The two reasons why you are still free

This is a question many of us have asked ourselves. If politicians on the stage and the men behind the curtain who strain to build up a "New World Order" (their words, not mine) hold so many positions in the government, mass media, public relations, army, corporations, social reform movements and education system, why have we not been delivered to an all powerful, sovereignty destroying, informal network of world governance? Provided you live in America, you can still request a Freedom of Information Act from local government or national government; fly the American flag over your house without being accused of being nationalistic, as patriots of Germany and Sweden are; your police are in the hands of civillians and organized by your local town, whereas the police of Canada are nationalized; your elementary school records dont follow you your whole life; you can own an assault weapon, which defined by the military is any weapon that matches or exceeds military issued capacity; you even have the freedom to start over.

The overall reason is culture. Our American culture. But the way a society lives and the structure of the government is interconnected. FOr example, while less than three percent of the RUssian population supported communism at the time of the 1917 revolution resulting in a huge civil war, large portions of China supported communism at the time of revolution because their culture dictated for thousands of years that an emperor is to be respected.

Our American culture created the two reason the new world order has not been delivered yet. The constitution and a free-market economy.

Our constitution has prevented this nation from being thrown into a totalitarian discord multiple times. During the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, George Washington tried to quell the uprising by sending delegations out to the insurgents and asking them to disperse. The Whiskey Rebellion was led by a self described French revolutionary named Edmond-Charles Genêt, the French ambassador to the US, who wished to replicate the slaughter in France. When Washington received note the rebels refused to disperse peacefully, and had erected French revolutionary flags above their court house, Washington wrote:

I early gave it as my opinion to the confidential characters around me, that, if these Societies were not counteracted (not by prosecutions, the ready way to make them grow stronger) or did not fall into disesteem from the knowledge of their origin, and the views with which they had been instituted by their father, Genet, for purposes well known to the Government; that they would shake the government to its foundation.

Time and circumstances have confirmed me in this opinion, and I deeply regret the probable consequences…because I see, under a display of popular and fascinating guises, the most diabolical attempts to destroy the best fabric of human government and happiness, that has ever been presented for the acceptance of mankind.

The constitution dictates only the congress has power to call forth the militia. Washington asked for permission from congress to call out the Pennsylvania state militia. The militia had killed two of the insurgents, a man and a boy clearly resisting arrest. The murderers were sent before court at request of Washington, and found to be innocent.

This is an example of how the Founder's believed that only a militia of the state can quell an uprising of that same state.

In 1934 the Supreme Court had overturned overturned FDR's National Review Administration, a government program managed by the executive which brought together the nation's corporate and union leaders to set national prices on commodities. Had it not been for the Supreme COurt, this act would have despotized America.

In 1975 the World Affairs COuncil in New York had drafted a "Declaration of Interdependence," sent before congress and meant to be signed in honor of the bicentennial of the American Declaration of Independence. It called for the creation of a "New World Order" (their words, not mine), economic policy to be controlled by international beurucrats, disarmament of all civillians and an education program to structure society for this. 140 members of congress endorsed it. Informed citizens created controversy over this document and all 140 congressmen took their names off the document. The reasoning is that in America the congressmen represent their constituencies, whereas in the parliaments of Europe congressmen represent a national party.

With the Declaration of Interdependence, the date for completion of the New World Order was scheduled for 1976. It had been scheduled for 1967 before then. It was scheduled for 1987, 2001, 2010 and is now scheduled to be instituted by 2015 and complete by 2030.

There has been confessions from these insiders that the separation of powers in the constitution itself is the reason for this world order not being carried out.

"Let us face reality. The framers of the Constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to "turn the founders upside down" - to put together what they put asunder - we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected."

This is from James MacGregor Burns book, the power to lead.

The second reason is the free-market system. A society is only as free as it's economy. The AMerican economy has generated enough wealth that it is keeping the socialized economies of Europe afloat. In 2009 the congress conducted a partial audit of the US Federal Reserve. It found 17 trillions dollars was secretely sent to bail out the economies of Greece, Germany and other european nations. It is a trademark of socialism that once the economy fails, the government must start the killing so there is enough food left for the survivors. This secretive loan to europe ensured the socialists in Europe would mantain power longer, so as to gather more power, so the crackdown will be worse when their economy collapses.

