First off let’s get this straight:
Fear is the killer!
(And believe me I am more than aware of the irony in that statement.)
Love is the answer, and forgiveness is the most noble and selfless of attitudes. I realise that this probably sounds like some sort of “New Age” hocus-pocus, but hopefully, should you consider things carefully, you will understand that I am speaking in general psychological terms. Fear is the killer – fear is a mechanism for control that transcends almost any other, and in doing so it destroys the very best of who we can be. You can find any number of studies, sociological and clinical, that suggest fear is in fact the preeminent means of control. John B. Watson, the founder of Behaviourism, who conducted his research at John Hopkins University during the 1920s, deduced that “The driving force in society is not love, but fear.”
Today this might seem obvious – the thing that controls us most thoroughly is fear. A person who has been taught to fear the consequences of a certain activity or action is far less likely to indulge in those activities or actions than a person who has not had those lessons drummed into them.
As a child I was taught that my “rights” were were dependant on my “responsibilities”. If I was caught throwing bricks through windows (not that this was really ever a major activity for me) then I would be physically punished. Our local policeman, who I learned to respect greatly in later life, would think nothing of slapping us on the head for such misdemeanours, and should we have the temerity to complain we would get a more significant corporal response from our fathers! The fear of reprisals therefore became a controlling influence upon our behaviour, and we never thought that this was in any way cruel or wrong.
Today it seems, especially in the Western Economic Model Societies, that youth is far more aware of its rights than of it responsibilities, but I would suggest that this is a view that has much to do with the manipulation of social fear through mass media, and less to do with actual reality. We are being “encouraged” to see the problems in society as a result of over-indulgence in the notion of our rights compared with an under-indulgence in the acceptance of our responsibilities. Despite the fact that violent crime is at an all-time low, and if you actually bother to talk to young people they are fundamentally very concerned with their responsibilities, and committed to bettering themselves.
So, why is fear being force fed to us in such massive amounts?
Could it be that someone, or some group, is gaining an advantage or a benefit from keeping us in fear?
What evidence is there that events are being manipulated in order to maintain an atmosphere of fear?
The threat of “Global Terrorism” has replaced threats from other geopolitical nation states, and is used to justify not only massive military spending, but also the removal of long-cherished social rights. It is fairly easy to establish that wars are always fought for economic reasons, even the so-called “cold war”. Threats to personal liberties, or to national sovereignty, even to our perceived self-image, are certainly more than a casual fear. When the Soviet Union and America were enmeshed in their barely suppressed conflict between the 1950s and the 1990s, it seemed that people everywhere were almost constantly quaking in fear of an imminent nuclear attack. From films such as Dr. Strangelove, to novels like The Fourth Protocol, and even Raymond Briggs’ “When the Wind Blows” the West was dominated by media-inspired fear-mongering. News media approached things from a subtly different angle in those days – the less they said about a perceived threat the more we were convinced the threat was real and known – just being ignored by the news (who were probably being manipulated by our governments to suppress the “real story”).
It is somewhat ironic that today, we imagine a cabal-controlled mainstream news media, which is under the control of only six organisations worldwide, is deliberately ignoring the “good news” in favour of the “deep black lies” that serve their hidden master’s agendas best. Almost the reverse of how we thought mainstream news acted before; now they are telling us only the things that will frighten us, whereas before they weren’t telling us what they thought would frighten us at all. It seems that mainstream media cannot win! It is either the shill of a control-freak governmental system, or the shill of a hidden cabal of global puppet-masters.
Of course there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that mainstream media is not the “free press” unrestrained by undue control and influence of a global elite we would like it to be. Research into the global economy showing common directorships between multinational mega-companies can now be found with relative ease, and such research does raise some troubling ideas. Does Americas privately owned Federal Reserve, who are the ones that issue currency, at interest, to that nation, and might therefore be legitimately blamed for causing the economic havoc of recent times, own all the mainstream media? It may very well at that. Certainly the mainstream media is more likely to have an editorial bias towards issues that support the known concerns and objectives of the Federal Reserve, than it is to report positively on matters that are seemingly at odds with their un-hidden agenda let alone their hidden one!
