United States
See also List of think tanks in the United States organized with liberal, conservative, libertarian and centrist categories.
Acton Institute
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Allegheny Institute for Public Policy
American Civil Rights Union
American Consumer Institute
American Enterprise Institute
American Foreign Policy Council
American Institute for Contemporary German Studies
American Institute for Economic Research
American Iranian Council
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Analysis Group
Askew Institute on Politics and Society
Aspen Institute
Atlantic Council of the United States
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Battelle Memorial Institute
Bradley Foundation
Brookings Institution
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Cascade Policy Institute
Cato Institute
Center for American Progress
Center for an Urban Future
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Center for Ethical Solutions
Center for Global Development
Center for Governmental Studies
Center for Immigration Studies
Center for International Policy
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Public Integrity
The Center for Public Justice
Center for Progressive Reform
Center for Security Policy
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Center on International Cooperation
Claremont Institute
Committee for Economic Development
Committee on the Present Danger
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Constitution Project
Corporation for Enterprise Development
Council of Twelve
Council on Foreign Relations
Demos
Discovery Institute
Economic Opportunity Institute
Economic Policy Institute
Economic Research Institute
Employment Policies Institute
The Edward Bruwer-Lytton Institute
Freund Scholarly Research Group
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Foundation for Economic Education
Foundation for Excellence in Education
Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Fusion Energy Foundation
General Electric EdgeLab
Global Development and Environment Institute
Global Financial Integrity
Global Trade Watch
Goldwater Institute
Heartland Institute
Henry L. Stimson Center
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution
Hudson Institute
India, China & America Institute
Independent Institute
Information Policy Institute
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Institute for Analysis of Global Security
Institute for Collaborative Engagement
Institute for Policy Innovation
Institute for Policy Studies
Inter-American Economic Council
International Center for Research on Women
ISA (International Strategic Analysis)
James Madison Institute
Jamestown Foundation
John S. Watson Institute for Public Policy
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Justice Research Association
Keck Institute for Space Studies
Korea Policy Institute
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Manhattan Institute
Mayfield 15 Policy Research Institute
Mercatus Center at George Mason University
Middle East Forum
Migration Policy Institute
Milken Institute
MITRE
National Bureau of Asian Research
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Endowment for Democracy
New America Foundation
New Democrat Network
New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI)
New Teacher Center
Pacific Institute
Pacific Research Institute
Peterson Institute
Phoenix Group
Pioneer Institute
Policy Matters Ohio
Political and Economic Research Council (PERC)
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Progress and Freedom Foundation
Progressive Policy Institute
Project for the New American Century
Public Citizen
RAND Corporation
Reason Foundation
Rebirth of Freedom Foundation
Reform Institute
Research Triangle Institute
Resources for the Future
Ripon Society
Rockridge Institute
Rocky Mountain Institute
Roosevelt Institution
Santa Fe Institute
Show-Me Institute
Stanley Foundation
State Policy Network
Strategic Studies Institute
Streit Council for a Union of Democracies
Tax Foundation
Tellus Institute
Urban Institute
U.S. Institute of Peace
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
WestEd
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
World Policy Institute
Xerox PARC
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Double Speak and the New World Order
By Richard Moore
The New World Order (you know what the NWO is - the corporate-sponsored "free-trade" globalization steamroller) exploits language in precisely the way Orwell predicted. Words are used to mislead and conceal - not clarify - and are twisted to designate the opposite of their true meanings. Concepts are tagged as being either "good guys" or "bad guys" by dressing them up in "white hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or "black hat" words (like "bureaucracy" or "politics").
This use of language is a form of propaganda - and this vocabulary propaganda is much more subtle and effective than content propaganda. Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary propaganda interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in a way that can lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.
As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda makes language volatile. In his scenario, one might read in the morning paper about an action against an enemy, with no mention that the same folks were faithful allies as recently as yesterday's edition. In actuality, the shifts in today's doublespeak are more subtle and evolutionary. As you watch new language being created, you can map out the NWO agenda: the white-hat items are to be promoted, the black-hat items to be suppressed.
A classic example was the Oliver North hearings. Words like "good soldier", "patriotic", "freedom fighter", and "legality" - not to mention "constitutional balance of powers" - took quite a beating. By labeling state-armed mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom fighters", the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond hope. Those who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk colonel and impeaching his boss were instead prefacing their remarks with kowtows toward the "freedom fighters" (if there was time remaining after the prayer service). There was no ability to discuss the affair from a meaningful moral or constitutional perspective, and the hearings dissolved into circus rhetoric/coverup, as was intended by the NWO language masters.
If we want to discuss the world situation with any kind of useful understanding, we need to explicitly decode the NWO doublespeak, and learn how to translate it into straight language. This is not an easy task, because the doublespeak process has, over time, warped political language to the point where it is nearly useless. Words like "socialism" or "tariffs", being so heavily tarred with the black brush, can't be used meaningfully without an explanatory preface. Even the word "government" is tricky to use - the echoes of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt" reverberate unconsciously.
Meanwhile, words like "market" and "competitive" have been promoted with the white brush to Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would it be to hold back the tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market forces", or so it would seem.
Following is my attempt to associate accurate meanings with some of the NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps these definitions will ring true to you, and help you better understand what the NWO is about. With the doublespeak unraveled, the media becomes a source of accurate information after all - NWO statements, though coded, are actually fairly descriptive of the sinister NWO agenda.
"COMPETITIVENESS": the attractiveness of a venue to multinational investors, particularly: laxity of regulation and taxation; the degree to which a developed country regresses to Third-World status.
The phrase "Britain must be made more competitive for today's markets" decodes as "Britain must have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates so that it can compete with low-income parts of the world in attracting generic corporate investments".
Genuine competitiveness, as demonstrated by Japan, involves marshalling the nation's skills & resources toward adding value in focused markets - achieved by promoting synergy and making coordinated investments. NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution - it values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.
"CONSERVATISM": a policy of radically restructuring politics and economics in order to produce investment opportunities and undermine democracy; contrast with actual conservatism: a policy of preserving existing institutions in the interest social and economic stability.
Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar of this particular line of doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning to traditional values" while he was in fact dismantling long-evolved institutions and pursuing policies of unprecedented and untried social and economic transformation.
Genuine conservatism acts as a societal gyroscope, resisting nearly every kind of change, regardless of its direction. Conservatism's catch prase might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A very important point to notice is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic institutions has reversed the field in the game of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of the twentieth century, it has been the democracy-minded progressives who sought radical change, and the capitalist right wing who were the conservatives. But since Reagan & Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for radical change (in the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who have a vital interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie., constitutional democracy and national sovereignty).
In this case, doublespeak succeeds in separating the progressives from their natural constituency. Progressive activists should be reaching out to the silent majority - arousing stick-in-the-mud conservatives to join the cause against reckless NWO-induced changes. By pre-empting the term "conservatism", the right-wing radicals have tricked most of the conservative-tending masses into following the wrong parade.
Progressives must reclaim their natural ground. To have any hope of assembling a significant constituency, they must find a way to break through the doublespeak jargon and help the general population to see that its interests are not being served by the new "conservatism", and that reckless changes are its true agenda.
We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable conservative reaction in the Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy theories" are actually quite close to the mark: the U.S. government is being sold out to international interests; the U.N. is beginning to establish a sovereignty-threatening military force; the Constitution is being trashed; the establishment in Washington is effectively a bunch of traitors. But it's not the progressives who are bringing this message to these hard-core backwoods conservatives - instead the message is getting to them with a doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label the sellout of America as a "liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat happens to be in the White House, the NWO myth spinners have been able to transform anti-establishment sentiment into anti-liberal sentiment. Instead of addressing the real enemies of the Constitution (the corporate elite), the Militia tilts its lance toward the liberals and progressives who should be instead its natural allies in defending democracy. Divide and Conquer shows up once again as the most potent tool of autocratic control.
Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery, and vocabulary is the ammunition. The NWO has taken the field by storm, and is proceeding with coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the latest hi-tech vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines that cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism", "conservatism", "prosperity", "democracy".
Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow find a way to fight back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies in its runaway successes: its high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential counter-reaction - if people can be made to see who the real perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline of democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes can be turned against it, if people can learn to read the NWO agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out. The NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident are they that their doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the people.
"DEMOCRACY": a government with a competitive party electoral system, in which multinationals are able to exert effective influence; Note: unrelated to whether the government represents the people or supports their welfare.
If multinational interests are served, then no amount of popular unrest, nor vote rigging - not even civil war - will serve as credible evidence that a "democracy" is a sham. If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity, and popular support qualifies the government as "democratic".
Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous climax when CCN broadcast live coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly, and billed it as a victory for "democracy"! (Did they realize they were televising an exact repeat of Lenin's shelling of an earlier Constituent Assembly? Would that have altered their assessment?) What Yeltsin's bloody power grab was a victory for was the corporate-sponsored dismantlement of the Russian economy, a program the Western-backed Yeltsin has played his part in flawlessly. With a subtle doublespeak twist within a twist, the media refers to Yeltsin as a "liberal element" - in fact he is a "neo- liberal" element, which translates as "NWO stooge".
Genuine democracy must be judged by its responsiveness to the informed desires of the people, its success in promoting their welfare, and their satisfaction with its performance. The mechanisms used to attain a functional democracy can have many forms. The media says only competitive political parties can deliver democracy, but don't believe it.
The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee whatever of democratic process. Not only can parties be limited to those representing elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the autonomous authority of the military (typically subsidized by major NWO powers) often overshadows governmental policy.
To understand what democracy is really about, we need to re-examine our most cherished assumptions. Is the U.S. a democracy? Is Cuba a democracy? Do you think you can tell?
Cuba doesn't have competitive parties or elections. But policies are worked out by representatives from different segments of society, are explained forthrightly (at length!) on the media, and feedback is listened to. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels (until recently) have been the envy of comparable economies. And Castro has been overwhelmingly popular for most of his tenure.
The U.S. has parties and elections. But policies are worked out by corporate interests, sold through misleading media rhetoric, and popular opposition is dismissed as emotional reaction. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels - in fact human welfare by any measure - are on a steady decline. The esteem of government and elected officials looms ever lower on the horizon, nearly ready to set into a sea of total disgust.
The elections themselves are circuses where certain topics are selected as being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy Democrat dance around the limited ring of issues. When the match is over, the establishment gets back to its un-discussed agendas. Because there are no substantive issues raised during the campaign, the rhetoric fades into memory. There's no platform, and no distinct "change of government", as there used to be in Britain, before Tony Blair infiltrated the Labour Party.
Such elections are more like a shuffling of board members in a corporation - the faces change, the policies continue to be set as before - outside any democratic process.
Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?". I ask you: Can you tell a self-governing people from a stone parliament building?
"DEVELOPMENT": the restructuring of an economy to facilitate extraction of wealth by multinationals; transforming an economy so as to become more dependent on trade with multinationals; the theft of national assets by multinationals.
"Development" is usually pursued where the potential profit is greatest. This means that the investment is as little as possible and the exportation of eventual revenues is as great as possible. The result is a net drain on the "developing" economy. Fair play, you might say, if the "developing" country is able to take advantage of the situation to bootstrap its way into general economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if an infrastructure is created which benefits the general economy.
But these collateral benefits are not the purpose of "development", and the consequences are usually otherwise. Brazil is an example where "development" was heralded as a great success (at least for a period), due to the large flow of money through the country. But the local benefits were concentrated in relatively small, elite management and land-owner classes, and the consequence for the general population was the destruction of their food supply and agricultural economy to the benefit of agri-export operators. Meanwhile the rainforests burn to make room for displaced farmers or new agri-business "developments".
In other cases, a country might be left with an infrastructure to support export operations, such as a selectively deployed highway system, which may not be appropriate for the general development needs of the country, and which increases its dependence on oil imports.
In many cases, "development" involves the granting of mineral rights, land leases, tax discounts, or exemptions from regulations, as enticements to attract corporate "investment". In rare cases, such grants are valued appropriately, but all too frequently a cash-strapped Third-World country is compelled to give away long-term rights to valuable national assets while getting very little in return, usually some low-paying jobs and under-valued royalties. Whether the asset be copper, oil, or agricultural land, the multinational investor extracts billions in profits while the host country gets a relatively minor pittance of the actual value of the arm-twist stolen asset.
"FREE TRADE": the systematic destabilization of national and regional economic arrangements, by means of treaties such as GATT and NAFTA, in order to take economic decision making as far as possible from any democratic process, and centralize global economic control into the hands of the corporate elite.
"Free trade", it would seem from the corporate media's propaganda, is universally accepted by all reputable economists as the One True Path to prosperity and progress. Such a belief, which does not in fact enjoy a consensus among economists, is historical nonsense. The Great Economies, such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain, and modern Japan, were developed under nurturing protectionist policies. Only when they achieved considerable economic strength did these countries begin to adopt "free trade" policies, as a way to prevent other nations from catching up.
An economy (see also: "Reform") is an ecosystem. A strong economy is one that has diversity and synergy. When "free trade" is imposed on an underdeveloped economy, it develops in a distorted way, and is over- dependent on external market fluctuations. Such weakness increases the bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious objective of "free trade" in the first place.
"Free trade", which is part of the "globalization" agenda, brings a shift economic sovereignty from nation states, where there is hope of democratic participation, to corporate-approved international commissions, where only the corporate voice holds sway.
"GLOBALIZATION": the undermining of the nation state as a focus of economic organization; the reduction to commodity status of worldwide raw-goods suppliers; the monopolization of distribution channels by transnational trading companies; the reduction of health & quality standards to least-common- denominator levels; the most honest self-characterization of the NWO agenda.
Capturing more broadly the scope of the "free trade" campaign, "globalization" expresses the intent to homogenize the world economy - to make national borders transparent to the transfer of capital and goods, and enable a higher-order of centralized global management. The claim is frequently made that this will lead to a leveling of prosperity levels on a global basis, but with some exceptions, the evidence is all to the contrary. What we see instead, and as we should expect from how "development" is structured and "free trade" is implemented, is that "globalization" leads to a greater prosperity disparity between the "developed" and "developing" nations, as measured by the disposable income and living standards of the general populations. The greatest real prosperity gains have been achieved by those countries which created domestic synergy in their economies through selective protectionism (eg., Japan).
The availability of low-cost worldwide transport and the multinational scope of corporate operations - together with deregulation of trade barriers - leads to a situation where every producer is competing with every other producer throughout the world. Distributors can thus shop for the best deal globally, and continue to sell at whatever price they can get in their markets. As the distribution channels are increasingly concentrated into fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food importers, etc.), a classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing, and will become more pronounced as globalization progresses.
The "robber-baron" scenario looks like this: On one side you have separated, unorganized producers, all competing with one another to supply the distributors. On the other side, you have the consumers of the world, also separated and unorganized, buying what they can afford from what is offered in their local outlets. In the middle you have the distributors, who like robber barons of old, have (increasingly) monopoly control over the the flow of goods from producer to market. Not only can producer prices be driven down in one-sided bargaining, but producers can be selectively driven out of business, and in general the distributors have the power to dictate whether and how the producers do business.
The classic example of a robber baron regime was California in the heydey of the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP would audit the books of firms which shipped goods on their lines, and adjust each firm's shipping rates so that profits on sales were shared "fairly" with SP. We see this kind of thing today when the same drugs from the same distributors are sold at radically different prices in different countries - those who can afford more, pay more. It's the corporate version of a graduated income tax - but for the people, it's taxation without representation all over again.
As for non-price consumer concerns - environmental protection, content labelling, pesticide levels, other health issues - we can expect to see a rapid reversal of the "green" gains which have occurred since the sixties. Initially we see some localized improvements in standards, as the EU, for example, levels its regulatory playing field. But the long-term decision-making role for these policies is being shifted to corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels). This means that as the distributors tighten their noose of control, and after local regulatory power has been disabled, the distributors will wield their awesome influence to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist "shackles" on "free markets" and "consumer savings". This is of course already happening. We have the EU telling the Germans that UK beef is safe, when the UK can't even get its story straight about whether adequate controls are being implemented. The EU, and even more so the WTO, have every motivation to go out of their way to decide in favor of more trade, and minimize appraisal of any negative consequences. Their business is to increase business, and they are a level removed from the influence of citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization" amounts to a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to corporate feudalism.
