No, amused more than annoyed - I find the notion that the world is run by a bunch of liberals (as I understand that word) to be such a strange one.Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R
I'm sensing that phrase has annoyed you?
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
No, amused more than annoyed - I find the notion that the world is run by a bunch of liberals (as I understand that word) to be such a strange one.
Liberal may have a different interpretation in the States, but it is definitely they who have been running the show.
They are definitely enablers.
A lot of use of the word "definitely" in this thread. For things that are far from it.
The wolves in sheep's clothing ©1884
Really, all them Liberals sitting in a room ,watching and agreeing the assassination of Sadam , with carefully positioned camera shots of the horror on their faces leaked,and them drones strikes killing folk from behind a game boy PC , if thats the new Liberal movement i'm having some of that , bugger you can never easily put your hands on your library ticket ,pipe and cruise missile launcher ,when you need them .
You don't have to believe in your policies, it's the results that matter, control and domination. Attacking the middle-classes and introducing distopian policies is hardly free market capitalism.
Right, so your widespread use of the term "liberal" on a messageboard about a football club in the UK is based on what you say is the American interpretation of the word, so why use it then when you seem to be admitting that it does not have the meaning that most people on here would expect it to - wouldn't it be better to use a word which better describes what you are trying to say?
Thanks for posting that link about Liberalism in the USA, but, apart from some differences regarding fiscal conservatism, broadly speaking it ties in with my view of what Liberalism means.
I take it then that your view is it is people with the sort of views set out in that link that have been holding the serious power in the westernised world for the last thirty or forty years?
That's interesting, because, putting it in basic terms. those ideals would appear to support a view that could be called Liberal/leftist/progressive and you really believe that such people have been the ones holding the real power for close to half a century?
Let's be generous and say Blair's tory-lite Labour Government falls into the category I'm talking about then. That means that I make it that since 1980, this country has been governed by your "Liberal elite" for thirteen out of thirty six years. Similarly, I'll stretch a point and say Liberal/leftist/progressives have run the US Government for the sixteen years covered by the Clinton and Obama presidencies, but I'm not sure who else fits the description since 1980.
To my mind, only the Socialist Governments in France would fit into the "Liberal elite" description which would mean that they had been in Government in that country for half of the time since 1980 and about a quarter of the last thirty six years in Germany. So, while I appreciate that you think that the real power lies behind the throne, so to speak, it seems to me that the "Liberal Elite" have formed Governments in what are probably the four biggest countries in the western world for about a third of the time since 1980.
I daresay you would argue that the centre right parties that have governed in France and Germany would fit into your description of a liberal elite, but that makes me ask you who isn't represented by it? There's not much else left now is there apart from the extreme fringes on the left and parties that fall into right wing conservative/UKIP/alt right territory, so thanks, but no thanks, I think I'll stick with your Liberal elite.
Come on Bob, you know it's not the governments who run countries. There are nameless and faceless individuals that really do it. THEY are the liberal elite.
It's all part of the plan.
Well it is the general term given to those behind the scenes, and the chosen ones who are selected to head the governments, so why call them anything different? It's not a right or left thing either, there is always a seemless transfer of power between the two main parties after a reverse at the ballot box, and major policies continue as before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM
Comical Gluey still up to his old nonsense.
I've been banged up for a few days. Something to do with putting tape over my webcam.
Turns out I was wrong all along, they really are interested in my laying on the sofa..........
That's a revealing clip and the idea that Donald Regan was a controlling influence on the President in the 80s is not one I'd argue against too much, but, again, from what I know of the man, Regan was no Liberal.
The video says that "the country would now be run by the Corporation". Now, that's a far more appropriate name to give the grouping that any voters revolt should have been against as far as I'm concerned, not this "Liberal elite" that you talk about, because the power does not lie with them and I'm not sure it ever did.
Tell me, do you see Bernie Sanders as one of the Liberal elite. Given what you say about the Fabian Society in the Labour party, I'm assuming you do and if you are using someone as much to the right as Donald Regan was to make your point, that grouping of people who aren't in your Liberal Elite seems to be shrinking by the day -seems to me like we're now looking at the extreme right, extreme left and nationalist parties with what I'd call very dodgy attitudes.
Donald Regan was a member of the CFR who are a Round Table organisation, based on Fabian Socialism. The names Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan and Rhodes will soon pop up if you do any research. Their aim is a global socialist government controlled by the banks and corporations. Other names to watch out for are the Trilateral Commission, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Jesuits, Tavistock Society, Skull & Bones, and I am sure there are others. You are a better researcher than I am, so I'm sure you will find out how they are all related faster than I can tell you. You may even come to the conclusion that political parties only exist to give us the illusion of democracy
Edit: That would be the Tavistock Institute, although a Tavistock Society also exists.Donald Regan was a member of the CFR who are a Round Table organisation, based on Fabian Socialism. The names Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan and Rhodes will soon pop up if you do any research. Their aim is a global socialist government controlled by the banks and corporations. Other names to watch out for are the Trilateral Commission, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Jesuits, Tavistock Society, Skull & Bones, and I am sure there are others. You are a better researcher than I am, so I'm sure you will find out how they are all related faster than I can tell you. You may even come to the conclusion that political parties only exist to give us the illusion of democracy
Wikipedia says the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) "promotes globalization, free trade, reducing financial regulations on transnational corporations, and economic consolidation into regional blocs such as NAFTA or the European Union, and develops policy recommendations that reflect these goals" and it defines the Fabian Society "as a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow".Donald Regan was a member of the CFR who are a Round Table organisation, based on Fabian Socialism. The names Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan and Rhodes will soon pop up if you do any research. Their aim is a global socialist government controlled by the banks and corporations. Other names to watch out for are the Trilateral Commission, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Jesuits, Tavistock Society, Skull & Bones, and I am sure there are others. You are a better researcher than I am, so I'm sure you will find out how they are all related faster than I can tell you. You may even come to the conclusion that political parties only exist to give us the illusion of democracy
Therefore, strictly speaking, you are asking me to believe that the CFR exists to advance British socialism! Yes, I can see how there is a loose connection between the aims of the two bodies, but it is a hell of a leap to deduce from this that the CFR wants a"global socialist government controlled by the banks and corporations." - take the word "socialist" out and I'd, perhaps, be in a position where I could be won around.
However, having looked at quite a few of those names and bodies you listed, I'd hardly say we are talking about a bunch of rabid socialists - there may be socialists in some of these organisations, but they would surely be in a fairly small minority and if you were looking for an average political position of your typical member/senior employee of this amalgam of banks, societies and groups you list, I'm fairly sure it would be somewhere to the right of socialist (or liberal) as I define it.
Anyway, let's say you are right and that there is this shadowy group behind the scenes that really runs things, then I still go back to the point about who is there left out there who can provide an alternative to this "Liberal elite"? Truthfully, if the only choice available is your group with it's aim of "a global socialist government controlled by the banks and corporations" and the likes of Trump, Farage, Le Pen and Wilders, give me those socialists at Morgan Chase any day of the week.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote