The Future Is Calling Series By G. Edward Griffin, "This is NOT a war on terrorism ...... Options

[jo56]

The Future is Calling Series:

Part 1: The Chasm
http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

Part 2: Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas
http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf

Part 3: Days of Infamy
http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling3.pdf

Part 4: The War on Terrorism
http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf

Part 5: An Idea Whose Hour Has Come
(Under development)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1: The Chasm

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/p...urecalling1.pdf

The Premise of this Document:

"Although it is commonly believed that the War on Terrorism is a noble effort to defend freedom, in reality, it has little to do with terrorism and even less to do with the defense of freedom. There are other agendas at work: agendas that are far less praiseworthy; agendas that, in fact, are just the opposite of what we are told. The purpose of this presentation is to prove that, what is unfolding today is, not a war on terrorism to defend freedom, but a war on freedom that requires the defense of terrorism."

This Document:
*Shows motive and opportunity.
*Introduces eyewitnesses and testimony of experts.
*Provides evidence. (Much from the Ford Fdn Board Minutes)
*Looks at history as its starting point.
*Looks at the major role of Non-Profit Organizations (which are tax-exempt btw) such as: the Ford Foundation of New York City, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace, Rockefeller Foundation, Guggenheim Foundation, etc.

Some of their Games and Goals:
1) Use Non-Profit Foundations to finance their schemes.
2) Control Education in the US. (Rockefeller Fdn assigned Domestic Affairs, and Carnegie International Affairs)
3) Rewrite the history books. (they created their own stable of historians)
4) Alter life in the United States through their "collectivist" model of society.
5) How they would alter life - THROUGH WAR, the only historically dependable method.

Note: The Stable of historians "of the right mind" was chosen and Guggenheim Fdn granted fellowships to help them obtain their doctorates. They then sent them to LONDON for a briefing of what was expected of them when they win their doctorates. They were to view, write and teach history from a "collectivism" perspective as a positive force for the future. This group of 20 formed the American Historical Association. I believe this is their website: http://www.historians.org/

Note: So is the Warren Commission, the 911 Commission strictly for the History books? You have to wonder with this information!

Two Ethics that Divide the Western World - The Philosophical Chasm:
1) Collectivism
2) Individualism

Where they Differ:
1) Nature of human rights.
2) Origin of State power.
3) Is the Group of the Individual more important?
4) Responsibilities and freedom of choice.
5) The way people are treated under the law.

Note: Both want the best life for their families, countrymen, but they disagree on how to bring those things about.


The 5 Major Concepts of Social and Political Relationships:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/f...useaction=creed
(See this document to understand each of these concepts)

1) Intrinsic Nature of Rights

- Important Point: the SOURCE of rights determines their NATURE.
- Collectivists say: That rights are granted by the State.
- Individualists say: "if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty."
- Rights are not tangible, but abstract.
- They are whatever men agree they are at any given time.
- Vary widely (people living in tribal or military dictatorships don't spend much time thinking about this, as they have none; primative cultures don't even have a word for 'rights').
- Rights are derived from military power - their ultimate source. Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. (Classic Example: The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.)
- Rights are always based on Power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.
- The Chasm between Collectivists and Individualists is: If rights are earned on the battlefield, who owns them? Do Governments win wars, or do the people? The answer to this question determines who holds the rights.
- The Declaration of Independence clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men ..."
- Inalienable (spelled differently back then) means "not to be transferred to another".
- So, Rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of government is, not to "grant" rights, but to "secure" them and "protect" them.
- The UN also believes that rights are granted by the State (Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights says: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State ... the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.")
- The Bill of Rights says: "Congress shall pass NO law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth ..." -- not EXCEPT AS DETERMINED BY LAW -- BUT NO LAW.

2) Supremacy of the Individual
-Collectivists say the group is more important than the individual. Anything can be done so long as the number of people benefiting supposedly is greater than the number of people being sacrificed. (So Killing in Iraq is okay and those people can be sacrificed if the ultimate good benefits the group? What group - the NEOCONs, the OIL COMPANIES, the Corporations?)
-Individualists say rights are not derived from the power of numbers, they are intrinsic with each human being. This comes straight from the Declaration of Independence and our forefathers.

Note: Most Totalitarians always parade as humanitarians. (Example: Bush says "We're bringing peace to Iraq so they'll have a better life. Mr. President if they're dead, they have no life. There is nothing humanitarian about invading countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of people. What's your point?)

Note: This is where the idea "good team player" "going along with the group" has become entrenched in our schools, businesses, etc. We've seen anyone going against this "group think" is labeled by government officials as "Unpatriotic" "UnAmerican" "not team players" and worse. The real truth is this "personal loyalty" "group think" has become the undoing of our Congress. These decisions are driven by "group ideology" rather than by facts, common sense, ethics which is what is good for each individual. What happens when Congress goes along with "group think" that is wrong? Just look at the current Administration - you see what happens! Our Congressmen owe us more than just contrived "group think" when the group making the decisions are wrong and unethical.

3) Freedom of Choice

- Collectivist says: The people are not smart enough to handle their lives, so we should do it for them. They believe in coersion "take it by force of law".

- Individualist says: Sees government as the creator of more problems than it solves. They believe in freedom "give it through free will".

4) Equality Under Law

Collectivist says: the law should treat people unequally in order to bring about desirable changes in society. They think of themselves as social engineers who have the wisdom to restructure society to a more humane and logical order.