Where there is demand, there is supply. Americans have for years been untrustworthy of their government and the media, though many cant explain why. The media, whose goal is to deceive us, has realized they have no choice but to tell the truth. Why? With so many people demanding truth, the corporate media has begun making profits off movies that expose what is really happening in government. This is why movies like Oliver Stone's JFK, Spielberg's EagleEye, and Runaway Jury are allowed by the establishment to air on television all over america. This is why USA ran Jesse Ventura's show Conspiracy Theory. The establishment is steadily arming their enemies with the truth that will destroy the establishment.

Check out some videos below.

A 1980s John BIrch Society video about the constitution


Trailer to EagleEye, a conspiracy movie where the NSA is the enemy. Carries a constitutional message of liberty vs security

1. I got smart saw the game is rigged
2. walked away from that cesspool people call "civilization" ..

Your far from free there anymore .. what you have is the illusion of freedom not true freedom .. and even the illusion is being stripped away and replaced with an ever more totalitarian police state .

or people saw behind the curtain.

a reply to: MisterMandlebrot

If you just capture the YouTube ID number for the videos you want to present that will work better. Heres the ID number for the first one… IsIERTp_KFk. Surround that with the yvid bracket code, good to go.

I thought about what you said regarding freedom.

Yah, the police protect themselves and the state, not you, per se. In other words rob a bank and see how quick they gallop to the rescue, now call them and cry robbery and see how slow. Sure you can own a rifle, just don't load it and sling it over your shoulder outside your house or the range.

And you are free to move about the country. The no trespassing and smoking lamps are lit.

a reply to: MisterMandlebrot

Trailer to EagleEye, a conspiracy movie where the NSA is the enemy. Carries a constitutional message of liberty vs security

i guess you didn't pay that close attention to the movie. it was a supercomputer that the DOD/Pentagon had that went rouge. not one time is the NSA even mentioned in the movie, it is just the FBI DOD/Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense. and in the end he recommends that there never be another one built.

Well that couldn't be more text booky. Who wrote the history? Victors, the same that enslaves us.

You are explaining the shown hand, I'm more curious about the hidden hand. I'm as free as my will allows me to fight back. Its a different story when armed military or state show up to take you away. I'm as free as others say I am whether I like it or not.

We have already allowed our government to amass enough military hardware to roll over us 3x over. We are also as free as our money is safe in a rigged financial market. There is no freedom to speak, just the illusion.

originally posted by: MisterMandlebrotIn 1934 the Supreme Court had overturned overturned FDR's National Review Administration, a government program managed by the executive which brought together the nation's corporate and union leaders to set national prices on commodities. Had it not been for the Supreme COurt, this act would have despotized America.

In 1975 the World Affairs COuncil in New York had drafted a "Declaration of Interdependence," sent before congress and meant to be signed in honor of the bicentennial of the American Declaration of Independence. It called for the creation of a "New World Order" (their words, not mine), economic policy to be controlled by international beurucrats, disarmament of all civillians and an education program to structure society for this. 140 members of congress endorsed it. Informed citizens created controversy over this document and all 140 congressmen took their names off the document. The reasoning is that in America the congressmen represent their constituencies, whereas in the parliaments of Europe congressmen represent a national party.

You're a little confused in these paragraphs. First, it was the 'National Recovery Administration' which, at the time, was wildly popular with your average American and many of its objectives were accomplished through the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, which still stands today. Second, the Declaration of Interdependence wasn't 'sent before congress', it was signed by some 140 congressmen in a ceremonial signing in Philadelphia.

We'd be better off dropping this idea of 'me, myself and mine.' Everyone likes to talk about individual responsibility but completely ignore the social responsibility we all hold.

We need a global world order. None of this autonomous state-hood nonsense. We're better, as a nation, to have a large federal government with 50 individual states than we are with 50 individual nations with a non-existent federal state. We need that on an international level.

a reply to: MisterMandlebrot

I honestly believe we are in the midst of a soft tyranny/despotism.

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

Bold is mine.

Link

I think we are in the process of giving up our freedom.

I am free because I still have the ability to remove tyrants from the world, and I am still free to speak of it.
Change either of these two and the marriage is over.
I get the house and the dogs.

1. Know your limits play within it.
2. Know when to recognize BS and when to "walk away" from people who refuse to.

a reply to: Expat888

Couldn't have said it better myself a quote from Goethe comes to mind....and rings ever truly ^_^.

originally posted by: [post=18061007]links234

We need a global world order. None of this autonomous state-hood nonsense. We're better, as a nation, to have a large federal government with 50 individual states than we are with 50 individual nations with a non-existent federal state. We need that on an international level.

We are generations away from the maturity and political savvy to do that.