Caveat Sucker

Progressivism (aka liberalism) is the revolutionary impulse to make the world safe for globalism.

The leadership of both parties, Bush, all the current candidates, and most major Western political, media, business, academic, and religious leaders openly subscribe to this impulse.

With words they pretend to be universalists but with their actions they reveal themselves as self-righteous and greedy individualists. They speak endlessly of equality but they treat everyone but themselves as lesser beings to be managed like so many domesticated animals.

These leaders suffer no hindrance in their quest for one-world utopia. The globe will wear their yoke, and like it. Your nation, culture, wealth, health, and family are all forfeit. You are free, except to oppose them. You may migrate – by all means! – but mind the wars, the gangs, the crime, the toxic waste.

Welcome to hell. Our ideologies and party affiliations and consumer baubles and blogs are distractions from this reality.

Have a nice day.

12 thoughts on “Caveat Sucker”

  1. Tan, You have the story right. At present, we are at the mercy of money and might. At some point we will become their victims or resist.

    What we do is not for the present. It is for the time when the money becomes more closely held and the power is used to quell the responses.

    Presidents are nothing more than the figureheads to take whatever heat is directed toward the world financial powers and to allow the corporate class the freedom to plunder while societies social engineers manage the masses.

    I have a similar post, but don’t have the will to proof it and post it. I think many of us question why we do at times, but I think we really don’t have a choice but to do what we can. Lysander Spooner had a similar quandry with predecessors of the same people with whom we are having problems back during the 1800’s. I think I remember that you had read his essay. If not, search for the link over at my site, or let me know if you have trouble finding it.

  2. Prime examples: Tony and Cherie Blair. I can’t wait to see the think tanks, NGOs, EU or UN their offspring wriggle their vile way into. Doing good has never been more lucrative.

  3. Flanders, I believe it was Lysander Spooner’s No Treason you pointed me to. As my old faith wanes in an America which I only recently realized no longer exists, I find myself feeling foolish to have not seen what Spooner could see clearly 150 years ago:

    Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize.

  4. You accept blame for no reason, Tan. We are the product and mark in a master con game. As a little old lady should not blame herself for being scammed, we should not blame ourselves. We think, but within the confines of our knowledge. It is the perpetrators of the con who deserve the blame.

    The official levels within our country were able to resist the con until well after the Civil War, despite having had pressures applied during and after the Revolution. It was not until just before the Federal Reserve Act was initiated that the progeny of those cons got their feet firmly planted within our system.

    You have the right essay, but the link doesn’t work. I enclose it at the bottom, but this is the part I found more explanatory from Spooner’s pamphelet:

    “…the question of war, and consequently the question of power, is little else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence, those who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers. It is so in Europe, and it is so in this country.

    In Europe, the nominal rulers, the emperors and kings and parliaments, are anything but the real rulers of their respective countries. They are little or nothing else than mere tools, employed by the wealthy to rob, enslave, and (if need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at all.

    The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents – men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest – stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.

    They lend their money in this manner, knowing that it is to be expended in murdering their fellow men, for simply seeking their liberty and their rights; knowing also that neither the interest nor the principal will ever be paid, except as it will be extorted under terror of the repetition of such murders as those for which the money lent is to be expended.

    These money-lenders, the Rothschilds, for example, say to themselves: If we lend a hundred millions sterling to the queen and parliament of England, it will enable them to murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand people in England, Ireland, or India;….”.


  5. Hello,
    I am so pleased to find your blog!
    It is excellent, as is flanders fields!
    I would like to reproduce ” Caveat Sucker” on my space,I have been trying to find the ‘right words’ all day.
    God Bless You!

  6. It must be akin to what travelers saw as they approached ancient Babylon. The circus-stadium experience itself was as it must have been in latter day multicultural Rome.

    “…this then, is the conclusion of the city’s history; growing from primitive barter-centre to Culture-city and at last to world-city, it sacrifices first the blood and soul of its creators to the needs of its majestic evolution, and then the last flower of that growth to the spirit of civilization–and so, doomed, moves on to final self-destruction.” (Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West, p.252)

  7. Tan, That Yockey’s link seems interesting. I hadn’t heard about it before. My address is under movies at more about me, if you you contact me I have some info to share which I prefer not to have public at this time. Place @ and .com.

  8. Yockey’s essay on liberalism should be mandatory reading for every conservative, together with Marx’s and Ingall’s Communist Manifesto. Both are relatively short, and both are eye-opening, to say the least.

  9. Anonymous, there is a chapter in Imperium called Liberalism. Is that what you mean?

    Here is an excerpt:

    Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative — it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family. Divorce takes equal rank with marriage, children with parents.

    I had some trouble understanding Yockey at first, but by the end of the chapter (the bit above is about halfway in) I could not only understand, I could see why he has been shoved down the memory hole. His thoughts represent a great heresy against “finance-Liberalism”, the world-eating political force I only recently and clumsily recognized as progressivism-globalism.

    Imperium promises to be an interesting read. I second the recommendation, for those short on time, to at least read the chapter on Liberalism.

Comments are closed.