"Globalization", among the terms in the NWO phrase book, comes closest to being an honest use of language. The NWO does indeed, as "globalization" suggests, want to systematize commerce on a global scale, to homogenize the world in who-knows-how-many aspects - to bring forth a new world order. The deception comes in the implication that "globalization" will bring increased prosperity, that "free markets" will get goods to those who need them, and that the abundance of the earth will become available to humanity on a more equitable basis. As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".
"PRIVATIZATION": (1) the theft of citizen assets by corporate interests, achieved through discounted sell-offs of intentionally under-valued public properties; (2) the creation of new investment opportunities by means of dismantling successfully operating public services.
Media discussion of privatization is generally limited to the narrow issues of consumer benefits and operating efficiency. Even on these grounds, the arguments presented are usually far from convincing. They are frequently simply a recitation of the axioms "public is inefficient", "private is efficient" - often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Privatization is not just a change of managers, it is a change of ownership. It removes equity from citizens, and removes or minimizes public control over asset development and pricing. In many cases following privatization, employment is reduced as an immediate step in reducing costs and enhancing the profit picture - without the social costs of the unemployment being considered in the overall accounting for the transaction.
The aim of a privatized operation shifts from providing a public service, to making a profit. Short-term profit pressures may reduce investment in long-term maintenance and upgrades, since their payback period may be beyond the horizon of the investor's plans for cashing out.
Despite inflated claims to the contrary, consumer benefits tend to be minimal - any reduction in rates would be a direct loss from the bottom line, and token reduction are usually enough for PR purposes and to satisfy regulatory constraints. The obvious fact that the operator needs to take out a profit is seldom mentioned when the benefits of privatization are proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if any) would accrue fully to the consumer.
In their personal finances, citizens appreciate the value of asset ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant cost savings over the lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits the citizen in the face of inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With privatization, citizens are transformed from owners to renters, and suffer a long-term equity loss that may be many times greater than the discounted sale price of the asset. A privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates the first few years, but in the long run it will charge whatever the traffic will bear - in tomorrow's inflated economy.
"REFORM": the modification or replacement of an existing economic or political system, so as to create new corporate investment opportunities - it is not required that the new system perform effectively, only that it deliver corporate profits.
A system is in need of "reform" whenever corporate investors think of a new angle to make new profits. Obvious failures of the "reform" process, such as unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of "reform", but of incomplete implementation. Belief in "reform" is like religious faith: no amount of counter-evidence can phase the True Believer.
"Reform" is like clear-cutting. A forest is an ecosystem, with wildlife, streams, underbrush, etc. Careful forestry can harvest timber without destroying the ecosystem - but clear-cutting destroys all at once. An existing political/economic arrangement is also an eco-system: it is the subtle fabric that weaves the society together and enables its functioning. "Reform" - as we see in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff - can destroy the existing framework all at once, and replace it with one that doesn't fit, that would take years or decades to take root and begin producing, and will be owned by someone else at the end of the day.
Genuine reform would take into account the existing conditions, and if a change is needed, would make incremental changes over time, evolving a working system toward sounder functioning. Most significant, it would reflect local customs and preferences - it would not seek to impose a cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures and traditions.
"THIRD-WORLD ASSISTANCE": (1) the subsidization of non- competitive First-World industries by means of channeling earmarked funds through Third-World hands; (2) carrot-money to entice "development" in preferred NWO directions; (3) hush- money to fund domestic suppression in host countries.
In order to encourage acquiescence by the taxpayers who foot the bill for it, "assistance" or "aid" almost always comes wrapped in the rhetoric of humanitarianism. Recently in Germany a more honest sales- pitch has been launched, announcing that for every mark that was spent as development aid, 1.15 marks came back as orders for German business. This is no surprise to anyone who's followed the numbers, but perhaps the publicity will invite the German people to ask why German business doesn't pay more of the "aid" bill.
Heaven knows the Third World needs real financial aid - not interest-bearing loans and not funds earmarked for externally-defined purposes. When strapped for development funds, it is difficult for a country to turn down offers, even when strings are attached. But money which leaves crippling debt in its wake, or which encourages the development of a dependent economy, would be better refused - it's like buying things you don't need using a credit card you know you can never pay off.
In fact, the bulk of "assistance" has been channeled directly to military and "security" forces, in the form of weapons, training, and cash. In some cases this results in lucrative contracts for First World arms manufacturers, but the main objective is to create a political climate subservient to NWO designs. The military muscle enables unpopular and NWO-submissive regimes to retain power and drain their country's resources by participating recklessly in the "aid/development" game - running up their country's credit cards at the NWO bank.
Viewed from the broadest perspective, the definition of "Third-World assistance" is "the NWO version of imperialism". It succeeds - in too many cases - in accomplishing the following imperialist objectives:
controls the development priorities of the subject states
manages the ruling class in the subject states
puts the subject states into a condition of eternal debt
extracts profits and resources with minimal taxation and labor costs
provides markets for First-World goods, enhanced by absence of development in directions of self-sufficiency
Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises, this is all accomplished with minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations, and no public understanding of what's going on - and the bill is being paid by those who benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so sinister, you'd have to respect them.
The New World Order (you know what the NWO is - the corporate-sponsored "free-trade" globalization steamroller) exploits language in precisely the way Orwell predicted. Words are used to mislead and conceal - not clarify - and are twisted to designate the opposite of their true meanings. Concepts are tagged as being either "good guys" or "bad guys" by dressing them up in "white hat" words (like "reform" or "free") or "black hat" words (like "bureaucracy" or "politics").
This use of language is a form of propaganda - and this vocabulary propaganda is much more subtle and effective than content propaganda. Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary propaganda interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in a way that can lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.
As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda makes language volatile. In his scenario, one might read in the morning paper about an action against an enemy, with no mention that the same folks were faithful allies as recently as yesterday's edition. In actuality, the shifts in today's doublespeak are more subtle and evolutionary. As you watch new language being created, you can map out the NWO agenda: the white-hat items are to be promoted, the black-hat items to be suppressed.
A classic example was the Oliver North hearings. Words like "good soldier", "patriotic", "freedom fighter", and "legality" - not to mention "constitutional balance of powers" - took quite a beating. By labeling state-armed mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom fighters", the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond hope. Those who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk colonel and impeaching his boss were instead prefacing their remarks with kowtows toward the "freedom fighters" (if there was time remaining after the prayer service). There was no ability to discuss the affair from a meaningful moral or constitutional perspective, and the hearings dissolved into circus rhetoric/coverup, as was intended by the NWO language masters.
If we want to discuss the world situation with any kind of useful understanding, we need to explicitly decode the NWO doublespeak, and learn how to translate it into straight language. This is not an easy task, because the doublespeak process has, over time, warped political language to the point where it is nearly useless. Words like "socialism" or "tariffs", being so heavily tarred with the black brush, can't be used meaningfully without an explanatory preface. Even the word "government" is tricky to use - the echoes of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt" reverberate unconsciously.
Meanwhile, words like "market" and "competitive" have been promoted with the white brush to Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would it be to hold back the tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market forces", or so it would seem.
Following is my attempt to associate accurate meanings with some of the NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps these definitions will ring true to you, and help you better understand what the NWO is about. With the doublespeak unraveled, the media becomes a source of accurate information after all - NWO statements, though coded, are actually fairly descriptive of the sinister NWO agenda.
"COMPETITIVENESS": the attractiveness of a venue to multinational investors, particularly: laxity of regulation and taxation; the degree to which a developed country regresses to Third-World status.
The phrase "Britain must be made more competitive for today's markets" decodes as "Britain must have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates so that it can compete with low-income parts of the world in attracting generic corporate investments".
Genuine competitiveness, as demonstrated by Japan, involves marshalling the nation's skills & resources toward adding value in focused markets - achieved by promoting synergy and making coordinated investments. NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution - it values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.
