Thought I should introduce Mr. Griffin and his organization the Freedom Force to the readers with something they can easily relate to. And entice the reader to read more of Mr. Griffin's superb and very educational essays and books. The following astute analysis pretty much explains in nutshell the global agenda.

For a real education and a better understanding see: The real issues page

Chris Gupta
 http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/08/12/fahrenheit_911_the_other_half_of_the_story.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fahrenheit 911; The Other Half of the Story Analysis by G. Edward Griffin
© July 19, 2004

Four months before the 2004 presidential elections in the U.S., film producer, Michael Moore, released a feature-length documentary film entitled Fahrenheit 911. It was a powerful condemnation of the George W. Bush Administration with particular focus on the U.S. war in Iraq. Moore compiled an amazing collection of video clips showing Bush and key members of his Administration in off-guarded moments and in situations where a lack of sincerity was glaringly evident. The story that emerges shows the Bush family closely allied with Saudi princes and the bin Ladin Family in business ventures that profit from war production and from the vast oil reserves in the Middle East. It hammers hard on the human suffering caused by a war, not to destroy a terrorist stronghold, but to gain access to oil resources and provide lucrative government contracts. Moore’s creative talent was applied with precision and resulted in what may become a new genre of political filmmaking. The effect was devastating to Bush and his supporters who were left with little defense except to claim that the production was biased and that certain statements were not correct.

This is my analysis of Fahrenheit 911:

1. The program is biased, and certain statements are not entirely correct, but every important fact it portrays is true.

2. In addition to profits from oil resources and government war contracts, there is a second motive that also drives U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is the creation of a New World Order based on the model of collectivism, and it is supported with equal vigor by leaders of both major political parties. Mr. Bush and his team are deeply committed to that goal. [For an in-depth examination of this agenda, see The Future Is Calling in the Issues section of the Freedom Force web site.] Fahrenheit 911 gives no attention to that agenda and even goes so far as to claim that it plays no role in these events. That theme was advanced in a statement from one of the on-camera experts who said, “This has nothing to do with conspiracies or political agendas. It’s all about oil and making money.”

3. Omission of this bi-partisan political agenda makes it possible to deliver the message that America’s problems in the Middle East are caused by greedy, war-mongering Republicans who are in power and that the obvious solution is to replace them with humanitarian, peace-loving Democrats. This message was implied throughout the film, but it broke through in clear language when a young soldier said, “I used to be a Republican, but when I get back home, I’m going to work hard to get Democrats elected.” If the film had acknowledged the New World Order agenda of the Bush Administration, it would have led to the fact that leaders of the Democrat Party, including its presidential candidate John Kerry, share the same vision, and the partisan message would not have been possible.

4. The carefully crafted content of the film and the timing of its release make it clear that it was conceived as a covert campaign tool for the Democrat Party and the John Kerry campaign. It follows what I call the Quigley Formula, based on the strategy advocated by Professor Carroll Quigley, President Clinton’s mentor when he was a student at Georgetown University. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley explained the value of allowing people to believe that, by choosing between the Democrat and Republican parties, they are determining their own political destiny. To a collectivist like Quigley, this is a necessary illusion to prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American politics:

The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. [Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]

Inevitably, the mind turns to the question: Was this the intention of Michael Moore? My opinion – no, that is too strong a word – my suspicion is that Moore probably was not consciously implementing the Quigley Formula. However, there are powerful economic factors that would have compelled him to follow it in any event. Anyone who has done as much research into this matter as he has must have come across voluminous information about the political agenda. However, if any of it had appeared in his film, it would have been unacceptable to the Democrat Party. Without the enthusiastic support of that powerful sector, there would have been small chance for film distribution and even less for box-office success.

Many people want simple solutions for political problems. They are not interested in complexities. When confronted with the fact that both major parties are committed to the same agenda, their reaction is: “OK, but who ya gonna vote for?” That, of course, reveals that they don't really understand the Quigley Formula. They honestly believe that their vote for one of the two major presidential candidates makes a difference. This simplifies things a lot for them, because all the complex issues can be boiled down into just one decision: “Who ya gonna vote for?”

In the real world, things are not that simple. First, presidents are not yet absolute monarchs, although that clearly is the trend. Their power still can be curtailed by Congress. We may not have much influence in the election of a president, but we can, with sufficient effort at the precinct level, have significant effect on the outcome of Congressional races.

Second, there are candidates from other parties who may be worthy of our support. “But he can’t win,” is the common response. My reply is so what? Elections are not football pools in which the object is to win a bet. The purpose of an election is, not to pick winners, but to support candidates who reflect our political philosophy. Even if a candidate does not win, the size of his vote is a visible measure of the number of people who support his philosophy, and that can become an important element in shaping public policy. There is no virtue in voting for a winner if he is a collectivist dedicated to our enslavement.

Casting votes and working for candidates, as important as those activities are, represent merely the entry-level of political activism. As long as candidates and issues are chosen by collectivists, there is no hope for meaningful reform. The real action lies in participating in the process that selects the candidates and defines the issues. This is possible only by seeking influence and leadership in political parties, government agencies, educational institutions, media organizations, and other power centers of society. That is the mission of Freedom Force.


 

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/
List information is at: http://tinyurl.com/2xohw