The Grand Deception - Overview of the GWOT

[Tha Dude]

The Grand Deception - A second look at the Global War on Terrorism

 

by G. Edward Griffin - click to download.

 

This extensive document lays out the crisis at the feet of the American people better than just about anything I have come across in the year since I 'woke up' to the harsh reality that things are going to hell in a hand basket, and in a damn hurry.  G. Edward Griffin has a knack for getting to the bottom of things in a colloquial, yet concise manner.

 

Griffin covers:

• [li]THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
  A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
  COLLECTIVISM VS INDIVIDUALISM
  THE DANGER OF GROUP SUPREMACY
  THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
  COERCION VS FREEDOM
  THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
  JOHN RUSKIN PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM AT OXFORD
  THE FABIAN SOCIETY
  THE SECRET SOCIETY CREATED BY CECIL RHODES
  THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
  THE STRATEGY TO GET THE U.S. INTO WAR
  AGGRAVATE, INSULATE, FACILITATE
  THE WAR ON TERRORISM
  OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
  TERROR FROM THE AIR
  THE UNTOUCHABLES
  HARD QUESTIONS[/li]
  [li][/li]
  

Some notable quotes from the document:

[The Deception

 

Quote

The year is 1954, and we hear Mr. Gaither say to Mr. Dodd, "Would you be interested in knowing what we do here at the Ford Foundation?" And, of course, Mr. Dodd says, "Yes! That’s exactly why I’m here. I would be very interested, sir." Then, without any prodding at all, Gaither says, "Mr. Dodd, we operate in response to directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Dodd almost falls off of his chair when he hears that. Then he says to Gaither, "Well, sir, you can do anything you please with your grant making powers, but don’t you think you have an obligation to make a disclosure to the American people? You enjoy tax exemption, which is an indirect way of saying you are subsidized by the taxpayer, so, why don’t you tell the Congress and the American people what you just told me?" And Gaither replies, "We would never dream of doing such a thing."

 

They Are Re-Writing History

 

Quote

The question that logically arises is, "How would it be possible for people in these prestigious organizations to even dream that they could alter life in the United States so it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union?" What an absurd thought that would be! The answer, however, is not absurd at all. To bring this about, all that needs to be done is to alter the attitude of the American people to accept such a move. How could that be done?

The answer to this second question was provided by another powerful and prestigious tax-exempt foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace... .."We must control education in the United States." They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America - in particular, to control the teaching of history.

 

Exposing False Political Paradigms

 

Quote

In order to appreciate the essence of collectivism, we need to step backward and look at the larger picture encompassing the political ideologies that divide people in this age. You find those who claim they are conservatives, and they will debate wildly with those who think of themselves as liberals. Left wingers disagree with right wingers. You find people who say they are Socialists or Communists or Fascists or whatever words they choose to identify their point of view. But, when you ask them to explain what those words mean, very few can agree. For the most part, they are merely labels without clear or precise definitions... I think that all of the great political issues, the ideological issues at least, can be divided into two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Basically, a person is either a collectivist or an individualist. We are talking about collectivism vs. individualism.

 

Democracy Intentionally Misrepresented

 

Quote

We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between Republics and Democracies. We have been taught to believe that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution. However, if you read the documents of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of Democracy. They said in plain English that a Democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government. And so they created what they called a Republic. The bottom line is that the difference between a Democracy and a Republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism.

 

Left vs Right Shattered

 

Quote

We often hear about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do these terms really mean? For example, we are told that Communists and Socialists are at the extreme Left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme Right. Here we have two powerful ideological forces pitted against each other, and the impression is that, somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all. They are the same.... There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists, and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians.

 

The Fabians Exposed

 

Quote

Some of the more erudite of those from the wealthy, intellectual classes of England came together and decided they would form an organization to perpetuate the concept of collectivism. It was called the Fabian Society... Fabians consider themselves to be humane. To emphasize this strategy of patient gradualism, they adopted the tortoise as their symbol, and the emblem on their shield is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

 

Les

Endret 2. januar 2008 av Tha Dude

[Ockham]

Du har ikke en kortversjon? Jeg er nemlig hjernevasket, og har ikke mental kapasitet til slike lange tekster.

[Trynemjoel]

Les Endret 2. januar 2008 av Trynemjoel

[Tha Dude]

bryter jeg rettningslinjene ved å oppfordre folk til å lese et litt langt dokument jeg hadde likt å se en debatt om?

[Trynemjoel]

Da får du problemstille også, ikke bare klistre inn med lenker og tekst og håpe at folk vil snakke om et dokument på 34 sider.

