Hello, I'm currently new to the forum and while researching the case put forward here I've come across a few errors that I would like to point out and perhaps have clarified.
1). In Alex Jones' Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, Alex mentions in passing the Fabian bloc in reference to the allied powers in world war II. This error is subtle, and like most of the ones I have discovered isn't so much a complete fabrication but just an ignorant statement stemming from a lack of understanding. First I need to define socialism: socialism is a system in which capital is allocated towards where it can do the most social good, as opposed to where it can provide the highest return on invested capital (profit) in a capitalist system. Many different cultures and political interests have been socialist. Where many disagree, is how best to implement a functioning socialist system. Marxism, in broad terms, advocated the implementation of this system through violent overthrow of the existing property owning class. The first country to attempt to do this on a large scale was Russia in the beginning of the 20th century. Fabian socialism is an idea first put forward to the public through a group known as the Fabian Society. This group was made up of influential intellectuals in the United Kingdom. While their goal was equivalent to that of Marxism's, they disagreed that violent overthrow of the existing institutional power was the most appropriate way to achieve this goal. They advocated attaining their ends through the process of incremental change. Their argument being that no single maneuver would be enough to provoke any serious resistance. They were (and still are) a very influential group, and many of their ideas have been enacted both in the United Kingdom and the United States. Public healthcare, income taxation, public schooling, degradation of the institution of marriage, and lessening the power of the family are all ideas they deserve credit for. After reading this, you can see that while what Alex Jones says in the movie isn't necessarily wrong completely wrong, but it is a childish oversimplification that shows complete ignorance of the very things he claims to be "expanding your consciousness" about.
2). In Fall of The Republic: Part I, one of the "experts" testifying about the NWO throws around the term Hegelian Dialectic. Now this is I think the most egregious error made in the entire series of movies this site has put out. It's wrong for the very same reasons the comments on Fabianism are: it betrays the person speaking has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. This one is a real shame, because he is so close to a very important point but misses it. Hegel and his ideas, especially his method of attaining truth, have been incredibly influential. Especially among the people you guys claim are out to get you. I won't even attempt to explain this here, but for anyone interested the book Hegel: The Essential Writings edited by Frederick G. Weiss is a very nice introduction to his ideas. It includes prefaces and annotations to help explain some especially difficult parts.
3). In Fall of The Republic: Part I, the following quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me, and for America I fear the bankers most." In this case, I'm not exactly sure this is an error. When I heard the quote, I thought it was so damning that I decided to do some research into the context. I have been unable to find a single reliable source that cites where this quote came from and when it was spoken. If anyone here can help me with that, I would really appreciate it.
These three are the errors I discovered during my first viewing of these two movies, I will continue to point out anymore I find. To conclude this post, I would like to make a few points. The fact that these errors would made is a sad commentary not only on Alex Jones and his group of "experts", but also the people watching this. Many times in these movies and on the radio show, there are some really interesting points made but they quickly devolve into paranoid ignorant rants. The cause of this is simple: You guys want all the benefits of being an enlightened individual who really knows what is going on, but you refuse to do the requisite work to make this happen. The Fabian Society has published dozens of articles a year since its inception, and many of the ideas you act like are big secrets are openly expressed. You would be much better served by doing your own research and not trusting everything the men who run this website tell you. Hegel is another person who's ideas were massively influential by themselves, but perhaps more so indirectly. The two "Hegelians" most of this website seems to despise are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. You would know all these things for yourself, if you would simply read Hegel. You wouldn't need some clearly misinformed "expert" telling you about the Dialectal method of argumentation. Now while I've stated that becoming a truly enlightened and independent thinker is simple, it is far from easy. Hegel is one of the toughest philosophers to understand that I've ever come across, and it is often frustrating. The reward however, is a freedom from letting other people tell you how to think. Many of you seem to have realized that you shouldn't allow your minds to be controlled by the media and government, but haven't yet applied that logic to this very forum. This isn't to say this forum is a bad thing, but isn't allowing your opinions to be formed by only hearing one side what many of us are trying to avoid?
P.S. I want to attempt to head off a few ad hominem attacks preemptively. I have spent a significant chunk of time documenting these errors and attempting to bring them to light. I would appreciate some well thought out responses, and if you're tempted to post something along the lines of an accusation that I'm working for "them" please don't bother. I also want to make it known that I don't think I have all the answers, and I wouldn't dare declare myself an enlightened individual by any means. I simply see it as an admirable goal, and I think a lot of people here do too.
