' of Gyro Gearloose. In this sense it would be perfect newspeak for the tecknocracy of the financial elite ruling the world with their high speed trading, NSA-spying gear, petro-chemical poisoning of food and environment and the behavouristic mind-fucking with humanity.
    In which case there is a further hidden hint to John D. Rockefeller, the model for Uncle Scroodge. 

Disse såkaldte spinn- og tænketanke ... 

hvor er de trættende i længden!


De kan udsige de mest utrolige ting. Og det er ikke fordi, at udsagnet 'øget ulighed og fattigdom giver vækst' er politisk ukorrekt. Hvis man er neo-liberalist er det jo blot politisk korrekt. Lad os bare få noget mere politisk ukorrekthed.
Det er heller ikke blot, fordi udsagnet er småpsykopatisk = ribbet for empati. For det er det.
Det er simpelthen, fordi det er noget gevaldigt vrøvl.
Det tragiske er så, at politikken udøves af både de neo-liberale, socialdemokraterne og ganske især af eurostokratiet.

Udsagn af den slags er håbløst fanget i det døende 20. århundredes paradigme. Det er bare endnu en bøvs fra ekkokammeret, hvor vrøvlet synes at gentage sig selv ad infinitum. Men set på baggrund af et helt ondskabsfuldt, ulykkernes århundredes erfaringer + endnu et håbløst årti er hulheden ganske ... enorm. Man kunne træde endnu et skridt tilbage og tillade sig at opdage, at konceptet er: middelalderligt. Neo-liberalisme er neo-feudalisme.

Borgen i verden
Vi ser den globale middelalderborg for os med herskerklassen højt hævet over det fattige ros i de stinkende gader underneden - forskanset bag deres tykke mure og bevogtet af deres legetøjssoldater, serviceret af deres sheriffer, skatteopkrævere og skingre opråberne på gadehjørnerne, der bekendtgør, hvad borgherren for nyligt har proklameret. Og når der en gang imellem bliver for mange af de snavsede grovædere i de fedtede gyder under muren eller for mange undværlige dagdrivere i herredet, så bliver de sendt et sted hen udenfor herredet for at slagte løs på nogle saracenere, så de beredne herrer kan slæbe deres tyvegods hjem til borgen.

I et sådan system passer fattigdommen ganske smukt ind. Her er den systemisk. Her er den forventet.

Alene det paradoks, at liberal-ideologerne - 'liberal', dette herlige stykke nysprog, der betyder det modsatte af fri, eller også betyder det de ganske fås frihed til at rage til sig på de manges bekostning og er dermed blot en variant udi nysproget - altså at disse ideologer taler om forarmelse som forudsætning for vækst, er ret bizart. Hvem vokser, hvad vokser? Er det vækstens kræftbyld? Er det tumoren, parasitten, det systemiske råd?

Disse tænketanks-fæhoveder kan nærmest i samme sætning udsige, at ulighed og fattigdom motiverer folk til at arbejde, OG at der jo for få arbejdspladser og for lidt vækst (whatever that is)! Og socialdemokraterne har købt den. Folk uden arbejde skal presses så hårdt, at de vil søge alle de stillinger, som ikke findes. Og du kan godt høre det, ikke? Men det kan de ikke, forstå det hvem der kan.

Som der kan læses i en dansk avis, har de europæiske socialdemokrater forpasset deres chance. Jeg vil sige, at det er langt værre: de er ikke længere socialdemokrater. De har både glemt deres sociale visioner, og de respekterer ikke længere demokratiet, men sælger ud af det til EU-Imperiet og det globale post-demokratiske korpokrati. Hvad skal vi næsten kalde det misfoster af post-socialdemokratismen, vi ser? Socio-feudalisme, korpokrat-socialisme, socio-globalisme, socio-bureaukratisme?

Henning Meier er medlem af det tyske socialdemokratis grundværdikommission, og han siger:
 'Der er to grunde. Når man ser på de sidste 25 års reformbestræbelser i forbindelse med Den Tredje Vej, handlede det om at rykke socialdemokratiernes programmatiske og ideologiske udvikling ind på midten og tilpasse sig en neoliberal politik. Når man bevæger sig ind på midten, forsømmer man at udvikle alternativer. Da det blev klart, at mainstreampolitikkens opskrifter ikke slog til, stod socialdemokraterne uden ideer, da man har brugt de sidste 25 år på at tilpasse sig andres forestillinger. Da spørgsmålet om alternativer dukkede op, var socialdemokraterne intellektuelt uforberedte.'
Exit socialdemokratierne! Engang turde de stå op imod tidens herremænd, industrialisterne og fik i nogle årtier afbødet nogle af de værste slavetræk ved industrisamfundet. Det var nærmest et helt hæderligt resultat, som de skabte for store grupper i samfundet. Der er intet tilbage af den ånd. Deres vision er i dag identisk med neoliberalisternes, korpokratiets og den globale elites. For det skumle fattigdoms-dogme, vi læser om i deres udsagn, ER et af den globale elites hoveddogmer, og deres umådeholdne rigdomme kan kun eksistere på andres bekostning.

