State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

IX. Truth, Not News

CHAPTER IX

Truth, Not News

“For 50 years, Brussels bureaucrats moved with precise, logical steps, limiting their goals, and setting firm timetables.  When one goal was reached it became obvious that another step was needed.  Public support was then mobilized.  Step by step, the union progressed to become perhaps the greatest feat of social engineering in history.”           -George Soros  (London Times 5 November 1997)

                There are a couple of ideas from Lippman and Bernays that need to be looked at a little closer.  The first is Lippman’s idea that truth and news are not the same thing.  He describes that news is a signal of an event where truth would bring light on the unknown.  News might be something like:  “European Countries Sign Trade Agreement.”  Where truth would be something closer to the above observation of George Soros, putting the trade agreement into the larger, majorly unknown context into which it fits.  Had the Europeans known the steps were intended to create the E.U., would they have supported them from the beginning?  From Quigley:

                “…Accordingly, the Six [major European powers] met again, at Messina in June 1955.  There they decided that the next step toward West European integration must be economic rather than political.  From this flowed the Rome Treaty of March 1957, which established the European Economic Community, better known as the Common Market, as well as the European Atomic Community for joint exploitation of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Euratom).  Both agreements went into effect at the beginning of 1958.

                “The EEC Treaty, with 572 articles over almost 400 pages, like the treaties establishing ECSC and Euratom, looked forward to eventual political union in Europe, and sought economic integration as an essential step on the way” (Page 1,284).

EU Parliament, An Artists idea of the Tower of Babel, George Soros

                Today we have what is possibly a similar situation in the United States.  We need to be clear about a few items before discussing this topic.  First, whenever relations between the U. S. A. and Mexico are discussed, there is an immediate fall into thoughts of the boarder and immigration.  These are not being discussed, nor will they be in this review as they are extremely complex and I don’t feel that I properly understand all the ideas, agendas, and other factors well enough to add anything to this debate.  Nor is this an attempt to dampen relations or encourage us not to work with our neighbor countries in solving certain problems.  What this is, is a call to bring into the light the dealings of the SPP or North American Security and Prosperity Partnership so that it can be examined fully and the agenda fully known to the people of all three countries before we start creating or bending policy to fit a hidden agenda.  The SPP came about in 2005 as the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the U. S. (Bush Administration) met to work on common problems.  The SPP is largely unknown, even to Washington insiders, and the major committees were passed into the hands of private industry leaders (global corporations).  The Council on Foreign Relations has given their input.  They propose the creation by 2010 of a North American community for security, prosperity, and opportunity.  They propose this due to the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders (SPP).  The most controversial point is that the boundaries would be defined by an outer security perimiter, inside of which the movement of people, products and capital would be legal, orderly, and safe.

            http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

                Just for some background knowledge, the following quote is from David Rockefeller, former CFR chairman, current honorary chairman:

                “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will.  If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” (David Rockefeller, Memoirs, New York: Random House, 2002, Page 405).

                Again, to be clear, this is not an accusation that the SPP is following the CFR or Rockefeller’s ideas, though we must address the possibility.  This is a call for the media and the government to be fully transparent so that semi-secret and highly unpopular agendas which do exist do not creep into the honest work of foreign relations.

                The next item that needs more light, though I have seen bits and pieces of it in the news is the decision of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses.  The EPA has claimed the authority to basically write ‘Cap and Trade’ laws under the Clean Air Act.  Study on this item will be left to the reader.  Suggested beginning links are:

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/12/24/epa-moves-to-unilaterally-impose-carbon-caps/

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/d2f038e9daed78de8525780200568bec!OpenDocument

                The reason I think this needs to be brought to light is simple—congress has the constitutional authority to write laws.  The EPA exists only to serve the purpose of helping to regulate those things decided by congress.  Since ‘Cap and Trade’ did not pass congress (due to overwhelming unpopularity in the electorate), this constitutes a power grab that no one in the U. S. should tolerate.  Whether one agrees with ‘Cap and Trade’ or not, is irrelevant in my opinion.  I’m sure Thomas Jefferson and the King may have agreed on something, but there is no way Jefferson would have agreed with that thing being dictated by the crown.  From Quigley:

“…The community of interests which would appear if men were merely left to pursue their own desires has been replaced by the fear of social retrogression or even human annihilation.  The old march of democracy now yields to the insidious advance of authoritarianism, and the individual capitalism of the profit motive seems about to be replaced by the state capitalism of the welfare economy…” (Page 28)

                The final piece of news that will be discussed right now due to needing more light to be considered truth is the December 21, 2010 release from the FCC.  The FCC claims that regulating the internet is needed to “preserve internet freedom and openness.” (See fcc.gov)  The FCC had very little power in regulating the internet and this is another huge power grab. The FCC vote to regulate comes after the courts ruled that they had no such power.  See: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-06/comcast-wins-in-case-on-fcc-net-neutrality-powers-update6-.html

                Once again, whether this particular regulation is good or bad is not my issue here.  The issue is that the legislature and the court system are being ignored by a rogue department.  If we do not reign in such actions, over time (as shown historically in many countries, including Germany) this leads to a dictatorship.