Suggested Reading (relevant to things discussed in post):
Hegel: The Essential Writings
Basic Writings of Neitchze
The Time Machine
Clockwork Orange
Anything by George Bernard Shaw
A Brave New World
Socialism is the most murderous creed which has ever existed on the face of the Earth. It gives to government control over all aspects of society, yet government by its intrinsic nature is the greatest engine of rapine and slaughter that could ever obtain. Hence, socialism empowers the greatest serial-killer ever known. The mass-butcheries of the Communist Chinese government, the U.S.S.R., the National Socialist German government, the Khmer Rouge, etc., are not aberrations of socialism, but rather its essence.
Plank No. 5 of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto is "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." (See Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels, English edition of 1888
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/61 .)
Marx's system was designed from the start for maximal slavery of the plebeian class and maximal power for the ruling class. Marx's Communism puts all power in the hands of the state (i.e., the ruling class), and the common individual is left with literally no rights whatsoever. Marx's class system is a butchery taken from the classical liberals (what in the U.S. is now called libertarians--certainly not to be confused with the illiberals who commonly call themselves liberals today). Specifically, Marx butchered the veridical class analysis of the 19th century liberals (in the original sense of the word "liberal"), which in large part originated with French philosopher Étienne de La Boétie and French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, and was later expanded upon by French economists Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer, and French historian Augustin Thierry. Marx himself credits the bourgeois liberals with the discovery of the class conflict:
""
For example, in a letter to Joseph Weydemeyer of March 5, 1852 Marx admits that
""""
as far as I am concerned, the credit for having discovered the existence and the conflict of classes in modern society does not belong to me. Bourgeois historians presented the historical development of this class struggle, and the economists showed its economic anatomy long before I did.[688]
""""
Later in this same letter Marx refers to Thierry, Guizot, the English radical John Wade, and Ricardo as examples of the liberals who influenced his theory of class. There are suggestions in Marx's earlier attempts at class analysis in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Civil War in France that his class analysis is closer to the liberal theory, with its dichotomy between the state as exploiter and civil society as producer, than it is to the traditional, later "Marxist" view of the state as the instrument of the bourgeoisie and exploitation as the necessary result of the industrial production process.
...
[Note:] [688]Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Correspondence (Moscow, 1965), pp. 67.
""
The above is taken from Prof. David M. Hart, "The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer," October 28, 2003
http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/ComteDunoyer/Ch7.htmlThe purest public statement by the royalist globalist oligarchy remains Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels's works. Marx had a seething hatred for the proletariate. Below is from their Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848; English edition of 1888:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/61 ):
""
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
""
Marx and Engels earlier wrote the following in their book The German Ideology (1845:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm ):
""
That the abolition of individual economy is inseparable from the abolition of the family is self-evident.
""
The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General (États-Généraux) met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII from October 27, 1614 to February 23, 1615.)
Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.
The term "liberal" as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the opposite of what it originally meant, as those commonly called "liberals" today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called "liberals" today are in fact right-wing conservatives in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and Communism are exceedingly right-wing and conservative political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.
Of course, this change in the meaning of liberalism (such that today it means the opposite of what it originally meant) was by no accident. Authentic liberalism represents the only genuine threat to statism (i.e., right-wing conservatism, in the original sense of the term), and due to liberalism's triumphs in gaining the intellectual high-ground during the 19th century, it was necessary for the ruling elite to subvert the liberal agenda if they were to survive. The oligarchy did this by sabotaging the very meaning of the terms "liberalism" and "left-wing"--such that these terms now popularly mean the opposite of what they once did--via bankrolling and promoting self-termed "liberal" court intellectuals who in fact promote the right-wing, conservative agenda, i.e., statism, i.e., collectivism. Thus, in doing this, the ruling class succeeded in changing the meaning of their oppositional philosophy to a philosophy that supports their empowerment. That is, the ruling elite created another branch of right-wing conservatism, nowadays called by the misnomer "liberalism," so also by the names of socialism and Communism.
Government, whatever its de jure status, strongly tends toward oligarchy. The bigger the government the stronger this tendency will be, since then the stakes of exercising a disproportionate influence over government policy is raised (as big government has the ability to, e.g., make or break business fortunes via its policies and how it chooses to enforce them).[1] That is true every bit as much for formal democracies. Consequenty, under government, the strong inclination is a winnowing effect whereby those who rise to the top of the private sector and the government sector are those who are willing to "play along to get along," i.e., amenable to supporting the furtherance of the political establishment's power.
