Conspiracy or lobbying?

In a recent threat, I was wondering on the nature political movements or agendas, are lobby groups .

Here is an edited version of what I said (skip to the next post if you’ve read it) –

The wealthy elites of the US (and most of the world) fearing the rise of communist ideology and the an increased interest in left wing political ideas around the globe began to support anti-left wing groups and policies, which by definition were conservative or even further to the right.

It wasn’t so much a conspiracy as a group’s conscious reaction to a perceived threat to it ideological and material position.

They used whatever means possible to ‘educate’ people into believing the ‘truth’ that left wing views are communist and communism was ‘evil’ and wrong. During this campaign there were many anti-communist claims of a covert communist plan to take over America and the world, but since more often than not there was no real evidence for this they resorted to innuendo, supposition and down right lies and many right wing groups like the John Birch Society used those to weave their conspiracy theories.

"By 1963, corporations were spending an estimated $25 million per year on anticommunist literature... Some corporations circulated print and audio-visual materials produced by the John Birch Society; other corporations produced their own in-house literature...By the early 1960s, the Nation magazine reported that there was a minimum of 6,600 corporate-financed anticommunist broadcasts, carried by more than 1,300 radio and television stations at a total annual budget of about $20 million...Leading sponsors included Texas oil billionaire H.L. Hunt and Howard J. Pew of Sun Oil. The corporate sector's massive anticommunist propaganda campaigns created a favorable climate for the mobilization of activist groups like the John Birch Society."
Sara Diamond, Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States,
http://www.amazon.com/Roads-Dominio...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216203697&sr=8-1

It is something that carries on today, with the huge number of wealth sponsored right wing activities from publishing through radio to the many think tanks and academic grants; it’s also prevalent on the internet through direct sponsorship of sites and by viral sellers in internet forums.

**

This manipulation of the ‘facts’ was most successful in the US where many came to believe (as a matter of ‘common sense) that any left wing ideas were ‘communist’ and that communism was an ‘evil’ whose purpose was the destruction of the ‘American way of life’.

As I’ve pointed out before people join or support such movements for differing reasons. Some people did this because they actually thought left wing ideas wrong, others did it because they feared that left wing ideas if implemented might diminish their wealth and influence, and some were just hangers on.

So once the population were ‘educated’ and ‘informed’ about ‘communism’ (any left wing or progressive thought) they became accepting even complicit in the harassment and suppression of such ideas at home and abroad.

In the US there was government sponsored repression, workplace purges, show trials and other scare tactics.

(outlined in more detail here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=253937&f=36)

Abroad it was worse, the US made covert and overt attacks on governments it came to deem as communist (or communist leaning) and a number of democratically elected governments were overthrown in favour of ‘anti-communist’ dictators. Often the true reason for such attacks seemed more about money than real fear, as in Guatemala (the US fruit corporations), Iran (Anglo-American oil interests) and Chile (US mining concerns).
There was torture, murder and a hell of a lot of blood spilt in these ‘righteous’ wars against ‘evil’, and in a lot of cases it did more harm than good.

 

It wasn’t so much a conspiracy as a group’s conscious reaction to a perceived threat to it ideological and material position.

The thing is, are a group of wealthy individuals that set up lobby groups to promote tax cuts that will benefit them more than the rest of society, getting involved in a conspiracy or just natural self interest?

If some corporations that manufacture weapons systems sponsor lobby groups that highlight possible threats and promote defence spending, is it a conspiracy or prudent business practice?

If people of a certain political viewpoint get the financial backing to set up a lobby group to promote those views from like minded individuals or institutions is that conspiracy or legitimate political action?

If politically biased media outlets use ‘experts’ from these lobbying groups to promote particular political policies and agendas, are they being conspiratorial or genuinely trying to ‘educate’ and ‘inform’ the public?

But what if a political movement targets a group to attack through the lobby system and it result in political policies that lead to suppression and repression? Is that a conspiracy not in the sense of secret cables but of a ‘conspiracy of the like minded’?