Do we hear about the increasingly popular “conspiracy theories” surrounding the events of 9/11 on the mainstream news? Very rarely. Are we encouraged to look at the evidence of global financial manipulation from the perspective of seeking restitution and justice from those responsible? No we are not. Do we hear accurate reports on geopolitical matters? Hardly ever. Do we find out about startling scientific discoveries that suggest alternatives to our addiction to fossil fuels? Not on your life!
Are we bombarded with stories that serve to keep us in fear of violent crimes (which investigation of the crime statistics will show is actually on the decrease)? Yes we are. Are we encouraged to find scapegoats to blame all our present woes upon, even if common sense tells us that they are probably not the ones truly responsible? We most certainly are.
You see, the thing about common sense is that it is not all that common.
Let’s look at Iran for instance.
In the past 300 years Iran has not once invaded another country. It has fought wars only when it is itself invaded or attacked. Iran, in short does not truly represent a threat to anyone. And yet we are being encouraged to see a possible nuclear threat from Iran on a daily basis by our mainstream news media. Given the fact that Israel, India, and Pakistan, all have nuclear weapons, is it wrong of Iran to think that they should have them too? And who are we, a nation that has had such weapons for over fifty years, to say that any sovereign nation cannot do as we have done?
Could it be that the Powers that Be want us to perceive Iran as a threat; would they benefit from an atomic conflict that wiped out our most prolific oil producing nations?
Why would a globalist elite want to destroy much of the world in such a devastating manner? That is the question, so perhaps we should start to ask it.
Option One: Spark a nuclear conflict in the Middle-East, and when the smoke clears make sure the mainstream media is encouraging us to demand “someone do something to prevent it ever happening again”. Enter a world government with a world bank, a world currency, and a world religion – that would surely solve all our problems!
Option Two: Get everyone in the West so scared that they demand “someone do something to prevent it happening before it’s too late”. Enter reduced liberties and freedoms, a socially divided set of nation-states, oh sorry, I forgot we already have all of the above!
Option Three: Trigger a serious economic collapse, use the mainstream media to convince the people that it is a Global collapse even though if you do a bit of research you’ll find that once you ignore the G7 nations everyone else is experiencing quite good economic circumstances (averaging 7% annual growth – seriously). Get the mainstream media to also convince everyone that it will keep happening, and there will be no respite until the people demand that “someone do something to prevent it ever happening again”. Enter a world bank, a world currency, and a cashless society where you can be cut off from the financial system at the flick of a switch, biometric ID chips implanted inside your body (to make the cashless society work, and to improve medical care of course!), sit back and control everything and everyone from the shadows. Oops, sorry again, they’re currently working on this one aren’t they?
The single most important question, once you realise that we may very well be manipulated by the media, is “who benefits?”
Media is big business after all, not the biggest – that distinction belongs to the petrochemical industries – so if you’re going to spend the amounts of money needed to control and manipulate public opinion you need to have a very good reason for doing so. There is, after all is said and done, a bottom line. As they say in popular journalism “follow the money”. So who does benefit from such control, and in what ways do they benefit?
The global mainstream media is essentially owned by about six organisations, everyone has heard of News International, and Time-Warner, Fox News, CNN et al. But when it comes to the news gathering activities of almost every mainstream media business you can reduce that number down to two: Reuters, and Associated Press. Both of these companies are in the final analyses owned by the Rothschilds, who are, of course, the world’s largest banking family. So where does most of our global news come from? Why, from companies owned by the Rothschilds. Naturally under such circumstances questions must be asked pertaining to the independence and impartiality of such systems.
Is it conceivable that a family as wealthy and as influential as the House of Rothschild might be able to manipulate public opinion in order to maximise their own profits? History tells us that they have unequivocally done so in the past, often resulting in wars (always profitable). Is it being done now, in this day and age? I think even the most optimistic people would agree that the likelihood is high. The best advice ever given in respect to this issue is not to believe everything you read in the newspapers (or hear on the radio, or see on the television).