Such applies to media outlets and universities, as well[2]; which, when combined with the government's own schooling and propaganda, inculcates the largest part of individuals' Weltanschauung from cradle to grave: the contents of that worldview being rather thoroughgoing, if muddleheaded and hodgepodge, forms of etatism, accompanying a high degree of political naïveté which such a position implies. Hence, the very intellectual tools which are prerequisite for sustaining an effective defense of liberty are absent most people.
So also due to that effect of winnowing, there tends to be a confluence of ideology at the top level, for accrument of power becomes its own purpose as the government moves toward its logical conclusion: the total state, and all the horrors that come with it. Distinctions such as Democrat and Republican, "liberal" and conservative, etc., are useful for providing hoi polloi with innocuous distractions, but they mean little at the top echelon.[3]
Since all governments (including totalitarian dictatorships) ultimately can only exist due to the "consent" of its subjects (at least "consent" in the sense of resignation), it's understandable why the oligarchic nature of government would not be widely publicized by the political establishment within a formal democracy.
The process of tendency toward oligarchy I've outlined above is intrinsic to government due to the inherent, perverse incentive structures which obtain under government (i.e., the internal logic of the system). Ultimately it doesn't matter how pure and good the intentions are of the people who set up the government, nor what type of government is nominally instituted: so long as the defining feature of government exists--that of a regional monopoly on ultimate control over the law--then this process cannot be avoided, since the inherent incentives of the system are such as to reward actors who bring about such outcomes (being that one who is able to inordinately influence the policies of a government can use that influence for his personal benefit and that of his friends, whereas liberty for society is a general benefit which accrues to no one in particular). All the good intentions in the world are no match against perverse incentives.
The foregoing is the political economy basis for understanding government's tendency toward oligarchy. But I'll here provide extensive empirical evidence to further show that worldly praxis matches the analysis.
Besides the permanent government of the so-called military-industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in his January 17, 1961 presidential farewell address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted in a private letter only published after his death:
""
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson--and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States--only on a far bigger and broader basis.
""
(From President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933; contained in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt [New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950], pg. 373.)
The history which Franklin Roosevelt invokes in his above comment is quite telling, and all the more relevant to the current economic ills which the world is experiencing. President Andrew Jackson was a staunch critic of central banking, and he led the movement that ended the Second Bank of the United States. So in writing the above, Roosevelt was criticizing the Federal Reserve System and the monied families (e.g., the Rockefellers) which put it in place, whom Roosevelt refers to as the actual owners of the U.S. government and whom Prof. Carroll Quigley would later write about.
But the most important point of Roosevelt's above statement is that he is therein claiming that he is merely a figurehead. Moreover, he's telling this to Col. Edward Mandell House, who was an old government insider and previously the advisor to President Woodrow Wilson. That is, Roosevelt took it for granted that House would already know that he was merely a figurehead (i.e., Roosevelt's statement of "as you and I know").
Deeply contemplate the foregoing. Franklin Roosevelt is widely regarded as quite possibly the most powerful U.S. president to ever exist, with the only other plausible contender for that title being Lincoln. And the U.S. presidency is commonly considered the most powerful position on Earth in the history of the world. Yet here Roosevelt maintains that he's merely a titular head. And that he says to a deeply-connected government insider in a manner which demonstrates that he's providing no great revelation, i.e., he expects House to know exactly what he's talking about.
Roosevelt in the above letter mentioned President Woodrow Wilson ("W.W."). Below is what Woodrow Wilson himself wrote concerning this same matter:
""
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
... and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
""
(From Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People [New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913]
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811 .)
David Rockefeller writes:
""
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
""
(From David Rockefeller, Memoirs [New York, N.Y.: Random House, 2002], pg. 405.)
So here, in no uncertain terms, David Rockefeller proudly admits to being part of a "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" and "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world ..." As he states: "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Here we also see the psychopathic mindset in action. All that matters to Rockefeller is what he and his fellow conspirators desire. If anyone opposes his tyrannical desires and the underhanded means by which he enacts them, then they're "ideological extremists." In his mind, the world revolves around Rockefeller and his clique and exists to do their bidding.
Also from David Rockefeller:
""
One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. From the loud patriotic music at the border onward, there is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose.
General economic and social progress is no less impressive. ...
