Western foreign aid is
quite often "an excellent method for transferring money from poor
people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries"
Peter Bauer, quoted at:
"Since this is an era when many
people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice', what is
your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" [Thomas
Sowell, quoted at
"I have never understood why it is
'greed' to want to keep the money you've earned, but not greed to
want to take somebody else's money" [Thomas Sowell, quoted at
"You don't get to suggest that
stealing money from some and giving it to others makes you a moral
human being. It doesn't. It's the reverse"
"I'm fed up with the lies spewed out
by self-serving charities such as Oxfam and Save the
Children and Christian Aid and UNICEF and all the
others of their ilk with their well-paid bosses and child-raping
employees. We've been giving and giving and giving to Africa for
over 60 years and where are the water wells, and hospitals and
universities and electricity plants and roads and all the other
things we've paid for time and time again? They don't exist because
most of our money has disappeared into the offshore accounts of
Africa's billionaire, kleptocrat rulers or the pockets of well-paid
charity workers" [source].
undermines the age-old incentive structure that has driven progress
in society, whereby virtues such as hard work, discipline and
education are rewarded with success and wealth, and lack of such
virtues is punished by failure and poverty. ... PC rewards victim
status, ... and scorns ... successful people who are deemed
oppressors. By encouraging people to strive for the bottom rather
than the top, PC undermines one of the main driving forces for
progress in society, the individual pursuit of self-improvement"
[Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 45].
"At its most
fundamental, political correctness seeks to redistribute power from
the powerful to the powerless. At its most crude, it opposes power
for the sake of opposing power, making no moral distinction between
whether the power is malign or benign, or whether the powerful
exercise their power in a way that can be rationally and reasonably
justified. Eg (1) ... It is more politically correct for Hamas
suicide bombers to deliberately kill as many innocent civilians as
possible than it is for Israel to selectively kill the terrorist
leader responsible for the wave of suicide bombers while trying to
avoid the loss of innocent life because the Israeli government is
[seen as] strong, and the Palestinians [seen as] weak; (2) America,
as the world's most powerful country, can never do any good, even
though it is ... the largest donor of overseas aid; (3) The West, as
the world's most powerful cultural and economic group, can safely be
blamed for all the world's ills, even though it is largely
responsible for the worldwide spread of prosperity, democracy and
scientific advance; (4) Multinational corporations are condemned as
the oppressors of the world's poor, rather than seen as engines of
global economic growth with vast job-creating investments in the
world's poorest countries, pushing up wages and transferring
knowledge. Conversely, political correctness automatically supports
the weak and vulnerable, classifying them as nearly untouchable
victims, irrespective of whether they merit such support or not"
[Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp. 9-10].
the powerful and supporting the powerless means that, when presented
with a new issue, the politically correct must decide not what is
right or wrong, malign or benign, true or untrue, but who is the
more powerful and who the less powerful. The PC analytical process
enjoys the beauty of simplicity: (1) identify the victim, (2)
support them and their interests, irrespective of any other factors"
[Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 11].
"PC tells the weak and
vulnerable that it is society that is wrong and needs changing, not
themselves. ... (1) If, ... someone is poor because they are lazy,
ill-disciplined, addicted to benefits and resentful of those who
aren't poor, then encouraging them to blame other people rather than
emulating them, and supporting their self-inflicted harm through
generous benefits, will in fact just perpetuate their poverty; (2)
In the US, the widespread use of historical slavery as an excuse for
failure ... may be emotionally comforting in the short term, but
does nothing to help African Americans take what steps they can to
improve their own lives; (3) Persistently blaming the West for many
of the Third World's problems discourages Third World countries from
facing up to the fact that many, and perhaps most, of their problems
are self-inflicted. ... the key to development is largely in a
country's own hands. ... Stressing the importance of aid and debt
relief may reduce Western guilt, but risks diverting attention from
the more important hindrances to development, which in the long run
are bad governance, lack of rule of law, corruption, poor education,
poor healthcare, excessive bureaucracy, socialism and distorted
international trade laws" ... self-inflicted reasons need ... to be
encouraged to copy others, rather than blame them, and they need
their self-harming behaviour and attitudes to be challenged rather
than comforted" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp.
