News & Analysis
Rothschilds Give Formal Support to US Direct Democracy?
The words of Irish poet William Butler Yeats in his poem, The Second Coming, have an eerie resonance for American politics today. "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold... The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand." In an environment of unprecedented political gridlock in Washington and broad-based dissatisfaction with the leading candidates of both parties, 2012 may finally be the year when an independent candidate becomes president of the United States. – Lynn Forester de Rothschild / Huffington Post
Dominant Social Theme: The heck with this two-party stuff. Let's simply elect the best technocrat.
Free-Market Analysis: What an editorial at Huffington Post by Lynn Forester de Rothschild! In it, she makes the point that "some revelation is at hand" – and mostly likely it has to do with the reality of a genuine third-party challenge to put a candidate in the White House.
Is Ms. Rothschild suggesting Congressman Ron Paul is about to win the US presidency? (Not sure about this.) A close reading of the article, however, reveals something that may be even more radical. Ms. Rothschild is arguing for, wait for it ... "direct democracy." That is, electing candidates directly, by majority vote, at the federal level, presumably without the fuss of the current two-party system.
We've written about the dominant social theme of direct democracy before. The governor of New York, Michael Bloomberg – an elitist worker-bee if there ever was one – is a big supporter of an element of direct democracy, which includes the elimination of the two-party system.
But what is it REALLY? Well ... it is basically a full implementation of the USSR's communist system that died 20 years ago! The idea is that a technocracy of the elite can present candidates who are the most "competent" at administration. The corollary to this, of course, is that one must accept EVERY FACET of the CURRENT system to accept that one is voting purely for competence.
In other words, if people do not like the current corporatist/authoritarian/totalitarian/militarized state that is being constructed around them, they're simply plumb out of luck. That's because the candidates on this "best of all worlds" won't be running on how to CHANGE what's going on – only on how to administer it BETTER.
And who is Ms. Lynn Forester de Rothschild? The bio tells us that she is "CEO of EL Rothschild, LLC and the co-Chair of the 'Better Values, Better Markets' Task Force at the Henry Jackson Society in London." You can "follow her on Facebook, Twitter, and at LdeReport.com," we learn.
The views Ms. Rothschild expresses are inevitable, in our opinion. We've continually catalogued them and here they are once more – reinforced by an individual whose family is, in our estimation, the most powerful in the world.
Yes, it is likely the Rothschilds and other great banking families control tens or even hundreds of trillions via central banks around the world. It is likely the Rothschilds, among others, who are driving pell-mell toward what we consider the most horrible future of all – a one-world (new) order administered by central banking technocrats.
We've written literally thousands of speculative articles about this, by now. And we've also pointed out that modern history seems to have resolved itself around one question: whether the Internet Reformation itself (which is waking people up to what's going on) will cause enough people to resist those who are using the chaos and depression of the current world situation to campaign for more and more government and an ever-more centralized global economy, etc.
It's the "people versus the elites," as it always is. And the elites, as they always do, are attempting to provide tools that seemingly empower middle classes but actually only build up bigger and bigger government. Elites LOVE big government because they rule the world via mercantilism. No government, no government levers.
Without the mechanism of mercantilism, the rule of the many by the few becomes a lot more difficult. Enter many of the elite dominant social themes that we have been discussing in these modest pages throughout the past year. Ms. Rothschild, herself, touches on "transparency," on "direct democracy" and, of course, on "better values" (see bio, above). (For some of our articles just Google "transparency" or "direct democracy" and "Daily Bell.")
The idea, of course, is to ensure that any discussion of the FAILURES of government ends up providing an anodyne – that is a solution that INCLUDES MORE government. In other words, government is a terrible problem and the only solution is to increase it and make it better and more responsive – and larger and larger.
The absurd end result of such a point of view is an all-encompassing government stretching around the world with ever-vaster resources. The additional resources will be needed to police government itself. In other words, as the corruption grows, so the resources of government must grow. Here's some more from the article:
For the first time in our nation's history, popular dissatisfaction with both parties is reinforced by the existence of serious bipartisan organizations that will facilitate the effort of a non-aligned national figure to become president. Because of these two factors, the opportunity to mobilize what Tom Friedman calls "the radical center" has never been greater. Indeed, "some revelation is at hand."