The enormous social advances of China have benefitted greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. ...
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. ...
""
(From David Rockefeller, in his article "From a China Traveler," New York Times, August 10, 1973, pg. 31.)
The below is from Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt:
""
The word "Establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House.
Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.
""
(From Edith Kermit Roosevelt, "Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S.," Indianapolis News, December 23, 1961, pg. 6.)
For the history on how the "capitalist" (i.e., mercantilist) elite in the U.S. bankrolled Communism as well as National Socialism, see the below scholarly books by libertarian Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D.:
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974)
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html(Note: Chapter I of the above book refers to a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch cartoon illustration by Robert Minor. This can be viewed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Robert-Minor-Dee-Lighted-1911.png .)
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (Suffolk, England: Bloomfield Books, 1976)
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.htmlhttp://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/sutton_wall_street/index.htmlThe Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (Billings, M.T.: Liberty House Press, 1986)
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/index.htmlhttp://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/sutton_best_enemy/index.htmlSee also:
"Thyssen Funds Found in U.S.," International News Service (INS), July 31, 1941
http://www.infowars.com/print_prescott.htmVesting Order Number 248, Federal Register, November 7, 1942
http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/Vesting.htmhttp://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/Vesting%20248.gif"Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed," John Buchanan, New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 1, October 10, 2003
http://web.archive.org/web/20040510030611/http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link"'Bush-Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951'--Federal Documents," John Buchanan and Stacey Michael, New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003
http://web.archive.org/web/20031119040002/http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2"How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power," Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, Guardian (U.K.), September 25, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html"How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis," Attorney John Loftus, former U.S. Department of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor and current President of the Florida Holocaust Museum, September 27, 2000
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.htmlhttp://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.aspThe Bilderberg group is the top-tier of the globalist ruling elite. Groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are the Bilderberg group's more public organizational branches which help to enact the agenda of the Bilderberg group.
Reuters acknowledges that the Bilderberg group of European royalty and international central bankers groomed Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for the U.S. Presidency and British Prime Ministry, respectively:
"Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweden," Peter Starck, Reuters, May 23, 2001
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/reuters_bilderberg.htmlAs the below BBC Radio report reveals from uncovered archived Bilderberg documents, the European Union and the euro European Union single-currency were both the brainchild of the Bilderberg group and secretly planned since the first Bilderberg group meeting in 1954:
"Club Class," Simon Cox, BBC Radio Four, July 3, 2003
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bbc_radio_4_bilderberg.mp3http://web.archive.org/web/20051023125305/http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bbc_radio_4_club_class.mp3http://web.archive.org/web/20030714183005/http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/1624491.phpSee also:
"Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group," Bill Hayton, BBC News, September 29, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm"Confessions of a Globalist: Bilderberger Admits Influence on World Decisions," James P. Tucker Jr., American Free Press, Issue #42, October 17, 2005
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/confessions_of_a_globalist.html"Elite power brokers' secret talks," Emma Jane Kirby, BBC News, May 15, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3031717.stm"World government in action," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, May 16, 2003
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32606"The masters of the universe," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, May 22, 2003
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.htmlFor more information on the Bilderberg group, see the below news archives:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_bilderberg.htmlhttp://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_bilderberg.htmlFor a recent Bilderberg meeting, see:
"Castrated U.S. Media Remains Obediently Silent On Bilderberg: Not a single mention in corporate press of 125+ global power brokers meeting behind closed doors," Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, June 9, 2008
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/060908_castrated_media.htmAs Lord Acton noted, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (from a letter by Acton to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 1887). One of the main pleasures and prerogatives of those who seek such power is the exercise of it. And when the world is one's oyster and one has grown tired of the usual thrills that money can buy, combined with effective legal impunity (so long as they remain servants of the establishment), the tastes of elites often seek out more bizarre and verboten thrills. For voluminous documentation on their more saturnalian escapades, see the below post by me:
"Documentation on Elitist Child Sex-Slavery, Snuff Films and Occultism," James Redford, September 3, 2007
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4468Related to the previous item, in the below post by me, I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them--including homosexually anally raping them--and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government:
"Crushing Children's Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom," TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruthOn the matter of the intensive conditioning of the public by government to recoil from conspiracy charges which inculpate it (while at the same time accepting the mendacious, anti-veridical and self-serving conspiracy theories the government promulgates), the following passage by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard is quite edifying:
""
It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.