"CONSERVATISM": a policy of radically restructuring politics and economics in order to produce investment opportunities and undermine democracy; contrast with actual conservatism: a policy of preserving existing institutions in the interest social and economic stability.
Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar of this particular line of doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning to traditional values" while he was in fact dismantling long-evolved institutions and pursuing policies of unprecedented and untried social and economic transformation.
Genuine conservatism acts as a societal gyroscope, resisting nearly every kind of change, regardless of its direction. Conservatism's catch prase might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A very important point to notice is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic institutions has reversed the field in the game of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of the twentieth century, it has been the democracy-minded progressives who sought radical change, and the capitalist right wing who were the conservatives. But since Reagan & Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for radical change (in the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who have a vital interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie., constitutional democracy and national sovereignty).
In this case, doublespeak succeeds in separating the progressives from their natural constituency. Progressive activists should be reaching out to the silent majority - arousing stick-in-the-mud conservatives to join the cause against reckless NWO-induced changes. By pre-empting the term "conservatism", the right-wing radicals have tricked most of the conservative-tending masses into following the wrong parade.
Progressives must reclaim their natural ground. To have any hope of assembling a significant constituency, they must find a way to break through the doublespeak jargon and help the general population to see that its interests are not being served by the new "conservatism", and that reckless changes are its true agenda.
We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable conservative reaction in the Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy theories" are actually quite close to the mark: the U.S. government is being sold out to international interests; the U.N. is beginning to establish a sovereignty-threatening military force; the Constitution is being trashed; the establishment in Washington is effectively a bunch of traitors. But it's not the progressives who are bringing this message to these hard-core backwoods conservatives - instead the message is getting to them with a doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label the sellout of America as a "liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat happens to be in the White House, the NWO myth spinners have been able to transform anti-establishment sentiment into anti-liberal sentiment. Instead of addressing the real enemies of the Constitution (the corporate elite), the Militia tilts its lance toward the liberals and progressives who should be instead its natural allies in defending democracy. Divide and Conquer shows up once again as the most potent tool of autocratic control.
Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery, and vocabulary is the ammunition. The NWO has taken the field by storm, and is proceeding with coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the latest hi-tech vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines that cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism", "conservatism", "prosperity", "democracy".
Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow find a way to fight back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies in its runaway successes: its high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential counter-reaction - if people can be made to see who the real perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline of democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes can be turned against it, if people can learn to read the NWO agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out. The NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident are they that their doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the people.
"DEMOCRACY": a government with a competitive party electoral system, in which multinationals are able to exert effective influence; Note: unrelated to whether the government represents the people or supports their welfare.
If multinational interests are served, then no amount of popular unrest, nor vote rigging - not even civil war - will serve as credible evidence that a "democracy" is a sham. If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity, and popular support qualifies the government as "democratic".
Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous climax when CCN broadcast live coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly, and billed it as a victory for "democracy"! (Did they realize they were televising an exact repeat of Lenin's shelling of an earlier Constituent Assembly? Would that have altered their assessment?) What Yeltsin's bloody power grab was a victory for was the corporate-sponsored dismantlement of the Russian economy, a program the Western-backed Yeltsin has played his part in flawlessly. With a subtle doublespeak twist within a twist, the media refers to Yeltsin as a "liberal element" - in fact he is a "neo- liberal" element, which translates as "NWO stooge".
Genuine democracy must be judged by its responsiveness to the informed desires of the people, its success in promoting their welfare, and their satisfaction with its performance. The mechanisms used to attain a functional democracy can have many forms. The media says only competitive political parties can deliver democracy, but don't believe it.
The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee whatever of democratic process. Not only can parties be limited to those representing elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the autonomous authority of the military (typically subsidized by major NWO powers) often overshadows governmental policy.
To understand what democracy is really about, we need to re-examine our most cherished assumptions. Is the U.S. a democracy? Is Cuba a democracy? Do you think you can tell?
Cuba doesn't have competitive parties or elections. But policies are worked out by representatives from different segments of society, are explained forthrightly (at length!) on the media, and feedback is listened to. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels (until recently) have been the envy of comparable economies. And Castro has been overwhelmingly popular for most of his tenure.
The U.S. has parties and elections. But policies are worked out by corporate interests, sold through misleading media rhetoric, and popular opposition is dismissed as emotional reaction. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels - in fact human welfare by any measure - are on a steady decline. The esteem of government and elected officials looms ever lower on the horizon, nearly ready to set into a sea of total disgust.
The elections themselves are circuses where certain topics are selected as being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy Democrat dance around the limited ring of issues. When the match is over, the establishment gets back to its un-discussed agendas. Because there are no substantive issues raised during the campaign, the rhetoric fades into memory. There's no platform, and no distinct "change of government", as there used to be in Britain, before Tony Blair infiltrated the Labour Party.
Such elections are more like a shuffling of board members in a corporation - the faces change, the policies continue to be set as before - outside any democratic process.
Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?". I ask you: Can you tell a self-governing people from a stone parliament building?
"DEVELOPMENT": the restructuring of an economy to facilitate extraction of wealth by multinationals; transforming an economy so as to become more dependent on trade with multinationals; the theft of national assets by multinationals.
"Development" is usually pursued where the potential profit is greatest. This means that the investment is as little as possible and the exportation of eventual revenues is as great as possible. The result is a net drain on the "developing" economy. Fair play, you might say, if the "developing" country is able to take advantage of the situation to bootstrap its way into general economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if an infrastructure is created which benefits the general economy.
But these collateral benefits are not the purpose of "development", and the consequences are usually otherwise. Brazil is an example where "development" was heralded as a great success (at least for a period), due to the large flow of money through the country. But the local benefits were concentrated in relatively small, elite management and land-owner classes, and the consequence for the general population was the destruction of their food supply and agricultural economy to the benefit of agri-export operators. Meanwhile the rainforests burn to make room for displaced farmers or new agri-business "developments".
In other cases, a country might be left with an infrastructure to support export operations, such as a selectively deployed highway system, which may not be appropriate for the general development needs of the country, and which increases its dependence on oil imports.
In many cases, "development" involves the granting of mineral rights, land leases, tax discounts, or exemptions from regulations, as enticements to attract corporate "investment". In rare cases, such grants are valued appropriately, but all too frequently a cash-strapped Third-World country is compelled to give away long-term rights to valuable national assets while getting very little in return, usually some low-paying jobs and under-valued royalties. Whether the asset be copper, oil, or agricultural land, the multinational investor extracts billions in profits while the host country gets a relatively minor pittance of the actual value of the arm-twist stolen asset.
"FREE TRADE": the systematic destabilization of national and regional economic arrangements, by means of treaties such as GATT and NAFTA, in order to take economic decision making as far as possible from any democratic process, and centralize global economic control into the hands of the corporate elite.
"Free trade", it would seem from the corporate media's propaganda, is universally accepted by all reputable economists as the One True Path to prosperity and progress. Such a belief, which does not in fact enjoy a consensus among economists, is historical nonsense. The Great Economies, such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain, and modern Japan, were developed under nurturing protectionist policies. Only when they achieved considerable economic strength did these countries begin to adopt "free trade" policies, as a way to prevent other nations from catching up.
An economy (see also: "Reform") is an ecosystem. A strong economy is one that has diversity and synergy. When "free trade" is imposed on an underdeveloped economy, it develops in a distorted way, and is over- dependent on external market fluctuations. Such weakness increases the bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious objective of "free trade" in the first place.
"Free trade", which is part of the "globalization" agenda, brings a shift economic sovereignty from nation states, where there is hope of democratic participation, to corporate-approved international commissions, where only the corporate voice holds sway.
"GLOBALIZATION": the undermining of the nation state as a focus of economic organization; the reduction to commodity status of worldwide raw-goods suppliers; the monopolization of distribution channels by transnational trading companies; the reduction of health & quality standards to least-common- denominator levels; the most honest self-characterization of the NWO agenda.