"Since victims are
supported not because they are right but because they are
vulnerable, critically questioning them is seen as attacking them,
and those who do so are vilified as oppressors. In the world of PC,
victims can say or ask for anything, not because they are right or
deserve it, but because they are safe from public scrutiny or
objection. the most overt racism, sexism and homophobia in Britain
is now among the weakest groups, in ethnic minority communities,
because their views are rarely challenged, as challenging them
equates to oppressing them. PC's inherent contradictions make it
largely incapable of resolving such objectively simple ethical
problems such [sic] as the murderous homophobia of Jamaican rap
singers or the cruelties of forced marriages. The ... government
tolerates the numerically far greater animal cruelty of halal
slaughter and bans the far less significant cruelty of fox hunting
simply because the perpetrators of halal slaughter have victim
status while fox hunters have oppressor status" [Anthony Browne,
The Retreat of Reason, p. 13].
"One of the most
successful campaigns for victim status has been by Muslim groups in
Britain, notably the Muslim Association of Britain, which increases
its lout by ... accusing anyone who tackles its extremist Islamic
agenda of 'Islamophobia'. Although it has a thoroughly oppressive
agenda ... the MAB passes itself off as oppressed so convincingly
that it has fooled the PC establishment, notably the Guardian,
Independent and BBC, into promoting it unquestioningly"
[Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 43].
"Classifying someone as
a victim or oppressor before considering the rights or wrongs of an
argument is much easier if you divide humanity up into groups of
victims, identified and united by their victimhood: ... It is only
one step further from attributing group identities to giving people
rights on the basis of those group identities ... If you are black
or Asian, you may have a right to affirmative action ... Judging
people by the group they belong to makes them ... less likely to be
seen as individuals, responsible for their own destiny. it is,
ultimately, not just patronising, but dehumanising and
counterproductive" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p.
"Double standards: (1) countless groups, associations and
publications based on ethnicity which would be unacceptable if they
were working for whites; (2) Men are (still) openly legally
discriminated against in terms of retirement rights that would be
utterly unacceptable if it applied to women; (3) Although European
slavery of Africans is endlessly commented on, the Islamic world's
enslavement of Africans (and to a lesser extent Europeans) is rarely
discussed; (4) Left-wing activists have campaigned hard and
passionately against the [sic]
Israel's occupation [sic] of the West bank, while being almost
totally silent on the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and pretty mute
on the Chinese occupation of Tibet; (5) communist dictators, such as
Stalin, are treated far more leniently than fascist ones such as
Hitler ... [despite the fact that] communism ... was responsible for
far more deaths than fascism" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of
Reason, pp. 25-26].
"We know why many of our
leaders accept this double standard [appeasement of Islamic
jihadists and condemnation of Western values and beliefs]. They have
bought into John Lennon's juvenile utopia in which there is 'nothing
to kill or die for, and no religion too'. Shorn of their
transcendent, non-negotiable foundations, all our beliefs are now
contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or
comfort. At the same time, multiculturalism bestows on the
non-Western 'other' a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture
and religion, no matter how dysfunctional or oppressive, all the
while the West refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why
would it? Haven't generations of Western intellectuals and artists
told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Haven't they
asserted, as Pascal Bruckner put it, 'every Westerner is presumed
guilty until proven innocent'? Having culturally internalized this
self-loathing and lack of conviction, we are vulnerable to those who
are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their
beliefs and the payback due to us for our alleged historical sins
such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we
wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined
to be subjected to the superior values of Islam"
"Economic freedom, which
gave birth to capitalism, is the means by which people become
politically free; it has been the flameholder of the promise for
which people by the millions have left their native countries to
seek freedom in the United States. What capitalism ultimately
represents is an equal chance for all members of society to improve
their own lives. Where we've gotten bogged down is in the socialist
insistence that everyone deserves not equal opportunity but equal
results. The Soviet Union demonstrated how eliminating
competition and depriving people of the fruit of their labor
destroys ambition and, hence, the quality of life. And yet that is
what the Misery merchants would wish on the United States [and the
UK]. It's time that we admit the failure of socialism and embrace
the benefits of capitalism and competition. No, not everyone will
end up at the top of the heap, but most of us will land in a pretty
comfortable place. And because we Americans are a generous people,
we take care of those who are truly unable to make it on their own.
The least we can expect, though, is that everyone tries to
participate, giving honest effort. Socialism has had its appeal
because it offers, albeit falsely, an environment that appears to be
safe and consistent. The free market does not offer those comforts;
it demands constant effort"
[Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police,
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving. The government
cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first
take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that
they do not have to work because the other half is going to take
care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no
good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work
for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot
multiply wealth by dividing it"
"[W]ho pays for the NHS,
the welfare system, the roads, the police, the fire service, the
schools, to empty your bins, to light the streets? Capitalism does.
Capitalism brings civilisation ... When you want to buy your house
or a flash motor do you save up for twenty five years the money you
make from your capitalist job? No... you borrow from the
bank...which transfers money from the rich into your pocket as a
loan...which you pay back but in the meantime you have a roof over
your head for 25 years by which time you own the house. So
'redistribution' is a Capitalist idea...enabling you to live
comfortable lives you couldn't afford otherwise and puts all that
wealth to effective use" [source].
