WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us

Just out of curiosity, what if this whole Assange thing is another way to make people, including Americans, believe that there should be "an international oversight over everything the U.S. does"?...

What if all of this, and all of these files are part of a plan to push for the One World Government?... To convince people that control "under a One World Government is the only solution to all of this"?

Think about it, what is the solution you all think they will give to "control the U.S."?...

People really need to learn to read between the lines. There are no coincidences, the rich elites are all pushing for a One World Government, and even U.S. presidents have talked about it, and even the author of that article is clearly pointing that the solution to this problem is what the rich elites want... You are all falling for their plan.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

On the topic of secrecy, I've never heard it better put than this quote by Carl Sagan in his book "The Demon Haunted World" (excellent book btw, very enlightening, filled with clear thought, and both skeptisism and speculation).

"Of course there is resistance. Some information is classified legitimately; as with military hardware, secrecy sometimes really is in the national interest. Further, military, political, and intelligence communities tend to value secrecy for its own sake. It's a way of silencing critics and evading responsibility -- for incompetence or worse.

It generates an elite, a band of brothers in whom the national confidence can be reliably vested, unlike the great mass of citizenry on whose behalf the information is presumably made secret in the first place. With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science."

- Chapter 5, Spoofing and Secrecy

reply to post by Nevernude


Carl Sagan?...

The same Carl Sagan who wrote the book "Billions & Billions"?... Appart from advocating the lie that is global warming, here is a critique someone wrote about Carl Sagan's views of politics in that book...

My second critique is with regard to Sagan's contradictory political views. On the one hand, he argues against authoritarianism of any sort, he points out government waste, discusses how the government shouldn't be anti-choice, and is upset that politicians only work for the short term since they are only working to get elected again. I agree with his assessment to this point. However, then he seems to argue out of the other side of his mouth that the government should be there to provide ever larger social safety nets (i.e., welfare, social security, entitlements, etc.), collect more taxes in some cases, give U.S. tax dollars to other countries, and fund projects that dont justly benefit those doing the funding (taxpayers). I don't understand how someone can reconcile the seemingly opposed views. If the government can't do its current jobs well, why give it more to do inefficiently and ineffectively? If individuals should be the responsible party, why shift all the burdens (in the form of more tax dollars and more government spending) to governments?

www.2think.org...

The U.S. is not really a democracy, it is a representative Republic, in a Democracy 51% of the people can vote to ban the rights of the other 49% of the people... In the U.S. the rights of ALL citizens are, or should be guaranteed not just the mayority...

BTW, some enlightening facts about the form of government of the U.S., or at least what it SHOULD be...

Is the United States a democracy?
The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

thisnation.com...

reply to post by Nevernude


BTW, military secrets are not there for the sake of secrecy, but rather so that the enemy, or would be enemy of the nation does not get a hold of such information.

Carl Sagan should know better...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Well, "Global Warming" was more, Global Climate Change, but if you don't agree with the reasoning behind it (the apparant greenhouse effect on venus, I've not personally read the observations behind the conclusion) I don't really care. Just because Darwin was a racist would you reject evolution? Or because a Muslim would claim certain values to be virtuous? It isn't the messenger you judge the message by.

I don't understand how you see those views as incompatible, he never seemed to say the government were doing a bad job, merely that they shouldn't interfere with personal choice or some other areas? (Mind you I only read your quote not the whole link, I skimmed it briefly)

Frankly, I share those views. Especially in recent light of how terrible profit oriented business is (Read, Lehman Brothers, mortgage crisis. Neglect in the BP oil spill due to trying to increase profits) We've also had scandals here in Sweden, where recently they privatised an ambulance company, which has been extremely detrimental to working conditions and quality. Government regulation (mind you, carefully scrutinized) of certain non-profit fields seem to be a good idea.

I personally adhere more to a Venus Project type society, but that's a bit idealist atm

Did you disagree at all on the views on secrecy?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Agreed, modern democracies are simpy "democratically (to an extent anyway) elected officials"

And I do believe that's precisely what he meant when he said national interests. I think he's just trying to make a case for actually having secrecy being that he sees it so incompatible with his own field of science.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by sakokrap

 

What advice would you give to the poor enslaved and tortured people of Afguabistanto?

When the public leaders have banded together to engage in atrocities instead of responsibilities it can be very difficult for the people to respond. The security services, media, judiciary and other social infrastructure fall under the power of these networks of misguided individuals. As the system of civilised laws break down, the more primitive laws return. I would like to see the United Nations take a more proactive role in dismantling these corrupt networks as any sense of justice can only come from a higher and independent authority. Otherwise it is left to the community to struggle and fight it out.