**

To me the whole lobby business seems to have has become excessive and often seems detrimental to the political system and I feel it needs to be better regulated and monitored, but how and how do you stop throwing out the baby with the bath water?

To me it would seem to be a matter of comparative influence and openness. Often people don’t know were the information has come from and so don’t know that it is being spin and for what reason. It also mean those with the most bucks get the biggest bangs, and although not all people of wealth are ultra-conservative in their philosophy I think it fair to way not many are committed left wingers.

Here are some musings on what might be done –

* All political bias should be out in the open and be reported as such when material from a lobby group is cited or a co-ed piece is written or presented by the media. For example ‘that is from a report by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute’ or ‘this is John Doe of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute’ or ‘said the environmental group Greenpeace’.

*The status of think tanks as non-profit or tax exempt is linked to a formal declaration of being non partisan, this should be more rigorously policed.

*A limit should be put on how much can be earned for working for such groups. Lobbying should be about doing something because you want to not because you’re being paid to do it. In the same way possibly the amount spent on lawyers or PR firms in the support of a cause should be regulated.

*There must be a gap of at least five years between receiving money from or holding a position with a lobby group and seeking public office or being appointed to a political position.

*There must be a gap of at least five years between holding a public office or holding an appointment to a political position and receiving money from or holding a position with a lobby group.

*There must be a gap of at least five years between holding a public office or holding an appointment to a political position and receiving money from or holding a position with any corporation that receives government contracts.

*A ban on the ability of lobbyists to make contributions to the politician’s electoral campaigns.

**

 

I really don't like the way lobby groups work in the United States.

I couldn't believe it when I went to watch the Connecticut General Assembly House of representatives sit at the Capitol. It was a Friday, and the members kept walking out of the room and talking to the back-benchers or the administerial staffers.

Why were the members walking in and out of the room when the House was officially sitting and members were debating and presenting their bills??

Because they were all running outside to speak to lobbyists.

They were outside talking with lobbyists discussing what was going on and how they were going to vote on a bill or motion.

I found this absolutely appalling. I can't believe lobbyists have so much power to stand right outside of the House as an influence to ensure party members are doing what they want or in some cases documenting how they weren't.

Members have incredible pressure to side with large lobbyist groups, like an auto-worker's lobby group for example, and it can cost them to lose their seat in their riding if they are caught voting against a bill or with their party and not representing the interests of the lobby groups.

It's quite shocking to see how connected business and politics are - even down to the minute when the House has to vote.

It didn't make much sense to me. I've never seen anything like that.

In the Canadian Parliaments, we have lobbyists, but they are NOT accessible to the House members during the sitting of the House. I mean, sure a member could call on their phone to speak with a lobbyist representative like some do in the USA, but they don't. Because it's unethical. They have back-benchers who deliver MEMOs and/or notes to them but they are close to never from a lobbyist, and there is no real or immediate reason to think about a lobby group during the sitting of the House.

Hell, the lobbyists aren't even allowed to stand outside of the House when it sits, and they have their how gallery where they are allowed to be separate from the Legislature.

 

Pfft. Right. That's why the "wealthy elites" funded communism and they continue to fund radical left wing groups today via the tax-exempt foundations, such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (which was caught funding war). I mean, the elites love communism and socialism because it consolidates all the wealth and power into their hands. Socialism was funded into existence by the central banks as the dialectical antithesis to capitalism. The central bankers are monopoly capitalists, and that's precisely what communism is: monopoly capitalism for the rich. We do not have "free market" capitalism as many people believe. All we have is crony, cartel capitalism, which is centered around a monopoly and is not free market.

I mean, the major parties in England and the US alike are moving the peoples in the same direction of bigger government, less freedoms, and a tyrannical police state. That is simply the facts, and that's why I don't engage in this mindless left vs. right BS, because both are essentially the same with a few minor differences.

But I digress.