"Why are we such
cringing serfs about tax? Our money belongs to us. It isn't pocket
money from the State, but our own. If they want it, they should
prove they know what to do with it. What evidence is there that the
Government, that incompetent waster, would spend money better than
Starbucks? Who do you think would pay in the end, if Starbucks paid
more tax - why, the customers. Even Leftist politicians are careful
not to pay too much tax when (for instance) they inherit property.
Leftie BBC journalists are fond of (legal) arrangements to keep
their tax low. Why should coffee shops be expected to behave
differently?" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 December
"A new poll reveals that
three-quarters of people have no idea where out £8.8billion foreign
aid budget goes - or even if it's well spent. And that's just the
Cabinet" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 29 December 2012].
overseas aid budget ... is mainly used to buy arms, Mercedes-Benzes
and finance shopping trips to Singapore and Paris for the wives of
cruel African dictators" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 19 January 2013].
"We can only wonder how
our troops greeted the news that the UK will soon be gifting £11.3
billion every year to foreign powers, while asking our Armed Forces
to cope with further cuts and no fully-functioning aircraft carrier.
... seven out of every ten developed countries in the world have
decided to slash their overseas aid, which they consider
unaffordable at a time of such grave economic crisis. ... cut the
international aid budget by half and give the money to our heroic
Armed Forces. It is morally unsustainable that our soldiers die for
a lack of resources while third-world dictators are given money to
squander on their kleptocracies"
[Comment, Daily Mail, 2
"I don't like [Red Nose
Day] because people in this country, dressing up in pyjamas, baking
cakes, giving £5, think they're doing something good and helping and
things are getting better, when they're not. In fact, they are
perpetuating the problem. ... I find it obscene that a bunch of
white, rich celebrities can produce not even good comedy so that
they and we can feel better about ourselves. Friday night was a bit
like Christmas Day, hen we give presents to relatives we ignore for
the rest of the year, except Red Nose Day is a day of giving to
people we don't know and, in fact, don't want to know. It is imposed
on us in exactly the same way: media saturation. This year there was
even chocolate involved: ... We were shown film of celebrities and
children who have raised money by being sponsored to do something
entirely pointless. I have never understood the logic of
sponsorship; you either care or you don't. Why someone has to walk
the Great Wall of China in a bra to persuade me of injustice, I've
no idea. We were treated to film of celebrities crouching among poor
black people, who are always the victims. These black people are
never filmed angry or articulate; they are always supplicant. ... [W]hen
you go to these countries where children die of pneumonia or tetanus
or malnutrition, you realise not just how damaging these
charity-thons are, but how irrelevant and misinformed. Instead of
[celebrities] explaining how £5 can inoculate a child, why not tell
people why these countries are in the state they are in?..."
Jones, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013].
"The catastrophe in the Philippines
should remind us what proper overseas aid is - an emergency fund to
give as much help as possible to people who are victims of natural
disasters. It is not an open chequebook to squander money on
Mercedes-Benzes for African despots, to finance their wives'
shopping trips to Paris or fund India to send a space mission to
Mars. The British public's generosity in donating to Philippine
disaster victims should prompt our Government to re-think its
misguided £10 billion-a-year foreign aid programme"
Daily Mail, 16 November 2013].
"As it's revealed Britain's on track
to become the strongest economy in Europe, thanks to austerity
measures which have seen us avoid the catastrophe brought about in
other nations by unfettered State spending, it's worth remembering
that a strong economy - and the jobs it provides - remains the best
means of lifting families out of poverty. Or, in the words of one
veteran campaigner: 'Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take
more people out of poverty than aid.' His name? Bono. Funny how you
never read that on charity billboards"
[Amanda Platell, Daily
Mail, 28 December 2013].
"Thanks to the foreign aid commitment
to give a specific percentage of GDP to the Third World, the
economic recovery means a larger amount of taxpayers' money will be
on its way into the pockets of foreign despots. It's estimated
another £1billion will be found - some of which will go towards
their wives' shopping trips and new Mercedes-Benzes. It's the
British people who should benefit from the proceeds of our country's
economic growth. at the very least, the money ought to be spent on
keeping in their jobs our brave troops returning from Afghanistan,
rather than making them redundant"