So, as I understand your comment, you agree that wicked individuals have sucked power from a people reluctant to respond for the sake of atrocities... and you believe that by pooling larger numbers of people together under the UN that the wicked individuals will not rise there? Really?

As an Auzie, I understand your world view that the people live to serve a higher authority: the Monarch. Despite this overlay you are forced to wrestle with, would you believe that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed?

That is a new kind of thinking... one there authority doesn't go up (as in the Monarchies / Feudal System), but rather, that each of those people, reluctant to accept self responsibility, are the true authorities.

Unfortunately for us, we know the solution from history's record. The resolute method of dismantling corrupt networks has everything to do with that common man. Whether it's the merchant-victims of the mob's protectionist scam, the painted warriors of the followers of William Wallace, or some crusty old inventor turned rebel... it comes down to the rescinding of consent.

The day when Gandhi wakes up and tells the baton wielding enforcer... "sorry, but I just can't do it any more... would you like to come in for tea instead of fleecing me for the Crown's sake"?

The day Ed Brown throws a DVD out of the second story window to an eager reporter. The reporter recovers the DVD, and reads, "Freedom to Fascism" upon it. When the sick droves of sullen eyed sheep stop running from the wolf, and turn to make their stand.

Asking for some new Big Brother with a bigger stick just compounds the problems, imho. Letting a bigger mob take over the local gang's turf may appear legitimate, but the methodology and principles of practice are all the same. The wicked individuals wriggle, squirm, and ooze their way eventually to the top.

When some psychotic freak is running around the neighborhood chopping, raping and torturing people, the public responds immediately. When the same crimes are committed behind the doors of some office with a polished marble lobby... well, that same public just re-fluffs their pillow.

They (the public) are not going to respond with any more civic duty when finally some World Government weighs in with the big stick. It's the same people... the same source of funding... the same slave labor market, human resource, cannon fodder, parasite host... Getting more, bigger, meaner, tougher, better funded... well, you're just going to have a single Syndicate running the show with a monopoly of violence.

That, to me, is certainly not a plausible concept. And more importantly, to me A=A, 2+2 still equals 4.

reply to post by Nevernude


Never mind Climate Change, that is a topic for another thread but for your information the atmosphere of Venus is composed mainly of CO2, Earth does not have enough CO2 for this to happen, what I was trying to point to is that just because it is Carl Sagan doesn't mean he is always right, and yes I disagree with his claim on secrecy, although secrecy in the name of National Security has been misused it is not an issue in which "the international security must know, and oversee everything the U.S. does"... It should be a matter for U.S. citizens to resolve. Just like the decisions of your government should be a matter for you and your fellow citizens, not for the whole world to know and oversee...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Absolutely, the facts are facts regardless of who says what, and arguments from authority are worthless. I merely quoted him because I liked the view on secrecy. That said I believe he did a great deal of good, more so than most of us will ever accomplish.

I'm a little torn on this "it's US business only" , see because it's impossible to handle it that way when whistleblowers have to seek refuge outside their own country. I'm all for citizen courage and setting things right but living in this day and age, things spread quickly over the internet when leaked. I haven't seen any countries interfering at all sofar except possibly in favor of the US government meddling with some cases and companies supplying funds to Wikileaks.

I don't really see the "overseeing" part, but I believe it's inevitable to have other people around the world know about these issues. I'd personally love if for example more people in the US was aware how the US embassies in the scandinavian countries were cooperating with governments, hiring ex police officers to spy on citizens and such. It's more a joint effort if you can plug the #hole in both ends you know

*EDIT* Uh, maybe a bit offtopic, don't wanna derail the thread but the "Spoofing and Secrecy" chapter where I quoted it from is in conjuction with him talking about UFOs, that type of secrets. I believe that's why he mentioned the fact that military hardware has an interest of secrecy, like alleged Aurora projects and such. They couldn't simply reveal what technology they had in the Cold War era and in turn it could result in false interpretations of people seeing crafts.

Who knows when these guys (the tyrants) actually saw this information because, no doubt, it sure stirred this outcome.

"We The People" have finally been heard!

The system just may work if they start opening their eyes to the wrongs they have done.
First part of fixing the problem... Isolation. Second part... admitting the mistake/mistakes.

Note: Link included

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by nickoli

 

hahaahha,that was a nice video ,,,tnx for that ,it's funny how sheeple clap the hands after he said that

Just like they cheered wildly when Obama said he wants a civilian security force equal to that of our military. All of the lemmings started clapping and cheering. I remember thinking, "did you hear what he just said, you idiots?"