 

And yes, communism was created by the West to also be this looming boogeyman used to scare the public into submission, to be able to use the taxpayers' money to justify a buildup of military, such as what we saw during the Cold War. It's kind of like how radical Islam is being used as the boogeyman today to remove our remaining freedoms and take over the Middle East under the pretext of "democracy."

Yes, there were groups that demonized communism, and rightfully so. However, they did not allude to the fact that the communists were all funded by the Anglo-American banking establishment. There is not one communist dictator in recent history who was not funded or provided aid by the West.

The average person thinks communism is this outside enemy in foreign nations that is out to destroy Western capitalism. That is somewhat true, except that enemy was funded from within what they call their own government. So, while the West was pretending to fight communism, they were also funding it. They ALWAYS create the problems to justify the solutions. It's just like how they funded radical Islam to create the problem needed to justify the solution.

You cannot go to war and keep the people clamorous of the government without an outside enemy. If you do not have an outside enemy, you must create one, and that's what communism was. Except it was never wiped out as one is lead to believe and still poses a threat today. And you don't even necessarily have to call it communism. I prefer to call it fascism or neo-feudalism, because that is what it is.

Again, you need to understand how the Hegelian dialectic works.

 

Also, one of the big problems in American lobbyist groups, is the fact that they grow and amalgamate. A Women's Catholic Group will join with a Women's Baptist Group to form a Women's Christian Association. When that happens a member of House has to answer to a large number of people represented by the large lobbyist groups - sometimes that group is larger in population than their own constituency.

So who is more powerless in that situation? The people that elected the member are.

It's one way to divert democracy among many.

 

Pfft. Right. That's why the "wealthy elites" funded communism and they continue to fund radical left wing groups today via the tax-exempt foundations, such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (which was caught funding war).

Those are liberal and pro-capitalistic organisations not left wing, in fact they have been criticized by left wingers.

But then your ultra right wing libertarian and social Darwinist viewpoint makes you think that even the neo-cons are too left wing.

**

I mean, the elites love communism and socialism because it consolidates all the wealth and power into their hands. Socialism was funded into existence by the central banks as the dialectical antithesis to capitalism.

So why did they in the main fund anti-left propaganda? Are you denying what I’ve said or just ignoring it in favour of a set of ideas based on innuendo, supposition and sophism.

**

The central bankers are monopoly capitalists, and that's precisely what communism is: monopoly capitalism for the rich. We do not have "free market" capitalism as many people believe. All we have is crony, cartel capitalism, which is centered around a monopoly and is not free market.

And your answer is right wing libertarianism and social Darwinism, whose policies would make the rich much richer and more powerful.

**

I mean, the major parties in England and the US alike are moving the peoples in the same direction of bigger government, less freedoms, and a tyrannical police state. That is simply the facts, and that's why I don't engage in this mindless left vs. right BS, because both are essentially the same with a few minor differences.

And your stance would lead to a plutocratic oligarchy, where the rich would have power and the vast majority of the people would have no redress against that power, because the rich would dominate government (imagine the right wing lobby groups running government rather than just trying to manipulate it), the rich would control the means of communication and education (a wealth controlled privatised internet and education system, plus TV, papers, radio etc), and of course private wealth controlled security firms like Blackwater instead of the democratically controlled police and army.

**

But I digress.

You are not digressing Rat, the promotion of your ultra right wing political views is your main reason for being here (and on other forums) you’re a viral internet seller of an extremist philosophy.

Your MO is the sowing of confusion, so whenever it seems like the power of the wealthy might be challenged by reasoned ideas you step in to muddy the water with unreasoned conspiracy theory.

Why is that Rat, why do you always come to the defence of the elites?

Why is it that virtually all the things you ever suggest as action would actually increase the power of that elite?

**

“And yes, communism was created by the West….”

Oh and what follows is a typical Rat rant, mostly hot air but remember I mentioned that the anti-left wing stance was a broad church that included Christian right groups, conservatives, neo-conservatives, fascists and libertarians and that it has and still does employed conspiracy theory to misdirect the unwary.