Before we descend into the realms of demonising a single family and making them scapegoats for all the ills of the world, we should perhaps reflect upon the fact that whenever a group of people (i.e. more than one) hold power, there will inevitably be disputes and disagreements concerning how to best make use of that power. So let’s not just go off crusading for the dismantling of the Rothschild financial empire, as if that alone will cure all our problems. The truth is that we may not be, as a species, mature enough to create a system that offers universal opportunity and fairness. But we should at least try, of that I have no doubt.
We should also reflect upon the fact I mentioned at the start of this article: the standard mechanism of control that has always been used by the human race can be reduced to one single factor – fear.
If you fear for your personal security then you can be controlled by anyone who either threatens you, or offers to protect you. If you fear that you will not be able to feed yourself or your family, then you can be controlled by those who offer to starve, or to feed you (those who offer to give you the opportunity to feed yourself, or remove that opportunity). If you are afraid of the dark then the person who has a flashlight can control you. If you afraid of change then you can be controlled by those who either affect change or who suppress change.
Of course there are many other subtle substrates of fear that are used, we (the human animal) are terribly good at finding ways to intellectualise basic primitive archetypes. Logic and reason can be employed to support fear, and so often are. The Cold War is a good example of this. The Western Economic “democracies” had a multi-level approach to its propaganda, with prejudicial rabble-rousing at one end of the spectrum, and fine-honed philosophical debate at the other. When I use words like “logic” and “reason”, you may be assured that I DO NOT make any association to the concept of “TRUTH”. Logic is a systematic approach; it is by its very nature empirical. Logic can tell us that removing the profit motive will cause a population to loose focus and therefore loose motivation. Reason can tell us that if the state co-opts all property, and controls all things concerning economics from wages to prices, then liberated enterprise cannot get a firm foothold and will inevitably fail. (I am deliberately using the word liberated here NOT free, since free enterprise is a concept that is purely political and has been purposefully created to make it easier for the rich to get richer at the expense of the less rich, or the poor.)
However, it is possible to use logic and reason to argue the exact opposite. Therefore, in any given paradigm, logic and reason are generally used to appeal to the pre-disposition (or prejudice) of those living under that paradigm. Using logic and reason will appeal to the better educated elements of a society, but the truth is that as long as the logic and reason supports the belief system they were raised to accept as “God’s own truth”, then most people will never think to examine the information in any great detail.
As we so often hear: the power to change the world rests within all of us, as a species, and perhaps even individually. It is up to each and every one of us to participate in our own liberation, maybe by demanding it of those who “rule” us, or maybe by refusing to comply with those things our hearts tell us are wrong or unjust. The trick here is to honestly identify what is wrong and unjust, not to take the easy path and simply say: “It’s okay for me to enrich myself at the expense of others, because I like having more toys than anyone else.” Or, “I’m not being unethical or immoral taking more than my fair share.” Sometimes it is seemingly less painful to believe that small injustices are acceptable than it is to realise that we must be better than that. Or to believe that we are powerless to prevent injustice and inequality. If you demand low prices, and buy goods that are produced using poorly paid and unprotected workers, then YOU DO HAVE THE POWER to affect change. Just vote with your wallet, forego some small luxury on order to buy ethically produced goods, and try not to be persuaded that by not buying items produced using slave-labour you are increasing the poverty of the developing nations – because that is faulty reasoning at its worst.
And here, after everything I’ve said about fear, logic, and reason, is something to think about:
“‚Ä¶ if perpetual growth is unsustainable, which we can see pretty clearly at the present time due to the West’s economic collapse, then just as air flows from a high pressure area to a low pressure area, economic growth, especially in a global marketplace, will flow from overgrown economies to under-developed economies…”
The above statement uses fear, logic, and reason, to promote a knee-jerk, or panic, reaction. Here’s another way to look at it.
“In a sensible world no one would own four cars, or have three houses, they would not have a larder stocked well enough to feed many when they only have to feed a few, and if the excess represented by this conspicuous consumerism were to be used to equalise opportunity and resources we would have a far more sustainable world. In similar ways no individual or organisation would hoard money, because hoarded riches benefit no one. The only purpose money has is to make the exchange of goods and services as efficient as possible, thus to hoard it represents a significant evil since it inevitably results in poverty and poverty results in cruelty death and total collapse.”