                Leaving the items that have had light buried in the news, it is important to look closer at the following statement of Bernays:  “It must be enlightened, expert propaganda through the creation of circumstances,…”  This statement leaves many possibilities as to what circumstances may have been created to mold public opinion on certain issues.  Rather than join the conspiracy theorists with a lot of unknown conjecture, we will focus on one event.  This event is a future event, but it is mathematically factual, though to predict exactly when it will happen would be impossible for someone such as myself.  I would invite anyone to look at the website:  http://www.usdebtclock.org/      This website tracks the debts of the United States in real-time.  Some of the highlights at the time of this writing are:

Total National Debt:  14 Trillion Dollars, Budget Deficit (this year) 1.3 Trillion Dollars, Personal Debt: 16 Trillion Dollars (almost 14 Trillion of this is mortgages, which are being backed by properties of falling value), Trade Deficit (this year):  almost 627 Billion Dollars, Social Security Liability (unfunded, which means there is no money set aside to pay these future expenses):  14.8 Trillion Dollars, Medicare Prescription Drug Liability (thanks G. W. Bush):  19.5 Trillion Dollars, Medicare Liability:  77.7 Trillion Dollars, Total Unfunded Liabilities:  112.1 Trillion Dollars.

The sad thing is that this graph is only a couple of years old!

                It is not just strange people like myself who like studying too much who claim this system will crash.  Just about everyone from Harvard Economist Niall Ferguson to MSN Money’s Bill Fleckenstein have discussed our looming economic crash.  Niall Ferguson wrote the book The Ascent of Money, catch one of Fleckenstein’s many columns on this subject at: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/the-next-crisis-has-already-begun.aspx?page=1

                I would urge everyone to watch the following video of Damon Vickers on CNBC.  He is a ‘fatcat’ hedge fund manager, and very good at what he does—look for ways to make money on collapses.  This is from Nov. 5, 2009.  Mr. Vickers casually explains that our debts, consumer society, and lack of producing anything will destroy the dollar.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1320898674&play=1

            I will not go deep into this yet, but to put the ‘funding crisis’ (as Fleckenstein calls it) into perspective, we will look back to Quigley to understand some of our economic history in the next chapter.

            Before returning to Dr. Quigley, there is one more case that must be looked at.  At the time of this writing, one of the saddest events and media portrayals in our Nation’s history took place.  On January 8th, 2011 a very mixed up young man shot into a crowd at a political gathering, severely wounding Congresswoman Giffords of Arizona, as well as others wounded and killed.  While the human reaction to this event would be to mourn the losses and wait for factual analysis of what happened, many people jumped into the political fray, including the Sheriff in Tucson and the left-leaning media (including the New York Times), jumped in to blame the rhetoric of Sarah Palin and many ‘right-wing’ talk radio hosts such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  The main-stream media and many politicians immediately created the debate about the ‘hate-speech’ on talk radio.  Some politicians wasted no time in proposing gun control laws and calling on the FCC to regulate speech on talk radio.  As information began to trickle out about the shooter, it became clear that people had jumped to unfounded conclusions.  Long descriptions are not needed here, but see the following stories for more complete information:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/report-alleged-arizona-gunman-did-watch-news-television/

http://www.abcnews.go.com/us/tucson-shooting-friend-jared-loughner-speaks-motive-alleged/story?id=12597092

www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0111/talk_radio_under_siege.html

www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47432.html

            I hesitate to discuss talk radio because people often have strong feeling built in about it.  I am doing this because I think we need to re-think some of our ideas at times.  As is brought out in the above stories, this shooter did not have any connection to talk radio.  This association was invented by the sheriff and the media.  Regardless of anyone’s views on talk radio, we need to step back and realize that our freedoms, guaranteed in the 1st and 2nd amendments are what are under attack.  Whether anyone agrees or not with talk radio, we all need to stand up for free speech.  I believe we also need to stand up for our 2nd amendment rights as well.  I would simply ask for thought on the idea that if we don’t guarantee Rush Limbaugh his right to speak out, then we also have no right to speak out.  If someone disagrees with Rush or Beck, the way the Founders gave us to solve the problem is to speak out against them, not to shut them down. 

            This leads to the final point to be made.  According the best friend of this shooter, his downward spiral had a lot to do with being influenced by the movie ‘Zeitgeist-the movie’.  Over a year ago, in searching to find truth, I watched this very thing.  For understanding, the people who produced this have a very ‘leftist’ view on many things, though they are not politically partisan.  They promote many anti-religious views, extreme anti-G. W. Bush views, and they promote the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy from within the U. S. Government.  If believed hook, line, and sinker, I think it is obvious how this could affect a somewhat unstable person.

            After viewing the Zeitgeist film, I researched many things found within and disagree with them on the idea of the government conspiring to create 9/11 (among others).  I think their evidence is shabby at best and often non-existent.  My experience and feeling is that the International Bankers and the Roundtable groups do exercise influence on the government, pushing for one policy at a time and using events to their advantage.  That the government is totally owned and corrupt enough to do such an act, I believe to be false.  This is not saying absolutely that Al-Qaeda isn’t influenced by these groups (I would need to find evidence one way or the other).  I want this understanding put in because it may be easy for someone to fall into perverse traps while researching these things.  My belief, based upon study, is that they push their agenda by propaganda and shifting the political center in an evolutionary way.  I do believe they have a lot of control over financial issues, but find no evidence to support the broader conspiracy theories.  This is not to say that there are not legitimate questions on many issues (including 9/11) and that we shouldn’t seek for honest and true answers.

            I definitely stand for the free-speech rights of the Zeitgeist people and am thankful to them that they offered perspective and caused me to ask myself questions and research for answers.  The main idea I would like to impress from this is that we must stand up for free speech and our constitutional rights.  If not, there are those who would use a tragedy to take them away.  Paramount in protecting our rights is to use them wisely.  Violence will quickly lead to the loss of our fundamental freedoms.  Shedding light on agendas, learning about what our founders believed and the Republic they set up, having peaceful, even respectful dialogue while disagreeing with what we need to, and holding to the truth (even when it means humbly admitting error), is what I believe will guide us where we need to be in the long run.

Leave a Reply