Some info on PSYCHOPATHS (like N. American adminstrations)

Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

Source: IntelStrike - Brent Jessop

Trademark of the Psychopath

The use of an inner, or esoteric, language to intentionally deceive is a trademark characteristic of the psychopathic personality or psychopathically dominated group. This is nicely summarized in Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (1998) [1]:

“An ideology of a secondarily ponerogenic association [secondary stage of infiltration by psychopathic individuals] is formed by gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones. A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process. The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group’s propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members. The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names. Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this “doubletalk” requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.

Average people succumb to the first layer’s suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well. Anyone with certain psychological deviations, especially if he is wearing the mask of normality with which we are familiar [a psychopath], immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him. Comprehending this doubletalk is therefore a vexatious task, provoking quite understandable psychological resistance; this very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic [specific characteristics of a disease] symptom indicating that the human union in question is touched by the ponerogenic process to an advanced degree.” - 116

Let us take a look at a group that continually redefines words in an attempt to deceive, namely The Club of Rome.

The Club of Rome is a premiere think tank composed of approximately 100 members including leading scientists, philosophers, political advisors, former politicians and many other influential bureaucrats and technocrats. The organization and its members have been heavily involved in the environmental movement, including such individuals as Maurice Strong, Aurelio Peccei, Daisaku Ikeda and Mikhail Gorbachev to name but a few.

[From all quotes below, italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added by myself.]

Self-Reliance versus Collective Self-Reliance

From RIO: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to The Club of Rome (1976) [2]:

“Self-reliant development, with its reliance on local rather than imported institutions and technologies, is a means whereby a nation can reduce its vulnerability to decisions and events which fall outside its control: a self-reliant community will be more resilient in times of crisis. And since it is a style of development predicated upon a recognition of cultural diversity, it is an instrument against the excessive homogenization of cultures.” - 66

The above quote may sound like a normal definition of a self-reliant country. But this is an odd statement coming from a group which is constantly pushing the idea of interdependence. We need to look at their inner definition of self-reliance, that is collective self-reliance.

“Self-reliance cannot mean ’self-seclusion’, isolationism or autarky. No nation, given the nature of global interdependence, can exclude itself from the international system. The world has become too complex for that.” - 68

“Self-reliance applies at different levels: local, national and international [...] [internationally], it becomes collective self-reliance.” - 68

Territorial Sovereignty versus Functional Sovereignty

From RIO: Reshaping the International Order:

“Given the growing list of problems confronting mankind, every effort must be made to stimulate processes which point in directions which can be deemed desirable. This would certainly apply, for example, to the tendency towards the increasing centralization of decision-making involving issues beyond national frontiers should be viewed as a logical continuation of the process of change and a precondition for the effective assertion of national sovereignty.” - 103

The “increasing centralization of [international] decision-making” being a “precondition for the effective assertion of national sovereignty” may seem contradictory. To rectify this misconception, we again need to look to the inner meaning of the word sovereignty. The Club of Rome redefines it from the commonly implied “territorial sovereignty” to what they call “functional sovereignty”.

“Acceptance of these elements calls for a reinterpretation of the concept of national sovereignty. Participation and social control suggest a functional rather than a territorial interpretation of sovereignty, or jurisdiction over determined uses rather than geographical space. Conceptually, this interpretation will make possible the progressive internationalization and socialization of all world resources - material and non-material - based upon the ‘common heritage of mankind’ principle. It also permits the secure accommodation of inclusive and exclusive uses of these resources, or, in other words, the interweaving of national and international jurisdiction within the same territorial space [...] Ultimately, we must air for decentralized sovereignty with the network of strong international institutions which will make it possible.” - 82

The Common Heritage of Mankind

It is not always necessary to redefine old words or slogans, sometimes it is more appropriate to create new misleading ones to describe old ideas. The “common heritage of mankind” (or “functional ownership”) is a good example of this. If you are “left leaning” this concept will sound like fascism, if you are “right leaning” this concept will sound like communism. Regardless of the label you wish give it, the end result is centralized control over all resources.