The extent of voter dismay in America is astounding. According to an October 2011 Pew Research poll, only 11% of us are content with the federal government. In a 1958 National Election Study, 73% of Americans said that they "always" or "mostly" trusted the government to do the right thing. In contrast, in a New York Times/CBS poll taken in late October, only 10% of those polled expressed the same faith ... Both parties have lost support because of the gridlock caused by ideological divisions ...
The message is clear: as politicians become more partisan and less effective at governing, the electorate is ready for a radical restructure of our election system itself. Voters are refusing to be held hostage to the self-interests of either party. Thankfully, in true American fashion, our civic society has built the tools to meet the challenge; for the first time in our history, the means exist to level the electoral playing field for an independent candidate.
A not-for-profit organization, called Americans Elect is establishing ballot access in all 50 states for the candidates for president and vice president in 2012 who will be nominated directly by the people in an online nominating process. The sophisticated website of Americans Elect allows registered voters a revolutionary new way to nominate a bipartisan ticket to occupy the White House. To date, the website has over 300,000 delegates, more than 50 times the number that participate in both the Democratic and Republican Party conventions (in full disclosure, I sit on the Leadership Board for Americans Elect).
Perhaps she is kidding? Perhaps it is all a bad joke? Not at all. She writes of a similar movement, as well, called "No Labels." This is, we learn, "a political organization of Republicans, Democrats and Independents working on the grassroots level to support bipartisan and pragmatic politicians and policies. The group has 180,000 members and on December 13th is holding an open meeting at the Capital to unveil a comprehensive congressional action plan."
And here is another eloquent (and in our view blood-curdling) statement she makes toward the end of the article. "Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, is leading a movement of business leaders and political donors to end the hyper-partisanship in Washington that could be the bedrock of financing for a viable independent, bipartisan ticket for 2012. Simply, both the political environment and the tools are in place for a total disintermediation of our political duopoly."
Oh, good. The two-party system was horrible enough. In its place, we shall substitute the worst of all worlds – a one-party system. Yet, Ms. Rothschild seems a true believer.
Toward the very end of the article she sums up her points with eloquent intensity: "If activated, the 'radical center' is bigger and stronger than all the vested interests and the extremists in the political parties, in the media, in the streets and in the guts of Washington. All that is needed is for them to mobilize with 'passionate intensity.'" Hm-mm. Say, isn't she talking about OWS? Or are we too paranoid?
Sure, there are many in the wide-world of blogging who consider our modest and uncontroversial website a disseminator of nothing more than conspiratorial notions dressed up as free-marketing thinking. And yet ... we make no apologies.
We believe our paradigm is the correct one and purely from an investing point of view those who use it have known about the potential for serious and serial failures in many if not most of the power elites' fear-based promotions literally years before they took place.
The lies of global warming, the failure of the EU, the endless unraveling of the Chinese economy, the demise of the moral justifications for central bank ... we predicted each possibility months or years before there were any real-world clues that they were actually going to take place.
And by following the elites' propaganda, we started writing about "transparency" and "direct democracy" long ago. We warned that, faced with information about government corruption and mendacity, the elites would have to do something to ensure the continuation of the meme and the march toward world government.
Since reducing government is anathema to them, they will have to come up with another solution. We predicted that instead of reducing government, the elites would try to use the Internet (humankind's most powerful modern tool) to promote government transparency and direct democracy. Hey, that's "hot."
The upcoming Pecora-style Hearings that we have been writing about recently (should they occur), will be positioned as a government clean-up of corruption that may extend to Fedgov itself. Meanwhile, the memes of direct democracy will be promoted through a variety of suddenly emergent think tanks, groups, educational and political facilities, etc. Occupy Wall Street is likely one faux-facility intended for this promotion.
Kudos, by the way, to Robert Wenzel for picking up on this article by Lynn Forester de Rothschild as soon as it came out. We're pleased to see that Wenzel, like some other acute libertarian viewers of the modern scene, seems to be using the tools of directed history to analyze what is ACTUALLY happening to our world.