Originally posted by believerofgod
Who knows when these guys (the tyrants) actually saw this information because, no doubt, it sure stirred this outcome.

"We The People" have finally been heard!

The system just may work if they start opening their eyes to the wrongs they have done.
First part of fixing the problem... Isolation. Second part... admitting the mistake/mistakes.

Note: Link included

edit on 6-1-2011 by believerofgod because: (no reason given)

Unfortunately, this is just more posturing. The Constitution has been usurped by volumes of Executive Orders already. When they start removing the executive orders, then we might have a fighting chance.

Unfortunately this has been on the minds on every pipe smokers since the Kennedy assassination, haha
whaat a !@#$ up world .

S & F

ohh look more people falling for PROPAGANDA and FEAR MONGERING and LIES!!!! And no, I am not referring to the US government.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
The purpose of communicating with the public is not to provide them with truthful information but rather to advance “the mission"

this sentence in the OP implies much more than blantantly hiding facts from the citizens to manipulate public opnion in a way that allows "elites" to control policy without the citizen's knowlege of said facts. it also refers to an even greater evil, an even greater betrayal, if such could be imagined. clearly, throughout US history, particularly in times of war, psychological operations were used against the american people (through MSM).

the problem is that current methodologies of psy-ops behavior-shaping are extremely sophisticated, and this is a very powerful "weapon" developed as a [usually] covert tool of war. during the rush to war with iraq under Bush2, i was shocked as a person returning from working overseas, to see the layers and intensity of psychological operations programming in the US media. the clear intent of the psy-ops push was upon controlling and forming citizen's approval for the war using fear, and also so people would accept a broad shift in homeland policy-in-general around the concept of "a war on terror". who can forget the fear-creating threats that any who might not support the war were "traitors" that blared througout the media?

the obvious fact was that the people in power had chosen to use psy-ops, a weapon of war, in a relatively brutal way, against the american people through MSM to control public response to policy decisions that did not involve the citizens.

i believe the only definition of anyone who would use weapons of war against their own people is: "traitor"

Julian Assange h8z the group that Jim Marr's group belongs to.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Rape of 2 women isn't NONSENSE...
So a rapist with a cause against the u.s government is a good thing?

Yeah Yeah Yeah he is just accused of rape....
Tell that to the jury until then he is a sick mofo.

reply to post by TheAmused


LOL.

So guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Funny, AGAIN, how the MATERIAL, which is far and away the most important aspect of this whole event, is virtually non-discussed by the media. Typical deflection and misdirection.

But if you want to parrot them and concentrate on the same stuff, knock yourself out man. Who cares about people dieing and suffering, lets focus on whether some dude wore a condom with a prostitute, who has some questionable CIA ties. heh

of Course the Government Lies
and Occasionally they Slip up in the Media
9/11 False Clues pt.1/3 (Flight 93 & Rumsfeld's "Shot Down" Slip Up)


9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon


US Government lies to the US-citizens all the time




Thank Goodness for the Net.. well back in the 90s--( Well except for that little mishap of the Pentium III & Win 95 The NSA Big BrotherControl Problem) )-- to mid 2000s .-- (.. and The Same Problem different decade with Vista/windows 7) --

NSA could be looking through your Windows
www.youtube.com...

Internet to be regulated by FCC
We will end up Like North Korea a Orwellian World ...
Steve Jobs Your Nightmare is becoming So True! Kill Switch
You will soon see **************************** removed by the Ministry of Truth AKA FCC
www.youtube.com...





si.wsj.net..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



From all of their --(CIA) ---Cover up from Dirty Deeds they have Done Away hidden from Watchful Eyes of the Public CIA , Alone long Dark history from the 50s to the 60s As One Man Almost Crushed The CIA & The CIA Retaliated & Kennedy... was DEAD Silenced... + wanted the executive order 11110

The Body Language !
Bush Funeral of Ford Speech
Bush Smiles at JFK Assassination!!!
www.youtube.com...

Fact : Bush SR became The Head of the CIA in the Early 70s
Ford was on JFK Assassination Warren Commission

Ford Told FBI of Skeptics on Warren Commission
www.washingtonpost.com...

LYNDON JOHNSON TAPES: Gerald Ford on Warren Commission (JFK assassination)
www.youtube.com...


THE MAFIA, C.I.A. & GEORGE BUSH Sr. Part 1 fr
www.youtube.com...


It sure is a Ball of Confusion ! . = from Lies
www.youtube.com...