From RIO: Reshaping the International Order:

“Effective planning and management calls for the fundamental restructuring of the United Nations so as to give it broad economic powers and a more decisive mandate for international economic decision-making [...] It is also hoped that major changes in the United Nations structure will be made over the next decade so that it is not only able to play a more forceful role in world political affairs but it is also able to become more of a World Development Authority in managing the socio-economic affairs of the international community. [...] The most effective way of articulating the planning and management functions of this organization would be through a functional confederation of international organizations, based upon existing, restructured and, in some instances, new United Nations agencies - to be linked through an integrative machinery. This system and its machinery, if it is really to reflect interdependencies between nations and solidarity between peoples, should ultimately aim at the pooling and sharing of all resources, material and non-material, including means of production, with a view to ensuring effective planning and management of the world economy and of global resource use in a way which would meet the essential objectives of equity and efficiency.” - 185

“In the long term, and assuming progress towards the creation of an equitable international economic and social order leading to a pooling of material and non-material resources, mineral resources will need to be viewed as a common heritage of mankind.” - 148

Global Governance not Global Government

From The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991) [3]:

“Not only have we to find better means of governance at national and international levels, but we have also to determine the characteristics of a capacity to govern. Global ‘governance,’ in our vocabulary, does not imply a global ‘government,’ but rather the institutions of cooperation, co-ordination and common action between durable sovereign states.” - 100

In Club of Rome terminology, don’t forget, “durable sovereign states” means “durable functionally sovereign states”. From the same book the term governance, as in global governance, is expanded on:

“We use the term governance to denote the command-mechanism of a social system and its actions, which endeavors to provide security, prosperity, wherence, order and continuity to the system. It necessarily embraces ideology of the system, which may (democratic) or may not (authoritarian) define means for effective consideration of the public will and accountability of those in authority. It also includes the structure of government of the system, its policies and procedures.” - 160

Unity Through Diversity

The following quote is from a book containing a series of lectures organized at the behest of Maurice Strong (an Executive Member of the Club of Rome) while he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972). One of the lecturers was Aurelio Peccei, co-founder of The Club of Rome. The book was entitled Who Speaks for Earth?: Seven Citizens of the World on Major Issues of the Global Environment (1973) [4].

“As the various nations and regions continue to differentiate - in economic activities and in life styles - they must elaborate new ways of relating to each other so as to become progressively integrated into organic wholes. Differentiation must always be followed by integration. To symbolize the need of achieving unity through diversity, the United Nations might eventually come to be known as the Integrated Nations.

In practice, a global approach is needed when dealing with the problems of the spaceship earth which affect all of mankind. But local solutions, inevitably conditioned by local interests, are required for the problems peculiar to each human settlement.

These two contrasting attitudes concerning the environment are not incompatible : in fact they complement each other. The national loyalty that we must develop toward the planet as a whole need not interfere with the emotional attachment to our prized diversity. As we enter the global phase of social evolution, it becomes obvious that each one of us has two countries - his own and the planet earth. We cannot feel at home on earth if we do not continue to love and cultivate our own garden. And conversely, we can hardly feel comfortable in our garden if we do not care for the planet earth as our collective home.” - 42

“Unity through diversity” (or “act locally think globally” as a variation on the same slogan) is a very fluffy way of saying interdependence. The Club of Rome refers to interdependence as an organic society. From Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome (1974) [5]:

“The concept of the “organic growth” of mankind, as we have proposed in this report, is intended as a contribution toward achieving that end. Were mankind to embark on a path of organic growth, the world would emerge as a system of interdependent and harmonious parts, each making its own unique contributions, be it in economics, resources, or culture.

[...] Such an approach must start from and preserve the world’s regional diversity. Paths of development, region-specific rather than based on narrow national interests, must be designed to lead to a sustainable balance between the interdependent world-regions and to global harmony - that is, to mankind’s growth as an “organic entity” from its present barely embryonic state.” - viii

According to Bertrand Russell, a well bred elitist himself, an organic society is nothing more than totalitarianism. From The Impact of Science on Society (1952) [6]:

“Totalitarianism has a theory as well as a practice. As a practice, it means that a certain group, having by one means or another seized the apparatus of power, especially armaments and police, proceed to exploit their advantageous position to the utmost, by regulating everything in the way that gives them the maximum of control over others. But as a theory it is something different: it is the doctrine that the State, or the nation, or the community is capable of a good different from that of individual and not consisting of anything that individuals think or feel. This doctrine was especially advocated by Hegal, who glorified the State, and thought that a community should be as organic as possible. In an organic community, he thought, excellence would reside in the whole. An individual is an organism, and we do not think that his separate parts have separate goods: if he has a pain in his great toe it is he that suffers, not specially the great toe.