Conclusion: We have no idea whether Ms. Rothschild's perspective on direct democracy and government transparency will win the proverbial day or if the Internet Reformation itself will undermine it. But we do know that if one tracks the unfolding memes – like breadcrumbs – the trail is very plain to see. No, not conspiracy. Reality.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Aingeal on 03/25/13 10:17 PM
Hey Daily Bell, great article, Ireland as you know is controlled by the Rothchilds and the Irish government are nothing but lapdogs to this family , interestingly this very well organised group of IRISH PEOPLE launched a new political party in December 2012 called DDI Direct Democracy Ireland , I think they are a totally planted party and I would love some help to expose them, like who funds DD or any info similar thanks any help appreciated :)
 |
Posted by Bischoff on 12/10/11 07:10 PM
Good for you. I don't judge you for taking that stand. As for me, I find it more difficult to accept that women serve in combat support units, than to accept that Sarah Palin serve as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 12/10/11 01:04 PM
I do see what you are saying, but stand my ground. I will NEVER support a woman for president.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 12/10/11 11:07 AM
Bluebird,
I have nothing against you standing up for the paternal system. I think it works very well. The only problem is that for it to work well, it needs "real" men. There is a short supply of those.
I see nothing wrong with a woman as a leader. Queen Victoria did a good job, so did Margret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and I could name a hundred more.
Unless you understand that the value of the USD is determined by the Texas oil boys in Houston and the Saudi Arabs in Rihyad, and unless you understand that both the Democrats and Republicans in Alaska government climbed into bed with the Texas oil boys by handing them sweetheart oil extraction deal, and unless you understand that Sarah Palin after being elected Natural Resource Commissioner of Alaska stopped these sweetheart deals, upped the extraction fees and send every Alaskan an annual $1,300 check, you don't understand how much guts she showed in doing so.
But, that's not all. Unless you understand that the Houston Majors and the Saudis control the flow of crude oil throughout the world, you cannot understand what guts it took to throw out the Democrat and Republican clique chilling for the Houston boys.
However, the real coup she was able to pull off was to run an oil pipeline right into Illinois against the wishes of the Houston oil boys and the Saudis.
Unless you understand the oil business, you simply cannot understand the kind of huge job she pulled off against these Houston oil boys. Sarah Palin as a woman politician beat the Texas oil cowboys and the Saudis. That in my book, is showing real guts.
When she came onto the national scene, is there any doubt why not only the Democrat Wall Street Crowd and their MSM went after her, but that the Houston boys chimed to go after her in with great pleasure, as well... ???
That's the reason why I said she understands more about economics than the Washington pin heads.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 12/10/11 08:29 AM
I do not have anything really AGAINST Sarah. I know little about her other than what I saw when she was running with McCain. I had somewhat in ocmmon with her. I like to hunt and we both had a child beyond the normal age which have Down Syndrome as a result. I saw nothing that qualifies her to be president. I do not think women were meant to hold so much power and cannot handle it. Call me old fashioned, racist, or whatever, but I don't want a woman president. Ever. Cojones or not. If Sarah knows so much about economics, let her teach. But not run the country or the world.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 12/10/11 08:14 AM
This is a very good example, although I think you may be speaking a little too kindly. One only has to watch the video again of her laughing over the death of Gaddafi to see this is clearly not a leader.
 |
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/10/11 05:22 AM
Re... Posted on 12/09/11 11:53 PM
Methinks that smacks of pathetic desperation.
|
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/09/11 11:53 PM
And freeing traitors convicted of passing US secrets to foreigners is a novel and most unusual method of trying to garner flagging support for a lost cause. Did someone say that Newt was smart?
|
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/09/11 11:49 PM
I wonder how much this dodgy interview cost Gingrich supporters ... ... .. Click to view link
I wonder what other facts we can look forward to hearing he will make up to suit the audience he is fooling around with. Throwing good money after bad never resulted in anything other than great losses and there is no reason to think that Newt can change that absolute.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 12/09/11 11:45 PM
I take it that you don't like Sarah Palin... ??? Let me just say that she understands more about economics than 95% of those pin heads in Washington, DC.