""
(From Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State," Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays [Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974].
http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp )
The inherent, unchangeable nature of government is colossal conspiracy. Recall that a conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something improper to others (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). The mere fact that governments set for themselves double-standards is alone quite enough to logically demonstrate that governments themselves consider their own actions improper (i.e., if their same actions which they do to others were to be done to them). Thus, the conclusion that government itself is the largest corporeal conspiracy to ever exist or that could ever exist is logically unavoidable.
Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government's offical fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.
Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's University of Hawaii website at
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. (This is also historically true for the U.S. govermment, as no group has killed more U.S. citizens than the U.S. government. Viz., the Civil War; etc.)
Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that--but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite piddling by comparison.
Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself a logical subset of terrorism, and the word terrorism originally referred exclusively to government actions: i.e., the Reign of Terror in France against critics of the state, which was done according to the law--and later on the word terrorism was used to refer to other governments), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control. In the below post by me is contained voluminous amounts of documentation which refutes the U.S. government's mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks, as well as documentation on many other government-staged acts of terrorism:
"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," TetrahedronOmega, September 30, 2005
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth----------
Notes:
1. Witness the ridiculous legal persecution of Michael Milken and Martha Stewart, and the absurdist cases brought against Microsoft. Even the richest of moguls know that should the government, for whatever reason, take a disliking to them that it can trump up preposterous charges against them and a large portion of the public will cheer.
See also "Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm: Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says," Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen with contribution from Richard Drezen, Washington Post, October 13, 2007; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485_pf.htmlExcerpt from the above article:
""
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.
""
2. For extensive documentation regarding this matter, see "The Major Media is Owned by the U.S. Government," TetrahedronOmega, December 31, 2008
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125&mforum=libertyandtruth3. For example, Bill Clinton calls the Bushes his adoptive family, and vacations with them regularly. Hillary Clinton has long had regular private dinners with Rupert Murdoch and she was politically supported by Murdoch, who was helping her raise funds for her presidential bid.
John Kerry and Bushes Sr. and Jr. are all Bonesmen in the occult sociey of the Brotherhood of Death (a.k.a. the Order of Skull & Bones at Yale), of which occult society was instrumental in the funding of Hitler and the Nazis. Bonesman Prescott Bush (Bush, Sr.'s father) had one of his banks and a number of his companies seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act for his financing of the Nazis even during wartime.
Below are some articles on the Clintons being exceedingly close family friends of the Bushes:
"Bill Clinton Talks Heart Surgery on 'Letterman,'" Associated Press, June 17, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159851,00.htmlFrom the above article:
""
During a recent appearance together in Houston, Clinton noted that Barbara Bush had taken to calling Clinton "son."
"I told the Republicans in the audience not to worry, every family has one--you know, the black sheep, kind of drifts off," he said. "I told them, I said, 'This just shows you the lengths at which the Bushes would go to get another president in the family and I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary.' "
""
See also:
"Opposites attract," Julian Borger, Guardian (U.K.), July 1, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1518633,00.html"Inside Politics," transcript, CNN, June 17, 2005
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/17/ip.01.html"Verbatim," Time, June 20, 2005
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501050627-1074169,00.html"Barbara Bush Calls Bill Clinton 'Son,'" Drudge Report, June 17, 2005
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/clinton_barbara_bush_calls_clinton_son.htm ,
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htmBelow are some articles on Rupert Murdoch's love for Hillary Clinton:
"Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton," Caroline Daniel, additional reporting by Aline Van Duyn, Financial Times, May 8, 2006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-0000779e2340.html"Hillary Clinton defends link with Murdoch," Holly Yeager and Caroline Daniel, Financial Times, May 10, 2006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-dfc2-11da-afe4-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html####################
In the below article, Henry Kissinger uses the type of nebulous and vapid language which those who desire to seem profound but without actually saying much that's concrete are wont to use, with such phrases as "accumulation of nuance" (more like the accumulation of nonsense). But despite its obfuscatory and mostly inane jabbering, one can extract from the article that Kissinger is calling for an "international political regulatory system." For example:
""
International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.
In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.