Well Rat and his ilk are fringe members of that church.

Yes, there were groups that demonized communism, and rightfully so.

Except it was never wiped out as one is lead to believe and still poses a threat today.

He’s simply using variations on the theories of the extremely anti-communist and very right wing group that Rat mirrors so closely that he could be a member, the John Birch Society.

“According to Welch [the founder of the JBS], both the US and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the US government would betray the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist new world order managed by a "one-world socialist government."
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html

Sound familiar?

Also like them he repeatedly pushes the right wing and wealth favouring policies of “less Government” and “more responsibility”

Which basically mean a government that doesn’t oppose the influence of wealth and cut off all ‘hand outs’ to those less fortunate individuals without lots of money in the bank.

It is the pushing of such ideas that has led to corporate bail outs and tax cuts to the rich (because they can finance lobby groups that push such things), while forcing the unemployed into subsistence jobs, the working class into debt and a situation where many people don’t have medical insurance (since wealth sponsored lobbyists claim that such things promote personal responsibility).

Rat is just part of the same pro-wealthy lobbying system that I believe has caused so many problems in the world.


**

 

Eh? He does NOT come to the defense of the elites. I don't think I've ever heard him defend any elite or person in a position of power, like *ever*.

I mean, yeah some of his 'less government is best' policy favourings do break down some of the principles of ensuring social justice and civil rights, but it's not because he's in favour of pro-wealthy and individualistic solutions to medical care for example or is harping to abolish social security.

I think you're looking too far beyond the trees on his posts in this thread, Balbus - but he hasn't really commented yet on the actual process of lobbying and/or lobbyist groups - hell, he hasn't even mentioned the word "lobby" in a post yet.

 

First of all, I am not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the illusion of a non-existent free market and free trade. They have faith in the money system, which is the right for an elite few to print money out of thin air, controlling the population through a system of debt creation. They also believe in a world order similar to their dialectical opposites. I do not buy into that. I am neither a social darwinist, and those on the left would be more accurately referred to as social darwinists, historically speaking. I have already told you that the neoconservative ideology is rooted in neo-Trotskyism, which is a left-wing ideology. It was Trotsky who inspired the neoconservatives' belief in perpetual war to bring their goals into fruition.

Today's "conservatives" believe in big government, big spending, corporate welfare, socialistic programs like No Child Left Behind, and massive deficits and debt. None of this is conservative. It's the religio-political rhetoric which is used to fool people into thinking that a socialist like Bush is a conservative when he isn't and never was. Fiscally speaking, Bush is much further to the left than Clinton. Being a warmonger has nothing to do with real conservatism. Some of the biggest warmongers in history fell at the left end of the spectrum.

But I am not going to get into that because I don't pay any attention to left vs. right nonsense that exists today soley to divide and conquer. I see outside of the dialectic and that's why I can see that both parties are leading the people in the exact same direction. You, on the other hand, would rather play the game of the elites and play into this us vs. them mentality, which is exactly what they want.

Again, it's part of the thesis vs. antithesis in the dialectic. The only opposition to communism was a false opposition that communism was this outside boogeyman that we had to go to war to fight, when it was a creation of international bankers. While the Right was used as a false opposition to the illusion of communism, the Left today is used as the false opposition to what we see happening right now. They speak out against the war, but they won't talk about what's really behind it or the police state in America. Why? Because the established left wing magazines which are all funded by the elite foundations won't talk about real issues, which some might call a "conspiracy." It's all controlled opposition to keep the people within a narrow box of possibilities. You always need to establish a false opposition so people will not think for themselves. One side cannot exist without the other.

The quote you provided from the JBS is very accurate, but that was never a belief that was widely embraced in America, even back in the 50's and 60's. The JBS was, and still is today, considered to be a fringe organization and demonized by the mainstream Right and Left.