Her smirk doesn't bother me, given that she has a set of cajones.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 12/09/11 11:38 PM
I accept that you are a Ron Paul supporter. What you call facts about Obama being reelected, unless his opponent is Ron Paul, I call an assertion, not a fact.
"Ron Paul may not in your view have the leadership qualities to bring about the change so desperately needed but his ability to inspire the many hundreds of thousands of activists who now are knocking on doors, creating and mailing out videos and launching them on the internet, creating and mailing out brochures, waving signs, phoning voters, debating in every forum on the qualities of his plans and principles and providing his campaign with funds cannot be ignored in the way his message has been ignored by the controlled media for all the time that I have followed his progress... since 2007."
I laud every volunteer working for Ron Paul's candidacy. As you say, his message cannot be ignored, and it isn't. I only say that his message requires more time to sink in, then is left in this election cycle. I hope that the supporters of Ron Paul will be successful in their effort to have him nominated as candidate, but I have my doubts that they will be successful.
I admire you for the faith and loyalty you show toward his quest for the candidacy. Just because I have doubts as to his success in this primary contest, it does not mean I am opposed to his ideas.
My candidate would have been Sarah Palin. She realized that her conservative stand would be countered by liberal Democrats (MSM) and liberal Republicans, making a win this time around impossible, given the state of the electorate.
I believe that those same liberal Democrats (MSM) and liberal Republicans will make it impossible for Ron Paul be nominated as candidate for the presidency.
I maintain, given the perversion of the original U.S. Constitution, the American people don't get the Government they want. They get the Government they deserve.
Please, read my comments about Newt Gingrich in that vain.
|
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/09/11 09:46 PM
Or a wannabe dominatrix who is known worldwide as being economical with the truth and prone to crazy invention of situations of her personally under attack, bluebird ... ... ... like this excuse for a leader into misspeaking ... ... .. Click to view link
Considering what all here on the Daily Bell have read of the Land of the Free and the Brave, ... . her little statement to the Dutch is bound to have them realising she is some sort of psychotic buffoon in need of TBS treatment ... ... . which is a secure holding of mentally disturbed patients who are a clear and present danger to societies.
Her words do not reflect actions on the ground ergo she is deluded and being played for a useful tool and useless fool? Such a shame that I cannot think of or find anything nicer to say based upon the evidence as is available and presented.
|
Posted by concernedforfreedoms on 12/09/11 05:28 PM
Related to AE is the site National Popular Vote.
Click to view link
Which produced this 894 page manual "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote"
Click to view link and has its own site.
Backed by George Soros: Click to view link
and his son Jonathan in 2008: "It's Time to Junk the Electoral College" says "Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote." Click to view link
Found this interesting site showing all of Soros' influences and even his filings in EDGAR: Click to view link
I feel ill.
 |
Posted by David_Robertson on 12/09/11 03:40 PM
The statement that "... if indeed you are in any way politically minded, it is important that you realise that if Ron Paul is NOT the Republican nominee then it will be four more years for Obama." is not an opinion it is an arithmetical fact. This was why I included the arithmetical proof. How can you disagree with a factual statement without advancing other facts to disprove it?
Ron Paul may not in your view have the leadership qualities to bring about the change so desperately needed but his ability to inspire the many hundreds of thousands of activists who now are knocking on doors, creating and mailing out videos and launching them on the internet, creating and mailing out brochures, waving signs, phoning voters, debating in every forum on the qualities of his plans and principles and providing his campaign with funds cannot be ignored in the way his message has been ignored by the controlled media for all the time that I have followed his progress... since 2007.
His people love Ron Paul and would do anything for him. Contrast this with Gingrich whose entire campaign staff left him earlier this year when he took off on a trip to the Greek islands and ignored their pleas to launch his campaign. His campaign has only just recently opened an office in Iowa and the phones have just arrived. He is already in debt and although his campaign will no doubt benefit from the enormous amount of free publicity he has had recently I would wager that he spends wastefully whatever funds he receives.