 

Se punkt tre i lenken gitt over.

Endret 2. januar 2008 av Trynemjoel

[Tha Dude]

is you in kindergarden?

 

Problemstillingen er jo ganske åpenbar, at krigen mot global terror er en lite morsom spøk, også kommer andre inn og er uenige eller har andre synspunkter enn det som fremstilles i post en med lenker.

[Trynemjoel]

Aaah, flott, anklagelser for å være i barnehagen.

 

For meg er ikke problemstillingen klar i det hele tatt. Er poenget at vi skal prøve å skyte ned ankagelsene og prediksjonene i det 32 siders dokumentet?

[Tha Dude]

Poenget er at du skal lese det, gjøre opp noen tanker og diskutere det.

 

Siden vi er inne på diskusjon.no er det åpenbart at det som postes skal diskuteres, derfor vil ikke jeg legge inn styrepinner. Problemstillingen stilles gjennom titelen og innledningen i dokumentet.

 

At jeg beskylder deg for å gå i barnehagen er fordi du kverulerer som en unge og tydeligvis ikke liker de spørsmålene på prøvene som går ut på å få servert en påstand, resonere og konkludere.

 

Før du poster i denne tråden igjen så les dokumentet så finner du fort ut hva du vil skrive.

[vanedyret]

G. Edward Griffin ga meg smaken for konspirasjonsteorier. Du kan jo kanskje sjekke hva Carroll Quigley ville med boken Tragedy and Hope, for det er derfra Griffin henter mye av sine teorier om hvordan verden fungerer.

 

Her er en tolkning:

 

Unfortunately, many people interested in Carroll Quigley take entirely out of context the references he made in his book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time about a high-level Anglophile conspiracy that, he said, flourished before World War II. It seems that many people believe Quigley thought this vast conspiracy somehow continues to operate right up to our own day.

 

But as Dr. Quigley once told me, the reality is much scarier. Instead of a secret cabal now being in charge, there's no one in charge.

 

http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Carroll_Quigley.html

 

Spennende historie er det i hvertfall, mye bedre enn bøker og filmer ... til man går lei.

[Trynemjoel]

Det er fint å ha en peiling på fra starten av hva tråden(rød tråd?) skal diskutere. Du er en liten debattleder når du starter en tråd. Det å bare hive ut et dokument og be folk som å finne noe å diskutere selv blir litt kaotisk. Det er derfor reglene for foumdelen ber om å sette rammer om hva som skal diskuteres eller hva du spesifikt ønsker at andre skal svare på.

 

Det å angripe meg for å like en god debatt med et mål og mening synes jeg ikke har noe for seg.

[Tha Dude]

Den røde tråden er innholdet i dokumentet. Jeg aner ikke hva folk vil diskutere fordi det er mange diskutable ting i dette dokumentet over mange områder.

 

Etter at du har sett en film med venner, vil ikke du diskutere filmen med de før de har kommet med en problemstilling?

 

Jeg angriper deg fordi du spammer og kverulerer fordi du ikke tar inn over deg hva jeg sier. Hadde du likt en god debatt med et mpl og en mening hadde du lest dokumentet og kommentert det.

 

Eller savner du bare at jeg hadde skrevet "hva syns dere" helt nederst?

Endret 2. januar 2008 av Tha Dude

[monzilla]

Du som har lest dette dokumentet, hva vil du diskutere?

[vanedyret]

Om det er en skjult agenda bak kampen mot terrorisme, antar jeg.

[tom waits for alice]

Men så langt ble det bare personangrep. Og det vil vi ikke under noen omstendighet ha her.

 

Trynemjoel har forøvrig rett, det står klart og tydelig i reglene for posting her:

 

Vi ber derfor om at folk som poster her:

1. Vurderer om emnet har almen interesse, og om et innlegg her kan føre til debatt og opplysning.

2. Sjekker om det allerede finnes en aktiv tråd om emnet.

3. Tenker over formålet med posten, det vil si hva hun/han ønsker å diskutere eller spørre om og setter premissene for dette i det første innlegget.

 

Tråden stenges. Trådstarter må gjerne poste på nytt, enten i Såpeboksen i innleggets nåværende form, eller som en ny tråd dersom har tar seg bryet med å formulere et emne for debatt. Eller blir det desverre - det sier all erfaring, og derfor er regelen som det er - mye kaos og lite debatt.

 

Reaksjoner på moderering tas som vanlig på PM.

 

Geir

Endret 2. januar 2008 av tom waits for alice