Chris Gupta
Fahrenheit 911; The Other Half of the Story
Thu Aug 12, 2004 00:52
64.140.158.2

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [electroherbalism] Fahrenheit 911; The Other Half of the Story
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:11:18 -0400
From: Chris Gupta chrisgupta@alumni.uwaterloo.ca
Reply-To: electroherbalism@yahoogroups.com
To: (Recipient list suppressed)


Thought I should introduce Mr. Griffin and his organization the
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=homeFreedom
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:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issuesThe
real
issueshttp://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=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
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issuesThe
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,
http://www.realityzone.com/tragedy.htmlTragedy and Hope: A History of the
World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966),
pphttp://www.realityzone.com/tragedy.html. 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
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home
Freedom Force.



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

=============


Politician Linked to 9/11 Nominated to Head CIA
July 8, 2004
Carol Brouillet / Community Currency
The strange and troubling history of former CIA covert operations agent, Congressman Porter Goss, the man George W. Bush is rumored to favor as the new head of the CIA. Before Goss is confirmed, he needs to explain to the American people why, at the very moment hijacked planes were crashing into the World Trade Center, he was having breakfast with the Pakistani intelligence cheif to had just sent $100,000 to 9-11 mastermind Mohamed Atta.
http://www.communitycurrency.org/Prime.html
Politician Linked to 9/11 Nominated to Head CIA
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=1617