But it's only "extremist" because that's how you choose to perceive it. Is some of this infomation used by extremist groups that have their own agenda? Absolutely. I don't deny that. But I have nothing to do with these groups and frankly they mean nothing to me. That doesn't change the fact that we are dealing in fact which can be supported with irrefutable evidence brought to light by the research of scholarly people such as Carroll Quigley and Antony Sutton.

But I don't consider myself to be any of these. I don't find it necessary to cling to labels. I simply go by the facts. If that makes me a Right winger to you, then so be it. I do not care. I make it clear that I do not embrace collectivism and socialistic tyranny passed off as "democracy."

You just repeat the same mindless rhetoric over and over about me wanting to support the wealthy elites, which is ludicrous and makes no sense at all. You are the one too dense to see that the government and the corporations which run the government are one single entity. You want to give them more power by increasing the power they have over the people.

But that's not true. Less government under a government that is corrupt from the top down is still bad. You cannot save this system. So no, you're simply trying to associate what I say with whatever you want to associate it with. For things to change the entire system needs to be scrapped.

 

But I don't support "pro-wealthy" solutions to health care, nor have I said anything about abolishing Social Security, which is already on its way out anyway.

I also disagree in the idea of governments promoting social justice and civil rights. I frankly find that to be laughable, because there is no bigger enemy to social justice than tyrannical government itself, which commits some of the biggest injustices in the world yet gets away with them because the elite are never punished for their crimes.

 

Another thing I would like to address is the accusation that I am against socialistic government programs to "help" (enslave) those in need.

Well, here's the thing. The very government that people turn to for help is often the result of their impoverished situation in the first place. The brainwashed left and the brainwashed right don't see this, though, because Amy Goodman and Bill O'Reilly don't address it. They don't talk about the private banking cartel which print the money out of nothing, creating artificially low interest rates which lead to inflation. Meanwhile your money is worth less and less while employeers keep the same pay rates and the prices soar because the money has become the equivalent to toilet paper. Now most families cannot afford to live without both parents working lousy jobs, and in many cases they have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. This is why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It's because of the very same corporate-controlled big government intervention that you look at as being the solution to all the world's problems.

Once again, it's the perfect example of how the government creates the problems to justify the pre-planned "solution." This is why it is imperative that people understand the Hegelian dialectic, because it is the basis for everything under this system.

The fact is, the internationalists want a world socialistic welfare state, where everything is controlled by them with just the crumbs doled out to the public living at subsistence level as peasants. That is what they want and that is exactly what they're creating.

Now do you understand my disdain of collectivistic big brother socialism? The same government that is pretending to be your daddy, giving you all the good things in life, is simultaneously sticking a knife in your jugular as you bleed all over the place.

 

If you [SIZE=-1]read the sentence that I posted, you'll see that I neve[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r said that you did.[/SIZE]

 

The gove[SIZE=-1]rnment doesn't 'c[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]reate' p[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]roblems out of nowhe[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], it may pe[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rpetuate existing p[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]roblems with a failed solution, but it does not [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]randomly come out with a loga[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rithm fo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r doom and d[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rea[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ry se[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rvitude[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]. You've said time and again that politicians a[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re pu[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rely puppets to a highe[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r o[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rde[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r and mo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re siniste[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r peoples in positions of cont[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rol and powe[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r. What makes you think that the gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnment is just an entity used as a tool and has no ability to c[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]reate anything at all?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
I'm not su[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re how gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnment [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]p[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rog[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rams and initiatives like subsidized housing, EI insu[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rance, Ch[/SIZE]ild[SIZE=-1]ren's Aid and unive[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rsal health ca[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re a[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re the di[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rect[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]result of causing pove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rty in the fi[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rst place.

The[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re a[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re viable and wo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rking solutions th[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rough the median of the gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnment to which the poo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r and impove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rished can and do benefit f[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rom.