Ron Paul has had probably hundreds of volunteers phoning from home for weeks already using a state of the art computer programme to contact every single potential voter and determine what their most important issue is. They will then receive a letter and a brochure from Ron Paul dealing with his answer to their issue. His campaign uses their funds frugally yet effectively so that he is competitive with the other "top tier" candidates in spite of being virtually ignored by the controlled media.
All of this for me suggests that he is a very effective leader who recognises how to inspire and get the best out of those he is leading yet unlike Gingrich he is humble and approachable by anyone. He is woefully underestimated by the controlled media because he represents the most effective and dangerous opposition to the special interests and they know it. They simply refuse to acknowledge his widespread and growing support preferring to indulge in wishful thinking and repeat the talking points they have been given by their controllers.
What is most telling about the Ron Paul campaign is that it appeals disproportionally to the politically active younger generation much more than the other candidates who are viewed by them as "more of the same old same old". Gingrich on the other hand draws most of his support from the over 65 demographic and his most recent ad "The America We Love" is aimed directly at that age group. In other words the future belongs to Ron Paul.
My guess is that the seniors believe the lie that Ron Paul will destroy their Social Security benefits when the truth is precisely the opposite. He intends to protect the most vulnerable and dependent while finding the money to do so from programmes he has identified as being economically unnecessary and positively destructive like foreign aid, war expenditures and 900 American military bases in 150 foreign countries. He will also remove all corporate subsidies. If things are allowed to go on the way they are at the moment, and with Obama this is what will happen, then the Social Security cheques will eventually be worthless, destroyed by inflation.
Once more I will reiterate, it is an arithmetical fact that if Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee then we shall have four more years of Obama, almost definitely a World War III, a Global Depression, Martial Law and the advance of the Police State. This is not intended as alarmism just a logical conclusion from the available known facts on the condition of the world. The choice could not be more clear. As Ron Paul has said "I am not just running to be elected, I am running to change the course of history."
|
Posted by Bluebird on 12/09/11 03:02 PM
Sarah Palin!!?? Well, as long as it is "create controversy" day, I might as well add to it. The day a woman (any woman)becomes POTUS is the day I bail out of the USA. The only thing worse than a dictator is a Woman dictator with her smirk on.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 12/09/11 02:09 PM
@ Dave Robertson
"You may devoutly wish that your presupposition be true but I fear it is merely self deception."
You could very well be correct.
"This argument in favour of Gingrich appears to be presupposing that he is a consummate politician with a clear understanding of the Constitution who then seeks to satisfy the will of the People in his actions in accordance with the Constitution. (This places the responsibility for his actions squarely on the People letting the egregious Gingrich off the hook.)"
You have it absolutely correct. That is in fact my argument.
"This view of Gingrich is shared by many other fellow Congressmen and Senators."
Yes, I agree, but I also have the sense that in Gingrich you have someone who can learn and adept for positive results. Don't forget all those collegues of his in the Congress have a combined public approval rating of about 12%. To consider one of eight Congress critters to be publically acknowledged worthy to render judgment of Gingrich, doesn't say much.
"... if indeed you are in any way politically minded, it is important that you realise that if Ron Paul is NOT the Republican nominee then it will be four more years for Obama."
We simply disagree on this point. It is one thing to support the principles on which Ron Paul campaigns. It is quite another to convince voters of their rightness, after they have been propagandized against these principles for generations over a hundred years. It takes a "consummate" politician to turn the problem around. IMHO, Gingrich is that kind of politician. That's why I mentioned Machiavelli in relation to Gingrich's politics.
I respect your opinion about Ron Paul as a capable politician, but I don't share it. He takes principle stands, he represents his Congressional District well, but as a politician to create nationwide change, he does not have Gingrich's abilities.
Would I prefer Ron Paul over Gingrich as President of the United States... ??? Yes, I would.