[Simon Heffer, Daily Mail,
07 December 2013].
"Socialist politicians like
increasing top tax rates mainly because they enjoy taking money from
the well-off, and because it wins them easy support. It doesn't
really matter to them if the change produces extra money for the
Exchequer, which it often fails to do. Ed Balls's plan to restore
the 50 per cent top rate is a promise to Labour's remaining core
vote of class-war enthusiasts as well as a threat to entrepreneurs
and high achievers. It is a dispiriting sign that Labour is once
again ready to stir up ancient, dangerous and economically
illiterate resentments to seek office. Mr balls knows that the
pledge will lose Labour support among important opinion formers in
the professions. But he is counting on old-fashioned envy to more
than cancel those losses out. He thinks there is a widespread
feeling that the better off have escaped unscathed from the
recession, while the poor have suffered. Labour's leaders have also
belatedly discovered that their record on immigration has made them
nearly as vulnerable to UKIP as the Tories - and so they need to
shore up their heartland vote with crude populist gestures. It will
be a great pity if this works. It is cheap politics, but it is also
expensive for the country, driving away talent, reducing the rewards
for hard work. it is a sad lapse into short-term vote-catching
irresponsibility, and a worrying sign that Labour, bereft of new
ideas, is heading back to its pre-Blair days of envy and spite"
[Comment: Mail on Sunday, 26 January 2014].
"In the past it was believed that
Labour's tax raid on company retirement funds amounted to about
£5billion a year - a devastating enough figure in itself. Yet now
the Independent Office of Budget Responsibility confirms that the
true scale of the state's depredations has been vastly greater.
Figures released this week show that under Labour's 'reforms', the
Treasury has seized a monstrous £118billion - an average of almost
£7 billion a year - that would otherwise have cushioned retirement
for hard-working savers. The result has been to lay waste to a
system that was the best funded in the world before Messrs Brown and
Balls got their hands on it. Indeed, until 1997 it promised almost
half of company staff 'defined benefit' pensions, typically worth
two-thirds of their final salaries. Now fast forward to 2014, when
such schemes exist only in the public sector - funded, of course, by
taxpayers in wealth-creating businesses, whose own miserly pensions
(and retirement ages) have become a perilous guessing game. Indeed,
this pensions apartheid is tearing our society in two. Yet Mr Balls
still has his eye on private sector pensions as a rich source
of revenue if Labour wins the next election. As he said in
September, he is working even now on plans to restrict reliefs, so
that the highest earning savers are taxed twice on their retirement
schemes - once when they pay contributions in, and again when they
draw money out. In their greed for cash to finance grandiose
spending plans, Labour did hideous damage to our culture of thrift.
Is Mr Balls determined to finish the job he helped to start?"
[Comment, Daily Mail, 26 April 2014].
"Like [Gordon] Brown, [Ed Miliband]
regards Labour's pseudo-roaring pre-crash economy as a work of
Brownite genius (albeit under-regulated), whereas the bursting of
the bubble is essentially a capitalist failure that is un-connected
to the causes of the bubble in the first place. In office, Miliband
would usher in the same economic mess as every other Labour
government, because he has the socialist traits in spades: The
arrogant self-assessment of left-wing politicians as unusually
caring and knowing and therefore beyond reproach; the consequent
inability to listen to non-political actors; and the view that
scorning wealth creators as 'predators' or similar is a
manifestation of insight and of compassion that positions you as
some sort of latter-day fiscal Rosa Parks. Miliband was in the
Treasury when inflation was stoked and borrowing got out of control;
he was in the Cabinet when the banking system came close to collapse
and the deficit hit unprecedented highs. But does Ed think he or his
colleagues made any mistakes, beyond being insufficiently
"The goal is socialism, Islam is
simply a convenient means to destroy capitalistic society ... if a
majority of voters understood the left's true intentions around
economy socialization, leftist leaders would be escorted out of the
country on a rail. It would be impossible for perverse radical
leftists to convince more than a handful of useful simpletons to act
in a manner contrary to their own best interests without lying. My
hope is that [the West] has finally awoken to the fact that the far
left's collective message is now nothing more than ringing a dinner
bell for parasites to feed off of hard working hosts. As a point of
incredible irony, the harder people work, the more they are loathed
by the the leftist parasites. Yet the more parasites there are, the
more hard workers are needed to support them... incoherent logic...