Capturing more broadly the scope of the "free trade" campaign, "globalization" expresses the intent to homogenize the world economy - to make national borders transparent to the transfer of capital and goods, and enable a higher-order of centralized global management. The claim is frequently made that this will lead to a leveling of prosperity levels on a global basis, but with some exceptions, the evidence is all to the contrary. What we see instead, and as we should expect from how "development" is structured and "free trade" is implemented, is that "globalization" leads to a greater prosperity disparity between the "developed" and "developing" nations, as measured by the disposable income and living standards of the general populations. The greatest real prosperity gains have been achieved by those countries which created domestic synergy in their economies through selective protectionism (eg., Japan).
The availability of low-cost worldwide transport and the multinational scope of corporate operations - together with deregulation of trade barriers - leads to a situation where every producer is competing with every other producer throughout the world. Distributors can thus shop for the best deal globally, and continue to sell at whatever price they can get in their markets. As the distribution channels are increasingly concentrated into fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food importers, etc.), a classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing, and will become more pronounced as globalization progresses.
The "robber-baron" scenario looks like this: On one side you have separated, unorganized producers, all competing with one another to supply the distributors. On the other side, you have the consumers of the world, also separated and unorganized, buying what they can afford from what is offered in their local outlets. In the middle you have the distributors, who like robber barons of old, have (increasingly) monopoly control over the the flow of goods from producer to market. Not only can producer prices be driven down in one-sided bargaining, but producers can be selectively driven out of business, and in general the distributors have the power to dictate whether and how the producers do business.
The classic example of a robber baron regime was California in the heydey of the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP would audit the books of firms which shipped goods on their lines, and adjust each firm's shipping rates so that profits on sales were shared "fairly" with SP. We see this kind of thing today when the same drugs from the same distributors are sold at radically different prices in different countries - those who can afford more, pay more. It's the corporate version of a graduated income tax - but for the people, it's taxation without representation all over again.
As for non-price consumer concerns - environmental protection, content labelling, pesticide levels, other health issues - we can expect to see a rapid reversal of the "green" gains which have occurred since the sixties. Initially we see some localized improvements in standards, as the EU, for example, levels its regulatory playing field. But the long-term decision-making role for these policies is being shifted to corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels). This means that as the distributors tighten their noose of control, and after local regulatory power has been disabled, the distributors will wield their awesome influence to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist "shackles" on "free markets" and "consumer savings". This is of course already happening. We have the EU telling the Germans that UK beef is safe, when the UK can't even get its story straight about whether adequate controls are being implemented. The EU, and even more so the WTO, have every motivation to go out of their way to decide in favor of more trade, and minimize appraisal of any negative consequences. Their business is to increase business, and they are a level removed from the influence of citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization" amounts to a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to corporate feudalism.
"Globalization", among the terms in the NWO phrase book, comes closest to being an honest use of language. The NWO does indeed, as "globalization" suggests, want to systematize commerce on a global scale, to homogenize the world in who-knows-how-many aspects - to bring forth a new world order. The deception comes in the implication that "globalization" will bring increased prosperity, that "free markets" will get goods to those who need them, and that the abundance of the earth will become available to humanity on a more equitable basis. As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".
"PRIVATIZATION": (1) the theft of citizen assets by corporate interests, achieved through discounted sell-offs of intentionally under-valued public properties; (2) the creation of new investment opportunities by means of dismantling successfully operating public services.
Media discussion of privatization is generally limited to the narrow issues of consumer benefits and operating efficiency. Even on these grounds, the arguments presented are usually far from convincing. They are frequently simply a recitation of the axioms "public is inefficient", "private is efficient" - often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Privatization is not just a change of managers, it is a change of ownership. It removes equity from citizens, and removes or minimizes public control over asset development and pricing. In many cases following privatization, employment is reduced as an immediate step in reducing costs and enhancing the profit picture - without the social costs of the unemployment being considered in the overall accounting for the transaction.
The aim of a privatized operation shifts from providing a public service, to making a profit. Short-term profit pressures may reduce investment in long-term maintenance and upgrades, since their payback period may be beyond the horizon of the investor's plans for cashing out.
Despite inflated claims to the contrary, consumer benefits tend to be minimal - any reduction in rates would be a direct loss from the bottom line, and token reduction are usually enough for PR purposes and to satisfy regulatory constraints. The obvious fact that the operator needs to take out a profit is seldom mentioned when the benefits of privatization are proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if any) would accrue fully to the consumer.
In their personal finances, citizens appreciate the value of asset ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant cost savings over the lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits the citizen in the face of inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With privatization, citizens are transformed from owners to renters, and suffer a long-term equity loss that may be many times greater than the discounted sale price of the asset. A privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates the first few years, but in the long run it will charge whatever the traffic will bear - in tomorrow's inflated economy.
"REFORM": the modification or replacement of an existing economic or political system, so as to create new corporate investment opportunities - it is not required that the new system perform effectively, only that it deliver corporate profits.
A system is in need of "reform" whenever corporate investors think of a new angle to make new profits. Obvious failures of the "reform" process, such as unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of "reform", but of incomplete implementation. Belief in "reform" is like religious faith: no amount of counter-evidence can phase the True Believer.
"Reform" is like clear-cutting. A forest is an ecosystem, with wildlife, streams, underbrush, etc. Careful forestry can harvest timber without destroying the ecosystem - but clear-cutting destroys all at once. An existing political/economic arrangement is also an eco-system: it is the subtle fabric that weaves the society together and enables its functioning. "Reform" - as we see in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff - can destroy the existing framework all at once, and replace it with one that doesn't fit, that would take years or decades to take root and begin producing, and will be owned by someone else at the end of the day.
Genuine reform would take into account the existing conditions, and if a change is needed, would make incremental changes over time, evolving a working system toward sounder functioning. Most significant, it would reflect local customs and preferences - it would not seek to impose a cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures and traditions.
"THIRD-WORLD ASSISTANCE": (1) the subsidization of non- competitive First-World industries by means of channeling earmarked funds through Third-World hands; (2) carrot-money to entice "development" in preferred NWO directions; (3) hush- money to fund domestic suppression in host countries.
In order to encourage acquiescence by the taxpayers who foot the bill for it, "assistance" or "aid" almost always comes wrapped in the rhetoric of humanitarianism. Recently in Germany a more honest sales- pitch has been launched, announcing that for every mark that was spent as development aid, 1.15 marks came back as orders for German business. This is no surprise to anyone who's followed the numbers, but perhaps the publicity will invite the German people to ask why German business doesn't pay more of the "aid" bill.
Heaven knows the Third World needs real financial aid - not interest-bearing loans and not funds earmarked for externally-defined purposes. When strapped for development funds, it is difficult for a country to turn down offers, even when strings are attached. But money which leaves crippling debt in its wake, or which encourages the development of a dependent economy, would be better refused - it's like buying things you don't need using a credit card you know you can never pay off.
In fact, the bulk of "assistance" has been channeled directly to military and "security" forces, in the form of weapons, training, and cash. In some cases this results in lucrative contracts for First World arms manufacturers, but the main objective is to create a political climate subservient to NWO designs. The military muscle enables unpopular and NWO-submissive regimes to retain power and drain their country's resources by participating recklessly in the "aid/development" game - running up their country's credit cards at the NWO bank.
Viewed from the broadest perspective, the definition of "Third-World assistance" is "the NWO version of imperialism". It succeeds - in too many cases - in accomplishing the following imperialist objectives:
controls the development priorities of the subject states
manages the ruling class in the subject states
puts the subject states into a condition of eternal debt
extracts profits and resources with minimal taxation and labor costs
provides markets for First-World goods, enhanced by absence of development in directions of self-sufficiency
Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises, this is all accomplished with minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations, and no public understanding of what's going on - and the bill is being paid by those who benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so sinister, you'd have to respect them.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Is U.S. Moving Toward Fascism?
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fourteencharacteristicsfascism02nov04.shtml
November 2, 2004
From ECOTERRA Intl:
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine -- a journal of humanist thought.
Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', by Lawrence Britt, and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.
The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need". The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fourteencharacteristicsfascism02nov04.shtml
November 2, 2004
From ECOTERRA Intl:
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine -- a journal of humanist thought.
Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', by Lawrence Britt, and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.