FYI, my preferred candidate for POTUS is Sarah Palin. Now, I am sure I created controversy... As you may have guessed, politically I am a conservative, not a libertarian.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ha, where ARE you a libertarian?
|
Posted by dandepriest on 12/09/11 01:43 PM
Does this group have anything to do with what you are suggesting is the next strategy of the PE? Click to view link
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 12/09/11 09:03 AM
DB: "They are ... slowly, steadily, gradually, purposefully ... emerging?"
--------------------------
You mean ... like ... FORMALLY ... as opposed to "informally", as you've mentioned for a couple of times recently? But isn't this obvious build-up of a formal nwo-technocracy just another tool-to-rule ... again from behind the curtain? They cannot seriously believe that a people, now matter how badly dumbed down, would not rebel against an open, formal Rothschild world-fiefdom, now can they?
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 12/09/11 07:11 AM
DB: "Ms. Rothschild is arguing for, wait for it ... "direct democracy."
-----------------------
Any idea why THE MAN'S wife bothers to have this pathetically blatant piece of mindf*ck published under THEIR NAME? Are they not aware that there's a worldwide growing army out there, feverishly collecting every shred of evidence against this family of old?
Heck, they got literally thousands of convenient shills under their command - why the high-profile exposure? Why take ANY risk ... at this point in time ... especially with this obviously crucial "bipartisan" one-party meme? Is this just arrogance ... or vanity ... some sadomaso passion for risky games ... a hidden death wish ... or is it really conceivable that they are simply gullible in the face of WE, THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW BY NOW ... because they're not accustomed to that particular notion, YET?
Reply from The Daily Bell
They are ... slowly, steadily, gradually, purposefully ... emerging?
|
Posted by David_Robertson on 12/09/11 04:48 AM
This argument in favour of Gingrich appears to be presupposing that he is a consummate politician with a clear understanding of the Constitution who then seeks to satisfy the will of the People in his actions in accordance with the Constitution. (This places the responsibility for his actions squarely on the People letting the egregious Gingrich off the hook.)
The argument you are making therefore appears to me to be an adroit self-serving rationalisation on your part that flies in the face of all the evidence that Gingrich is in fact a globalist warmonger who follows the dictates of the special interests and the elites for his own selfish purposes. You may devoutly wish that your presupposition be true but I fear it is merely self deception.
According to Ron Paul who actually worked with Gingrich he is capable of coming up with a very good strategy like the Contract with America but he lacks the ability to see it through and is a very poor leader. This view of Gingrich is shared by many other fellow Congressmen and Senators. This being the case it is difficult to see why you believe that he would be able to get anything done that is different than what Obama has accomplished which was substantially a continuation of the Bush41, Clinton and Bush 43 Presidencies in implementing the Third Way towards what Bush 41 called the New World Order.
In any event, if indeed you are in any way politically minded, it is important that you realise that if Ron Paul is NOT the Republican nominee then it will be four more years for Obama. This is something many Republicans have not yet woken up to. Here is a cogent description of the quandary from recent political blog:
"It's actually quite dangerous for the Republican Party NOT to endorse Ron Paul. If he runs as a 3rd party he'll take a huge base of supporters with him. And if you know anything about Ron Paul supporters you know they're Ron Paul or nothing. Thus making it almost impossible for whoever the Republican nominee would be to get the votes needed to beat Obama.
One of three things is going to happen:?
1. Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and runs as a third party candidate: The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests Ron Paul would win 18 percent as a third-party candidate running against Obama and Romney. Obama wins.?
2. Ron Paul drops out: fervent and stubborn Ron Paul supporters stay home or write him in. Obama wins.?
3. Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination: Ron Paul gets the following voters: a. 2008 Obama voters who thought they were going to get 'Change'. b. 2008 Obama voters who voted to end the wars. c. the VAST majority of the Independent vote. d. the entire GOP voting block who dislikes Obama enough to vote for Ron Paul instead. e. Ron Paul supporters coming out to vote in DROVES. Ron Paul wins.
So if your main goal is just to make sure Obama isn't in office for another term, you're seriously going to need to learn more about Ron Paul and find the common ground you have with him as opposed to what you don't like."
Click to view link
|
|