""
Of that false dichotomy which Kissinger gives, he argues in favor of the former option. Another synonym for government that types like Kissinger sometimes use in thinking that they're being cleaver by not saying the word government so as to not stir up the rubes is "governance," as in the phrase "global governance." For the article the above excerpt is from, see:
"The chance for a new world order," Henry A. Kissinger, International Herald Tribune, January 12, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/12/opinion/edkissinger.phphttp://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/12/opinion/edkissinger.php?page=2And see:
"Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'; Policy guru says global upheaval presents 'great opportunity,'" Drew Zahn, WorldNetDaily, January 6, 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=85442"Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order,'" Raw Story, January 6, 2009
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Henry_Kissinger_Obama_should_act_to_0106.html"New Kissinger NWO : New World Order & Obama Worship," Illtype, January 5, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThfWVCfjVoFrom 2:45 min:sec in the above video clip, Henry Kissinger says "His [Barack Obama's] task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis."
Below is a previous occurance of Henry Kissinger calling for a New World Order, here on the Charlie Rose (PBS) show:
"Henry Kissinger New World Order again," GrandChessboard, April 2, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4The below articles are on Fabian Society socialist Gordon Brown, the current U.K. Prime Minister, calling for a new world order:
"Brown wants a 'new world order,'" BBC News, January 19, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6277747.stm"Brown wants 'new world order' to fight global warming," Agence France-Presse (AFP), March 12, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025"Brown demands 'new world order,'" Press Association, March 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6473968,00.html"Brown calls for overhaul of UN, World Bank and IMF: Chancellor says bodies are lagging globalisation; 'New world order' must serve developing nations," Larry Elliott, January 17, 2007 Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,,1992594,00.htmlFrom the above article:
""
Responding to demands from civil society groups that the stranglehold of rich countries--particularly the United States--on international bodies should be weakened, Mr Brown said there was a "need to make globalisation work for all by building an alliance for economic and social justice and environmental care--an essential element of the new world order--and by comprehensively and on all fronts overcoming the challenge of violent jihadist terrorism."
""
Speech by the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Confederation of Indian Industry, Bangalore, January 17, 2007
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/speech_chex_170107.htm----------
Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge: a new era ... Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. ... This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki.
--then-U.S. President George Bush, Sr., September 11, 1990, in a televised speech before a joint session of Congress.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bushsnNWO.mpa ,
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2217&year=1990&month=9----------
When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.
--then-U.S. President George Bush, Sr., in a televised speech on January 16, 1991. See "George Bush New World Order," nwokiller, June 25, 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g----------
The President George Bush has talked time and time again about a new world order, and this is the best chance to begin to establish the new world order.
--then-U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle, in a television interview with CNN.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/quayle-CNN.mpa----------
There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster [the 9/11 attacks] to carry out what his father--a phrase his father used I think only once, and hasn't been used since, and that is a new world order.
--Gary Hart, former Democratic Party U.S. Senator from Colorado, in a televised Council on Foreign Relations meeting, September 14, 2001.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/hart2.mpa----------
President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations.
--Congressman Ron Paul, "Another United Nations War?," speech in the House of Representatives, February 26, 2003.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr022603.htm----------
"New World Order": Gorbachev first picked up and used the phrase in December 1988 and it was later used to great effect by US President George Bush to celebrate, well, the New World Order.
--Sheila Barter, "Dachas and glasnost in Evil Empire," BBC News, August 15, 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1484717.stm----------
We are going to end up with world government. It's inevitable ... There's going to be conflict, coercion and consensus. That's all part of what will be required as we give birth to the first global civilization.
--James Garrison, President of Gorbachev Foundation USA, quoted in The Daily Record, Dunn, North Carolina, October 17, 1995, pg. 4.
----------
World government, like scientific process, will be conducted by statement, criticism, and publication that will be capable of efficient translation. ... A number of readers will be disposed to say that this is a very vague, undefined, and complicated conception of world government. But indeed it is a simplification. Not only are the present governments of the world a fragmentary competitive confusion, but none of them is as simple as it appears.
--H. G. Wells (Herbert George Wells), member of the socialist Fabian Society, in his non-fiction political book The Open Conspiracy: Blueprints For A World Revolution (1928).
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/hgwells/hg_cont.htm ,
http://www.inlex.org/stories/wells/opencons.htmlThe Fabian Society was founded in 1884 in London as an offshoot of a society founded in 1883 called The Fellowship of the New Life. The Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics in 1895. In 1900, the Fabian Society was one of the organizations which formed the Labour Representation Committee, which became the Labour Party in 1906. Besides H. G. Wells, Fabian Society members included, e.g., George Bernard Shaw, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Bertrand Russell, Leonard Woolf and Virginia Woolf, Ramsay MacDonald and Emmeline Pankhurst. More recent Fabian Society members include, e.g., Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Tony Wright, Tony Crosland, Richard Titmuss, Peter Townsend, Brian Abel-Smith and Tony Benn.