The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need". The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Monday, May 17, 2010
**U.S. Government False Flag Events & Covert Actions
The following is a list of proven U.S. Government False Flag Events and Covert Actions that have been carried out for the primary purpose of benefiting large corporate interests and the Military Industrial Complex.
The US touts that its primary function in world intervention is to make lands safe for democracy. Through the following examples you will see that the US actions however are about imperialism and protecting US economic interests while murdering, torturing, and suppressing the rights of each country’s peoples.
Unfortunately the average American does not benefit from these staged disasters, but only becomes cannon fodder and debtors for the wars that result. Mainly large corporations and high level government officials benefit from these heinous acts.
David Rockefeller said, "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." In the Project for a New American Century document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century we find the following: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Native American Genocide – (19th century) On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of Western tribes.[34] From the forced relocation and assimilation of the "savage" to the white man's way of life to the forced sterilization of Native Americans, the BIA set out to "destroy all things Indian." Through the exploration of the United States' Federal Indian Policy, it is evident that this policy intended to "destroy, in whole or in part," the Native American population. The extreme disparity in the number of Native American people living within the United States' borders at the time Columbus arrived, approximately ten million compared to the approximate 2.4 million Indians and Eskimos alive in the United States today, is but one factor that illustrates the success of the government's plan of "Manifest Destiny." I addition, major railroad interests had a great influence in the governments extermination and relocation of Native Americans.[34
Sinking of the “USS Maine” Spanish American War – (1898) One of the most decisive factors in shifting US opinion towards war with Spain, and involvement in the Cuban War of Independence, was the sinking of the USS Maine.
WWI – (1915) World War I in Europe was initially provoked by the assassination of an Austrian Archduke. But that was hardly an interest to Americans who had to feel some sense of personal outrage in order to justify U.S. military participation in a foreign war where American soldiers were likely to be killed. The Lusitania, an armed British passenger vessel deceptively flew the American flag and carried ammunition from U.S. companies bound for belligerent Britain. The ship, described as "live bait" by Winston Churchill, a Rothschild minion, was deliberately sent into harm's way. Her military escort inexplicably withdrew and the ship dramatically slowed down and abandoned the defensive zigzag pattern of travel. In early February 1915, the British Admiralty, under the direction of Churchill, had ordered British merchant ships, like the Lusitania, to ram German submarines on sight. The Lusitania, borrowed by the British government and reclassified as an auxiliary cruiser, was equipped with bases for mounting guns. 3 Germany was aware of Churchill's orders by February 15. On April 22, 1915, Germany, through its U.S. Embassy warned Americans not to travel on British ships in the war zone. They also paid to advertise the warning in The New York Times on that same day. 4 The warning was not printed in the Times until the day of departure. The Germans predictably attacked on May 7, 1915 and 785 people, including 128 Americans perished, but it ultimately got the U.S. into World War I.
Operation Magic – (1939) Magic was the codename given for the American operation to break the Japanese diplomatic and military codes. The Communication Special Unit (U.S. Navy) and the Signals Intelligence Section (US Army) worked together in monitoring the traffic of coded messages sent by the Japanese Government and the Imperial Headquarters to their commanders at sea and in the field. However, because of the large volume of intelligence being received by the staff of Magic, they were unable to give adequate warnings about the proposed attack at Pearl Harbor.
Operation Ajax – (1953), the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the formerly democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. The going rate for the division of oil profits at the time was 50%, but the Anglo’s were only giving Iran 20%, which prompted Iran to nationalize the oil industries. Allen Dulles, former Standard Oil attorney was brought in as director of the CIA to stage a coup and installing the Shah as an American puppet. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives. The shah using his SAVAK secret police institued years of brutal torture on its citizens.
Lavon affair – (1954), Israel sponsored bombings against US and UK interests in Cairo aiming to cause trouble between Egypt and the West.[9] This operation, later dubbed the Lavon Affair, cost Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon his job. Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.
Guatemala – (1954) From pressure by the US Government and the United Fruit Company plotted with Eisenhower’s CIA to overthrow the democratic government lead by Jacobo Arbenze and plunge the country into decades of US sponsored tyranny.
Operation Northwoods – (1962) was a false-flag plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated:
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed.
JFK Assassination – (1963) The ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963–1964, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1976–1979, and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was murdered by Jack Ruby before he could stand trial. This conclusion was initially met with support among the American public, however polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 concluded approximately 80% of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findings. The motives for this CIA/Mafia sponsored assassination are JFK’s and RFK’s intense investigations of the Mafia, JFK’s desire to withdraw from Vietnam, and not being aggressive enough against Castro.
Greece & Cypress – (1964) Johnson and the CIA helped King Constantine bribe enough members of Papandreou’s to topple his government. CIA operative Papadopoulos staged a coup and overthrew the democratic government. Greece experienced a seven year nightmare of extreme forms of torture.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident – (1964) In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[8] that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated [I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.
Coup in Chile – (1970) At the end of 1968, according to Department of Commerce data, U.S. corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. During that year, U.S. corporations averaged 17.4 percent profit on invested capital, and mining enterprises alone turned an average of 26 percent.2 Copper companies, notably Anaconda and Kennecott, accounted for 28 percent of U.S. holdings, but ITT had the largest holding of any single corporation with an investment of $200 million.3 Chilean copper accounts for 21 percent of the world's proven copper reserves, and demand is expected to increase. Laura Allende recently stated in San Francisco that "over a 42 year period the copper companies earned $420 billion on original investments totalling $35 million."4
Before Allende's election, ITT channeled $700,000 to Allende's opponent Jorge Allesandri, and used the advice of the CIA on how to channel this money safely.5 They also compiled a list of leading U.S. corporations in Chile in February, 1970, and through John McCone (CIA director, 1961-1965, and now on the ITT board), ITT president Harold Geneen offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende.6
ITT was not the only participant at this early stage. ITT vice-president William R. Merriam testified that he assembled a committee of representatives of U.S. corporations in February, 1971 to work out an anti-Allende strategy.7 The "united front" began after Allende's election, and included Treasury Secretary John Connally and his assistant John Hennessy (a man with solid Wall Street connections).8 But there is evidence that other corporations were independently conspiracy-minded at an earlier date:
9/11 WTC Tower Destruction – (2001) The US government in concert with the building owner and security contractor planted Thermite explosives on all three WTC buildings resulting in major loss of life and the onset of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the most morally reprehensible act committed by the US to date. Go to: AE911Truth.org for details of the building destructions.
False Flag (choreographed catastrophes) operations have been used for generations for various motives: the seizure of additional land and/or natural/mineral resources (domestic or foreign), the acquisition of cheap labor, economic destabilization, the military depopulation of indigenous populations, the destruction of religious or political ideologies, the establishment of political tyranny or a coup d'etat (as experienced after 9/11 with the establishment of the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security), to assist an allegedly threatened ally or to protect U.S. citizens living in a foreign country. The foundational factor in the majority of all false flag operations is the imposition of greater restrictions on worldwide residential populations in order to implement internationalism or globalism, formerly known as the utopian New World Order under the direction of an elite hierarchy. False flag catastrophes include terrorist attacks, assassinations of political leaders, "natural" disasters, industrial "accidents," armed assaults against citizens (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State), economic assaults in the form of economic crashes like 1929 or more recently the banker bailouts, both massive redistribution scams. The prevailing feature in all of these circumstances, whether man-made or "natural," is the transference of culpability followed by the government's predictable exploitation of any and all circumstances.
False flag operations manipulate individuals, either dupes or well-paid, skilled operatives – who masquerade as purported enemy aggressors. Aircraft or ships are either camouflaged to conceal their identity or marked in such a way as to confuse witnesses. The operation is compartmentally constructed in such a way that individuals participate in a small part of the venture without knowing the entire scope of the operation. After the fact, their willing but unwary participation might insure their silence. False flag operations accelerated after the formation of government intelligence agencies, like the CIA, again at the behest of private interests with the ready assistance of the media who introduce false leads to sustain the preconceived cover story. A false flag operation where innocent people are murdered invariably supplies the pretext for a military invasion where even more killing occurs including unwary U.S. soldiers who believe they are fighting for their country.