It's only natu[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ral that th[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rough an economic system that ou[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnments impose that the standa[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rds of living [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rise as does the cost of living - the[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]re is no [/SIZE]sec[SIZE=-1]ret conspi[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]racy about the gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnment [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rising the living standa[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rds.[/SIZE]

 

If the gove[SIZE=-1]rnment is a tool to be used by the co[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rpo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rate elite in you[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r opinion, why not take it back, hm?

Why not give it back to the people, make the gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnment wo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rk fo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r the people instead of pe[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rpetuating a system of co[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ruption?

Is it not possible fo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r any gove[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rnment to wo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]rk fo[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r people, in you[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]r opinion?
[/SIZE]

 

I am with Ari, societies can not exist without governments and some form of order is necessary for it's citizens well being. But governments should be based on what is best for all of it's citizens and the societal good rather than being focussed soley on what makes more capital if it risks the well being of any segment of the society. Call me an optimist I think the people can make changes. But they have to learn to think before they vote and not vote based on soundbites. Each personal holds a certain individual responsibility for protecting their unalienable rights.

 

Well, I for one do not believe that governments make mistakes. At least not to the extent in which the public passes off government corruption as being mere incompetence. (Kind of like how people pass 9/11 off as being simple incompetence, when all evidence suggests otherwise.)

When you have some of the biggest, most well-funded governments in the world, with some of the most brilliant and intelligent minds behind those governments, you come to realize they don't simply make "mistakes." What the general public sees as mistakes are carefully calculated plans that are part of a much bigger agenda.

I call this mindset that everything is just the result of mere incompetence as coincidence theory.

I often revert back to this quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, where he said:

Now it's easy to say that governments mean well and want what's best for you when you take all the information that's presented to you via the media at face value. However, when you read some of the publications put out by NGO's and government think tanks going back decades, you get a better idea of the bigger picture and see that not everything is as it appears on the television screen.

If the government truly worked for the people, there would be no need for any of that, because people would have jobs and enough money to live off of. Because of the international banking cartels, they have created a system in which they erode the value of the currency. So as the value of money goes down and the cost of living goes up, you have to pay more to get less. Do you see what I am saying here? Go back 50 years and you will see there was little need for such programs because most people were able to afford things without having to rely on the government.

 

Even the most brilliant mind makes mistakes. Systems are conducted by humans.

Governments are further from infallible than the Pope.

So, if a government doesn't make mistakes, it's all a calculated phenomenon being scheduled, thought out, planned out, the entire course of history is already written for us and the group of high-powerful elites run the show...

Then who are the counter-elite groups that are fighting total world domination? Who are the moles in the CFR? Who is a spy gathering information to use against the elites? Who are the organized revolutionaries throwing cogs in the wheels of elitist destiny?

There must be someone whose interests are being stomped on to care enough to organize against the elites and infiltrate their system.

I want to know where these people are for a change.

 

Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich

Groups like the ACLU and Bill of Rights Defense Committee, truther movement, etc

Also, many ex-government officials come forward with certain information all of the time but you won't hear about it on corporate media. (Just look at the current situation with whistleblowers).

Remember when CNN and Fox news covered the rogue B52 bomber that illegally flew across America with nukes on board? Remember how big of a story it was? Me either. The air force department called it the biggest 'mistake in 50 years' yet you get a tiny mentioning of it in a tiny article. Apparently, there is nuke out there that is missing -That Doesn't sound so comforting to me - Also, let me add how convenient it is for the pentagon to investigate themselves on these matters... It's like the mob investigating their own crimes and trying to reassure us that everything will be handled with great care. Unbelievable.

Truth is meaningless if the truth is made out to look like a joke, which is what has happened. It's straight from a George Orwell novel. If you want to further investigate any of this, then I suggest that you read 1984. The parallels between the story of 1984 and modern life of western countries is unmistakable.

