by Chuck Baldwin
Posted on May 19, 2010
People all over America are discussing freedom’s future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession. In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union. Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.
Even many of those who oppose the prospect of secession understand the increasing tyrannical nature of the current central government in Washington, D.C., and that something must be done about it.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines tyranny as “1: oppressive power . . . 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler . . . 3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force . . . 4: a tyrannical act.”
Even a casual observer would have to conclude that most of the actions proceeding forth from DC today match at least Webster’s 1st and 3rd definitions of tyranny. Besides, who would argue the advantage of the tyranny of an oligarchy over the tyranny of a monarchy? A tyranny of many cannot be distinguished from a tyranny of one in most cases–especially not by those poor souls who are at the point of the spear of Government’s cruelties.
Hat tip: The End Run
I’ve been doing a lot of research lately, and I recently came across this little-known quote while reading through Bill Clinton’s book My Life. In Chapter 24, he writes:
“I ended 1987 with my third speech of the decade at the Florida Democratic convention…
I told the Florida Democrats, “We have to do nothing less than create a new world economic order and secure the place of the American people within it.” The central arguments I made were “We’ve got to pay the price today to secure tomorrow” and “We’re all in it together.”
In retrospect, my speeches in the late eighties seem interesting to me because of their similarity to what I would say in 1992 and what I tried to do as President.”
Recall that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Recall also that one of Clinton’s professors at Georgetown was Carroll Quigley, and that he has quoted Quigley and payed homage to him as a mentor many times in his speeches, including his 1992 nomination acceptance speech. In My Life he discusses the “lasting impact” that Quigleys “insights” had on him. On page ix of The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley writes:
“The Rhodes scholarship established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’ seventh will are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes, in five previous wills, left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society … continues to exist to this day. To be sure, [it] is not a childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secret passwords. It does not need any of these, since its members know each other intimately. It probably has no oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does, however, exist and holds secret meetings…. This Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.”
February 18, 2009
Making an appearance on the Morning Joe television show, the Rockefeller globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski said it is high time the rich who have made billions since the days of the Clinton administration help out the poor and struggling masses. Said Brzezinski:
Where is the monied class today? Why aren’t they doing something: the people who made billions, millions. I’m sort of thinking of Paulson, of Rubin. Why don’t they get together, and why don’t they organize a National Solidarity Fund in which they call on all of those who made these extraordinary amounts of money to kick some back in to [a] National Solidarity Fund?
Brzezinski almost looked grandfatherly as he said this (see video). He almost came off as a good-natured humanitarian… almost. It all sounded good, if implausible — that is until Brzezinski reached the end of his carefully crafted diatribe:
And if we don’t get some sort of voluntary National Solidarity Fund, at some point there’ll be such political pressure that Congress will start getting in the act, there’s going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could be even riots.
In other words, Brzezinski is afraid that if some filthy lucre is not dispensed among the unwashed, they will rise up and burn down the banks, sack the corporations, and destroy the globalist edifice so painfully erected over the last fifty or so years — and maybe even go so far as to string up Brzezinski and his fellow globalists from trees and overpasses, the sort of dirty and regrettable business that invariably occurs in the process of violent revolutions in response to decades of provocation.
It’s not the pain suffered by the unemployed and homeless that concerns Brzezinski and the one-world patricians. It is the prospect of class warfare. It is the horrific prospect of losing it all.