De har bestemt ikke tænkt sig at skabe vækst for de mange, blot fordi deres pengepung er i vækst. Derfor var det også så grotesk at bevidne under finanskrisen, hvordan der blev henholdsvis klynket og truet for, at befolkningerne skulle hjælpe de stakkels banker med at dække deres slatne underskud skabt af letsindig spekulation for at de skulle hjælpe os andre. Når man bagefter kom og spurgte dem, og de så ikke burde låne nogle af deres penge ud til at skabe den vækst, som deres økonomer ævlede om, fik rigtig mange mennesker et blankt afslag. For bank- og businesse-liten er fattigdom de manges underskuds- og mangeltilstand, som hver dag sørger for, at disse aldrig har overskud til at sige fra og smide lænkerne. For globalisterne er det ligesom at opdrætte høns. Kreaturerne må kun få lige netop så meget foder, at de bliver slagtemodne, men aldrig så meget, at de bliver tilfredse. Altid, altid skal de være på jagt efter føde, og gerne føde, de stjæler fra hinanden. Hakkeorden, hak nedad, hak til siden. Del og hersk, æd og skid.

For den europæiske og globale elite er fattigdom og arbejdsløshed et styresystem. Spørg spanierne, grækerne, portugiserne, italiener og snart franskmændene. Nu spreder de forarmelsen østover. Der er krig i luften - og lugten af penge. Mange penge! Og dermed yderlige fattigdom. Tre sager, der altid følges ad. De har julelys i øjnene i tænketankene.

Det er meningen, at de forarmede masser skal stæse ind og udover de grænser, der nu er ophævet og halse efter det næste underbetalte job ved at underbyde den lokale arbejdskraft. Livet i hønsegården er 'by design'. Det er den evige, og kunstige! tilstand af mangel, der gør, at vi opfører os som høns. Der ligger en egentlig mangelheds-filosofi (philosophy of scarcity) bag. Den er udtænkt i de tænketanke, eller hvad de nu har heddet: fora, institutioner, institutter, råd og nævn, loger, grupper, whatever, der har opereret og eksisteret igennem århundreder. Mange af dem stammer fra Det Britiske Imperium. Disse aldeles ikke-demokratiske organer udgør tilsammen de egentlige beslutningstagere i verden. Og i disse tider forsøger de at formalisere sig til en egentlig verdensregering.

Et efterhånden indgående kendskab til elitens tankegang viser, desværre, at et sådan forehavende efter deres opfattelse ikke kan lade sig gøre uden endnu en verdenskrig. Derfor forsøger man at udrulle en sådan for tiden.

Den danske neo-liberalistiske tænketank, der lige har gentaget klicheen med at 'større ulighed og fattigdom er godt for væksten', CEPOS, er blot en lokal pip i en høstak i forhold til det langvarige tænketanks-tyranni i den vestlige verden og deres 'Great Wars', blodige, finansielle, miljø-, information-, sundheds-, energi- og  handelskrige inkluderet. Konstant krig er en del af den blodfattige elitens blodforsyning. Verden kører et vampyrisk system. CEPOS er dannet for at tænke på ny måder til at gentage klicheerne på. Man kunne også sige: for at forlænge det 20 århundredes paradigme ud over, hvad det kan holde til. De leverer konserveringsmidler til at forlænge varen hen over sidste holdbarhedsdato.

Mads Lundby Hansen, der er cheføkonom og vicedirektør i CEPOS, siger det lige ud:
'Det er positivt, at regeringen ikke har redet med på den underliggende dagsorden om, at uligheden vokser, at det er et stigende problem, og der skal gøres noget, der reducerer uligheden'.
Lighed er ikke et mål i sig selv, men i den ny-liberalistiske model er ulighed tæt på at være et mål i sig selv. Man ved udmærket, at der ikke skabes nye arbejdspladser. Men ved udmærket, at værdier i dag forsvinder i et omfang, der ikke er set lige til i historien. Verden er i dyb og ubetalelig gæld. Hvor forsvinder pengene hen? Ingen ved det, ingen taler om det. Man kan jo ikke tale om det, man ikke ved. Og dem, der alligevel ved det, siger overhovedet ikke noget. Begrebet skygge-banksystemet (hvor halvdelen af verdens penge befinder sig) er simpelthen ikke med i hverken mediers eller politikeres ordforråd.

Isen er tynd for tiden. Man kan undre sig over den stribe påfaldende sager om bankfolk tæt på toppen (uden at være der), der for nylig har 'begået selvmord' (læs: er blevet myrdet). Har de været for tæt på inderkredsen og har de haft adgang til at monitorere data, der kunne afsløre, at der foregår større transaktioner i det skjulte banksystem? Har de oven i købet naivt stillet spørgsmål om det ved møder? Libor-skandalen har vist, at der svindles systemantisk og at alle større banker i den vestlige verden i et eller andet omfang har været involveret eller i bedste fald lukket deres øjne. Større banker er igen kontrolleret af centralbankerne. Det er altså her, at verdens mafia gemmer sig!

Og endenlig: Tænketank ... hvad er det for et underligt ord, hvad begyder det?

  • Betyder det at tanker og ideer kan våbengøres, og at vi i så fald er under angreb fra en slags filosoffer i tanks?
  • Eller er det en hybrid af Georg Gearløs' tænkehat og Onkel Joakims pengetank. I så fald er det perfekt nysprog for teknokratiet af penge, politik og videnskab i nævnte rækkefølge og den elite, hvis high speed trading-svindel, NSA spionteknikker (industrispionage og pengeafpresning), petrokemisk forgiftning af fødevarer og miljø og deres behavouristiske hi-tech mindfucking med menneskeheden.
    Og hvis det er det, så er det oven i købet en skjult henvisning til Rockefellerne, da John D. jo var modellen for Onkel Joakim.

Kommentarer

Populære indlæg