The US touts that its primary function in world intervention is to make lands safe for democracy. Through the following examples you will see that the US actions however are about imperialism and protecting US economic interests while murdering, torturing, and suppressing the rights of each country’s peoples.
Unfortunately the average American does not benefit from these staged disasters, but only becomes cannon fodder and debtors for the wars that result. Mainly large corporations and high level government officials benefit from these heinous acts.
David Rockefeller said, "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." In the Project for a New American Century document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century we find the following: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Native American Genocide – (19th century) On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of Western tribes.[34] From the forced relocation and assimilation of the "savage" to the white man's way of life to the forced sterilization of Native Americans, the BIA set out to "destroy all things Indian." Through the exploration of the United States' Federal Indian Policy, it is evident that this policy intended to "destroy, in whole or in part," the Native American population. The extreme disparity in the number of Native American people living within the United States' borders at the time Columbus arrived, approximately ten million compared to the approximate 2.4 million Indians and Eskimos alive in the United States today, is but one factor that illustrates the success of the government's plan of "Manifest Destiny." I addition, major railroad interests had a great influence in the governments extermination and relocation of Native Americans.[34
Sinking of the “USS Maine” Spanish American War – (1898) One of the most decisive factors in shifting US opinion towards war with Spain, and involvement in the Cuban War of Independence, was the sinking of the USS Maine.
WWI – (1915) World War I in Europe was initially provoked by the assassination of an Austrian Archduke. But that was hardly an interest to Americans who had to feel some sense of personal outrage in order to justify U.S. military participation in a foreign war where American soldiers were likely to be killed. The Lusitania, an armed British passenger vessel deceptively flew the American flag and carried ammunition from U.S. companies bound for belligerent Britain. The ship, described as "live bait" by Winston Churchill, a Rothschild minion, was deliberately sent into harm's way. Her military escort inexplicably withdrew and the ship dramatically slowed down and abandoned the defensive zigzag pattern of travel. In early February 1915, the British Admiralty, under the direction of Churchill, had ordered British merchant ships, like the Lusitania, to ram German submarines on sight. The Lusitania, borrowed by the British government and reclassified as an auxiliary cruiser, was equipped with bases for mounting guns. 3 Germany was aware of Churchill's orders by February 15. On April 22, 1915, Germany, through its U.S. Embassy warned Americans not to travel on British ships in the war zone. They also paid to advertise the warning in The New York Times on that same day. 4 The warning was not printed in the Times until the day of departure. The Germans predictably attacked on May 7, 1915 and 785 people, including 128 Americans perished, but it ultimately got the U.S. into World War I.
Operation Magic – (1939) Magic was the codename given for the American operation to break the Japanese diplomatic and military codes. The Communication Special Unit (U.S. Navy) and the Signals Intelligence Section (US Army) worked together in monitoring the traffic of coded messages sent by the Japanese Government and the Imperial Headquarters to their commanders at sea and in the field. However, because of the large volume of intelligence being received by the staff of Magic, they were unable to give adequate warnings about the proposed attack at Pearl Harbor.
Operation Ajax – (1953), the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the formerly democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. The going rate for the division of oil profits at the time was 50%, but the Anglo’s were only giving Iran 20%, which prompted Iran to nationalize the oil industries. Allen Dulles, former Standard Oil attorney was brought in as director of the CIA to stage a coup and installing the Shah as an American puppet. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives. The shah using his SAVAK secret police institued years of brutal torture on its citizens.
Lavon affair – (1954), Israel sponsored bombings against US and UK interests in Cairo aiming to cause trouble between Egypt and the West.[9] This operation, later dubbed the Lavon Affair, cost Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon his job. Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.
Guatemala – (1954) From pressure by the US Government and the United Fruit Company plotted with Eisenhower’s CIA to overthrow the democratic government lead by Jacobo Arbenze and plunge the country into decades of US sponsored tyranny.
Operation Northwoods – (1962) was a false-flag plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated:
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed.
JFK Assassination – (1963) The ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963–1964, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1976–1979, and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was murdered by Jack Ruby before he could stand trial. This conclusion was initially met with support among the American public, however polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 concluded approximately 80% of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findings. The motives for this CIA/Mafia sponsored assassination are JFK’s and RFK’s intense investigations of the Mafia, JFK’s desire to withdraw from Vietnam, and not being aggressive enough against Castro.
Greece & Cypress – (1964) Johnson and the CIA helped King Constantine bribe enough members of Papandreou’s to topple his government. CIA operative Papadopoulos staged a coup and overthrew the democratic government. Greece experienced a seven year nightmare of extreme forms of torture.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident – (1964) In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[8] that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated [I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.
Coup in Chile – (1970) At the end of 1968, according to Department of Commerce data, U.S. corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. During that year, U.S. corporations averaged 17.4 percent profit on invested capital, and mining enterprises alone turned an average of 26 percent.2 Copper companies, notably Anaconda and Kennecott, accounted for 28 percent of U.S. holdings, but ITT had the largest holding of any single corporation with an investment of $200 million.3 Chilean copper accounts for 21 percent of the world's proven copper reserves, and demand is expected to increase. Laura Allende recently stated in San Francisco that "over a 42 year period the copper companies earned $420 billion on original investments totalling $35 million."4
Before Allende's election, ITT channeled $700,000 to Allende's opponent Jorge Allesandri, and used the advice of the CIA on how to channel this money safely.5 They also compiled a list of leading U.S. corporations in Chile in February, 1970, and through John McCone (CIA director, 1961-1965, and now on the ITT board), ITT president Harold Geneen offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende.6
ITT was not the only participant at this early stage. ITT vice-president William R. Merriam testified that he assembled a committee of representatives of U.S. corporations in February, 1971 to work out an anti-Allende strategy.7 The "united front" began after Allende's election, and included Treasury Secretary John Connally and his assistant John Hennessy (a man with solid Wall Street connections).8 But there is evidence that other corporations were independently conspiracy-minded at an earlier date:
9/11 WTC Tower Destruction – (2001) The US government in concert with the building owner and security contractor planted Thermite explosives on all three WTC buildings resulting in major loss of life and the onset of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the most morally reprehensible act committed by the US to date. Go to: AE911Truth.org for details of the building destructions.
False Flag (choreographed catastrophes) operations have been used for generations for various motives: the seizure of additional land and/or natural/mineral resources (domestic or foreign), the acquisition of cheap labor, economic destabilization, the military depopulation of indigenous populations, the destruction of religious or political ideologies, the establishment of political tyranny or a coup d'etat (as experienced after 9/11 with the establishment of the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security), to assist an allegedly threatened ally or to protect U.S. citizens living in a foreign country. The foundational factor in the majority of all false flag operations is the imposition of greater restrictions on worldwide residential populations in order to implement internationalism or globalism, formerly known as the utopian New World Order under the direction of an elite hierarchy. False flag catastrophes include terrorist attacks, assassinations of political leaders, "natural" disasters, industrial "accidents," armed assaults against citizens (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State), economic assaults in the form of economic crashes like 1929 or more recently the banker bailouts, both massive redistribution scams. The prevailing feature in all of these circumstances, whether man-made or "natural," is the transference of culpability followed by the government's predictable exploitation of any and all circumstances.
False flag operations manipulate individuals, either dupes or well-paid, skilled operatives – who masquerade as purported enemy aggressors. Aircraft or ships are either camouflaged to conceal their identity or marked in such a way as to confuse witnesses. The operation is compartmentally constructed in such a way that individuals participate in a small part of the venture without knowing the entire scope of the operation. After the fact, their willing but unwary participation might insure their silence. False flag operations accelerated after the formation of government intelligence agencies, like the CIA, again at the behest of private interests with the ready assistance of the media who introduce false leads to sustain the preconceived cover story. A false flag operation where innocent people are murdered invariably supplies the pretext for a military invasion where even more killing occurs including unwary U.S. soldiers who believe they are fighting for their country.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Controlled Demolition of WTC Building 7
How many people are aware that World Trade Center Bldg. 7:
• Was approximately one block away from the Twin Towers
• Not hit by a plane or major fire and was brought down by a Controlled Demolition at 5:20Pm EST.