So, in an organic society, good and evil will belong to the whole rather than the parts. This is the theoretical form of totalitarianism.” - 64

Conclusion

The use, or more appropriately, the abuse of words is a characteristic of a psychopath or psychopathic group. As you have just seen, The Club of Rome is a well versed organization in this type of deceit and should be properly classified as such. It is very important for anyone trying to understand how these types of organizations operate, to take the time to understand the inner, or esoteric language developed for the elite within the organization. Without this understanding, the outer layer of propaganda’s suggestive insinuations will be dangerously misleading.

References

[1] Andrew M. Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (1998, 2006). ISBN-10: 1-897244-25-8.

[2] Jan Tinbergen, RIO: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome (1976). ISBN 0-525-04340-3. For more information about this book please read this series of articles.

[3] Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome: A Strategy for Surviving the World (1991). ISBN 0-671-71107-5.

[4] Barbara Ward, Rene Dubos, Thor Heyerdahl, Gunnar Myrdal, Carmen Miro, Lord Zuckerman and Aurelio Peccei, Who Speaks for Earth?: Seven Citizens of the World on Major Issues of the Global Environment (1973). ISBN 0-393-06392-5.

[5] Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome (1974). ISBN 0-525-03945-7. For more information about this book please read this series of articles

[6] Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN 0-415-10906-X . For more information about this book please read this series of articles

More articles by Brent Jessop can be found at his site Knowledge Driven Revolution.com

the KlusterfucK explained

Eco-economic Warfare and the Planned Collapse of Western Civilization

By Matthew D. Jarvie

Recently, when New World Orderly Bill Clinton was campaigning for his wife in Denver, he remarked that

�we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions �cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.� (Of course it's always about "the children" with these people.)

This is not simply Clinton's opinion, but that of his globalist handlers, who have for many years been using the issue of the environment and climate change as the pretext to grab private land and deindustrialize the West, sending US jobs over to third world countries such as the UN's "Most Favored Nation" of China.

To some of us who haven't swallowed the environ-mental lies being peddled by these criminal psychopaths, it's painfully clear to see that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with ushering in a fourth world system of socialistic, fascistic control. This will be a completely controlled system where people will be confined to overcrowded cities. The land surrounding these cities will be off-limits to the general public. Private property and vehicle ownership will be a thing of the past, and everyone will be made to live in single-dwelling, "eco-friendly" housing as mandated under Agenda 21. Everyone will be made to get along with their neighbor, and should you decide you're not a "team player" in the socialistic, multi-cultural society that you will be forced to adapt to, you will be deemed "mentally unstable" or "dangerous" and either jailed or killed.

Since most people will be out of work, there will be no money. Money will become credits, and these credits will be issued weekly by the state. This was discussed by Bertrand Russell, in his ironically-titled book Roads to Freedom (1918). Since this will be a completely automated control system, punishment will be able to be administered by the withholding of these credits should one dissent against this system. Under this totalitarian nightmare, the world's population will be greatly reduced by way of plagues, HAARP-induced famines and water shortages, and perpetual wars, to a more "manageable" number of peasants to serve the elite's utopia on earth. One-child policies will become mandatory and eventually the only humans born will be purpose-bred to serve the "Great Work."

This is what we are really looking at when we hear about "sustainability" and "slowing (or greening) the economy." Once you can better understand what's going on, you can see why oppressive communist countries such as China are awarded "Most Favored Nation" status by the UN. China, which has been under globalist control for the better half of the past 100 years, is merely the test bed for the system that will soon be installed in the US and across most of the world. The only difference is that the coming system will be more scientifically controlled, and of course technology will play a huge role in this.

The aforementioned quote by Clinton is fairly tame compared to what some of these elitists are calling for. Enter Maurice Strong...