For some on that, see:
"A History of the Fabian Society," Fabian Society, extracted from 100 Years of Fabian Socialism 1884-1984, with extra material by Michael Jacobs and edited by Rory Fisher. 100 Years of Fabian Socialism 1884-1984 was prepared by Deirdre Terrins and Phillip Whitehead, with contributions from Melvyn Bragg, Susan Crosland, Susan Hineley, Ian Martin, Lisanne Radice, CH Rolph and Tony Wright.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030328151525/http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/About/Fabian_History.pdfExcerpt from the above:
""
By 1945 229 Labour MPs were Fabians, and the modern Society has been enriched by the work of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Tony Wright, Tony Crosland, Richard Titmuss, Peter Townsend, Brian Abel-Smith and Tony Benn.
""
The Fabian Society crest: a wolf in sheep's clothing (cf. Aesop's Fables; Matthew 7:15).
Tony Blair at the ceremony unveiling the stolen and recovered Fabian Window.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/714/1618585954989e4b6a9ogx5.jpgThe Fabian Window.
----------
Nor does it alter the fact that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.
--H. G. Wells, member of the socialist Fabian Society, in his non-fiction political book The New World Order: Whether it is Attainable, How it Can be Attained, and What Sort of World a World at Peace Will Have to Be (1940).
http://truthseeker.realisticpolitics.com/books/The_New_World_Order.htm ,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/hg_wells_the_new_world_order.html----------
We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.
--Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., assistant to President John F. Kennedy and Pulitzer Prize winner, "Back to the Womb? Isolationsm's Renewed Threat," Foreign Affairs (a Council on Foreign Relations publication), July/August 1995.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701facomment5047/arthur-m-schlesinger-jr/back-to-the-womb-isolationsm-s-renewed-threat.html----------
In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.
--Richard N. Gardner, United States Ambassador and Professor, "The Hard Road to World Order," Foreign Affairs, April 1974.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19740401faessay10106/richard-n-gardner/the-hard-road-to-world-order.html ,
http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf----------
Sincere students and disciples must hold ever before them the idea of Service; in connection with our present theme this is political service--along the line of world planning and world government.
--Alice Bailey, leading New Age author and co-founder with her husband Foster Bailey of Lucis Trust (originally named Lucifer Publishing Company in 1920), The Externalisation of the Hierarchy (New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1957), Section II: "The General World Picture," Subsection 1: "The Causes of the World Difficulty"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/exte1027.html----------
Add to this the monetary ruin of the masses of the people, and you have a true and not a sensational picture of the world state. Out of this wreckage of all that man has constructed during the centuries and out of the spoliation of all existing culture and civilization, the new world order must be built. And, my brother, it will be built, and you can help prepare for this building of a more stable and beautiful way of life.
--Alice Bailey, leading New Age author and co-founder with her husband Foster Bailey of Lucis Trust (originally named Lucifer Publishing Company in 1920), The Externalisation of the Hierarchy (New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1957), Section III: "Forces Behind the Evolutionary Progress of the Race," Subsection 3: "Practical Steps in the Reconstruction Work"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/exte1140.htmlAccording to the Lucis Trust website pertaining to their World Goodwill branch
("Purposes & Objectives"
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/world_goodwill__1/purposes_objectives ):
""
World Goodwill is an accredited non-governmental organisation with the Department of Public Information of the United Nations. It maintains informal relations with certain of the Specialised Agencies and with a wide range of national and international non-governmental organisations. World Goodwill is an activity of the Lucis Trust, which is on the Roster of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
""
The same webpage goes on to state:
""
The Reappearance of the Christ
This is a time of preparation not only for a new civilisation and culture in a new world order, but also for the coming of a new spiritual dispensation.
Humanity is not following an uncharted course. There is a divine Plan in the Cosmos of which we are a part. At the end of an age human resources and established institutions seem inadequate to meet world needs and problems. At such a time the advent of a Teacher, a spiritual leader or Avatar, is anticipated and invoked by the masses of humanity in all parts of the world.
Today the reappearance of the World Teacher, the Christ, is expected by millions, not only by those of Christian faith but by those of every faith who expect the Avatar under other names--the Lord Maitreya, Krishna, Messiah, Imam Mahdi and the Bodhisattva. ...
""