Individualist says: no two people are exactly alike, and each one is superior or inferior to others in many ways, but under law, they should all be treated equally.

5) Proper Role of Government

Collectivist says: the proper role of government should be positive. The state should take the initiative in all aspects of the affairs of men, and should be aggressive, lead, and provide. It should be the great organizer of society.

Individualist says: the proper function of the government is negative and defensive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. (Our forefathers warned us of this very thing)

---------------------
Other Parts of this Document:

Chart - Four Models for Social Order (pg 19):
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/p...urecalling1.pdf

The Creed of Freedom:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/f...useaction=creed

This post has been edited by jo56: Mar 21 2007, 03:38 PM

[jo56]

I have presented Part I of this series only. I encourage everyone to read the entire series Part 1 - 5. Griffin hasn't finished Part 5 yet, but the other 4 are available.

The information you find in these documents has EVERYTHING TO DO with what we are witnessing in the World currently, and that has GREATLY BEEN propelled forward with the BUSH administration.

The reason the BUSH Administration is so SECRETIVE, is because IT HAS A LOT TO HIDE. The things that are happening go even beyond this administration, and extend to OTHER FORCES controlling our DESTINY in a very DANGEROUS WAY. Unless WE ALL get informed, there is no hope in stopping this runaway train.

We MUST EXPOSE the powers behind what is happening, or AMERICA will lose its sovereignty and we, our FREEDOM.

Please take the time to read this information, and pass it on!

[Cary]

Great stuff Ms. Jo. Thanks so much for your vigilent research and sharing it with us.

[jo56]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[AZ/Watch]

Jo:
I remember read this in college many years ago, the paradigm of individual and collective, concluded that the best of both worlds is to be a collection of individuals.

Also today came across a article that fits here, and it sound all too familiar:


http://warofwits.org/0703/dialectic.htm
WAR OF WITS
HOW TO DISARM YOUR OPPONENT IN THE STRUGGLE FOR THE TRUTH
A Dangerous Dialectic
 
The United States is well on its way to Marxism, and may be further along than many people thought. It is well known that there are many professors in American universities that espouse Marxist, collectivist viewpoints.

They do so openly. But how far does this go? How harmful is a bunch of hippie Marxist rhetoric? Aren't these just the rantings of some isolated loons? The argument I will put forth says that it is all around us. It permeates everything. It influences our thoughts and deeds. It is used by the UN. It is used by Democrats. Hell, it is even used by Republicans in the Senate. It is used by anyone pushing any sort of globalist agenda. Karl Marx would be proud.

A dialectic is an argument, based on dialect; on discussion.

The Hegelian Dialectic is a Marxist theory introduced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher. This theory alters deductive and inductive reasoning; the mechanism by which we interpret the world around us.

With deductive reasoning, you look at generalizations to arrive at specifics. You use your power of observation.

All dogs bark is one such generalization.

But through further observations, you reason that one bark is reserved for intruders, one for dinner, another for potty time. Patterns of behavior prove this to a sufficient degree. But with Hegel's teachings, deductive and inductive reasoning are out. No longer does 1 + 1 = 2.

The Hegelian Dialectic -simply put- is exemplified as follows:

• Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

• The synthesis in this case is a "mashup" of the two competing ideas. By creating the tension; the basis for an argument; the thesis against the antithesis; the one using the dialectic is able to bring about the synthesis. Every synthesis is the thesis of a new dialectic, and process repeats in an infinite loop, until there is no more basis for dissent. http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger...n_dialectic.htm

The danger lies in the iterative -or repetitive- nature of the dialectic. It is drilled down to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing social change.

One example of this is Global Warming:

Thesis: My God, our fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming, an epic catastrophe that we must immediately act to prevent, or we're dead meat.

Antithesis: It's all hogwash, the Earth isn't getting any warmer, nothing is happening. Even if it was, man isn't causing it.

Synthesis: It may or may not be happening, and man may or may not be causing it but to not act would be foolish.

Another example is Illegal immigration:

Thesis: Illegal aliens are criminals and leeches who only want to come here to deposit anchor babies, claim benefits and take American jobs, with no desire for assimilation. They should be loaded up into buses and deported.

Antithesis: "Mexican migrants" are only escaping oppression and economic hardship in their own countries and are coming here to work hard and provide a better life for their own families.

Synthesis: "Undocumented workers" may be here illegally, but they work hard, doing jobs that Americans won't do, and contribute their fair share. Besides, we couldn't possibly round up and deport millions of people.

This dialectic is dangerous. It can be applied in virtually any situation where people are polarized on an issue. War, gay rights, abortion. I challenge you to think critically. Apply that reasoning to any political situation you can think of, and you'll come to the same conclusion that I did. That the two-party system exists by staking out the two most extreme positions on any issue, and then moving to the middle on a compromise measure that works for everyone. Some call this consensus building, I call it Marxism.

It started with liberal forced diversity.

It escalated with the ACLU's war on Christ and Christmas.

It erupted with the coordinated assault on Santa Claus, Frosty, and the Easter Bunny.

It continues to this day with actions such as the swearing in of Keith Ellison on a Koran, the refusal of Muslim Cabbies to transport dogs or people who drank alcohol, I could go on for days.

All of these outrages are designed to seek a predetermined middle ground, where consenus disappears, and American individuality no longer expresses itself.

And Republicans just watch...

The country your grandfathers fought to secure is slipping away, consumed by the ideologies they died trying to snuff out, and aided by the two-party system.

[jo56]

Interesting read, AZ/Watch!