• Larry Silverstein, the owner said, The government said , “Pull the Building” ( a term commonly used for a signal to perform a Controlled Demolition of a bldg.)
• It takes weeks to plan and implement the controlled demolition of a bldg.
• This building came down at free fall speed in approximately 6-7 seconds.
• Building imploded into itself with most of the building structure and contents pulverized into fine dust (about 10 microns)
• Has all of the 10 identifiable characteristics of a Controlled Demolition (see:AE911Truth.org for details)
• Was the major U.S. office ( excluding Washington, DC) of the SEC, CIA, other federal government security departments.
• Many important records pertaining to government investigations of corporate fraud and corruption were destroyed by the demolition.
• FEMA confirmed that diesel fuel tanks for the emergency generators did not cause explosions heard by many eye witnesses
• Was not investigated or covered in the “Official 9/11 Commission Report”
• Collapse was not properly addressed in the NIST report.
How can any intelligent person who is not in emotional denial conclude anything other than the fact the government in cooperation with the owner engineered a Controlled Demolition of this building.
It is very interesting to note that the 104 story Twin Towers exhibited the same Free Fall symmetrical Controlled Demolition characteristics as WTC Bldg. 7.
Does it make you very angry that our government would commit such a morally repugnant crime that was the pretext for two Middle East Wars and the suppression of many of our constitutional rights?
• Was approximately one block away from the Twin Towers
• Not hit by a plane or major fire and was brought down by a Controlled Demolition at 5:20Pm EST.
• Larry Silverstein, the owner said, The government said , “Pull the Building” ( a term commonly used for a signal to perform a Controlled Demolition of a bldg.)
• It takes weeks to plan and implement the controlled demolition of a bldg.
• This building came down at free fall speed in approximately 6-7 seconds.
• Building imploded into itself with most of the building structure and contents pulverized into fine dust (about 10 microns)
• Has all of the 10 identifiable characteristics of a Controlled Demolition (see:AE911Truth.org for details)
• Was the major U.S. office ( excluding Washington, DC) of the SEC, CIA, other federal government security departments.
• Many important records pertaining to government investigations of corporate fraud and corruption were destroyed by the demolition.
• FEMA confirmed that diesel fuel tanks for the emergency generators did not cause explosions heard by many eye witnesses
• Was not investigated or covered in the “Official 9/11 Commission Report”
• Collapse was not properly addressed in the NIST report.
How can any intelligent person who is not in emotional denial conclude anything other than the fact the government in cooperation with the owner engineered a Controlled Demolition of this building.
It is very interesting to note that the 104 story Twin Towers exhibited the same Free Fall symmetrical Controlled Demolition characteristics as WTC Bldg. 7.
Does it make you very angry that our government would commit such a morally repugnant crime that was the pretext for two Middle East Wars and the suppression of many of our constitutional rights?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
**What US leaders mean by "Democracy"
When US leaders talk about spreading "Democracy", what they really mean is spreading "Economic Market Democracy" for major corporations and Wall Street bankers so that the US can broaden and gain its imperialistic superiority in the world.
If everyone’s moral compass can accept war, torture, and denial of human rights as a way of gaining "Economic Market Democracy" than we are quickly going the way of the Roman's. Our intervention and decimation of Iraq is a consummate example of us invading a country to get control of one of the most important natural resources = OIL. In Bagdad every government building was virtually destroyed except the Department of Oil Ministry, so figure that one out. When US leaders couch their imperialistic plans in the name of GOD, what that really means is G.O.D= Gold. Oil. Drugs. So next time you hear a US leader talk about spreading “Democracy” take a good look at what is happening to our so called “Free Press”, “Individual Rights and Freedoms”, and our freedom to “Protest and Dissent” . Also take a look at all governments (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Panama, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Greece, Phillipines) in the world that we have overthrown through the CIA and military to protect the economic rights of major corporations who were exploiting the natural resources and labor pools of Third World countries. Our actions as a so called “Democratic Nation” are not very pretty.
If everyone’s moral compass can accept war, torture, and denial of human rights as a way of gaining "Economic Market Democracy" than we are quickly going the way of the Roman's. Our intervention and decimation of Iraq is a consummate example of us invading a country to get control of one of the most important natural resources = OIL. In Bagdad every government building was virtually destroyed except the Department of Oil Ministry, so figure that one out. When US leaders couch their imperialistic plans in the name of GOD, what that really means is G.O.D= Gold. Oil. Drugs. So next time you hear a US leader talk about spreading “Democracy” take a good look at what is happening to our so called “Free Press”, “Individual Rights and Freedoms”, and our freedom to “Protest and Dissent” . Also take a look at all governments (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Panama, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Greece, Phillipines) in the world that we have overthrown through the CIA and military to protect the economic rights of major corporations who were exploiting the natural resources and labor pools of Third World countries. Our actions as a so called “Democratic Nation” are not very pretty.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Views on evolution among the public and scientists
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" or "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Views on evolution among the public and scientists
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" or "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Views on evolution among the public and scientists
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" or "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Views on evolution among the public and scientists
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" or "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
Friday, May 7, 2010
**Religion v. Education/IQ
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/comparison-Educational+Distribution+of+Religious+Traditions.pdf
A Pew Research study of approximately 35,000+ people of different religious affiliations and educational levels shows a major inverse relationship between educational levels and religious belief. Jews and Hindus who enjoy higher educational levels of their populations compared to Christians and Muslims, trend more to the observant by virtue of their demographic makeup.
In general the more educated a person is, the less apt they are to be religious. People who are more educated see the world more through science, critical thinking , and logic. People who are religious tend to see the world more through faith, mythology, and biblical fantasy. People who live in larger cities, who have more access to education and multi-cultural resources tend to be less religious. There is also a correlation between educational levels and intelligence, with those with higher IQ’s trending more toward higher levels of education. Higher IQ Levels of educational attainment, as evidenced by the Jewish, Hindu, and Asian groups is also influenced by ethnicity and cultural values. Many people trend toward modified religious observance as a means of social connection and community, rather than strict religious orthodox or evangelical observance. The non religious seem to embrace the concept of “Evolution” more than those who are religious who embrace the old world concept of “Creationism”.
There is no correlation between religious observance and morality. History has shown that most of the pain and suffering that has been brought about by mankind has been by those who are labeled as Christian followers. A majority of those who label themselves as atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist have a tendency to be more compassionate and humane in their behavior.
Based on this survey, “In the Main”, it would be fair to conclude that strong religious observance does not go over well with people who are more highly educated and intelligent. I am not saying that because one is more educated or intelligent that they are a better person. I am saying that the tools of intelligence and education generally give one a more evolved and finite ability to see the world in broader terms and in reality.
A Pew Research study of approximately 35,000+ people of different religious affiliations and educational levels shows a major inverse relationship between educational levels and religious belief. Jews and Hindus who enjoy higher educational levels of their populations compared to Christians and Muslims, trend more to the observant by virtue of their demographic makeup.
In general the more educated a person is, the less apt they are to be religious. People who are more educated see the world more through science, critical thinking , and logic. People who are religious tend to see the world more through faith, mythology, and biblical fantasy. People who live in larger cities, who have more access to education and multi-cultural resources tend to be less religious. There is also a correlation between educational levels and intelligence, with those with higher IQ’s trending more toward higher levels of education. Higher IQ Levels of educational attainment, as evidenced by the Jewish, Hindu, and Asian groups is also influenced by ethnicity and cultural values. Many people trend toward modified religious observance as a means of social connection and community, rather than strict religious orthodox or evangelical observance. The non religious seem to embrace the concept of “Evolution” more than those who are religious who embrace the old world concept of “Creationism”.
There is no correlation between religious observance and morality. History has shown that most of the pain and suffering that has been brought about by mankind has been by those who are labeled as Christian followers. A majority of those who label themselves as atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist have a tendency to be more compassionate and humane in their behavior.
Based on this survey, “In the Main”, it would be fair to conclude that strong religious observance does not go over well with people who are more highly educated and intelligent. I am not saying that because one is more educated or intelligent that they are a better person. I am saying that the tools of intelligence and education generally give one a more evolved and finite ability to see the world in broader terms and in reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)