Maurice Strong (pictured above) is perhaps most widely known as the co-author of the 1994 Earth Charter with the communist and former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev, who once stated that the threat of environmental crisis will be the "international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order." Strong's rise to prominence as internationalist gofer to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers goes back to 1946, when Strong was just 17 and working as a clerk at the United Nations in New York City. It was here that Strong was befriended and recruited by David Rockefeller. Despite his minimal credentials of only a high school diploma, Strong is moved up the ladder quickly following his introduction to Rockefeller, becoming a millionaire by his mid-20s, during the Alberta oil and gas boom. At the age of 25, Strong became the President of Dome Petroleum in Calgary. By the age of 35, he is the CEO of the Power Corporation of Canada. While at the Power Corporation, Strong hires Paul Martin and James Wolfensohn, both of whom would move up the ladder quickly and go on to hold high positions of power -- Martin as Prime Minister of Canada, and Wolfensohn as President of the World Bank. (Strong would later become an advisor to Wolfensohn at the World Bank.)

At the UN, Strong would go on to become Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Senior Advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and Chairman of the Earth Council. He would also become Chairman of the World Resources Institute, Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum, and a member of Toyota's International Advisory Board. Strong's most influential role to date, however, has been as the Secretary-General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED -- aka the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro. It was this conference that gave birth to the Earth Charter and Agenda 21, which would lay the groundwork for a completely managed global society run and managed under the auspices of the UN, under the guise of saving the environment.

It is people such as Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, and Ted Turner that are at the forefront of the UN's environmental/depopulation agenda, at least at the visible/gofer level. The four are also members of, or have close connections to the Club of Rome. It is the Club of Rome that has been guiding the environmental movement since its creation at the Rockefellers' estate in Bellagio, Italy in 1968. It's aim is to reduce a large majority of the global population, as well as manufacture crisis through which the world can be "united" under a one world government, as was admitted in their 1991 publication, titled The First Global Revolution.

Strong, along with Mikhail Gorbachev, is also at the forefront of the New Age movement being promoted from the highest levels of the UN. The purpose of the New Age movement since its introduction to mainstream culture by people such as Madame Blavatsky and Alice Bailey (the founder of Lucis Trust) has been to destroy Christianity, which is to be replaced by a new (but in reality very old) earth-based religion. This all ties in with the green agenda of depopulation, because the religion of Gaia worship sees mankind as a sort of parasite to earth. So what we have is a new religion, for a new system of control, for the New Age of Aquarius.

In May, 1990, Strong was interviewed by WEST magazine of Alberta, Canada. Strong finishes the interview with a very bizarre and apocalyptic narrative about a novel he wishes to write.

"Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists - they're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can't close. The rich countries...?"

(The author of the article then goes on to say...)

...and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window.

Strong's twisted little fantasy is a perfect example of the deranged, psychopathic mentality of these elitists. These people see the general public as cattle, and much of the public truly are like cows waiting in line to be slaughtered, blissfully unaware of anything other than the reality they're fed through the TV. We are now at the tail-end of what began (in terms of Western deindustrialization) as the post-industrial era of the 70s. Now that most of the United States' manufacturing capabilities have been sent abroad, the US (along with much of the West) is a predominately consumer nation riddled with debt and a deliberately devalued currency. The long-term goal of the elite has been to destroy the US economy (which will no doubt be felt across the board), because to bring in their new system they must destroy the old one. The planned chaos that will ensue will be used as the pretext to usher in a more controlled system and to implement the plans laid out in Agenda 21. When people like Clinton, Gore, and Strong speak about a slowing of the economy to "save the environment," they are conditioning us to a grim reality that lies ahead -- one in which they and their masters have been planning for a very long time.

http://sovereignsentience.blogspot.com/2008/02/recently-when-new-world-orderly-bill_11.html

al-Goracle: An Inconvenient Truth

by RadicalRon

…also on JWF

A truth conveniently overlooked by the Nobel committee?

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
Judi McLeod — There’s an elephant in global warming’s living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C.” of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It’s a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it’s one that’s working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood’s poster boy for greening the silver screen.

The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change “the new religion”. Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick. Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.

Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.

The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.

But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It’s a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide,” wrote EIR.

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers–including Maurice Strong–sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996–a Sunday–the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for “taking the initiative in creating the Internet.”

The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

Meanwhile Jumbo’s still in global warming’s living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.

And that’s the way it is.

Via Canada Free Press