Just look at England... There are incredible amounts of evidence that the 'terrorist attacks' on 7/7 was merely a false flag operation, but even if it wasn't, that still doesn't excuse all the surveillance cameras being put EVERYWHERE. It's also not an excuse to occupy other people's HOMELAND to try to extract some petty revenge, or to allow state sponsored terrorism. I honestly don't believe that Muslims are killing us because we're 'free' but are trying to extract vengeance from something that the foreign invaders (us) have done to THEM. It's absolutely sickening and I can't believe how people can be in complete denial of this.

We are told: If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't need to worry... but that isn't true. There is a LOT to worry about because that leaves a lot of room for abuse.

We do create a lot of our problems. There are many events in American history that isn't so pretty, and just recently have been revealed to us. These truths aren't very worrying because we realize that these events occurred so long ago and we are left to go on believing that such a thing can no longer happen in the modern day, but it can and does. Not so long ago we incarcerated Japanese people during WWII, staged false flag operations and have had numerous scandals, and let's not forget the witchhunt. The whole, "The government is just here to help us and to try to be as benevolent as possible. They simply make mistakes from time to time". That assumes that governments are invulnerable to corruption merely because good people exist. Unfortunately, evil people DO exist and they couldn't care any less of you or me or anyone simply because you aren't part of their special circle of omnipotence.

Wars don't just happen. It's a long process to convince the average person that war is inevitable; that it is NEEDED for FREEDOM (War for freedom is doublethink). Most people do not want war, it's usually just a matter of convincing the people. There can be no wars if you cannot avast an army. Without us, they have no power. The sad thing is the same process from peace to war is an open possibility for all countries. This is why it is crucial to become aware of certain things beforehand so that you can prevent corruption from even beginning. Sadly, most people are head-deep into sand and are in a state of denial that, for the most part, can't even be broken by truth alone.

You don't need to be a genius to understand that both the war on terror and the war on drugs are both born of ignorance and malice, most likely purposely. Lobbyists can either be used for good or bad. There are lobbyists for medicinal marijuana, and their are lobbyists for wars. Lobbyists for the most part are just a part of the control, and they control by using your emotions, ignorance, and fear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCe5yZ_MNHk Highly recommended viewing. I have to warn you, though, the lady at the beginning can be distracting.

Also good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAWslHmiok

 

Sure. But not to the extent in which the public is lead to believe that the government (which is backed by hundreds of think tanks and NGO's) makes them. You would think that if it simply was a matter of incompetence, they would at least once in a while err in the people's favor.

You see, we are lead to believe 9/11 was a matter of imcompetence... that the lie about WMD's in Iraq was incompetence... that the false intelligence about Niger yellow cake uranium is incompetence... that the immigration fiasco is incompetence... that the devaluation of the dollar is incompetence...

After a while things are no longer simply a matter of incompetence when you see who this incompetence benefits. You begin to connect the dots and see who really stands to gain from it.

It's those people who are informed and helping to wake up others. Not everyone in the CFR is knowingly part of a conspiracy. As a matter of fact, most of the 3,000+ people in the CFR probably believe they are doing good. However, the CFR consists of an inner circle and an outer circle, the inner of which acts as a steering committee to influence the outer circle, who are not fully aware of the big picture.

Ever heard the saying that the road to evil is paved with good intentions? Well, that describes the agenda of the elite perfectly, because most of the people who serve this agenda serve it unknowingly. It is a compartmentalized structure where only the few at the top understand the true agenda. Those who fall closer to the bottom of the proverbial pyramid are merely unwitting dupes who are being used without their full knowledge.

 

I may regret opening that can of worms, but I think you will find that there is not.

There was not an increase in CCTV cameras after 7/7.
Neither are they EVERYWHERE. That is ofcourse if you don't consider EVERYWHERE to be outside/inside business, monitoring troubled housing estates and catching speeding motorists.

I think you might find that we were welcomed by the vast swath of people.
Yes, it is true the shit hit the fan.

Way to go in bolstering the terrorists arguement.
Tell that to the muslims that died on 9/11 and 7/7.

Maybe put down 1984 and join us in the real world