implosion. And still, the media is parroting the left's
anti-capitalist rhetoric? Why do leftists cheer on the introduction
of Third World disease, poverty, and crime into Western Civilisation
if they do not support the destabilization of society? Leftists
don't seem to be concerned about themselves or their families. The
left should move to Cuba where their ideology will be appreciated"
"European culture has
been gutted by Post-Modern 'victim'-obsessed PC indoctrination which
has already warped the minds of the young" [comment at:
extended extract is from the
The Origin of 'Identity Politics' & 'Political Correctness'
(sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a
political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people
(in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake
of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in
European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In
shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and those gullible
enough to adhere to it, and on to those the theory had prescribed
and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had
responded accordingly ('the [white, male] workers'); then the
cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by
this crisis to an extent was salved"
"As with any fervent ideology, a
hallmark of the political-Left is interpreting anything and
everything in its own ideological terms to claim as a manifestation
of the ideology and its prophecy - jumping on a bandwagon, so to
speak; though here only to hijack it. The bandwagon here was, of
course, the American civil rights movement, which though enjoying
ubiquitous support within black communities - to the point often of
various forms of extremism - featured virtually nil endorsement of
socialism ... It is from the time of this co-option that 'identity
politics' dates; many considering that the movement was incorporated
into the Left in the wake of King's assassination in 1968 - the
major turning-point year in political-Left politics generally"
"'Civil rights', as the first great
'single-issue' campaign, served not least to provide an acceptable
cloak for the Left to avoid provoking a resurgence of McCarthysim.
The major social upheaval of 'civil rights' with its large-scale and
widespread rioting was easily the nearest thing in then recent US
history to look like the promised Marxist 'revolution', and
obviously was just the practical application the 'theory' was
seeking. Moreover, the protagonists (black Americans) were eminently
separable form the now despised 'workers' per se, in being
presentable as a new 'group; from outside of the former fray of
'boss' versus 'worker'.
"This accident of history served to
add 'black' to 'woman' as 'the new oppressed' ... 'The worker' in
effect was retrospectively stereotyped as both 'man' and 'white'.
With the inverse of this stereotype of 'white' being not just 'black
American' but 'black' - that is, ethnic-minority generically ... so
it was that the new 'agents of social change' / 'disadvantaged' /
'oppressed' were extended from women to also include all ethnic
"It is only with the knowledge of how
this developed that sense can be made of why ethnicity is held above
the myriad other possible differences that could be utilised as
in-group markers, when in fact there is nothing inherent in
ethnicity as an in-group marker to produce inter-group prejudice
that is particularly more pernicious"
"Indeed, the worst inter-communal
conflicts nominally between different ethnicities usually are
between different cultural heritages with no discernible 'racial'
differences of any kind - and what (non-ethnic) differences there
are can be minimal; the lack of contrast actually fuelling the
intensity of conflict, such is the need for groups to feel
distinguished from each other"
"Furthermore, ethnic prejudice is
anything but restricted to or even predominantly 'white' on 'black':
inter-ethnic (eg, 'black' on Asian) and ethnic-on-'white' 'racism'
can be, often is and may usually be the greater problem; and a
negative attitude to a certain ethnicity does not imply a similar
attitude to other ethnicities"
"The specific US experience, given
the highly divisive politics in the wake of the American Civil War
over the basis of the Southern US economy in African slavery, does
not translate to elsewhere; notably not to Europe - as was starkly
evidenced in the experience of World War II 'black' American GIs
stationed in England in how they were favourably received by locals,
who sided with them when discriminated against"
"'Racial divides' in European 'white'
host countries are the result not of mutual antipathy but
affiliative forces, principally within migrant enclaves and
secondarily within the 'host' community; in both cases being through
in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'"
[EMcD: though the latter
part of this observation is indeed true in normal circumstances,
this does not, of course, take account of the Islamic/Koranic
doctrines of Al-Hijra (Immigration), Taqiyya (Lying and Deceit), and Razzia/Ghazwa
(Rape and Slavery), Dawa (Cultural and Stealth Jihad), and Terrorist
and Violent Jihad, carried out by fundamentalist Muslims as
they settle in increasing numbers in Western countries with the sole
purpose of making every remaining Dar al-Harb ('House of War': i.e.
any non-Muslim country) into a Dar al-Islam ('House of Submission': i.e all Muslim countries) until Islam finally achieves its
longed-for global Caliphate.]
[End of Extract]
"The Frankfurt School
believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the
problems facing society, then that society would never reach the
state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was as
swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do
this they called for the most negative destructive criticism
possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to
de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the
'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a
virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as
one of their members noted.
To further the advance
of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School
recommended (among other things):
(1) the creation of racism
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching
of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of
schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of
One of the main ideas
of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism'
- the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences
between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary
educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance
- hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women
to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."
eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a social state:
Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the
Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as
possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
back if you are providing everything for them to live;
- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;
Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from
the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;
Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives
(Food, Housing, and Income);
Education - Take control of that people read and listen
to - take control of what children learn in school;
Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government
Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and
the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier
to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].
"Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.